Messages

What's your point?

No one ever denied that the states get incentive payments to collect child support. How does that prove that it's all about the money? Especially considering that the states collect, on average, $4.83 FOR THE CHILDREN for every dollar spent.

>What a piece of work Sunshine!

Is that supposed to be a reasoned, intelligent response?

Actually, there's very little information there that enlightens anything. It reads as a sensationalist story.

For example take one of the more volatile statements: "there are millions of dollars in child support that have been collected but not distributed to the children it was intended for". Sounds like an important statistic on the surface. But let's dig a little deeper:

- How many millions?
- How much is the total child support collected in this country (hint: it's BILLIONS, not millions). So what is the percentage that doesn't get where it's going?
- WHY did that child support not get to the designated place? Was a parent in hiding so that they could not be located? Was it an admin messup what was later resolved? Did someone steal the money?

There's nothing in there which addresses the fundamental issues:

- Are children in general benefiting from Child support?
- What percentage of children are not getting the benefit of child support?
- What percentage of the collected child support is actually spent for the child's benefit?
- And so on.

THOSE are the questions that matter - and none of them is addressed. Instead, this article provides more of the same fear-mongering that is so common and that I'm resisting in this board. Example? The repeat the story of someone who was handcuffed in front of his co-workers. That's a tragic story, no doubt. But unless they can show that it happens a significant amount of time, it's no more than a personal tragedy. They make absolutely no effort to show how common these tragedies are - and without that effort, it's nothing more than a fear-mongering exercise.

Add to that the regular statements with no backup "we believe the amount of undistributed child support is too high" or "we believe the $4.38 collected per dollar spent is incorrect" statements. They could be right. But until they provide SOMETHING to support their statements that the government figures are wrong, it's nothing more than whining.  If they have a real plan backed by real evidence, I'd be as happy as anyone to see it implemented. I do NOT, however, favor plans based purely on emotion coming from people who even admit in their paper that they don't understand financial issues ("We would like to see a financial expert "crunch" the numbers.")

This doesn't apply solely to this issue, btw. It applies to everything. People need to learn to think critically and look for evidence rather than accepting every emotional appeal thrown at them.

Accepting statements like "this figure is too high" without even wondering how they arrived at that conclusion doesn't do anyone any good.

>Ref, I agree with you. I'm an old timer here too. This place
>never made me feel that I didn't belong here as a mother. I've
>seen the "pissing matches" too, and they sting.
>
>However, Misto's post has a point, and it's a great one.

Thank you.

Boo, hoo, hoo.

I guess I missed the memo where you were put in control of who was allowed to post and not to post.

I am entitled to an opinion and am willing to express it - whether you like it or not. If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

In this particular case, I am distressed by the growing radicalism of this group - where a large number of posters are trying to create the message that the entire system is worthless and everyone is going to be harmed by it. Heck, one poster regularly posts advice that the court system has no jurisdiction and can be safely ignored. A newbie seeing that message is going to to make disastrous mistakes. If no one else is willing to speak out against that horrible advice, then I will.

Why don't you read the threads involved. Someone starts out by saying that there's no justice and no one can get a fair shake. I provide evidence that the majority of divorces actually go smoothly and do not end up as endless court battles - and provide evidence. The other people then launch into an endless series of attacks against me, accusing me of lying or being here on false pretenses, and then simply continuing to restate their unproven assertions that it's impossible to get justice.

If you're happy with newbies getting that kind of advice - which is likely to harm them greatly - then feel free. Personally, I prefer for people to see the entire system as it is. Not perfect, but you have to work with it. To me, far better advice is how to work with the system to get the best results you can get rather than spending countless hours whining about how there's no justice for NCPs.

Oh, and btw, it's interesting that you're accusing me of personal attacks and being 'condescending' yet you start an entire thread which is nothing but a personal attack. Do you own any mirrors?

>This board has 4000 members...you do the math. If 4000 people

Only a tiny percentage of whom post regularly.

But let's do it your way - there are 4000 members. Of those, 23 voted that the system doesn't work.

See how silly you look when you refuse to use statistics.

>have had trouble with the system, you can bet that number is
>less than 1% of the total population having troubles with the
>current system.

That may be. So let's say that there are 400,000 people having problems. That's still a pretty small percentage of the tens of millions of divorced people.

The fact is that you're simply making numbers up. I'm the only one who's provided any facts.

>
>I think you are the confused one.  

Because I use carefully researched studies and show how erroneous your 'logic' is?

> And why did you come here
>again?  To perpetuate the entitlement mindset?

Seems to me that you're the one perpetuating a mindset that you can't justify.

But, yes, I do think that kids are entitled to be supported by both parents. I'm terribly sorry that offends you.

>
>You are failing.  Why not go to a board that likes to hang
>NCP's for non maintaining a lifestyle for the sake of the
>children. I am sure there are plenty of fems out there that
>would LOVE your POV...

IOW, you're no longer even pretending to be rational.

>I did. I polled and you saw the results.  

You polled a board of people who are specifically here because they are having problems using biased questions - and got less than a dozen responses. Out of tens of millions of divorced couples. Do the math.

>Why do you think
>this board was formed anyway? Cuz everything is working so
>well?

Presumably so the small numbers of people having problems have somewhere to get help.

If that's the best evidence you have that the system doesn't work at all, you're even more confused than I thought.

>because you obviously haven't.
>

Of course I have - and I already commented on it.

That study doesn't say anything about what's fair. It doesn't say anything about what percentage of CSE orders are being paid.

The only data in the study of any relevance is the claim that 20% of obligors have no income - which is close enough to confirm my study which says that 11% of obligors have no income - and which effectively proves my point that lack of income is not a very common reason for support not being paid.

>"No one has refuted my evidence or even provided evidence to
>back their claim that the entire system needs to be
>discarded."
>
>That is a bold faced lie!
>
>I have provided you with state statutes which is more
>authoritative than your so called study.  These statutes
>clearly show that the law does nothing to ensure that children
>will be supported.  The law merely requires a redistribution
>of wealth.  

How do state statutes show that the system is not working? How do they show that children are not benefiting? How do they show that anyone pays more than they should?

State statues do nothing of the kind. You haven't provided any evidence that the current system is unfair.

>
>All your study shows is that 89% of the time that
>redistribution of wealth is paid.  Your study does nothing to
>prove that the system works to ensure that children will be
>supported.

My data shows that children are getting the court ordered support at least 89% of the time. Now, where's your evidence to support the allegation that the system fails 90% of the time?

>
>I have a question for you, what do you think the systems was
>set up to accomplish?

It was set up to support children. Just how do you do that without distributing money from the NCP to the CP?

The fact that 89% of the time, the court ordered amount of money IS being distributed properly is evidence that the system is working. That money is available to support kids in the CP home.

Granted, there's no guarantee that the money will be used on kids, but since you're the one claiming that the system is broken, you'd have to show evidence that it's not used to support kids. But I can guarantee one thing - if NO money is transferred from the NCP to the CP, then that absolutely guarantees that the support money won't be used to support the kids.


>
>
>I have also suggested a better system which you have yet to
>comment on.  

Where? The only system I've seen suggested is the idea that there should be no enforcement. Sorry, but that's a stupid idea. If there's no enforcement, the amount of money available to the kids will decline - either a lot or a little. There's absolutely no way it can increase.

>Accurate 4 year old data.....cripes.

That's the latest that's available.

When are you going to provide ANY data to back up your position?