Child Support Should Be A Social Obligation for BOTH Parents

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8286]

I’ve often heard the phrase, “It takes two to tango,” and I think this concept applies to couples that have a baby. I think adult men and women should take full responsibility for the moments of spontaneous sex they engage in. If they don’t want to marry or continue their relationship, they should at least provide food, water, and shelter for their children.

I propose this for my society:

One parent should work and the other one should take care of the child. If this can be worked out w/o family court, great. But if it can’t, I have to charge this couple some money because it’s not fair for everyone else to pay extra taxes for welfare. The working parent will be charged at least 2o% of his/her gross pay for 18 years (If the financial burden is too high, I’ll give this person a tax-exempt status so (s)he can pay SOMETHING every month while the rest is made up with public assistance). Then, when the child becomes an adult, I’m charging the other parent 50% of those child support payments for 18 years. That money will be sent to the first working parent as a partial refund. When all is said and done, both parties will experience the financial burden of having a baby and, hopefully, think twice about having another one.

This can be avoided if people would take advantage of the options available to them if they’re not ready to be parents. There’s at least 10 different kinds of birth control I can think of (and probably 10 more I can’t think of) including a morning after pill in case you were both drunk at a party. On top of that, there’s other ways that couples can reach sexual climax WITHOUT copulation. Sex, in our modern society, is meant for adults who have access to resources. So if you’re poor, figure out a way to work for those resources. And if you want to spend your life having recreational sex, I suggest you invest your money in a form of birth control (condoms are not that expensive) or a vasectomy (which costs way less than 18 years of child support payments). Don’t put your trust in a woman’s birth control pill regime. Just use a condom every time.

An alternative option to this problem of unplanned pregnancies is this: the child is put into foster care and both parents are obligated to get a job and pay child support to the foster parents for the next 18 years if they decide they’re not ready to be parents but insist on having the baby anyway. After 18 years of payments, they will have no further obligations to the child or each other. Many may disagree with me, but I consider this to be justice because there’s too many people shirking their responsibilities, and this will force them to think about making better decisions.

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[QuietlyquietlyParticipant 728]

Sounds like a utopian ideal.

What about the issue of unplanned pregnancies. Currently a man has NO reproductive rights at all. A woman you don’t know can legally take the sperm off your toilet tissue or out of your used condom and impregnate herself. The resulting baby is yours and you don’t get to decide if she keeps it or not. You have to pay child support for that kid or go to jail. Fact.

In addition, if a woman rapes a man, or even worse, a child capable of ejaculating (think teenager), the resulting pregnancy is hers alone to decide. The raped man has to pay child support to his rapist for 18 years. Fact.

So where does that actually leave us men? At the hard end of a nasty shovel. Men DO NOT have reproductive rights, so why should they have 100% financial responsibility, or even, as you suggest, 50% of something they have no say in.

The best analogy i have come across is this [and thanks to whoever came up with it ]: a woman wants a car. A man does not. The woman steals a man’s wallet and uses his signature to sign for a car that she then has total control over. He may never use it, but if she allows it, he might be able to use it on weekends. He is legally forced to pay for the petrol and servicing of that car for 18 years or go to jail. He doesn’t even know the woman who did this to him.

You tell me if she should then pay him back just 50% over the following 18 years.

[Crazy CanuckMember 4215]

Quietlyquietly wrote:

Sounds like a utopian ideal.

. A woman you don’t know can legally take the sperm off your toilet tissue or out of your used condom and impregnate herself. The resulting baby is yours and you don’t get to decide if she keeps it or not.

Personally I would use Dave’s Insanity hot sauce. it is much hotter than Tabasco sauce.

"If pussy was a stock it would be plummeting right now because you've flooded the market with it. You're giving it away too easy." - Dave Chapelle

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3725]

Crazy Canuck wrote:

Personally I would use Dave’s Insanity hot sauce. it is much hotter than Tabasco sauce.

I like where you’re going with that, but I think the whole point of tabasco is you can get it in little mini bottles:

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[DethklokParticipant 153]

Child support basically says the man is expected to make more money, so he should give it up to the woman who is a better caregiver, at her choice.

Things like this will ONLY get fixed when we lose the political correct liberal BS. Vote for Trump. Every man has these feelings, but isn’t allowed to act upon it. If we say anything, we are hateful misogynists. That is not a democracy. If you think it will get any better with Hilary, I laugh.

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8286]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

I like where you’re going with that, but I think the whole point of tabasco is you can get it in little mini bottles:

I used to collect those little bottles when I ate MREs in the Army.

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[BeerParticipant 11832]

I just think when the parent receiving child support spends that money, they should have to provide receipts to the parent paying the child support so it is transparent how the money is being spent. If I had a kid and proof it was biologically mine I wouldn’t mind paying a reasonable amount of child support as long as it was actually being spent on the kid and not simply subsidizing the baby mama’s lifestyle.

[narwhalParticipant]

Beer wrote:

I just think when the parent receiving child support spends that money, they should have to provide receipts to the parent paying the child support so it is transparent how the money is being spent. If I had a kid and proof it was biologically mine I wouldn’t mind paying a reasonable amount of child support as long as it was actually being spent on the kid and not simply subsidizing the baby mama’s lifestyle.

Although I agree that this sounds great in theory, in reality, I don’t think it’s a good idea at all.

So take a hypothetical situation where person A is paying person B $800 a month in child support. Person B has a $300 dollar car payment and $1500 house payment. They can easily say that the child support is $100 towards car payment and $700 towards house payment. The child needs to be transported and needs shelter so there you go. Not very useful.

(Aside, I see that as the problem with Planned Parenthood being funded by the government. They claim none of that money goes to abortions, but yet there is shared facilities and staff, so it is impossible to really define where money is spent. I’d argue that if no government is spent on abortions, then PP should operate a completely separate abortions facility with no shared services.)

But say person A doesn’t think person B needs a car with a $300 dollar car payment. $200 should be enough. Then what? Does person A get to dictate what person B can spend money on? Person A & B already have personal issues, how is that going to work out. Do we need a 3rd party arbitrator, and who’s going to pay for that?

And then if person A can say that money should not go towards a particular purchase, it is logical that they can say what money is spent on. I’m all good with that (since I pay child support), but again who’s going to arbitrate these decisions. How will it be enforced.

If the two parents have to interact and cooperate this much regarding funding, it’s like they are still married. You continue to live in the hell you thought you got out of.

Oh, and it’s going to work both ways. If person A is going to start trying to control the child related expenses, person B is going to do the same. “Why did you go on vacation? You should be saving up for Jr’s car and college!”

And lastly, how can you really prove that an expense has no benefit to a child. If I go on vacation, I relieve stress and can therefore be a better parent for my child. Part of parenting is being a role model, so spending money on yourself for self improvement is being a good role model. Giving money to charity is teaching children how to be charitable. Even plastic surgery could be phrased in a way that is for the child. But again, it’s hardly necessary since you can find other places to throw the money, and then use the money you ‘saved’ for your boob job.

Yes, I’ve thought about this a ton. I don’t have a good answer. From my experience, I do not concern myself with what my ex spends money on. If my kids ask for new shoes, I tell them they need to get that from their mom. If there is something I want for the kids that my ex won’t pay for, I pay for it. If my ex asks for money to pay for something, I tell her that it is covered in child support payments. Again, it’s not a good answer, and my kids will suffer at times because of it, but I have no better answer.

Ok. Then do it.

[QuietlyquietlyParticipant 728]

narwhal wrote:

Beer wrote:

I just think when the parent receiving child support spends that money, they should have to provide receipts to the parent paying the child support so it is transparent how the money is being spent. If I had a kid and proof it was biologically mine I wouldn’t mind paying a reasonable amount of child support as long as it was actually being spent on the kid and not simply subsidizing the baby mama’s lifestyle.

Although I agree that this sounds great in theory, in reality, I don’t think it’s a good idea at all.

So take a hypothetical situation where person A is paying person B $800 a month in child support. Person B has a $300 dollar car payment and $1500 house payment. They can easily say that the child support is $100 towards car payment and $700 towards house payment. The child needs to be transported and needs shelter so there you go. Not very useful.

(Aside, I see that as the problem with Planned Parenthood being funded by the government. They claim none of that money goes to abortions, but yet there is shared facilities and staff, so it is impossible to really define where money is spent. I’d argue that if no government is spent on abortions, then PP should operate a completely separate abortions facility with no shared services.)

But say person A doesn’t think person B needs a car with a $300 dollar car payment. $200 should be enough. Then what? Does person A get to dictate what person B can spend money on? Person A & B already have personal issues, how is that going to work out. Do we need a 3rd party arbitrator, and who’s going to pay for that?

And then if person A can say that money should not go towards a particular purchase, it is logical that they can say what money is spent on. I’m all good with that (since I pay child support), but again who’s going to arbitrate these decisions. How will it be enforced.

If the two parents have to interact and cooperate this much regarding funding, it’s like they are still married. You continue to live in the hell you thought you got out of.

Oh, and it’s going to work both ways. If person A is going to start trying to control the child related expenses, person B is going to do the same. “Why did you go on vacation? You should be saving up for Jr’s car and college!”

