~ archived since 2018 ~

U.S. states receive federal money to issue child support orders, creating a perverse incentive.

August 7, 2014

Sup fellas,

I was reading this excellent Dalrock article about divorce and the threat-point of women leaving...

...and he linked to a personal account of a man who was blind-sided by divorce-rape. It's really a chilling, sorrowful story. Worth a read, if nothing other than to drive home the point to never get married.

The guy said something that gave me pause:

States get matching funds from the federal government for every support order they issue; therefore there is an built-in economic incentive against family reconciliation and against shared custody and an economic incentive for sole physical custody.

I saw that and thought, "no frickin' way."

30 seconds of googling later, and I ended up at the Wikipedia entry for the Office of Child Support Enforcement:

the Federal Government enacted the Child Support Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program (CSE) in 1975....authorizing Federal matching funds for enforcement purposes—locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments.[2]

And there it is. The federal government is literally giving money to the states, for the purposes of enforcing child support payments.

This creates a perverse incentive for the state to rule against men. By facilitating the divorce-rape of men, states receive federal money to continue doing exactly that.

This is bullshit.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title U.S. states receive federal money to issue child support orders, creating a perverse incentive.
Author leftajar
Upvotes 93
Comments 56
Date August 7, 2014 5:11 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/us-states-receive-federal-money-to-issue-child.19055
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2cwe4t/us_states_receive_federal_money_to_issue_child/
Red Pill terms in post

[–]1TVTestPattern47 points48 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

This is absolutely correct... and corrupt. As soon as the judge found out what kind of money I make, it was on like Donkey Kong. Nothing else mattered... not how much mom makes, or the circumstances of our respective homes. My (female) judge saw she could award the max support and bam... done.

Not only that, but my ex claimed we were split 6 months before we actually split and was awarded back support ($10k). Then almost 1 year after the judgement she went back to the judge claiming I never paid the "back" support, despite the court seizing that money from my employer. Without batting an eye, the court ordered me to pay it again, plus interest and penalties. When my attorney challenged this ruling my judge threatened me with contempt including jail time.

So I paid the fake back support including interest and penalties, then did it again... 25K. Add that to the monthly support for the last 5 years, and attorney fees (mine & hers) and where am I today?

$155,000 and counting gentlemen.

After all is said and done I'll have paid this bitch $350,000 by the time my daughter is 18. Of course this doesn't include all the "other" expenses along the way... the insurance, tuition, vehicles, clothing, etc... easily $500k.

This sad situation is why it's the max... the judge could care fucking less about my daughter's welfare... but she's getting paid yo.

You have been warned...

Edit: I forgot to add... we weren't married. Technically I'm a widower...

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I posted this in another thread:

If you see a $1k call girl every day, $500k would last you almost one-and-a-half years. Twice a week = almost 5 years.

Not everyone wants to go down the call girl route, but it puts things in perspective. Insert your favorite comparison here:

  • Buy a 2014 Lamborghini Aventador and have plenty of cash left over for insurance and fuel/maintenance.
  • Move to a cheap country, retire, and never work again.
  • Buy a 5000 sq ft house in Houston
  • Buy citizenship in the country of St. Kitts and Nevis, with $250k left over
  • Travel the world for 10 years
  • 2.5 shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock :-)

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That Aventador is going to be nasty when I'm 33, unmarried, and my SMV is beginning to drop.

Any questions as to why I'm still single will be redirected towards the Lambo.

But seriously...travelling the world for just 5 years and settling for a Gallardo afterwards is probably a better option ;)

By the way /u/TVTestPattern, thank you for posting your story. It gives us a lot of perspective. I've already spent over $120K on "education" that I could have likely learned on my own terms. So it's safe to say I won't be getting married.

[–]1TVTestPattern2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it's all profit & loss when it's finished. Each of us comes with particular strengths & weaknesses which manifest a series of good & bad decisions with some net result. tada!

It's ironic that you & I are discussing this, because I spent $0 on my "education"... actually I was paid handsomely to get it truth be known. But for someone like me, from my generation, the social pressure to capitulate to the feminist agenda was almost irresistible. So like so many of my contemporaries, I labored under the delusion of what is in hindsight comforting nonsense.

Thank Cthulhu you see this clearly lokkey, it is a minefield.

Everything being equal, I have to say I have enjoyed the moments in my life when I got to be a rockstar because of some tangible accomplishment I created than anything besides my kids... who are worth way more to me than any toy, and which I would count as my most valuable investment.

I have loved... but honestly, it's 2nd page news.

  • and yeah... for autodidactics, almost everything is free now.

[–]1iluminatiNYC6 points7 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Here's the question: is your ex claiming benefits from the state? That's a huge incentive towards BS like that.

[–]1TVTestPattern10 points11 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Oh I'm sure she is...

There is no honor among thieves.

[–]1iluminatiNYC2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Seriously though, if she claims any benefit from the state, it increases the incentive to come after you. (Source: my ex's uncle, who works for child support collections) The way it works is that they use your child support money to pay for her benefits. In other words, instead of using tax dollars to get her needs met, the government is using your money. Yikes!

[–]1TVTestPattern1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm at an effective rate of 50% right now. Between support, taxes and insurance roughly 1/2 my earned income is gone before I ever see it.

The government may be using my money... (/s)

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Too bad you cant just decide to start earning less. Stupid courts expect you to keep making more and more money until you retire or die.

[–]1TVTestPattern0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

This occurred to me... if I made 50% of what I make today and my support was reduced to reflect that change, combined with a lower tax bracket, I would make about the same take-home pay as I do now.

What's wrong with this picture?

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Tax brackets are what is wrong. Say you earn $99,999/yr and you get a $2 raise to put you at $100,001 you end up paying at 40% tax rate instead of like 35% so you lose more just by getting a 2 dollar raise ;)

For most men if you're paying vaginamony... instead of getting cash raises negotiate for perks that wont increase your support requirements. Preferably benefits which also dont add to your tax burden too.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tax brackets are what is wrong. Say you earn $99,999/yr and you get a $2 raise to put you at $100,001 you end up paying at 40% tax rate instead of like 35% so you lose more just by getting a 2 dollar raise ;)

This is actually a common misconception about tax rates. The higher tax rate only applies to the dollar amount in that tax bracket. You can't net less by earning more.


[–]1TVTestPattern1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's a problem... it's pretty painful that 1/2 my income is seized and I have no voice in how it's distributed and used.

I don't mind contributing to my kids, or to my society, but 50%? Seems excessive, especially when I'm the one who did my homework and created this value only to have it seized by people who think they know how my wealth should be spent better than me.

Frankly, none of these people qualifies to carry my water. I am massively more qualified to make these decisions than they are... yet here we are.

The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, according to which individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource.

Exactly... and I'm the resource.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Personally child support should be more like rent... if you are forced to pay a plumber or fix a pipe yourself then you take the costs and deduct it from your rent.

If you buy all the shit your kids need then you should deduct the value of all the stuff you buy from the child support arrangements.

It would be nice if there was some accountability in regards to how child support payments are spent... you know so mommy dearest doesn't take the money for the kids and spend it on booze and smokes like the rest of her welfare money.

[–]Luke666808g1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

When I read about stuff like this, I'm surprised there aren't millions of American men trying to sneak into mexico for a better life...

[–]1TVTestPattern2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If not for my young daughter, I would have left this place long ago. The irony is that for one of the first times in my life I could make that happen with relative ease.

The government & my ex are both leveraging my situation to extract resources from me without my input as to how my resources get used. Basically they are exploiting the fact that I am honorable to take what they want.

[–]ziggitypumziggitypim0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fuck man. That's some serious BS. sometimes I'm grateful I live outside of the US.

[–]1TVTestPattern1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You should be...

Coming soon to a legal system near you though.

[–]Blatant-Ballsack-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sooo... Why don't you kill your ex wife. Just saying.

[–]1TVTestPattern0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just because some people are scumbags does not mean I'm going to join them in their ugly worldview.

