Talk:Child support

Deletion

yesno? If anyone has something to say about this topic, you're welcome to make it an actual article. Otherwise User:Fall down will just keep socking up and splurging their bile on it, as is their wont. Not that deleting or writing an actual article will help, but either way it's better than just a . Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 21:44, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I put the "." so I could protect the article and prevent re-creation until Fall Down gets bored and goes away. You can't protect a blank page AFAIK...PFoster 21:52, 12 December 2008 (EST)

You can on CP, so I assume you could here. Delete it first, and then you click on the protect tab. --CPAdmin1 23:09, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Well, whaddaya know. Thanks, Tim.PFoster 23:10, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I'm good with PF's idea, and if someone wants to kill it outright, I'm fine with that too. --Kels 21:56, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Clearly childsupport is communist? JazzMan 23:34, 12 December 2008 (EST) KIDDING

My favourite part of the troll's edit was how child support was a scam perpetrated by women "getting themselves pregnant." yeah, like the father didn't help with that a teensy bit. What an asshole. PFoster 23:39, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Hee hee, but when you put it that way it makes me giggle. JazzMan 23:46, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Reverse racism?!

I recently removed the "reverse racism" link because I believe that it is not racist to say that the amount you are forced to pay is beyond your means. My dad, untill I went to college, had to pay my mother 250 dollars a month as per the court decision, doing so on a 28,000 dollar a year payroll. I do not think it is racist to complain about this and attempt to level the situation out. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ <insert witty comment here>

Yeah, I know it's a bit of a stretch, but we don't have a men's right's article and I don't feel like writing one. And with all due respect to your old man--he should've thought about that before fathering a child. a grand every four months ain't a lot of money when you're raising a kid. PFoster 00:30, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Sadly, those costs rack up much more rapidly, particually when you consider that my dad lives in an apartment over 20 miles away because of the insane restraining order my mum got, not to mention that my mom makes ~80,000 - 120,000 dollars a year... so for some odd reason, I favor my dad in this case. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ <insert witty comment here>

Sorry that I have to log out again, time runs short on me, and finals are approaching. Be back later. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ <insert witty comment here>

Protect?

Since it's a low-traffic page and we're all sysops? 'Til our friend gets bored? TheoryOfPractice 22:29, 16 January 2009 (EST)

The day it came unlocked he was back. He has so little life he will sit there waiting for a page to come unlocked so he can vandalise it. We have two options 1) we keep it locked indefinitely (against current policy) or 2) we keep reverting his shit, which is less effort for us than it is for him to write it. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 22:33, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Makes sense. Your signature is too fucking big, btw. TheoryOfPractice 22:36, 16 January 2009 (EST)

If you want to vent you can write Fun:RationalWikiWiki/Fall down. As for my signature when I first looked at the page your comment looked misplaced. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 22:47, 16 January 2009 (EST)

1. Nopoint in protecting, it's more fun to revert and vandal bin the idiots. 2. Pi's sig is "mostly harmless" - I think only one if really "big", and, for myself, I like the math exercise in reading it. ħuman 22:51, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Agreed on the no protecting. No big deal on the siggy, but I DO beg to differ on the size...TheoryOfPractice 22:54, 16 January 2009 (EST)

As far as Pi's sig - yea, sometimes it takes "three lines" of space. But it's good math, and fun to read! How can we complain about that? Also, I think he "randomed down" the fatter versions of his sig. ħuman 22:59, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Did I not say "no big deal on the siggy"? Am I talkin' to a fuckin' empty room here or what? Really, no big deal, I was just takin' the piss a little. TheoryOfPractice 23:01, 16 January 2009 (EST)

So we're all friends still? :) :) :) ħuman 23:05, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Reasons

Can anyone put the reasons why child support is not collected in greater ammounts, please? Faunas (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The other way in which child support is unfair to men and destructive of families

Marriage 1.0 was a lifetime contract in which a woman gave her husband cooking, cleaning, and sex in exchange for her husband giving her and her kids food, clothing, and shelter. Under Marriage 2.0, the woman can dissolve the marriage and still get the benefit of child support payments, without having to give her ex-husband any ongoing benefits in exchange. Arguably, this system gives the woman an incentive to divorce, because she can basically quit her "job" of homemaker and still get a paycheck.
I have no problem with requiring men to pay child support, though, as long as the mother of his child is required to continue cooking and cleaning for him and having sex with him. That would be equitable. Of course, that's the same as saying they might as well not break up at all. This was the idea behind outlawing no fault divorce.

