TO ALL DEADBEATS OUT THERE!

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"DB" wrote in message
.. .

"teachrmama" wrote in

There are also men who will have their economic stimulus rebate seized
even though they owe nothing, it will be sent to mom, the courts will
figure out that it was not owed to mom, and the men will be told that
they have to sue mom to get it back, since it was already disbursed.
Then the men will be considered beneath contempt for taking money from
their children.

I thought the subject was addressed to all Americans who owe about
$32,000 each.

When are they going to start paying their debt obligation or should the
government just start garnishing 30% of their wages?

What do you mean, 30%?!? The Feds say that they can take up to 65%!!!
I'd love for there to be a 30% cap on CS!! I might be able to buy a
half-way decent used car, of buy a good pair of shoes. 30%, I'd bloody
love to see that!

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"DB" wrote in message
.. .

"teachrmama" wrote in

There are also men who will have their economic stimulus rebate seized
even though they owe nothing, it will be sent to mom, the courts will
figure out that it was not owed to mom, and the men will be told that
they have to sue mom to get it back, since it was already disbursed.
Then the men will be considered beneath contempt for taking money from
their children.

I thought the subject was addressed to all Americans who owe about
$32,000 each.

When are they going to start paying their debt obligation or should the
government just start garnishing 30% of their wages?

What do you mean, 30%?!? The Feds say that they can take up to 65%!!!
I'd love for there to be a 30% cap on CS!! I might be able to buy a
half-way decent used car, of buy a good pair of shoes. 30%, I'd bloody
love to see that!

When discussing percentages and CS it is very important to ask the
question - "A percent of what?"

For instance, the 65% number is the maximum garnishment limit. It has
nothing to do with the percentage of a person's income they can be ordered
to pay. With imputed incomes an NCP can be ordered to pay in excess of 100%
of their actual income.

And when people start talking about percentages of incomes it needs to be
clarified whether they are talking about a percent of gross income or a
percent of net income or the percent of an imputed income or a percentage of
income after spousal support is deducted. And to make it more complex it
needs to be clarified whether the percent applies to the basic CS order or
does it include add-ons for healthcare, life insurance, child care, special
needs, etc.

Then to make it more complicated some states (like mine) set a statutory
percentage of how much of a person's income can be taken to cover arrears.
In my state the limit is 25% over the basic order amount up to 50% of net
income after deducting state defined allowable expenses like taxes,
mandatory union dues, etc. But that amount does not include any of the
add-ons. And because the first dollars paid go toward the CS obligation,
the limits on withholding can cause spousal support to go into arrears.

If, like Dusty suggested, I could have paid only 30% of my net income, my
support obligation would have been less than half of what was actually
ordered. The problem is court orders are made based on individual pieces of
the financial requirements, and the courts never add up all the pieces to
determine the final impact of their orders.

"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?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support the child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?
Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide "child care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey kids.
Phil #3

--
[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?

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

..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
...

"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?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support the child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption. Whether or not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it comes to "child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal way to steal
money from a man.


Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide "child care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are they allowed to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then again, a twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Phil #3

"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.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

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.

Right on Comrade!

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
...

"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?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption. Whether or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it comes to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal way to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption." (on the part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the mother will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if she must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't matter that she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as the child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not provide from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for the damages.
This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the NCP is never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his child but the
CP is and often does.




Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide "child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are they allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls) without
responsibility.
Phil #3

"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

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

..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
...

"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?


True, and conversely, if one parent is 'presumed' to support the
child,
why isn't the other without evidence to the contrary?

The answer is quite simple. Mothers have absolutely NO legal
requirement to
care for (support) their children. There IS no presumption. Whether or
not
anyone is caring for any child is totally irrelevant when it comes to
"child
support". Such "child support" is nothing more than a legal way to
steal
money from a man.

I disagree with your statement "There IS no presumption." (on the part
of the mother) for some states, at least, "presume" that the mother will
and is providing 'her share' of the child's support even if she must
rely on the state to actually provide. See, it doesn't matter that she
doesn't put any of her OWN money into the project as long as the child
is not mistreated or neglected. If she cannot or will not provide from
her own resources, the state will and then dun the NCP for the damages.

Which proves my point (to which you disagre).

This brings up another problem with "equality" in that the NCP is never
qualified to receive state funding to help him support his child but the
CP is and often does.

That's because ONLY women deserve state funded (mother) support.





Another point, the CP is allowed to provide a SOL below that
equalivant
to the available funds while the NCP is forced to provide "child
care"
(another misnomer) for an 18 year old "child" as well as for children
for which there IS no child care costs such as latchkey kids.

My question is if they are a child, then why the heck are they allowed
to
vote, sign legal contracts, get married, etc.? But then again, a
twelve year
old girl can contract for surgery..........

Excellent point.
You know the answer: Options for women (and underage girls) without
responsibility.
Phil #3