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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |