From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 16:58:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.152935.6417@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan4.170957.8804@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>The ONLY resistance in this group is from you and The Beav, most of the
>rest of the group are VERY supportive.  
>

	Gee, I JUST finished reading something from Jon Wood which
	was a rather critical reply to you.  You don't keep very
	good track.



>> 	A "carte-blanc" attitude when it comes to NCP father support/
>> 	spending.  You believe that a person should contribute
>> 	a huge amount of money because they MAKE a huge amount.
>> 
>
>Child support is figured on an income basis.  That's the law.  I posted
>the information used as calculations here in Ohio.  They are very fair.


	It doesn't mean the law is right.  Yes, for an income %
	standard Ohio does seem fair.  But fair to who.  I made a comment
	recently that the percentage figures aren't so outrageous to
	the wealthy, as to the poor.  You hit Joan Lunden up for
	20,000/month, and she doesn't even notice.  You take
	$200/week from a guy earning $600, and he's in the poor house.

	I watched a special once with one of the richest guys in the
	world (I forget who)  Baa Baa Waa Waa (I think) asked him
	a question related to how he felt about having  XXX number
	of houses, planes, etc.  His reply was, "you can only wear
	one suit of clothes, stay at one house, and sleep in
	one bed".  And those are the facts.  There is a base cost
	of living.  And that is in no way tied to a persons income.


>> 	And you know, it gets tiring "beating a dead horse" (if I 
>> 	can use that expression around you) by retracing old and
>> 	obvious net issues.
>> 
>> 	If *I* earned $1 million per year, I can't imagine spending
>> 	huge amounts on my kid(s).  I wouldn't want to, and no one
>> 	would make me.  It is hard for me to believe that you would
>> 	believe a kid would not be living a rediculous life style
>> 	being awarded a huge support order.  Of course a person
>> 	who believes that every kid should have a pony might.
>
>Sigh, would you PLEASE get off the pony.  Once again, supporting a pony
>is no more expensive than supporting a dog.  Actually it's usually less;
>hay is much cheaper in many areas than dog food.  


	Do you ever address comments made, of just side-step by
	getting defensive?  Pretty hard to hold a one-way
	conversation, you know.


>> 	It is also curious how much knowledge about this particular
>> 	kids life you claim to have.  And it might also suprise you
>> 	how much of that money is simply being absorbed by the
>> 	mother.
>> 
>
>
>Well, I am sincerely in favor of the child being provided a reasonable
>lifestyle.  I DID go on record for saying that I thought the lifestyle
>provided by the millionaire father was absolutely ridiculous, and I think
>that children should not be given such ridiculous amounts of money.  
>However, the court did so state that the child should not have to have
>a tremendous life style change just because the parents got divorced and
>the (very rich) father did not want to continue to provide the life the
>child was used to.  

	I realize that.  But if *I* undergo a dramatic lifestyle
	change by losing my job, or getting raked by my ex, then
	*MY* family has to share that.  That is providing the kid
	(and the ex) with the benefits of a "family" without any
	of the responsibilities.  Definately one of my pet peeves.
	Deligation of responsibility without authority, and benefits
	without responsibility.

	You know, I've often wondered if my present wife shouldn't
	go into court right behind my ex, and sue me for "lack of
	support".  Where do you suppose the courts would get the
	money then?  Would they care?  Why would their careing
	(or lack thereof) be linked to my legal marital status?

>> 	Maybe because he thinks that  $1/3 million dollars is a bit
>> 	more than a fair share.
>> 
>
>Just depends on the court's point of view.  Besides, the point that was
>actually under discussion was whether child support should provide more
>than a minimal amount of support.


	It probably could (or should) if  A) the man wants to, or
	B) if he can afford it.  But the problem is the court takes
	his right to make that choice away.  You know.
	Responsibility without authority.

-- 
	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......
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3210 alt.child-support:4222 soc.men:22339