From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Subject: Re: Repro. Tech. / Father Not. /  Child Support (was kd & gf)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 19:27:37 GMT

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) = gf
karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) = kd

gf:
| >Do you have figures on this?  Over the last twenty years,
| >I've known many people paying or receiving child support,
| >but in most cases the support was somewhat less than what
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| >it would take to raise a child in roughly the same standard
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| >of living the parents were used to.  Avoid anecdotal
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| >evidence, however; we can both supply that, but you are
| >making a positive implication that a great injustice is
| >going on, and need more than anecdotes to back it up.

kd:
| You've just made my point for me.
| 
| If the NCP is providing "somewhat less than what it would take to raise
| ....." then what about the other parent who should be providing >half< of
| that support?  Are they off the hook?

gf:
|It's supposed to depend on the incomes of the parents.  Like I
|say, I'd like to see some figures.  Otherwise we're just woofing
|around with a bunch of speculations and abstractions.

In Mass;  I guess its called income shares, although I'm not sure of the 
name.  How it works is;  child support is basically some fraction of the NCP
income with modification (reduction) for CP income.  I suppose I could post 
a copy of the guidlines if there was interest but in summary CP gets income 
deduction of $15K for 'personal' (of course NCP gets no such deduction).  
This reduced income (CP gross less 15K) is used to calculate a fraction as

            NCP income / (NCP income + (CP income -15K))

which is applied to the basic amount.  Note that this fraction goes from 1 
(CP has no income) to 0 (CP has infinite income).  
  Two points to ponder;
  1)  Negative incentive for CP to find employment after child support 
award.  (CPs support will be modified down if CP finds a job)
  2)  Looks good on the surface, but why no personal deduction for the NCP?
Or why a deduction for CP?
             
kd:
| And what about the >fact< that if you take one household, and split it into
| two households, INVARIABLY the two households standard of living will
| >decline< dramatically.  This is fact.  When you double fixed costs you're 
| going to see a precipitous decline in living standard.  No escape is possible 
| from this fact.

Well certainly in the struggle to maintain the children in the standard to 
which they've become accustomed, the NCP is going to bite the big one.
CPs also claim that their standard of living declines although I'm not 
sure how much of this is due to the NCP using some of their own $$ to live on.

kd:
| Now what is it that makes the CP (and the child, putatively) entitled to the
| old standard of living when it is >physically impossible< to do that by any
| other means than impoverishing the NCP?

In our current system ; Not a good enough reason.   Karl you are mistaking 
NCPs for a human beings again, worthy of good things in life, and the 
persuit of happiness.  Get with the program would'ya?
  Child support has NOTHING to do with how much $$ it takes to raise a 
child.  It does have to do with maintaining the transfer of funds from 
those with money to those without money in as close a manner as possible to
the before divorce levels.  All the government wants is less people on 
welfare, that includes kids AND ex-spouses.

kd:
| Further, the LAW in many states is that support is calculated not on >actual<
| earnings of the NCP, but >imputed< earnings.  That is, if a NCP loses his 
| job he STILL owes support money, even though he is not earning ANYTHING at 
| the time! 

gf:
|Could you quote one of those laws?  Does it define 
|"imputed"?  I know of a case where a guy who was a
|building contractor closed down his business and moved
|in with his girlfriend, claiming to have no income, while
|his ex-wife and three children went on welfare at my
|taxpayer's expense; I don't know what the courts imputed
|to him, but he didn't pay and his ex-wife stayed on
|welfare until her youngest was old enough to get day-care,
|and she got a job.  Is this what you're talking about?

I've heard similar stories, I've heard just the opposite also.
If I am working a $50K/yr when the award is made, and I leave 
that job (voluntary or involuntary) my support does not go down.  In theory
(I guess) I could still be earning $50K.  As far as your story goes, I'm 
surprised she didn't throw him in the klink.

kd:
| [ sad tale of dad going broke.... ] 

Note; gf has edited kd's story to 'sad tale of dad going broke....' while 
he provides his own diatribe about the building contractors ex-wife....  
To Be Read;  No big deal if another dad goes broke, but lets keep those exs
in $$.  Things that make you go hummmmmm.

kd continues:
| Sure, the kid goes on getting his money (maybe), although really its Mom who
| gets it.  Dad lives on the street, where the feminists claim "he belongs" 
| since he should support his kids (and his ex-wife, although we don't mention 
| that) first - even if it means destroying him utterly.

gf:
|Which feminists claim he belongs on the street?  How
|many of these street dads are there?

  I don't know the answer to the question.  I will say that I have seen 
men chastized on tv for having enough money to hire a lawyer to defend 
themselves, lawyers (female) claiming that the money could have just as 
easily been paid to the ex, and the whole problem could have been avoided.
(To Be Read; Roll over and play dead!  You have no role in defining the 'best 
interests of the kids')
  (Sideline to Karl...  Karl you can't define feminism, you are a guy, don't 
waste your breath unless you define it as 'what women define it as').

kd:
| >| ...
| >| Particularly when, should the man complain, she can simply use the "nuclear
| >| bomb" of child custody disputes, sexual abuse allegations, and >even if they
| >| are false and baseless< walk away scott free -- with the kids -- while the
| >| man is ruined not only personally for financially as well.

  Karl, its a tough game we all play.  In divorce court women have the 
advantage on all counts.  Unless you are independently wealthy (or female) 
there is no way to win.  If all goes the best possible, the best you can do
is break even (as a male).  
  Now I have two sons and a daughter, does this mean I'll give them 
different advice on marriage, based on their sexes alone, when the time 
comes?  I'm thinking about it!  Will they listen?  Do kids ever listen?
  
kd:
| Read the statistics on the granting of primary physical custody in 
| divorce cases.  See who gets the kids, and who gets the bills.  The
| percentages are right there if you care to do the work for yourself.
| 
| All the complaints I've heard, here and in real live, have had to do with
| the bills -- not having the kids.  

gf:
|But your suggestion implied that men would be _required_ to
|take the kids, did it not?  To fill that quota? I think you
|may have invented a new dimension of unfatherhood!

Boy oh boy....  I don't know who said it but this reeks of; 
men = required, women = choice.  Need I say more?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism