From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:00:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <qyqZXB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>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!

First of all, child support is not supposed to cover the costs of
adults to live.  Secondly, child support is supposed to reflect the
actual costs of caring for children.  A recent study noted that people
spend $XX per month on housing, not based on the number of people
living in the house, but on how much money they have.  For example, a
couple that makes $100k between them, but has no children, will spend
in excess of $1000 per month on housing--some may spend as much as
$4000 per month.  A couple with the same income, but having three
children, would still spend the same amount on housing.  However, they
would be buying a different kind of house.  The first couple would have
a very nice house, but not necessarily big, the second couple would
have a bigger house, but not necessarily as nice.  Income determines
how much people spend on housing, not how many children they have.

I don't know the specifics of this study, it was explained to me by
Brad Johnson, who said he was sending it to David Garrod.  If he did,
indeed, send it to Dr. Garrod, I'm sure Dr. Garrod will be telling us
about it soon.  Brad also sent it to Dr. Williams at the Denver Center
for Policy Studies.  He said that Dr. Williams was seriously
considering it.  I take it from my conversation with Brad, it was a
study sponsored by the government.  The data does not surprise me.
People spend what they have to spend.

While it is well-know that children increase costs, especially for
food, clothing, utilities and entertainment, housing increases included
in child support guidelines have not been based on reality--merely
arbitrary numbers set by people such as Dr. Williams.  Child support
guidelines have been inflated to reflect housing cost increases for
children, when, in reality, what people spend on housing depends on how
much money they make, not how many children they have.

Child support is supposed to provide for the NCP's share of expenses
for the child, not the entire cost of raising a child.  The CP is also
responsible for his/her share of the costs for the child.  Child
support is not supposed to be de facto alimony.  It is not support
intended for the CP.  

>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...

Again, child support is not supposed to be alimony, and is not intended
to cover the costs of the adult.  In reality, as implemented in the US,
as opposed to Canada, child support has become de fact alimony.  For
that reason, child support amounts are set at levels that reward CPs
who would not otherwise be able to support their children with more
money than they often need, while at the same time, virtually
bankrupting NCPs.  Often the post-divorce households (I am not
discussing single-mothers who are on AFDC) of CPs are better off then
the households of NCPs.  Yet, the children may be spending significant
time in the NCP household.

>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!

Break.  I can provide quite well for my children.  I make over 3 times
what my ex- makes.  Why should I suffer and she reap great benefits
because I make a decent living?  Where is the justice in my having to
pay for her to live in a castle, while I live in a shack, then having
her use that against me in limiting my exposure to my children ...
"Your honor, his house sucks, so he shouldn' be able to see the
children." Why do you think that I owe a woman who tried to destroy me
a living?  I don't.  I'm perfectly willing to support my children and
am quite capable of doing so.  However, she isn't.  If it weren't for
my child support, she would be destitute.  Why is the court compelled
to pull a switch and force me to give her all my disposable income,
bankrupt me in the process, give me all the debts of the marriage, and
tell me to pay 81% of the child support obligation based on inflated
guidelines?  Why do you feel that I owe her $1250 per month?  That's
what I am paying.

>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).

Once again, it is child support, not alimony.  Maybe you can explain to
all of us why you think a former spouse is responsible for your
expenses.

>A "reasonable estimate"?  I'm appalled.

Nice to meet you, appalled.  My name's Aaron, but some of my friends
call me, "incensed."

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights