12
   

Should Fathers Be Incarcerated for Child Support?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 03:46 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Germany also remains saddled with a black market economy of 13.7 percent of its gross domestic product, above the average of 13.4 amongst OECD countries, according to the IAW study.
Greece has a clandestine economy of 25.8 percent of its GDP, while the United States has the cleanest record with 7 percent. Those estimates are based on a variety of economic factors, and the study factored in other criminal activity relevant to black market employment.
Friedrich Schneider, an expert on clandestine economies at the Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria, said the reasons people choose black market employment are the same everywhere: "pressure from taxes, regulations, morals and how much time people have."
An increase in jobs is likely to decrease black market labor
"In general, black market labor doesn't damage the economy," he told Deutsche Welle. "Instead, it bolsters the economy, because the money earned clandestinely creates value. Those who lose out from black market employment are governmental institutions
http://www.dw.de/jobs-recovery-likely-to-decrease-black-market-labor/a-14788279

And in american moms owed child support.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 06:01 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Kevin Macfie owes more than $60,000 in child support, and he's spent most of the past three years at the Bergen County Jail as authorities have tried to get him to pay up.

His 871 nights and weekends behind bars have cost taxpayers more than $87,000........


Taxpayers are obviously being played for suckers. Again the only possible way this game makes sense is that some very evil and wretched people are profiting from it.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 08:41 am
I keep reading the thread title as "Incinerated." Not that that's what's on my mind.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 08:43 am
bigger problem than just "deadbeat dads"...

http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-ways-its-become-crime-be-poor-america-punishable-further-impoverishment
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 08:47 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
they work on the black market
Italy must be a nightmare for child support payments, seeing so much work is on the black market .
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 09:07 am
@hawkeye10,
You consider making sure your kids have enough to eat and a place to live, in other words a decent life an investment? That tells me a lot about your character, or rather lack of it.
ZarathustraReborn
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 09:08 am
@FBM,
Quote:
I keep reading the thread title as "Incinerated." Not that that's what's on my mind.


That made me laugh. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 12:06 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
You consider making sure your kids have enough to eat and a place to live, in other words a decent life an investment?

Cut back on the bloody mary's, I asked if jailing deadbead dads is a good use of our money, what do we the taxpayers get out of it. I am still waiting on an answer other than we get the thrill of beating on underclass men. I know that is good fun, I have written entire threads on our societies message "MEN SUCK!", and here we get to combine our distaste for men with our distaste of the throw away class, but I am still hoping that we are doing something more worthwhile as well.
0 Replies
 
tony5732
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 12:23 pm
@ZarathustraReborn,
I agree with you on this. I never had kids myself, but I do see a lot of guys get caught up in the baby situation where the mom takes the kid the money starts sleeping with some other dude and uses child support payments/ alamony for fancy cars or clothes. In some cases it ends up being a woman's hellish way of saying "gotcha!". I personally think we need a lot of reform on these laws and leave the "pay to play" bs for hookers and whores. Putting children in that scenerio is when it REALLY gets wrong.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 02:48 pm
Quote:
....if a person is not paying it must be their fault, either they did not practice the virtue required to be economically successful or they simply refuse to do the right thing. Either way, **** em


So basically the same way we view single moms on public assistance?

Those same women who are not only finding ways to support themselves and their child but also paying for child care so they can go to work?

If women can manage to do this why can't men?

I agree that locking men up for failing to pay child support (failing to support your child is neglect, isn't it?) is probably not the best idea (except that it provides jobs to people who then use their income to support themselves and their children).

I'd rather see that money go directly to kids.

A vasectomy costs about $1,000. That seems like a good investment for a man who doesn't want kids.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 02:58 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
So basically the same way we view single moms on public assistance?


You mean "viewed" right? These days people fall all over themselves to help single moms.

Quote:
Those same women who are not only finding ways to support themselves and their child but also paying for child care so they can go to work?

That is born from the feminists (american) hostility towards the lower classes, and towards family....not exactly the same thing but close. We all know that childcare is a problem, and that money is required to fix it, which no one is willing to do.

Quote:
If women can manage to do this why can't men?
Because even though we dont fund childcare generally speaking women are the privileged gender, they get a lot more help than the males do. Even making small efforts to help males gets to be very controversial, and most times when anyone points out that males need help they get mocked. The playing field is not level.

Quote:
A vasectomy costs about $1,000. That seems like a good investment for a man who doesn't want kids.
I heard that there is a new reversible procedure. The government might consider funding this on a 20% co-pay.
ZarathustraReborn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 03:13 pm
The entire point of this argument that I've been trying to get across is simple. Women want to equate sperm to a baby when it suits them (ie, the rendition of paternal financial assistance), but want to broadcast the difference when defending their right to abortion. It is your body-- you have every right to do what you want with it. However, if you get pregnant, that does NOT necessarily conclude that there will be a child born of it. Not in this day and age. Having a child is ONE person's choice. The mother's. So any decision she makes, autonomous of male input, is HER'S. No one else. And we should not force people to be chained to a decision SHE MADE for two decades of their life.

You can say "well, don't stick your dick in places if you don't want kids," but if that were a scientifically valid public policy, we'd be using it for sex ed. We'd be telling single mothers to go **** themselves. However, people are biologically ruled, and mating is a primal instinct. The GREAT instinct most would argue.

I had someone tell me today, "The woman NEVER gets a chance to walk away, why should the men?" And this is pretty much the attitude. But the fact is, you can walk to an abortion clinic. You can walk to an adoption agency. Just because I agreed to one transaction (sex) does not mean I am responsible for the end results of YOUR CHOICE (a baby). If I sell you a car, I am not authorizing you to crash into my house. And if you do, would you argue: "Well, if you just wouldn't sell cars, you wouldn't have to worry about your house being hit!"? If a gun store sells you bullets, he is not authorizing you to shoot him in the face. That is your choice. You pulled the trigger. And in the case of a child, it is the same. I sold you the bullets, which I consented to, you decided to put them in the chamber, keep it loaded, and kneecap me daily for the next eighteen years.

I, by the way, am 30, married, have no children, and thus no emotional stake in the discussion, just in case it was wondered.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 03:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
From what I read, single moms on public assistance are lazy opportunists who can't keep their legs together and expect the government to bail them out. Lawmakers do everything they can to restrict their access to abortion then call them freeloaders when the child is born.

If they have better access to assistance it is probably because they're more skilled at asking for it and more willing to humble themselves at the feet of the government. Single dads have an equal shot at it.

If "privilege" means willing to ask for help then I guess they're the privileged gender.

Asking the government to set up sterilization subsidies will never fly (talk about classism). Men should see it as an investment. Maybe they should be allowed to pay it off over time like women do with birth control pills -- $35 a month or so.
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 03:18 pm
@ZarathustraReborn,
I'm a woman and I don't want to equate sperm with a baby so you can put down your broad brush.

I know a woman who wanted an abortion, the father didn't. She had the kid, he raises it and she pays child support. It happens all the time.

Men who don't want to impregnate women can have a vasectomy. It's a cheap and simple procedure.
ZarathustraReborn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 03:51 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
Men who don't want to impregnate women can have a vasectomy. It's a cheap and simple procedure.


That's not the universal solution. Some men may want kids some day, or not be able to afford that medical procedure. These "pay or go to jail" tactics are targeted at the poor. Half of fathers in jail claimed no income the previous two years, and the other half filed a median of under $3,000. So obviously these Draconian tactics are not being levied on the RICH. They are being put on the poor.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 04:11 pm
@ZarathustraReborn,
Freeze some sperm and have a vasectomy. I'm sure it's way cheaper than child support. If they're serious about not wanting to support a child they should take it seriously.

Weren't you the one talking about adoption? If they want kids in the future they can just adopt.

You guys make men sound like incompetent weaklings; poor, pitiful things trapped by scheming women.

I've already said they shouldn't be jailed.

I've known more than a few deadbeat dads that have pitched massive "MY CHILD" fits when served with papers terminating their parental rights.

I understand the state has to try to find ways to keep people off of public assistance and that often means tracking down wayward parents. Maybe once it's clear that the parent has no means to pay and wants no involvement that we should terminate their rights and free them from their obligation. Whatever the state would pay towards the child would be cheaper than jail so the kid wins. This would probably prevent a lot of those bullshit "MY CHILD" tantrums that hold up adoptions.

