From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Biological reasons against male choice
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:10:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.223329.28942@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>The typical male tends to have higher salary levels and greater career options
>then does the typical woman. Now from this higher base level the male may see
>a salary drop (yet child support is tax deductable and does increase the woman's
>tax burden) and a limit to his career opportunities, but do these levels drop
>below those of the woman?
>
>
>Bear in mind that the father is free from a significant part of the total
>costs (time & monetary) of child care.
>
>Children are closer relations then parents?

I can't recall when I have seen a post that contained so much
misinformation stated with so much authority in such a short space.  Mr
Cameron, you are as wrong on all counts as you possibly could be.

1.  The typical male is not a corporate manager.  It is only at that
level that women are significantly underrepresented.  I work for AT&T.
Women comprise 47% of the work force at level below salary grade 8.  But
above salary grade 8, only about 7% of those employees are women.  For
equally qualified men and women below salary grade 8, men and women make
equivalent wages.  The only remaining substantial barrier for women is
the glass ceiling.  The good old boy white male management salaries
distort the average wages received by men and women.

2.  Most men do not have a drop in gross salary after a divorce.  In fact, to
offset child support and alimony expenses, most men work diligently to
increase their gross salaries, often taking second jobs or working
overtime, or demanding raises.  That's why men's salaries after divorce
go up - about 17% over a 5-year period.  Someone posted those stats
several months ago.

3.  In the US, child support is NOT tax deductible for the payor by
default.  Alimony is, but is rarely given anymore.  Men who pay child
support, sometimes 100% of the child support obligation for the
children, must pay taxes on that child support as income, and often at
a single person's rate.  The custodial parent, which is usually a
woman, gets the tax deduction on the children by default of federal
law.  A judge can order that the father get the child support
deduction, but unless that happens, the custodial parent gets the
deductions on the children, does not have to pay taxes on child
support, and does not have to declare child support as income.  In the
case of my ex2b, she will receive over $13,000 in 1992 net income for
child support.  That's about $18,000 gross income.  And she doesn't
even have to declare that she receives it.

4.  Women's net incomes increase substantially after a divorce when
child support is accounted for.

5.  Fathers paying child support are not free from a significant part
of total costs, in fact, they have sometimes equivalent costs for
supporting children, especially those fathers that have ample parenting
time with their children.  While the father's costs for having beds and
food and clothes and toys for the children are completely ignored,
these costs for the custodial parent are taxed against him as part of
the child support obligation.  In fact, in some child support
guidelines stipulations, the costs of the custodial parent's beer and
cigarettes were included in the costs for the custodial parent used to
set the guidelines amounts.

6. Children are genetically related to their parents.  Parents are
usually not related to one another, except probably in Mr. Cameron's
family.

Mr. Cameron, if you insist on putting in your two cents, you might want
to consult your cerebral cortex before doing so in the future.

If you are only posting to illustrate your complete and total
ignorance, then you are doing a magnificent job.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion