From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:39:53 GMT
Distribution: na

lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>
>>      Several persons had posted the the base for child support should
>> be welfare benefits, so I thought it appropriate to investigate same
>> for my state and post them in this forum.
>> Source: Peggy Taylor, Indiana State Department of Welfare
>>         Regional Office, 420 Hoffman St., Hammond, Indiana
>>         (219) 937-0232
>> 
>> 1 mother, 1 child:           Monthly subsistence  $229
>>                              Food stamps          $203
>>                              Total         $432
>> 
>> 1 mother, 2 children         Monthly subsistence  $288
>>                              Food stamps          $292
>>                              Total         $580
>> 
>> 1 mother, 3 children         Monthly subsistence  $346
>>                              Food stamps          $374
>>                              Total         $720

>Does anyone HONESTLY believe that $432/month is enough for one adult
>and one child to live on???  The other figures seem ridiculously,
>unrealistically LOW, too!

In my hometown, one can get a 2-br apartment for $200, which takes
a higher fraction of a total $432 than the typical rule of thumb
(1/4-1/3).  In graduate school, I lived on barely more than that,
alone, without a child, but with a more-than-poverty standard of living.
But I had to pay for medical/dental, as well.  Yes, I preferred not
to live that way forever (a motivation to improve my job skills -- as
things should be), but it is certainly possible without becoming homeless.

It sounds low, but not "ridiculously;" in fact, basic costs 
shouldn't be high.


>I realize that the cost of living in the States is somewhat lower than it
>is here, the wages are often slightly lower as well.  However, I am an
>American (born in San Jose, California), so I get down there to visit family
>as often as possible.  In fact, I was in Grants Pass, and in Portland, Oregon
>last August and spent some time comparing wages, rent, food costs, etc..
>They're not that much different than ours in Canada, from what I could see.
>
>In B.C., Social Assistance ("Welfare") standard rates (maximum) for one adult is
>$525/month.  I don't know what the maximum rate is for one parent with two
>children is now, but in 1990 it was $974/mo., (maximum allowance).  That two
>year old figure is considerably more than Indiana's $580/mo. for a parent with
>two children...$396 more!  I can assure you that even in 1990, $974/mo. didn't
>go very far...

Are you talking about US Dollars?  I just want to be sure.  Canada is,
in any case, reputedly more generous in its socialism.


>No wonder single parents who aren't getting child support and who are also "on
>the system" are screaming for enforcement of child support orders!  Come on.
>All of you who are espousing that your own children should only get $148/mo.
>in total (and/or plus Blue Cross) for all of their on-going needs, while
>professing your love and dedication as a parent, ought to look at this a
>little closer. $148/month???  Give me a break!
>
>I guess $148/mo. should be adequate for food costs.  But what about clothes,
>school supplies, shelter, braces and (God forbid!) baseball gloves or birthday,
>Easter and Christmas gifts?  What about enough for the CP to pay for Life
>Insurance so that there's something left to raise the kids on should the
>unthinkable happen?  I just can't believe that anyone living in the real
>world could honestly believe that $432/mo. is adequate for a parent and child
>to live on.  How many of you live on that for just yourself, month after month
>and year after year? (Sure as hell won't pay your University tuition for long...
>not everyone can get scholarships, you know).


As far as life insurance, what makes you feel that the "unthinkable"
would be:   CP dies, NCP raises children.


Why should the NCP pay for CP's insurance?  As far as braces and baseball 
gloves, why should the court mandate that the NCP pay for these?  Why 
should the NCP not be allowed to decide for themself what they want
to contribute -- in precisely the same way that a married couple does?
Why should the NCP not have the pleasure of voluntarily providing luxuries
(and getting the credit for the work they put in to produce them)?


>> While one cannot from these data separate out the cost of the first
>> child from the cost of the mother;
>> the second child cost is $580 - $432  =  $148
>> the third child cost is $720 - $580   =  $140   per month.
>> 
>> Medicaid (or is it medicare?) picks up medical and dental on top of 
>> this.
>> 
>> Based on my experience with economic models for child costs it would
>> appear to me that a reasonable estimate based on the above numbers
>> for the first child is about $160/month.
>> 
>> David Garrod
>> 
>A "reasonable estimate"?  I'm appalled.


Lisa, it would help a lot if you'd avoid the tirades against NCP's
and against anyone who thinks that "child" support is too high.

Sometimes, you seem rational -- but then comes a post full of anger
and hate (here, you have five !'s, a couple of ???'s, plus a "God
forbid" and a "sure as hell" to lash out against people who have
different opinions).  The point being, regardless of whether you are
justified or not, you show little respect for people who don't share
your opinion.

I am one of those people, and I would like to discuss child support
rationally.  Unlike the lurkers that Sue Bishop mentioned, I'm not
afraid of your negativity, but I would still like to hear agreeing
and opposing views, without personal attacks.

I was starting to think that your support group's goals were
reasonably balanced -- but I'm a bit worried that it's like
gender-neutral laws:  the bias can be read between the lines.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged