Quote:
Originally Posted by floslib  I do think this would be a step in the right direction, though I do still like Angela's solution better. That said, I'd like to get some clarification on your ideas towards the end.
First, what if the man earns income in some manner other than a job? If he can legally earn the money in a manner other than a standard job, he shouldn't be penalized for this. There should be a way other than paycheck deductions in order to deal with this.
Second, what if he loses his job? Times are rough right now, and some people legitimately can't find work. Throw him in jail anyway? That won't benefit the child. Better if he's allowed to search for work so he can resume payments as soon as possible. Also, would you be for letting child support payments be scaled to the pay he earns in the event he loses his job and can't find one as well paying as before?
Third, would you be willing to apply these same requirements to a woman when the man has primary custody of the child?
Finally, I offer these scenarios on the assumption that the man has a legitimate reason to pay child support. There are scenarios mentioned earlier in the thread in which I would have to say he shouldn't have to pay at all, though those scenarios are generally not too common.
Edit: In your plan, I do like very much that the money is directly forwarded to pay for things that will benefit the children. Very sleek, and makes sure the money goes where it should. |
My last statement about being thrown in jail was a bit stringent. But I think there should be measures in place to make sure that a man isn't being a deadbeat. Assuming we take the time to make sure the woman is using the money on the children, we should also take similar measures then to ensure the man isn't being a deadbeat.
A more realistic plan would involve perhaps a yearly audit on any man who isn't paying child support because he doesn't have a "job." If he magically has money to pay for other stuff that isn't showing up on any record, then I think it's pretty obvious that he's hiding it. No, I don't think we'd catch all the deadbeats, but it would tighten things up a bit.
But, yes, my plan applies regardless of who is the custodial parent. In fact, I should've used the words "custodial parent" instead of the "women."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanzeon This would be a good solution, if the rest of the world had same the obvious issues you have with distrusting and wanting to control women. Scary stuff.
A man can always request a paternity test. Only someone with serious issues with women would proposed a "guilty until proven innocent" standard for all women.
Women are, in your worldview, either wards of men or wards of the state. None of them can be trusted to actually care for their children in an appropriate manner without micromanagement. You won't even trust a woman to pay her rent unless some man or some bureaucrat makes her do it. Again, guilty until proven innocent.
The misogyny in this thread is remarkable. |
I'm not even going to entertain your arguements. Thinking of me for being misogynistic for wanting stricter requirements on how child support money is spent is pretty far off base. You obviously have to be projecting here in some manner.