A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 29th 07, 11:12 PM posted to alt.child-support
Shadow36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.


"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a6f1ec5bb98f@uwe...
DB wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]

My question to you is why are you against child support?


Who said I was against child support?

I don't believe in the large amounts of Child support that the government
demands people to pay!
There needs to be a dollar amount ceiling on actual cost.

How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each
week?


I do agree that there should be a limit as to how much a person is
expected
to pay. It should go by how much money they make.

How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each
week?

I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.


Not even close...


  #12  
Old October 29th 07, 11:24 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.


"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a6f1ec5bb98f@uwe...
DB wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]

My question to you is why are you against child support?


Who said I was against child support?

I don't believe in the large amounts of Child support that the government
demands people to pay!
There needs to be a dollar amount ceiling on actual cost.

How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each

week?

I do agree that there should be a limit as to how much a person is

expected
to pay. It should go by how much money they make.


It should go by how much they CHOOSE to spend. No different than it is for
married parents.


How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each

week?

I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1



  #13  
Old October 29th 07, 11:28 PM posted to alt.child-support
arabella via FamilyKB.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.

Shadow36 wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.


Not even close...

I don't think you can speak on behalf of all parents. You don't know who
spends what amount on their kids.
Rent, gas, lights, food, child care, transportation, educational supplies,
and clothes are just the tip of the iceberg, and are things that are needed.
Maybe you don't spend 50% of what you earn on your child(ren), but John Doe
may spend 60% of what he earns, while Mary Doe may spend 75% of what she
earns, and so on.
There is no way to know what percentage every parent spends. It should just
go by how much a person makes.

Why should it not go by how much a person makes? If the child support is set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1

  #14  
Old October 29th 07, 11:44 PM posted to alt.child-support
Shadow36
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.


"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a6f52f1e0c94@uwe...
Shadow36 wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.


Not even close...

I don't think you can speak on behalf of all parents. You don't know who
spends what amount on their kids.
Rent, gas, lights, food, child care, transportation, educational supplies,
and clothes are just the tip of the iceberg, and are things that are
needed.
Maybe you don't spend 50% of what you earn on your child(ren), but John
Doe
may spend 60% of what he earns, while Mary Doe may spend 75% of what she
earns, and so on.
There is no way to know what percentage every parent spends. It should
just
go by how much a person makes.

Why should it not go by how much a person makes? If the child support is
set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.


If a person makes more money, that doesn't magically make It more expensive
to raise a kid. Point in case are the celebrities and high paid sports
players who pay 10's of thousands of dollars a month In child support. Come
on!! How can ANYONE justify that?!?!


  #15  
Old October 29th 07, 11:45 PM posted to alt.child-support
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.



============================================
NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB. THEY ARE STEALING
CONTENT FROM USENET
============================================
"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote
Shadow36 wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.


Not even close...

I don't think you can speak on behalf of all parents. You don't know who
spends what amount on their kids.
Rent, gas, lights, food, child care, transportation, educational supplies,
and clothes are just the tip of the iceberg, and are things that are
needed.
Maybe you don't spend 50% of what you earn on your child(ren), but John
Doe
may spend 60% of what he earns, while Mary Doe may spend 75% of what she
earns, and so on.
There is no way to know what percentage every parent spends. It should
just
go by how much a person makes.

Why should it not go by how much a person makes? If the child support is
set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.

==
Really? Do you think ALL parents, including never divorced and single
mothers, should be required by law to spend a percentage
of their income on their children? And do you think those parents should be
mandated by law to appear in court at least every
three years so the judge can look over their tax records to be sure they are
incompliance with the manditory
spend-a-percentage-of-your-income-on-your-kids rule and, if they are not,
they go to jail? How does that sound?


  #16  
Old October 29th 07, 11:57 PM posted to alt.child-support
arabella via FamilyKB.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.

Gini wrote:
============================================
NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB. THEY ARE STEALING
CONTENT FROM USENET
============================================
Shadow36 wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.

==
Really? Do you think ALL parents, including never divorced and single
mothers, should be required by law to spend a percentage
of their income on their children? And do you think those parents should be
mandated by law to appear in court at least every
three years so the judge can look over their tax records to be sure they are
incompliance with the manditory
spend-a-percentage-of-your-income-on-your-kids rule and, if they are not,
they go to jail? How does that sound?


Do you think ALL parents, including never divorced and single mothers, should
be required by law to spend a percentage of their income on their children?
They already do. If your kid lives with you, it is expected that you will
spend money on the child.

