About child support.

Legolas-the-elf · 2012-03-06T13:44:03+00:00

I don't think children of rich parents need more money than children of poor parents. Child support should take into account the cost of living (in suitable areas; just because they live in a rich neighbourhood right now, it doesn't mean they are entitled to it) and should ignore the parent's income. If they make so little that the cost of child support is overwhelming to them, the state should cover the difference.

Bobsutan · 2012-03-06T16:53:32+00:00

My question is how much should child support be?

The state should figure out what the minimum amount is to raise a child. Split that in half and that should be what each parent is responsible for, since, you know, equal custody should be default. If custody is not equal, then prorate how much each owes.

Granted this assumes both the man and woman consented to becoming parents. If the man did not, but the woman went ahead and had the child against his wishes, and kept the child after it was born, then she should be 100% responsible and the man be relegated to sperm-donor status. Her body, her choice, HER RESPONSIBILITY.

SonsOfLiberty86 · 2012-03-06T16:55:35+00:00

Government should not be involved in family affairs! Getting the state involved screws over both parents and the child!

carchamp1 · 2012-03-06T20:33:49+00:00

The government "child support" system should be abolished altogether. It just isn't needed.

Snooves · 2012-03-06T16:10:27+00:00

I believe child support should be 0 legally. Who ever has primary control of the child should be responsible for all of their expenses during that time. This idea of a "right" to child support is ridiculous. It turns children from a product for the future to hostages of parents and the various court systems.

SilencingNarrative · 2012-03-06T13:32:11+00:00

16% of what?

luciansolaris · 2012-03-06T16:18:51+00:00

The way it is currently based is how much the father could potentially earn--which is bullshit, but how the government can collect the most money.

I personally believe that there should be a predetermined amount based on how much children would need for a reasonable standard of living, and the government wouldn't get to collect any portion of the payments as incentive for profit.

ahkey · 2012-03-07T06:08:53+00:00

I see a lot of comments about basing support on amount of shared custody to encourage the "evil bitch" spouse to not refuse visitation to the child's father but I have another view to present. What about the case of a father who chooses to not exercise his joint custody and visitation rights? Should support be 0 when the father abandons their child? Not a "oh shit she said she was on the pill and now I am a father wtf" case, but a child born in happy wedlock that ended badly case. What then? I don't advocate men being raked over the coals to fund some bitch's idea of a post divorce lifestlye but also don't think that every single ex wife in the history of mankind is a man hating selfish cunt only out for the money. Support based on amount of custody would only work in the case of both parents fighting for custody.

DevinV · 2012-03-06T13:26:17+00:00

It should be 0 if the man never wanted a child in the first place, and wanting a child should be an opt-in thing. But of course this will never happen because those who claim to espouse equal rights really don't and this is the litmus test for it, as these same people have no problem with women having options that amount to women never having to be responsible in any way for a child if they don't want to be.

To answer your question though for men who actually wanted to be fathers and for some reason don't have equal custody (because family court is like that) it should be a percentage amount of their income which has an upper limit cap for high earners, based on what a child actually needs. When you hear about these cases in the media where a woman is given tens of thousands of dollars a month in child support, you know that amount of money far exceeds what is needed. That is when it becomes excessive mommy support, not child support.

2012-03-06T23:18:30+00:00

It's not enough to talk about the "average costs of raising a child"; what if the parent providing support can't afford the average costs? What if both parents make the same amount of money, but one parent has to spend more income to take care of the kid than the other? What if the kid's living situation requires more than the average costs (private school, instrument lessons, healthcare, etc.)?

The only way for child support to be truly effective and tailored to the individual family is for payment schedules to be mutually-agreed upon in a financial contract between the two consenting parties. In just the same way that two companies would divide up/liquidate assets equitably and coordinate severance packages with employees, divorces should be treated as just one more financial dissolution. It's the only way to ensure that both parties feel they have received the best outcome to the process.

2012-03-06T18:21:52+00:00

Depends on the cost of living, the man's income

MartialWay · 2012-03-06T20:07:28+00:00

My question is how much should child support be?

As long as the man is supporting his child, child support should be zero. Court interference is usually not needed, and often has a negative impact.

Snooves · 2012-03-06T15:59:39+00:00

Child support payments should be tied to the average cost of raising a child in the regions. Any raises or decreases should be tied to the CPI. Raises should not be tied to salaries, however, decreases should be. (IE don't try to collect from a homeless man). Prison sentences for those who can't pay should be abolished.

Title	About child support.
Author	superproxyman
Upvotes	10
Comments	51
Date	March 6, 2012 12:36 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/qk2r7/about_child_support/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/about-child-support.1026535 https://theredarchive.com/post/1026535

Comments