From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:59:12 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Sep13.232121.6139@pensoft.uucp> jac@pensoft.uucp (James A. Carter) writes:
>
>I have read this thread for long enough to feel it is time to post a followup
>of my own.
>
>I was married for 10 years prior to my divorce in 1985, but have always had
>custody of my two children (now 16 - son, and 13 - daughter). My ex has always
>paid child support (but not on time or willingly).
>
>The child support that she has paid, was figured according to the income
>adjusted scale under discussion, and was ridiculously low since I was the
>majority income earner.
>
>I re-married in 1987, and now have four children, two 16 year old sons, and
>13 and 14 year old daughters. My wife's ex has paid child support to her
>since their divorce, and it was calculated the same way. He pays more
>than my ex pays because he earns more, and therefore if he were still
>married, his kids would supposedly live higher on the hog.
>
>When I sit down to pay bills, it amazes me how much direct child care
>expense is each month. If I were to use the same ratios that the courts use
>to allocate my expenditures for the kids, they would all have to give up
>some of their activities, which both ex's enjoy attending and take pride
>in.
>
>If we aren't willing to "sponsor" our kids for the rest of their life, not
>just until they are eighteen, then why the hell did we have them in the
>first place?
>
>-- 
>===============================================================================
>James A. Carter	/ Sapulpa, Oklahoma, USA	No disclaimer necessary, I own
>(918) 224-6522					the company!

	People *did* have kids with the idea of "sponsoring" them in
	many cases.  There are however many parents who, weather it be
	the passage of time or whatever, prefer to have the kids gone
	when they grow up.

	But that's not the issue.  *You*, a male in the unusual
	position of being a CP, are writing/speaking like a maternal
	CP.

	If I buy a hamburger, I expect to eat it.  If I buy clothes
	I expect to wear them.  More specifically if I buy my kid a
	toy, I expect to watch them play with it.

	But out of sight is out of mind.

	How would you feel if a judge told you that from now on
	every week when you got paid you should actively take
	x $$$$  (some reasonable sum of money) and put it in the
	trash.  Go ahead.  Next time you sit down to pay all those bills
	try and play out the senario.  Subtract maybe $50-$200 per week.
	And do it with the idea that you *really* don't have the money,
	won't get it back, will have to keep doing it religiously for
	maybe 10-18 years, and will never get anything out of it.

	*Then* try to have a family of your own (again)

	*Then* see how your perspective on all those bills sours your
	stomach!

	It must be real nice to marry someone, probably have 2 incomes, 
	have a family, and *BOTH* receiving TAX FREE checks every 
	week to support them.  Most people have to go it alone.  And 
	most people here are on the opposite end of having to pay.

	And you have the gaul to complain about a free ride?  By rights
	you two should be living and surviving on your own instead of
	NCP's.
-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women