But if you're gonna have a divorce, then make it a clean break and don't try to hang onto what you were getting from the relationship by demanding the guy keep providing what he used to provide when the relationship was a going concern. If a guy were to say, "Even though you said you're leaving me, I still demand you cook, clean, and have sex like you used to," he would be considered controlling. But a woman can say, "Even though we're broken up, I still expect you to pay just like you used to pay when we were together" and that's okay. It's a double standard. Lightuh (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Marriage 1.0 was a lifetime contract in which a woman gave her husband cooking, cleaning, and sex in exchange for her husband giving her and her kids food, clothing, and shelter.- Lightuh

That's a common myth that's been debunked several times over. Historically throughout the world, the reasons for marriage were usually

a) To share labor. It was much easier to run a farm or a family business as a married couple than it was to run it as an individual. And children were often the best way to increase the family workforce.

b) To connect to other families. Rather than marrying for spouses, most historical marriages were designed to connect in-laws to each other through the union of their children. Those getting married usually had no say in the matter.

c) To protect lands and investments. As families grew in wealth, they began to use marriage to privilege children born within a marriage as “legitimate” and able to inherit so that lands, titles and estates would not be divided. Thus marriage was a way to ensure one’s financial legacy would remain intact.

Under Marriage 2.0, the woman can dissolve the marriage and still get the benefit of child support payments, without having to give her ex-husband any ongoing benefits in exchange. Arguably, this system gives the woman an incentive to divorce, because she can basically quit her "job" of homemaker and still get a paycheck.-

Not true. First, child support is determined by a formula in all 50 states now, that equally weights assets and income and custody. This was started by Orr v. Orr (1979) and has progressed from there. You only pay what the formula pays, unless you personally agree to pay more. You're not required to and no judge can make you.

But I wouldn't recommend trying to hide assets or income. You get penalized for that.

You really need to educate yourself. No, seriously.

I have no problem with requiring men to pay child support, though, as long as the mother of his child is required to continue cooking and cleaning for him and having sex with him. That would be equitable.- Lightuh

No. That really fucking wouldn't be equitable. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice counterargument there, Castaigne. But I don't think one should assume the nationality of this person. Nerd (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(a) Why does a farm have to be a family farm? A group of men could get together and run a farm together. There are other reasons for marriage besides needing more labor, since labor can be obtained by other means.

(b) That's true, but why form the connections through marriage? Why not form alliances by other means? NATO doesn't require intermarriage between Americans and Brits in order to function.

(c) Why not use a corporation to protect land and investment, since it has perpetual life? Why is marriage needed for that?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with regard to the child support formula. It still works out that if the husband is the breadwinner and the wife the homemaker, when they split and she gets the kids, he's going to be the one paying. Her contribution to the household was to improve the husband's morale, help motivate him, and free him from needing to do the bulk of the chores, so that he could focus on work. Now she's not providing that contribution anymore, and in fact is probably causing distraction and financial and emotional damage to her ex-husband. Also, although she's still providing childcare, her net contribution to the kid at that point is probably negative, due to the harm she's causing by taking away the kid from his father.

So all in all, in a frivorce situation, she gets rewarded for breaching her contract. Now, in the case of a guy who took the best years of her life and breached his end of the deal, then there could be a reasonable argument for alimony and child support. Her ability to get a good guy to pay her way in the future is going to be greatly reduced due to her being an older woman and a single mom, so he should pay damages for that. Lightuh (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I like how your idea of a woman's role is as a prostitute and maid for a man. But MRAs totally aren't sexist! Child support is what it sounds like: for the support of the child. Your implicit argument is that people should be able to have kids and then abandon them with no consequences. Maybe you think that's a good idea, but I don't. (I say "people" because women can be made to pay child support. You know that, right?) Now I think it would be great if society guaranteed the basic essentials of a decent living, including healthcare and education (including higher education), to everyone. Maybe then we could revisit the idea of what kind of support parents should be obligated to give their children. And of course everyone should have access to birth control. Too bad you don't hear MRAs talk much about any of that, and when they do it's usually the NRx contingent wanting to ban birth control and abortion because they want women to be punished for being "slutty". --Ymir (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Lightuh, the man benefits overwhelmingly from divorce. he gets to freely sleep around with whatever beautiful woman he wants, whenever (every day I'd he has Viagra or Cialis). He doesn't have to work such a heavy job if he no longer has to support another person, so he has more free time to drink with friends or go on vacation. He can make all of his dinners using the microwave instead of his woman spending 30 minutes to make a stupid homemade meal. The way it is right now, the man is given a financial and social incentive to divorce rather than honor the contract. Why should he get rewarded for breaking his contract? It's the women who are oppressed by Marriage 4.0. No more frivorce! PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)