If there was an easy answer I'm sure we would have thought of it by now...
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 05:29 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
Asking the government to set up sterilization subsidies will never fly (talk about classism).


it should fly, the rationalization for ObamaCare making men pay for womens contraception choices was that men benefit, if we can do that there should be zero problem with health insurance paying for vasectomies. As you point out they are cheap now.

Quote:
From what I read, single moms on public assistance are lazy opportunists who can't keep their legs together and expect the government to bail them out. Lawmakers do everything they can to restrict their access to abortion then call them freeloaders when the child is born.
Did you ever look at the end of welfare as we know it from Clinton? It is only parents with kids who get help now mostly, and it is a lot easier for single women with kids to get it than single men with kids. Single men without kids pretty much get squat now.

Quote:
The major goal of the 1996 welfare reform law was to promote work as a way to help families provide economic benefits for their children. Now, a decade later, there is widespread agreement that welfare reform achieved several important successes—notably, increased work by mothers, which in turn led to rising income and falling child-poverty rates. By the late 1990s, poverty among black children, and among children residing with their single mothers, were both the lowest ever achieved. And Census Bureau data show clearly that the higher income that contributed to the reduction in poverty was achieved because mothers worked and increased their earnings.

However, because more than 80 percent of low-income, single-parent families, both those on and off welfare, are headed by mothers, the beneficial outcomes of the welfare law have accrued primarily to mothers and children. Meanwhile, the major favor the welfare law did for fathers was to pursue them ever more relentlessly for child-support payments. In fact, the law may have intensified the already substantial problems faced by poor fathers.

Many of the nation's most serious social problems are caused by poor young males. They are the demographic group most likely to drop out of school, commit crimes, perpetrate violence on others, including their girlfriends, and desert their children. A number of analysts, including Ron Mincy, have shown that these problems are especially serious among young black males, and that the causes for blacks form a tangled web that includes lingering effects of generations of slavery and racial oppression, high levels of school dropout, current discrimination in the job market, astounding rates of arrest and imprisonment, and, ironically, being reared in fatherless families.

The strands in this complex web of causality can be thought of in two categories: the ones over which young men have control and the ones over which they don't. If young men could be helped to overcome their inherent disadvantages, and follow a few simple rules of behavior, they could greatly improve their own well-being and that of the women and children who are closest to them. Here are the rules: Graduate from high school, don't commit a crime, get a job and work hard, get married, and have children.

Unfortunately, the evidence shows that young males, especially black males, are violating each of these injunctions in great numbers and, as a group, appear to be moving in the wrong direction on most of them. While these problems afflict all groups of young males, the frequency is highest among young blacks.

The secret of the success of the 1996 welfare law was that public policy employed both sticks and carrots to encourage, cajole, or force young mothers to make the right choices. If mothers did not prepare for work, look for jobs, and actually accept jobs, the law required states to greatly reduce or even eliminate their cash welfare benefit. Meanwhile, even prior to 1996, Congress and a series of presidents of both parties had created an innovative system of benefits that supported low-income working families outside welfare, thereby encouraging them to take low-wage jobs, because the combination of low-income and government work-support benefits left the families economically better off than they had been on welfare. It was the combination of low-wage work and government work supports, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), food stamps, child care subsidies, and Medicaid health insurance, that helped so many mothers pull themselves and their children out of poverty. The key ingredients of overhauling welfare were the judicious combination of sticks and carrots.

The public agenda for men includes sticks and, well, sticks. Men generally do not qualify for cash welfare, child care, or Medicaid, and they qualify for an EITC that is worth only a tenth as much as the mothers' EITC. The only major benefit for which they qualify is food stamps—to go along with continual pressure from child support and, for many, incarceration. Thus, the carrots are missing.

Ron Mincy thinks the nation should help these men by modifying child support, offering job training, especially through the Job Corps, and by providing them with public jobs. I agree that some modification of child support is necessary. The biggest problem is that these men's child-support debt accumulates during periods of unemployment, quickly piling up into a debt the young men could never repay.

Moreover, given the remarkable efficiency and reach of the child-support program, states will learn about almost any legal job these men might find and will notify their employer to automatically withhold wages to pay their child-support debt. It would not be unusual for these young men to, in effect, experience a 30 percent or 40 percent tax rate on their earnings just to pay child support—plus another 15 percent or more to pay state income tax and FICA taxes. Not even millionaires pay a 50-percent tax rate. Government policy, then, has the effect of creating a huge work disincentive for these struggling young men.

