So Tired "debate"

[mistoffolees]

>Actually it is how the laws are currently written that creates
>ownwership of children.  Children are merely property and have
>vertually no rights under the current legal system.  This is
>yet another example of how the systems is flawed at it's very
>core.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In most cases, the courts are directed to keep the child(ren)'s interests in mind when making a decision. They courts are not perfect, of course, but all the laws I've seen say that the child's interest is a major (if not the overriding) factor.

For that matter, guardian ad litems are provided for the children in many cases. When was the last time you saw a guardian ad litem provided for a piece of property?

[olanna]

" Several people arguing that child support should be set at survival levels - no matter how much money the NCP can afford to pay"

Yep. And if there is any "extra" awarded it should be called what it really is...alimony. And the person receiving the benefit of that extra money "should" have to pay taxes on it.  Maintaining a lifestyle for a kid is a joke...what do kids want? Maintaining a lifestyle for an entitlement kink or queen is really what those large CS awards are all about.

[mistoffolees]

>" Several people arguing that child support should be set at
>survival levels - no matter how much money the NCP can afford
>to pay"
>
>Yep. And if there is any "extra" awarded it should be called
>what it really is...alimony. And the person receiving the
>benefit of that extra money "should" have to pay taxes on it.
>Maintaining a lifestyle for a kid is a joke...what do kids
>want? Maintaining a lifestyle for an entitlement kink or queen
>is really what those large CS awards are all about.

But it's obvious that having more money in the household is better for the child. It's also true that not everyone is as dishonest as you're claiming, but that's not the point.

I realize that it's hard for you to stand, but poverty level isn't much of a life for a kid. If the parents can afford more, then making the kids suffer just because you don't like to pay support or you're afraid you can't account for how every penny is spent is selfish.

You've just managed to provide an example of what I was saying. Apparently, saving a few bucks is more important to you than the well-being of the child - just as I said.

[olanna]

"You've just managed to provide an example of what I was saying."

And you provided an example of what I have been saying..you really don't have a clue. You know nothing about me or my situation, but in your posts you pretend to be in god mode.  You seem to be sure that every child is suffering if the NCP isn't paying huge sums of money in CS...and you pretend to know that every NCP that doesn't want to be the victim of a huge CS award is doing it to save a few bucks.

[mistoffolees]

>"You've just managed to provide an example of what I was
>saying."
>
>And you provided an example of what I have been saying..you
>really don't have a clue. You know nothing about me or my
>situation, but in your posts you pretend to be in god mode.

Actually, I know what you've posted. And you've posted that you don't mind if kids are left at poverty level even if NCP is extremely wealthy.

>You seem to be sure that every child is suffering if the NCP
>isn't paying huge sums of money in CS...and you pretend to

I never said any such thing.

>know that every NCP that doesn't want to be the victim of a
>huge CS award is doing it to save a few bucks.

I don't know about 'every NCP'. I do know what you're arguing - that as long as the kids are at poverty level, NCP shouldn't be forced to pay child support no matter how wealthy they are. Your position is clear - NCP's protecting his/her wealth is more important to you than the welfare of the kids.

THAT Is why you don't like the system. There's nothing wrong with the system at all - it's just that the judge thinks that a wealthy NCP should support their kids and you don't like that.

What a shame.

[olanna]

You have no clue as to why I don't like system. You think you do but you don't. And really? It has nothing to do with CS.

[mistoffolees]

>You have no clue as to why I don't like system. You think you
>do but you don't. And really? It has nothing to do with CS.

I can only go by what you've written. You've consistently stated that getting a child to poverty level is enough and any child support should not exceed poverty level.

So it's YOUR position I'm quoting. If that's not accurate, then you're the one responsible because you're posting something that doesn't represent your views.

[olanna]

I've consistently quoted that the system isn't working...and HIGH CS awards are unfair.

You are funny...I am responsible for your understanding (or misunderstanding) of my posts?  

Give me a break.

[mistoffolees]

>I've consistently quoted that the system isn't working...and
>HIGH CS awards are unfair.
>
>You are funny...I am responsible for your understanding (or
>misunderstanding) of my posts?  
>

I've simply quoted you - and you keep confirming that I'm right. In your view, NCP should only have to pay enough CS that child is at poverty level and anything more than that is unfair.

It's not a matter of misunderstanding anything - it's a matter of your continuing to prove that your selfishness takes precedence over the needs of the children.

[SPARC Admin]

>If you feel like discussing things rationally, feel free.

Thanks, but I don't need your permission. And if rational discussion is the topic, you aren't qualified to comment.


>Instead, I see you're back to your normal name calling to
>disguise your lack of an intelligent argument.

Still having trouble letting go, huh mist? It's amusing to see you get your knickers in a knot over things like this, when you won't (can't) answer any of the questions I asked you. lol