Would you support giving people a unilateral opt-out from paying child support if every person (including every child) will have a sufficiently large unconditional basic income?

Hawanja · 2016-05-17T06:22:41+00:00

No. Parents should have to pay for their child, regardless if they like it or not. Women who make more money but don't get custody should have to pay child support just like a man does.

i_have_a_semicolon · 2016-05-17T00:57:28+00:00

I think men should always be able to opt out of child support (if they also release all parental rights) Also a fan of the Unconditional Basic Income concept.

So, ya sure.

JuniperSunshine · 2016-05-17T15:37:04+00:00

This website is so weird. The userbase mostly thinks of single mothers as irresponsible, and constantly criticizes and mocks black people for having children out of wedlock (i.e. /r/blackfathers and beating the "black kids don't know their dads" jokes to death) yet every time the issue of child support comes all I see is vehement support for a man being able to opt out and have a "financial abortion" and absolve themselves of all financial responsibility for their kids. The double standard is kind of funny.

fiat_lux_ · 2016-05-17T16:40:19+00:00

Kids should not receive income, least of all the same amount as adults. Their money will be controlled by parents anyway. Selfish parents do exist, and I don't want to encourage certain irresponsible people to have kids just to get more money. You have kids because you want and can have kids, not just for their money.

Apexk9 · 2016-05-17T01:06:57+00:00

Men should be able to opt out either way. If a women can choose to keep a child with no day from the father then a father should have the choice to not fund the child.

redmachines · 2016-05-17T03:08:56+00:00

You should be able to opt out until a DNA test proves that you are the father. Never been a fan of universal basic income: Who is going to generate the money to fund it? Maybe in some futuristic world where everything is automated and no one is really working this would make sense. But not now.

SkinnySweaty · 2016-05-17T15:21:43+00:00

Create a universal basic income and everything changes. Wage slavery ends.

There would be room at that time for a discussion on non-custodial parental support ending.

funchy · 2016-05-17T15:44:31+00:00

No because the child support is NOT for the custodial parent to spend on themself. Child support is for the child.

If you don't want to ever pay child support, you have the choice not to have vaginal sex with women. Or you get a vasectomy. Otherwise, both people need to take responsibility for the result.

It would also be nice if the men so outraged about child support would help us women out so we don't deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Stop writing laws or making legal judgments that restrict our access to abortion and birth control. Stop letting region dictate law. Stop voting for evangelical candidates & leaders. Reform the Republican party. Make very effective birth control (such as iuds) accessible to all women regardless of age and income. Wouldn't it be cheaper anyway to give free birth control than to pay others food stamps or to risk an unwanted pregnancy?

DaphneDK · 2016-05-17T03:27:02+00:00

No. Actions carries consequences. 1) Having sex carries the risk of pregnancy. Extreme scenarios (like sperm jacking) excluded. 2) Having a child requires that you do proper mate selection - just relying on the state, that it is going to lift your parential support obligation for you, is not propert mate selection. Have your children with a man who can afford it, or live in poverty - those are your options.

However with child support also comes child contact. No person should be forced to pay to a child for which he (or she) has no equal rights to. Extreme scenarios (like paedophilia) excluded.

AutoModerator · 2016-05-17T00:53:50+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Entropy-7 · 2016-05-17T04:24:46+00:00

I support both ideas on the individual merits.

rulenumber303 · 2016-05-17T08:47:29+00:00

I think that even where the custodial parent and child have more than adequate income and the noncustodial parent is poor, there should be a small amount of child support payment expected if the noncustodial parent has not surrendered their parental rights. Even if it is only five bucks a month. A symbolic amount to remind the noncustodial parent that they are expected to invest in their child, and to give the noncustodial parent a way of officially getting a record of having been compliant with the expectation of involvement. Want custody later? Well let's see, have you actually been paying that five bucks? No? Well that don't bode well now does it!

GaiusScaevolus · 2016-05-17T14:00:00+00:00

I'm more in favor of a negative income tax like Friedman suggested as opposed to a UBI. I also think a father should have as much right to opt to not pay child support as a woman does to opt for an abortion. If parenthood is a choice,then it should be a choice for each parent.

I don't think I'd support a full NIT or UBI payment for a child, but maybe a small increase for the parent(s).

JuniperSunshine · 2016-05-17T18:14:29+00:00

Under those circumstances? Possibly. Under current circumstances? No. If you want to have a say in whether or not a woman has an abortion, you need to be married to her. If you want to have sex with a woman with no obligation to support her as a husband would, you don't get to help decide what happens after an unplanned pregnancy. "What would you choose if we got pregnant?" is a conversation that you need to have before sleeping together. You men want both the right to have sex with strangers and then the retroactive right to decide whether she should be pro life or pro choice. Once the child is here, its either up to you to help or to the rest of us taxpayers. Yes, it sucks, but the fetus already exists. You are blackmailing her into an abortion by being able to threaten to "opt out" at any time. I fully support much stronger joint custody rights for all fathers not convicted of domestic abuse as well. Mothers should not be able to opt out of letting you see your kids as often as possible either. Kids need dads. We can pretend that they don't, because some people might prefer it, but they do. And exchanging bodily fluids with strangers is just stupid unless money changes hands. That cute ONS is an actual person who can get pregnant and be unable to both work and pay for daycare.

mrcs84usn · 2016-05-17T18:52:29+00:00

So...you're suggesting that we delve more into socialism?

artichokess · 2016-05-18T01:18:57+00:00

yes. one more reason for universal income!

Mentathiel · 2016-05-18T12:57:40+00:00

Yes. I wouldn't organize a society with unconditional basic income, but if I were already in such a society, I'd support people opting out of child support. The whole purpose of child support is the state making sure that next generation is produced, survives and becomes the most productive member of society possible. If that's already ensured, in the sense that they have access to basic necessities, as well as education, culture, healthcare etc. I see no reason to force someone to give them excess money.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2016-05-17T02:47:27+00:00

i favor BMI, but not unconditional. It should be sufficient to support a single person and the creation of an out of wedlock child should be penalized or unfunded AND there should be no child support from men who were never married to the mother or dont "claim" the child voluntarily

ProbablyBelievesIt · 2016-05-17T05:00:13+00:00

Okay, I'm game, but first -

Question: How do you continue to pay for this, as the number of babies carried to term grows? Men would no longer need to fear consequences for unprotected sex, and women would have far less worries about providing for the children they do carry to term?

A single father can only provide so much, after all, compared to the government.

Especially in conservative communities, where abortion is seen as murder.

MissPearl · 2016-05-17T16:57:35+00:00

Oh yes! Completely!

leftajar · 2016-05-17T21:02:39+00:00

First off, no: basic income is a fucking terrible idea, because it incentivizes people to not be productive.

On to child support: I support basic LPS, which gives a guy the first trimester to decide if he wants to go ahead with it. If that choice is, "yes, I'm going to support the child," then he's on the hook.

Of course, we would also need to reform divorce law to eliminate female incentives to divorce.

Title	Would you support giving people a unilateral opt-out from paying child support if every person (including every child) will have a sufficiently large unconditional basic income?
Author	Futurist110
Upvotes	10
Comments	148
Date	May 17, 2016 12:53 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4jocbr/would_you_support_giving_people_a_unilateral/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/would-you-support-giving-people-a-unilateral-opt.274633 https://theredarchive.com/post/274633

Comments