Question. Do you think that there should be interest on late child support?

AnnArchist · 2011-09-05T20:21:34+00:00

no.

Bobsutan · 2011-09-05T20:30:40+00:00

There should not be interest on child support. Hell, cs should go to the child, be in the child's name, and both parents should get debit cards for an account that works like an HSA where the funds can only be used on the child's actual expenses. Child support as a wealth transfer vehicle, aka backdoor alimony, needs to stop.

girlwriteswhat · 2011-09-05T19:49:44+00:00

Maybe.

Before you all jump down my throat, hear me out. Child support should be kept realistic, and should be deferred without penalty (eg: jail or seizure of driver's license) if the paying parent can't pay because of unemployment. However, if the custodial parent incurs debt providing for the children due to not receiving child support or due to being unemployed themselves, the custodial parent will be paying interest on that debt, won't they?

I'm still paying interest on debt I incurred through providing for my children before I moved from the economic black hole where I used to live.

That interest should apply only to a flat rate of support--1/2 the monthly amount required to cover a child's basic necessities--even if the child support amount has been set higher than that. In other words, if child support is set at $1800/month for two children, interest would only be charged on perhaps $600 of that, because the custodial parent should be required to tighten his/her belt when the NCP is out of work. The interest should be kept around the prime lending rate, and should go to the CP rather than the state.

AnnArchist · 2011-09-05T18:56:47+00:00

now, if you can prove beyond any doubt with 110% accuracy that someone has more than enough money and is simply not paying child support, i would be alright if they were fined (as long as a cut went towards the kid as well) but simply having interest is a bad idea as it ignores whether or not the ability to pay is even there

YankeeRose · 2011-09-06T03:28:44+00:00

Absolutely.

Child support is paid (in theory) to pay for the support of the child. If the paying parent fails to pay, the custodial parent has to contribute "both" parents shares, losing time value/appreciation in the amount of the paying parent's share.

The paying parent who FAILED to pay, meanwhile, could simply earn interest on the money and pay at a later date. If this is done without penalty, the paying parent is rewarded for late payment.

This is all assuming the amounts in question are reasonably related to childcare expenses, but that is another issue entirely

OThomson · 2011-09-05T19:11:02+00:00

There should be no interest on Child support, child support should be paid at a flat-rate (the ammount required to raise a child) and not determined by the paying parents income, a child doesn't become more expensive to raise because payments are late.

poopmachinery · 2011-09-05T18:39:47+00:00

If custody were awarded to the financially independent parent, there wouldn't even be a need for child support.

SharkSpider · 2011-09-05T19:45:33+00:00

Mathematics and interest theory suggest that the going rate of interest should be applied to all delayed monetary payments. So yes, I think that interest on child support is perfectly reasonable. I don't, on the other hand, think that the way child support is handled is at all reasonable. I also think that child support should be a transaction with the government, not a transfer payment.

kragshot · 2011-09-07T04:43:15+00:00

There are several problems with that, but the one I'm bringing up is that incarceration does not relieve the child support debt because failure to pay support is purposely categorized as a "contempt of court" violation, rather than a real crime. But unlike any other "contempt of court" violation, being incarcerated for a CS court violation still nets you the permanent penalty of other criminal convictions.

Demonspawn · 2011-09-05T20:44:53+00:00

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

There should not be child support...

Actually, allow me to repost one of the best things I've ever read on the subject:

I’m not a historian, but as far as I know, the West is the first civilization to attempt to use government to assuage the inherent risks of promiscuity and casual sex. We refuse to allow people, especially (exclusively?) women, to bear the costs of risky sexual behavior.

There’s a term in finance called ‘moral hazard’ that describes this situation. When the costs of a risk are borne by people other than those engaging in the behavior, that situation increases the total damage of the risk. This was instrumental in leading to the 2008 financial crisis. Lending standards were lowered, or even ignored, because the lenders would securitize their bad mortgages, lie about their quality, and sell them to other suckers who would eat any potential losses stemming from borrowers’ inability to pay. The direct analogue is women failing to choose good mates because they simply don’t have to. In fact, if they fail in this task, they are given financial support and cultural adulation.

If we institute feel-good policies like child support, the net effect on human suffering is actually far greater than if nothing was done at all. The fundamental action is to lower the cost of a woman conceiving in high risk situations, such as is the case in casual sex, or with the fellow in your example. She can be certain that if things don’t work out, that cad will be forced to participate in alleviating her unfavorable outcome. This leaves women to follow their worst instincts and ignore the safe beta males who would love and support their children; enabling women to feel safe about their inherently risky behavior.

It’s certainly bad when men do not take care of their children, but in our efforts to minimize the harm of that, the effects of this policy have rippled through society, distorting behavior patterns that had previously been self-sustaining, long-term solutions to the challenge of effectively rearing children. We could call it unintended consequences, but I would call it another success of the social engineers using the power of knowledge and foresight to subjugate a once proud people.

The only self-sustaining, long-term, economical solution is for the girl in your example to not be interested in romps with questionable men. Any attempt to respond to the situation with mitigative action will just make more girls feel safe in taking on these risks.

We don’t have 40% out-of-wedlock births in the US because 40% of men don’t want to be fathers. The percentage of scum is far, far smaller, but the incentive structure makes having children outside of a stable relationship a more favorable option for women than the added responsibility of obligations to a man.

I haven’t heard this said much in the MRM, but I’m going to come out and say it: I am for the total abolition of the forcible transfer of wealth from fathers to mothers, aka child support. Not because I’m trying to create a perfect world for men at the expense of women and children, but because child support creates a massive, destructive distortion in the sexual marketplace that leads to women offering sex and their reproductive capacities to men who ought to receive neither. When that situation inevitably doesn’t work out, it gets blamed on the men in general and we are all made to bear the costs.

Title	Question. Do you think that there should be interest on late child support?
Author	icewolfca
Upvotes	1
Comments	48
Date	September 5, 2011 6:30 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/k5k6s/question_do_you_think_that_there_should_be/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/question-do-you-think-that-there-should-be.1035013 https://theredarchive.com/post/1035013

Comments