Rather than spending $20,000 or so on Job Corp training, or providing these men with a public job that will pay poor wages, be difficult to supervise, cost a minimum of $15,000 per job and end after a year or two, we should concentrate on increasing rather than decreasing the motivation of young men to work.

Two actions are required. First, child support officials must strike a deal with these young men that, if they accept employment and begin paying their current child support, their accumulated child-support debt will be suspended. And the suspension will continue as long as they stay current on their monthly payments.

Second, we should create a new tax credit, similar to the EITC, for single males who work at least 30 hours per week. Gordon Berlin of MDRC has recently proposed the details of such a credit in a forthcoming Brookings paper. The credit would be worth a maximum of $4,500 and would have features similar to the EITC: paying a maximum of 40 percent of wages up to about $11,000, phasing out at incomes above $14,000 or so, and reaching zero at income of about $35,000.

There are three major advantages to this policy. First, it would provide the very thing that most analysts agree is most needed—namely, work incentive. If poor males could find a job paying around $14,000 per year (about $6.75 per hour), they would actually have total income of $18,500 per year (about $ 8.90 per hour). From the perspective of a poor young man, the additional $ 4,500 per year is real money.

Second, to put it bluntly, the young man's prospects in the marriage market would receive a nice boost. In the long run, wives and children socialize young men, especially those who have been reared by a single mother without significant influence from schools and churches. Studies show clearly that married young males are healthier, happier, less likely to commit crimes and less likely to abuse drugs than single males. Thus, to the extent that additional income increases marriage rates, the new EITC would produce fringe benefits beyond mere economic outcomes.

Third, a mother earning $10,000 a year, with a $4,500 EITC, who marries a male earning $14,000 a year, with a $ 4,500 EITC, can together form a household with combined income of $ 33,000 per year. In effect, with their combined income of $33,000, they could put themselves on the edge of the middle class.

The major argument against this proposal is cost. A back-of-the-envelope guess indicates that the cost could easily exceed $20 billion per year. Given the terrible shape of the federal budget, the nation cannot afford a new program of this magnitude—unless it is offset by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. Here's an idea: Eliminate most farm subsidies and save more than $20 billion. I would be willing to submit the following question to voters: Would you rather spend your tax dollars to pay wealthy farmers not to grow crops (or subsidize the crops they already grow)? Or would you prefer to spend your tax dollars to provide cash supplements to the earnings of young families struggling to make a living in low-wage jobs?

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2006/08/19welfare-haskins
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 09:19 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
I know a woman who wanted an abortion, the father didn't. She had the kid, he raises it and she pays child support. It happens all the time.
No it doesnt !! The libbies would have a field day...my body my choice ! You can not legally make a woman go full term if she opts for an abortion early enough .
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2015 09:22 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
I'm sure it's way cheaper than child support. If they're serious about not wanting to support a child they should take it seriously.
All this because poor pitiful women cant be expected to control themselves or to be honest about when they are due . Women are randiest when they will get pregnant so this is clearly their responsibility .
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  3  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2015 11:36 am
I've been on both sides of the coin. I've represented parents (both mothers and fathers) seeking to enforce the other parent's child support obligations, and so I've asked that the other parent be found in contempt of court and jailed unless they pay. (You may be unsurprised to hear that the real threat of jail tends to motivate many people to pay their child support.) And as a private attorney I've represented parents who are behind in their child support payments, for various reasons, and my job was to keep them out of jail. And early in my career I was appointed by the Court to represent parents (usually fathers) who were behind in their child support, and looking at possible jail time. The State will provide you a free attorney if you are charged with a crime, or if you are charged with contempt of court for non-payment of support, so long as you are looking at possible jail time.

These folks don't go to jail because they didn't pay a debt. They do not go to jail because they are a bad parent. They go to jail because they contemptuously disobeyed a court order to pay child support. If they do not have the money to pay the full amount ordered (I mean, they really do not have the money, because they lost their job, or other valid reasons), then they should not be found in Contempt of Court. But if they have the financial ability to pay child support, in full or some other smaller amount of child support, but refuse to pay, they are basically thumbing their nose at the Judge's order to pay, and that's why they go to jail or work release.

Both parents have a duty and obligation to provide financial support for their children.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2020 at 02:20:46