And do you think those parents should be mandated by law to appear in court
at least everythree years so the judge can look over their tax records to be
sure they are incompliance with the manditory spend-a-percentage-of-your-
income-on-your-kids rule

Those parents have no cause for them to show proof of purchase if the child
lives with them. If the child is clothed, housed, fed, and healthy, common
sense tells us that it is already being done.

and, if they are not, they go to jail? How does that sound?
reference above response. I think you know how that sounds.

What problem do you have with child support?

--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

  #17  
Old October 30th 07, 12:01 AM posted to alt.child-support
arabella via FamilyKB.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.

Gini wrote:
============================================
NOT POSTED VIA FAMILYKB. THEY ARE STEALING
CONTENT FROM USENET
============================================
Shadow36 wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.

==
Really? Do you think ALL parents, including never divorced and single
mothers, should be required by law to spend a percentage
of their income on their children? And do you think those parents should be
mandated by law to appear in court at least every
three years so the judge can look over their tax records to be sure they are
incompliance with the manditory
spend-a-percentage-of-your-income-on-your-kids rule and, if they are not,
they go to jail? How does that sound?


I noticed your block comment that this site is stealing from Usenet. This is
an advent group, and usenet, google, and a bunch of other groups are linked
into it. It is not stealing. You might want to make a note of that if you
didn't know.
In order for the site to be stealing content from usenet, they would have to
be unaware of and not affiliated it it.

--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com

  #18  
Old October 30th 07, 12:08 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.


"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a6f1ec5bb98f@uwe...
DB wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]

My question to you is why are you against child support?


Who said I was against child support?

I don't believe in the large amounts of Child support that the government
demands people to pay!
There needs to be a dollar amount ceiling on actual cost.

How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each
week?


I do agree that there should be a limit as to how much a person is
expected
to pay. It should go by how much money they make.

How would you like being forced to pay 50% of what you take home each
week?

I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.


The child rearing expenditure data says otherwise. The Betson 2006
Estimator used for setting CS guideline amounts detail total household
expenditures in intact families. That data shows the average expenditures
are - one child 25%, two children 37%, and 3 children 44%.

But don't confuse the percentages of total child rearing expenditures with
CS amounts awarded. Because most states calculate CS based on before tax
gross incomes and use a pro-rata share calculation methodology. It is not
unusual for an NCP father to be forced to pay close to 50% of his after tax
income.

  #19  
Old October 30th 07, 12:17 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.


"arabella via FamilyKB.com" u38656@uwe wrote in message
news:7a6f52f1e0c94@uwe...
Shadow36 wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.


Not even close...

I don't think you can speak on behalf of all parents. You don't know who
spends what amount on their kids.
Rent, gas, lights, food, child care, transportation, educational supplies,
and clothes are just the tip of the iceberg, and are things that are
needed.
Maybe you don't spend 50% of what you earn on your child(ren), but John
Doe
may spend 60% of what he earns, while Mary Doe may spend 75% of what she
earns, and so on.
There is no way to know what percentage every parent spends. It should
just
go by how much a person makes.


You obviously don't have a clue about how CS guideline tables a established.
And your estimates for what you think people spend on children are about
double what is actually spent.


Why should it not go by how much a person makes? If the child support is
set
by a person's income, there shouldn't be a problem with the amount.


Baloney. The CS guidelines are somewhat reasonable because they take into
account the more a person earns the lesser amount of total income they spend
on their children.

But I do agree with you that a person's income should be used. One of the
problems with CS awards is not every person is required to pay CS. For
instance, welfare moms are not required to pay anything They just sponge
off the government and are told they don't have to work for 5 years.

  #20  
Old October 30th 07, 01:02 AM posted to alt.child-support
arabella via FamilyKB.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Mark this Indiana Story in the History of Journalism.

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"arabella" u38656@uwe wrote in

[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
I can't answer that because it has never happened to me. I think parents
spend more than 50% of what they make on their children.


The child rearing expenditure data says otherwise. The Betson 2006
Estimator used for setting CS guideline amounts detail total household
expenditures in intact families. That data shows the average expenditures
are - one child 25%, two children 37%, and 3 children 44%.

But don't confuse the percentages of total child rearing expenditures with
CS amounts awarded. Because most states calculate CS based on before tax
gross incomes and use a pro-rata share calculation methodology. It is not
unusual for an NCP father to be forced to pay close to 50% of his after tax
income.

I am sure that is true for some, but not for all, no matter how you crunch
the numbers.

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Indiana needs your emails bif Child Support 0 January 28th 05 08:18 AM
Don't need any more FC in Indiana. Relatives here Fern5827 Foster Parents 0 November 29th 04 08:52 PM
indiana Child Support 0 September 28th 04 05:01 AM
Duke Univ. students to change history (obstetric history)? Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 June 10th 04 06:31 PM
Indiana john bravo Child Support 0 March 15th 04 04:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.