[–]2Overkillengine24 points25 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The hilarious part is when men start reacting to an unfair system by dropping out of it, they won't actually fix the system (like capping CS to a flat amount, etc), they will just add more laws to shore up the profits like awarding CS judgements for children you did not father for making the mistake of living with a single mom.

Go get your fiddles men, Rome is burning.

[–]1cover202 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fix this for yourself and correct some incentives for women considering divorcing their perfectly ok husbands.

Stay well away from single moms. They get one shot. They throw that away, they don't get another.

[–]jenastar1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Get one shot? To be what? Or to have what, exactly? To be taken care of? Curious perspective.

[–]joncho0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some politicians in Canada proposed a law that would automatically get you legally married after two years of living with your girlfriend. No opt out posible. So they are trying.

The sad thing is that they dont see this would make men bail out before two years. They just want to force you into it.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan23 points24 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

And yet, according to CDC stats, 2.1-million men get married in the US every year.

I just simply don't get it. It's not a secret anymore that more than 50% of all marriages fail. And it's not a secret that "family" courts hand men their asses in an overwhelming majority of cases. But they still take the gamble. I don't understand the logic, for the life of me.

If you asked men:

  • Would you put half of your net worth on "black" at the roulette wheel? Of course not.
  • Would you bareback fuck a chick who had a 50/50 shot of having AIDS? Of course not.
  • Would you buy a car that had a 50% chance of brake failure? Of course not.
  • Would you be roommates in a 2-bedroom apartment where one of the bedrooms had infectious black mold behind the drywall? Of course not.

But we still have a thriving multi-billion dollar wedding industry in this country that is also propping up a multi-billion dollar divorce/family law industry. Like the great Bill Burr said, "Is this the line to lose half my shit?"

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ahhh! I was literally picturing Bill say that as I started reading your comment.

On a serious note, the media sells marriage really frickin' hard. They sell it to men, and they sell it ten times harder to women.

[–]Serres[🍰] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

2.1-million men get married in the US every year. I just simply don't get it.

  • Currently only 20% of people in the US are (at least said to be ) non-religious. Over time, as religion dies, less men will get married because of religious pressure.
  • Many men get women pregnant or are the scapegoat for a pregnant woman, and get married because they think it's the right thing to do. As male birth control is more readily available men can be doubly sure they are not the father, and so no longer have that pressure.
  • Many men who are raised by single mothers blame their fathers and want to do a family better. They obsess over raising a family and make bad choices, are blindsided because of it.
  • Many men are omega true forced loneliness losers who are one blow job away from putting a ring on it.

TRP can help all of these men who want to avoid the obvious trap. However telling a guy who wants to believe marriage is what he wants that it's a bad idea is as effective as telling someone who is religious that their religion is a lie - almost always completely ineffective. They need more bitter truths before they can even have a chance for accepting reality.

[–]Sturmgeist7811 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And yet more people will still get married despite the terrible house odds against the man.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Guys the problem is when you have kids. A women is entitled to child support even if you DON'T marry her.

If you guys live in the same residence for 2 years (varies by state) and have children, she gets the same child support as she would have if you guys had been married.

I'm honestly considering having a baby ordered up on one of those artificial wombs before getting into a relationship. For that however you need to have a seriously high SMV. For which you have to work your ass off right now.

[–] points points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]2Overkillengine5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And even in the perfect world without naturally occurring governmental corruption, there is the inescapable fact that adding middlemen adds cost inefficiency unless one is under the delusion that they work for free.

[–]manwhy1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's pretty fucking sweet if you're on the right side of the oppression.

"Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class -- whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy."

Have you ever read Dune?

[–]VegasHostTre0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True, but you are here in TRP, so you ended up with the short end of the stick.

[–]VegasHostTre1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And fellow TRP'ers, if you think the U.S. government cares about it's citizens male or female riddle me this.

Why does the government subsidize processed garbage like McDonalds and Burger King But does not subsidize healthy stuff such as Salads or any Vegetable Condoms Gym Memberships Chipotle

But has the nerve to run an obesity awareness campaign?

