From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:36:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>In article <2195@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>|> 
>|> When it comes to child support, the more he MAKES, the more they TAKE.  Also, 
>|> child support is NOT tax deductible, nor does the 'non-custodial parent' get
>|> the tax deduction for the children.  It doesn't increase the mother's tax 
>|> burden by one cent.
>|> 
>
>If child support is a percentage, not a fixed amount, then it would seem
>that the less a man makes, the less he has to pay. Thus he is free to go
>back to school or otherwise reduce his income to 0 without any worries.
>
>Last time I looked, the 1040 (as well as applications for loans & credit
>applications) ask about other sources of income, on of which is child support
>payments. I also believe that you can take a deduction of a minor that does
>not reside with you if you contribute some given dollar amount towards that
>child's support. However, since I look at tax forms once a year, this is
>from a hazy memory and I am willing to accept that I may be off-base on
>this. Anyone know the actual IRS code on this?

Mr. Cameron, you once again illustrate your complete lack of knowledge
on this topic.  Child support amounts are set based on the noncustodial
parents income or ability to make a set amount.  If a father is making
$50k per year when his wife files for divorce, the child support will be
set on that amount, even if he quits his job and takes a lower paying
job.  Judges are given this kind of freedom in setting child support
amounts to thwart any attempts of the noncustodial parent to lower those
amounts.  Often times, if the father legitimately loses a job due to
cutbacks or a sluggish economy, and has to take a lower paying job
because that is all that is available, the child support amounts will
NOT be decreased because the father has demonstrated a potential to make
more.

We have, among our ranks, heard from many fathers that have been treated
in exactly this manner.

In such loan applications, child support is often counted against
noncustodial parents as substantial costs in their lives and often
disqualifies them for loans.  Custodial parents are not obligated to
declare child support as income, unless the additional income
"qualifies" them for loans.  Get it?  Whois "losing" income and who is
"gaining" income?  What helps you to get a loan, more money or less?
Geesh.

>     
>|> >Bear in mind that the father is free from a significant part of the total
>|> >costs (time & monetary) of child care.
>|> 
>|> Yes, I am "free" of all the time I used to spend with my kids... "free" from
>|> all those conversations we used to have over dinner, or while I was driving
>|> them to school... "free" from having to tuck them in at night... "free" from
>|> taking them out for halloween or seeing them open their christmas presents...
>|> "free" of hugs and greetings at the door, "free" from wiping up spilled milk,
>|> "free" from all those thousands of moments that make the difference between
>|> life with a family and life without one...  the only thing that I was not
>|> free to do was to TURN DOWN all this "freedom"... in that i had absolutely
>|> no choice... 
>|> 
>|> but naturally, haven been given all this "freedom" that i didn't want, the
>|> state naturally expects that i should pay for it... so i spent the past 
>|> three years living in a 9'x12' room, sharing a bathroom with twenty other
>|> people and cooking on a hot plate, while the state garnishes 35% of my 
>|> gross pay and gives it to my ex who now owns the home that I bought and 
>|> paid for...  sounds like a pretty good deal, eh?
>|> 
>|> personally, i don't give a rat's ass about 'reproductive choice', because i
>|> WANTED kids... i loved having them around... i didn't mind changing diapers
>|> or getting up early to help them get dressed for school... i was a good
>|> father, and i did my best to help them grow up strong and self-confident...
>|> my kids used to have a father, but now they have a visitor...
>|> 
>|> i just don't understand how the family courts can be so vicious and so
>|> ignorant... i can't help but wonder... did they have to take EVERYTHING??
>|> 
>
>So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
>just pissed off that their mother left you?

Mr. Cameron, that you are an unempathetic misandrist is evident.  Fathers
often lose out on "TIME" with their children after a divorce.  That's
what many of them want.  Money, to many of them, is not important, after
all, they were paying for their children while they were still married,
but then they were actually getting to see their children.

90.2% of fathers who are given joint custody and significatn time with their
children, pay their child support on time, all the time.

Only 46% of fathers who are denied visitation and have no rights to
their children after a divorce pay their child support on time, all the
time.

This is data from a study of the data from the last census and is based
on information from custodial mothers, who tend to underreport child
support income anyway, in order to receive more government aid.

If you are posting in these forums to simply discount the pain of men,
please go hate men somewhere else.  You have contributed nothing but
anti-male vitriol to these discussions.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism