Enhancing child support by pooling excess funds.

[bijou]

Boojatta  (1000+ posts)      Wed Feb-06-08 11:15 PM
Original message
Enhancing child support by pooling excess funds.
 Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 11:25 PM by Boojatta
For a given public school, we can consider the one source of the majority of its funding. That source probably also funds other schools. This network from a fund to a collection of schools (and all the children who go to those schools) can be used as a guide. Corresponding to each majority funding source could be a new fund to be used exclusively for helping custodial parents who need help paying for the costs of caring for their children. In particular, it would pay for such basic costs as food, clothing, and transportation.

Some money ordinarily thought of as earmarked for a particular child would flow through the network to the fund and then back down to custodial parents in the network whose children have the greatest unsatisfied needs. What would be the source of funds? Currently existing guidelines for court-ordered child support payment amounts could be maintained. However, spending of those payments would be itemized. A court orders child support payments because money is needed to raise a particular child, but it does not necessarily need to require all of that money to be spent on that particular child.

Some items would have no upper bound. For example, there would be no upper bound associated with medical expenses. If a child needs medical care, then that care should be funded using as much of the child support payments as necessary. If no money earmarked for a given child remains because of high medical costs for that child, then none of the money earmarked for that child would go into the local fund for enhancing child support.

However, associated with other expenses there would be some upper bound. For example, for the year 2008, the total for food, clothing, and transportation might be $3000 per month. Perhaps that's not enough for some privileged children. Perhaps some people might oppose any proposal to cap payment from a non-custodial parent's court-ordered child support to one child's consumption of food, clothing, and transportation at $3000 per month. Some people might consider such a proposal to be incompatible with women's rights.

However, it should be possible for legislators to agree upon some cap. For example, maybe the cap should be $6000 for one child's monthly consumption of food, clothing, and transportation in the year 2008, the amount to be adjusted for inflation in future years. In that case, if the items that have no upper bound (such as medical expenses) do not eat up the money, then money would go to the capped items up to the maximum allowed amount. Any excess would then go into the local fund for enhancing child support.


 

If I have got this right, this moonbat is suggesting that parents paying child support should support not only their own child but every other child in a single parent family (where the parent is divorced/separated).

LiberalFighter  (1000+ posts)       Wed Feb-06-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. No. Any child support ordered should be used exclusively for the child(ren) support.
 Not for other child(ren) that are not part of the family. You will end up with a revolt if this was implemented. The non-custodial parent is paying for their child's support and should not be forced to support other children. Child support is determined by the total income of both parents and other factors. If there is an excess then child support should be reduced not given to someone else.

It would be a tax that unfairly burdens the non-custodial parent. And child support is not tax-deductible.

Non-custodial parents should not even be paying support beyond what is needed for the child.

Courts won't go for having all child support itemized by the custodial parent. They will revolt. They will avoid it at all cost.

Child support should not be one size fits all standard. Each family and child is different for their needs.

Someone points out the flaws in this plan, but that does not affect Boojatta.

Boojatta  (1000+ posts)      Wed Feb-06-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. "The non-custodial parent is paying for their child's support and should not be forced to support...
 Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 11:46 PM by Boojatta
other children."

Do parents pay taxes for their child's education? Would it be wrong for any of those taxes to help pay for the education of other children?

If non-custodial parents -- who would pay child support amounts according to the existing guidelines and not be asked to pay more than those guidelines require -- were to attempt to "revolt", then perhaps people who don't have any children could revolt and stop paying taxes that help fund the education of people who have children.

Boojatta  (1000+ posts)      Thu Feb-07-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I apologize. I made an error in my final sentence above.
 It should have ended as follows: "...could revolt and stop paying taxes that help fund the education of the children of people who have children." I hope that you will ignore the original and accept this modification.
 
SNIP

link

[TheSarge]

Well I have to admit...it IS a creative twist on the standard Communist seizure and redistribution of wealth scheme.

But before we start throwing this kind of cash down an already proven money pit...how about fixing some of the child custody laws first.

[Carl]

However, it should be possible for legislators to agree upon some cap. For example, maybe the cap should be $6000 for one child's monthly consumption of food, clothing, and transportation in the year 2008

I won`t pretend that I could wrap my mind around all the claptrap in the op but is he/she suggesting that $6000/month is what needs to be the amount funded?

[bijou]

However, it should be possible for legislators to agree upon some cap. For example, maybe the cap should be $6000 for one child's monthly consumption of food, clothing, and transportation in the year 2008

I won`t pretend that I could wrap my mind around all the claptrap in the op but is he/she suggesting that $6000/month is what needs to be the amount funded?

I think that is the maximum for any child, but it is difficult to discern what his/her plan is.  Other than 'it's not fair that some children have rich parents'.

[Chris_]

However, it should be possible for legislators to agree upon some cap. For example, maybe the cap should be $6000 for one child's monthly consumption of food, clothing, and transportation in the year 2008

I won`t pretend that I could wrap my mind around all the claptrap in the op but is he/she suggesting that $6000/month is what needs to be the amount funded?

I think that is the maximum for any child, but it is difficult to discern what his/her plan is.  Other than 'it's not fair that some children have rich parents'.

or poor ones.  They will soon be passing legislation that lets the children choose the wealth level of their parents.  To make it fair, you know.

[Lord Undies]

I see it as an attempt to stop Mrs. Gotrocks from getting $50,000 per month in child support from her ultra-rich ex-husband while Jolene Nobody gets only $300 from her Jiffy Lube ex.  

[Carl]

However, it should be possible for legislators to agree upon some cap. For example, maybe the cap should be $6000 for one child's monthly consumption of food, clothing, and transportation in the year 2008

I won`t pretend that I could wrap my mind around all the claptrap in the op but is he/she suggesting that $6000/month is what needs to be the amount funded?

I think that is the maximum for any child, but it is difficult to discern what his/her plan is.  Other than 'it's not fair that some children have rich parents'.

If they would direct the same iniative and focus on bettering themselves through effort and work as they do trying to steal it from someone else they just might find that they have all that they covet.

[BlueStateSaint]

However, it should be possible for legislators to agree upon some cap. For example, maybe the cap should be $6000 for one child's monthly consumption of food, clothing, and transportation in the year 2008

I won`t pretend that I could wrap my mind around all the claptrap in the op but is he/she suggesting that $6000/month is what needs to be the amount funded?

I think that is the maximum for any child, but it is difficult to discern what his/her plan is.  Other than 'it's not fair that some children have rich parents'.

If they would direct the same iniative and focus on bettering themselves through effort and work as they do trying to steal it from someone else they just might find that they have all that they covet.

Neighbor, that would require work.  You and I both know that said concept is to DUmmies as holy water is to a vampire.

[Bondai]

Actually the government already does this.Tax dollars from "non-parents" flow into school coffers by the millions.

[Chris_]

Actually the government already does this.Tax dollars from "non-parents" flow into school coffers by the millions.

Also, people who home-school or pay for private school (does anyone know if that is at least deductible?). 

[DixieBelle]

They will do anything to justify reaching into someone else's wallets won't they?

They remind me of my son - when he doesn't want to do something, he'll complain and spend twice as long trying to get out of it than it would have taken to just do the chore.

[jtyangel]

Absolutely outrageous!!! Many men hurt trying to support their own now they wish to divert money intended for their children to pay for the children other men sired but are not supporting? How ****ing outrageous is that? Now men get to pick up the tab for deadbeats and the women who laid down with deadbeats?  This is outrageous beyond compare, even the suggestion.

I notice the DUmmies does not talk about the fact that while this limits the custodial and the parent paying child support from extending their own family now due to tighter finances, there is STILL no accountability for the deadbeats. They are free to sire and birth as many children as they wish and their are now rewarded, in the DUmmy's world, with the hard work of those who have had to forgo plans to extend their own families due to this.

They certainly do not think through to the repercussions of their pipe dreams.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Great thinking, kind of along the same lines as requiring everyone who has ever given blood in the past tc show up at a weekly blood drive and give another pint every week.