And lastly, how can you really prove that an expense has no benefit to a child. If I go on vacation, I relieve stress and can therefore be a better parent for my child. Part of parenting is being a role model, so spending money on yourself for self improvement is being a good role model. Giving money to charity is teaching children how to be charitable. Even plastic surgery could be phrased in a way that is for the child. But again, it’s hardly necessary since you can find other places to throw the money, and then use the money you ‘saved’ for your boob job.

Yes, I’ve thought about this a ton. I don’t have a good answer. From my experience, I do not concern myself with what my ex spends money on. If my kids ask for new shoes, I tell them they need to get that from their mom. If there is something I want for the kids that my ex won’t pay for, I pay for it. If my ex asks for money to pay for something, I tell her that it is covered in child support payments. Again, it’s not a good answer, and my kids will suffer at times because of it, but I have no better answer.

This is a good answer, and I agree the subject is not an easy one to work out correctly. I can see both sides of it also, but I favour the man’s autonomy in his financial life, for obvious personal satisfaction in my own situation. I realise I am biased, is what I mean.

My ex wanted to destroy my life, AND have 25% of my after tax salary, after keeping the house, keeping her mercedes, selling my van and getting half of it, having me pay off HER credit card bills ($41,000), and then for her to not have a job even though the kids were both at school full time.

I have come across the same situation in my most recent failure of a relationship. I was chewed out about not contributing enough, so I paid her electricity bill, and in doing so, found that she’d underestimated it by $600. I paid that off, and she chewed me out about paying it off, and said she wanted the money for paying her solicitor. That’s the point at which I said f~~~ it to the whole thing. There’s no winning. I know how much my ex makes a year, and she constantly says she’s poor, but I could save her $4000 a year by doing 1 hour of math(s). And she wouldn’t even need to stop spending on clothes for me to do that. Did she want me to? HELL NO

Basically, it seems to me that women want to be completely provided for, AND have complete autonomy over how that money is spent, while just sucking the lifeblood out of men. I don’t think that’s responsible, in the same way that I don’t think it’s responsible for MPs to have no accountability with public expenditure and tax-payers’ money. There needs to be accountability. How that system works would need discussion, but in my mind it’s pretty straight forward:

If it’s solely for her, regardless of the perceived secondary benefit to the children, she needs to pay for it out of her own money. She would expect the same thing from me if the tables were turned – if she paid me child support, she wouldn’t want me to spend that on a man-cave because it made me “feel better” and therefore treat the kids better, she’d tell me to grow up! And so it should be for her.

If it directly benefits the kids – shoes, clothes, education, food, a proportion of heating costs etc. then that’s all good. Mani-Pedi, false eyelashes, fast sports car, manginal douche, she needs to pay for that herself.

[sidecarParticipant 35860]

So long as women have the sole “right to choose”, they should have the sole responsibility to pay.

While accidental pregnancies do happen, there is no such thing as a accidental birth.

Finally, I recommend Frostbite hot sauce. It’s odorless, tasteless, water soluble, and, most importantly, completely clear. Mix it with something to whiten it up a little and it looks indistinguishable from semen. It’s not the hottest sauce out there, but 500,000 pussy punishing scovilles is plenty hot enough while still being mild enough on the hands that she gets the full payload up inside her before detecting its true nature.

[GrumpyParticipant]

Here is a Novel Idea….
How about custody is given to the parent best able to provide for the child. Instead of wealth transference. Money allocated for the child(ren) will actually go towards the child.
Makes logical sense… oh, never mind I see why it isn’t done like that now

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Quietlyquietly wrote:

If it’s solely for her, regardless of the perceived secondary benefit to the children, she needs to pay for it out of her own money. She would expect the same thing from me if the tables were turned – if she paid me child support, she wouldn’t want me to spend that on a man-cave because it made me “feel better” and therefore treat the kids better, she’d tell me to grow up! And so it should be for her.

This is what I was trying to get at. Maybe even just say it takes 600 dollars a month to raise a kid, you both have to put 300 dollars a month into the pot regardless of who gets custody…its 50/50 right? If you want the kid to have any extra things you are two grown adults, figure it the f~~~ out.

If I was in a child support situation I’d have no problem supporting my kid, but currently its just a bulls~~~ system where if you have a good salary you also have to subsidize the ex as well, which is bulls~~~. Maybe the kid just needs to learn when he’s at Dad’s he gets to go do fun s~~~ because Dad can afford to take him to do it, and he gets to watch the big screen tv at Dad’s, and gets fancy toys and hobby gear and stuff from Dad…instead Dad just has to fork all that money over to mom, and I’ve known way too many guys in that situation where they get destroyed by child support, but Mom is driving a new BMW and the kid is begging Dad for money for new baseball cleats because Mom won’t buy them. Its disgusting.

[Author]

Posts