[–]MartialWay4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yup, it wasn't your imagination, there are actual BOUNTIES on fathers nowadays.

[–]jenastar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They'll revoke a license, issue a warrant and levy the accounts of women too.

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]sir_wankalot_here0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Comical to watch these moron whine. Really simple, leave. But then again most of them probably could not function without the nanny state.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Except when it is a women who is in arrears. My mother disappeared when I was about 3, with spurts of showing up again here and there. She still owes my father tens of thousands in child support yet even though my father has tried to get multiple states to pursue the issue, he will never see that money. The state could not care less and she has never seen the inside of a jail cell for it.

The hypocrisy is hilarious when you see the issue from the other side of the table.

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yikes. Yeah, my point was that the actual incentive structure of the custody offices are anti-male.

You're now saying that enforcement is actively discriminating in favor of women. That's even worse -- incentives are one thing, blatant discrimination is another. Totally fucked.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely fucked. Not only did he have 3 other children to raise(granted not by himself, he remarried) but serving his country. Flip the roles and imagine how that would play out.

[–]1iluminatiNYC4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This has been a problem for years, and they know it. The name of the game is getting cash by any means necessary. Not only do states have an incentive to chase people for child support, but they also have the right to offset their welfare costs by the money they collect. In other words, even the most loving and caring custodial parent and children can't see a dime of that money, because the state pockets it.

The upshot is that in most states, unless you file an immediate paternity challenge, you're screwed if the state names you, even if you just got caught because you have a common name.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

male birth control cannot come fast enough

[–]l2main1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just an innocent question, don't you also get half of whatever your spouse has aswell? - So if your wife is working and there are no kids - or you have shared custody its all good?

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure. In some states -- I know California and New York do this -- if the woman earns more than the man, she pays him alimony.

And, all joking aside, feminists opposed those laws.

[–]1cover200 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

They're supposed to be "matching funds". Doesn't that mean that the state pays $X and the feds pay $X or some fraction thereof? So the state incurs a net cost rather than a net revenue, just a lesser cost than it would have been otherwise, for CS enforcement etc.

Now maybe they cheat, very likely they do, but that's what I thought "matching funds" meant.

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Somebody linked to the law, I believe it was 66%. So the fed would provide 66% of costs in grants.

[–]1cover200 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But that means the state still pays 34% i.e. they pay rather than making money. Unless that 34% is exceeded by the service fee they charge to collect and disburse the payments. (of course you can't compare percentages here, you'd have to work out what the amounts are, and of that I have no idea.)

[–]Senior ContributorRedPope1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a job creation program. State will gladly hire a couple thousand enforcers and clerks if the Fed is paying the bulk of the bill.

Politicians love it. Come re-election time, they can claim they created jobs.

Bureaucrats love it too. One of the easiest ways to increase your clout and be promoted is to build a pyramid under yourself.

Family court lawyers absolutely love it. The more persecution, the more cases, the more billable hours.

[–]manofire0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I could find a job tomorrow but I refuse to. You know why? Because nothing would change. I’d still be forced to get women by seduction, which is fantasy for in my case. Me getting a job would mean I’m paying for a slut and her baby fathered by a thug.

[–]1cover200 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They've got you on the hook for a child by another man? Fuck them, enjoy every penny you do not pay them.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I married after a baby was on the way and my net worth was near zero. However, my earnings potential (masters degree, experience, etc.) was much higher. In a divorce, I should be credited for entering the marriage with $50k masters degree ($100k today) since that is the cost.

Don't marry until she's knocked up.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

legal custody of a child, share of her assets accumulated during a marriage (yes, it's rare), free or discounted medical insurance provided by her job. Yes, these don't usually outweigh a man's contribution, but it's worth noting.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You can always pay a surrogate to carry a child for you if you are wealthy enough to afford a child.

Ensure you have a good lawyer and valid contract that will stand up in court. The price to rent a womb is cheaper than it is to marry some dumb bitch.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good point on surrogate mother. This should be brought up more often to men.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter