In-Reply-To: <4g4u57$43v@spectator.cris.com> 
Message-ID: 
References:  <4g4u57$43v@spectator.cris.com> 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


> stevldge@bright.net wrote:
> >There is only one thing needs to be said.
> >   
> > There are those who pay, and there are those who recieve.
> >Which would you rather do? duh! Child support is nothing 
> >but a damn lottery. Wish I could get pregnant. 
> 
> I wish you could too, cause you would get a real wake-up call real
> quick. 

There's a real ugly suprise for both parties isn't there.  When you were 
talking 20%, you didn't realize that your taxes would be going up 10-20%, 
that you would now have to pay two rent bills, two utility bills, two car 
bills, and pay for two meal preparations every day.

If two can live as cheaply as one, and a third is only a little more, how 
come the NCP gets to pay for Lion's share of both households?

There are some solutions for CPs:

	Get a job (the most strategic time for a divorce is just before the 
		youngest starts school, this way you get maximum child support, maximum 
		day-care, and you're income can be minimum wage for 10 hours/week, after 
		the decree, the kids start school, you can find some stud on disability 
		who will "sit for sex", and pocket 100% of the income on a REAL job.

	Get a man (the new husband's income isn't figured into the 
		   child-support equation at all - talk about "Dead-Beats").

	Get a disabled man (he has a secure disability income, can baby-sit 
		while you'e at work, and you can throw him out if he gets ugly or 
		abusive - the ultimate "Dead-Beat").

	Warning - some of these "Sitters for Sex" are also child molesters.

Sleep well!

> --'Mina--
> sent from the sands of the Chesapeake Bay
> http://www.cris.com/~Armina

Rex


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Feb 21 00:43:21 1996
Newsgroups: alt.child-support