View Single Post
  #19  
Old April 28th 08, 01:59 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default TO ALL DEADBEATS OUT THERE!


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Rudy" wrote in message
. ..
Your economic stimulus payment WILL be intercepted for back child
support!

Thank GOD the Federal Government can do what the deadbeats
refuse to

do.
Support their kids.



First, most "deadbeats" don't "refuse", they simply CAN'T pay the
exorbitant C$ amounts;
Second, paying the mother is NOT supporting a child.

The first thing to realize is that "child support" does not have
the

same
meaning as "supporting a child".

Child support is money paid from one parent to the other under the
pretense that it will be used for the betterment of the child in

question.

I always like to add the CP's pro-rata share of the total CS
obligation is
part of the calculation even though the money does not change hands
and
there is no tracking of whether it is paid or not.

So the question becomes - If the CP is not providing their share of
the
total CS obligation, should their economic stimulus package be
seized too?
Why should the CP get both parent's refund?


Better question: Since the deadbeat CP parent most likely doesn't pay
income
tax in the first place, why should she get ANY tax refund; let alone
TWO of
them?


Because our government is becoming more Socialistic and redistribution
of wealth to accomplish Socialistic goals is becoming the norm.
Transferring money from high end wage earners to low end wage earners
through tax policy is conveniently augmented by high end CS payers
transferring money to lower earning CS receivers. Redistribution of
wealth is just another Marxist ideal in current society.


Absolutely correct.
Phil #3