Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Fugget about it!Follow

#52 Jan 15 2014 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
Not speaking for all women, but I wouldn't want to be married to a man who neglected little things like paying taxes.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#53 Jan 15 2014 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,891 posts
Hell, my wife does our taxes. I can't handle that kind of shit.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#54 Jan 15 2014 at 9:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Leads one to conclude that the demographic is basically impotent men who are bad at paying taxes. Who are getting divorced.


Cause, meet effect.


Women hate men who are bad at paying taxes.


They tend to also be bad at paying alimony and child support, unfortunately.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#55Almalieque, Posted: Jan 16 2014 at 5:02 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I've heard a lot of horror stories (biased of course) in reference to paying child support and alimony. Those are two laws that definitely need to be changed. For starters, child support should be paid in reference to cost of living of a child, not a percentage of your paycheck or flat rate per child.
#56 Jan 16 2014 at 5:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,926 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The commercials are fascinating. My favorite is the dog vitamins where the testimonials are always "Them fancy science vet types gave me all sorts of terrible advice and done near killed my dog. Then I tried these here simple vitamins made by common folk and my dog is better than ever!" It's custom made for the conservative anti-science mindset.

No idea if it's market specific but all of the conservative talk commercial breaks here are basically:

Limp **** Owe taxes? Buy gold! Buy newsletter! Getting divorced? Going bald? On an endless loop. Leads one to conclude that the demographic is basically impotent men who are bad at paying taxes. Who are getting divorced.


Well, between Gbaji, Thief and Varus we've got each of those covered at least once.

I'd say they've got em pegged.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#57 Jan 16 2014 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
Almalieque wrote:
catwho wrote:


They tend to also be bad at paying alimony and child support, unfortunately.


I've heard a lot of horror stories (biased of course) in reference to paying child support and alimony. Those are two laws that definitely need to be changed. For starters, child support should be paid in reference to cost of living of a child, not a percentage of your paycheck or flat rate per child.


I've heard horror stories from the other end, of deadbeat dads who did everything in their power to avoid paying for children they wanted to have at first - until the kid was born disabled, or they traded their first wife for a younger, newer model, etc.

Here are gbaji's unemployment insurance moochers. They surf from job to job, state to state, until the lawyers catch up with them and start garnishing their wages for back child support, then they get themselves fired for incompetence so they can collect UI for a few months while they move elsewhere and find a new job again. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jan 16th 2014 8:08am by Catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#58 Jan 16 2014 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,638 posts
Almalieque wrote:
catwho wrote:


They tend to also be bad at paying alimony and child support, unfortunately.


I've heard a lot of horror stories (biased of course) in reference to paying child support and alimony. Those are two laws that definitely need to be changed. For starters, child support should be paid in reference to cost of living of a child, not a percentage of your paycheck or flat rate per child.


I always thought that percentages or flat rates were to keep from taking away all of someone's paycheck so they can afford housing and food.... It's **** expensive to raise a child.
#59 Jan 16 2014 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
That was my understanding as well - but I think it adds up once you start including multiple children.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#61 Jan 16 2014 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Only the little people pay taxes. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#63 Jan 16 2014 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
jimbrown45 wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Only the little people pay taxes. Smiley: disappointed


Because they have so much to tax.
Something like that. Maybe the better phrase would be "only the single people pay taxes." Pop out a couple of those and kiss any kind of meaningful tax burden goodbye for the next 20 years.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#64 Jan 16 2014 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
jimbrown45 wrote:
I'm still waiting for Democrats to explain to me how Obama can just simply disregard law. He forced a law on us and now he's going around exempting his buddies from the effects of it.

Regulatory power.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Jan 16 2014 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
Quote:
Democrats are notorious for cheating on their taxes when they're paying them at all.


Citation please.

Poor people generally don't owe money at tax time. They also tend to qualify for a free e-file. If you're making under $25K/year, you'll probably get some kind of refund. You also don't have the complex investments, mortgages, and dividends that require complex tax filing assistance. Generally, if you're broke enough to qualify for government assistance, you're broke enough to be using the 1040 EZ form through Turbo Tax Free edition. Try cheating on that thing. If anything, they're more likely to make a simple mistake, and the online SaaS tax software is pretty good about catching those mistakes.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#67 Jan 16 2014 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
If you're on welfare, you are by definition making less than $1000/month, and you probably aren't being taxed much on that.

They still have to file taxes, though, unless that amount is under $10,000/year.

And if they don't have to file taxes, then they can't cheat on them. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#69 Jan 16 2014 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,679 posts
jimbrown45 wrote:
Samira wrote:
Not speaking for all women, but I wouldn't want to be married to a man who neglected little things like paying taxes.


So you married a conservative republican? Democrats are notorious for cheating on their taxes when they're paying them at all.
Cite.

The only tax evader I know is gbaji.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#70 Jan 16 2014 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Elinda wrote:
jimbrown45 wrote:
Samira wrote:
Not speaking for all women, but I wouldn't want to be married to a man who neglected little things like paying taxes.


So you married a conservative republican? Democrats are notorious for cheating on their taxes when they're paying them at all.
Cite.

The only tax evader I know is gbaji.
It's the single male. Smiley: tinfoilhat

Out of idle curiosity I looked things up, and ran across some citations for elected Democrats having more tax scandals in recent years than elected Republicans. That's as close I could get. Maybe that's where it comes from?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#71 Jan 16 2014 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When Obama was filling his cabinet there were a couple people with some tax issues. On the other hand, whoever is in the Oval Office is likely filling slots from his party so you have a lot more Democrats under scrutiny than Republicans in that case.

I dunno... I always just paid my taxes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Jan 16 2014 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
jimbrown45 wrote:
Catwho wrote:
If you're on welfare, you are by definition making less than $1000/month, and you probably aren't being taxed much on that.

They still have to file taxes, though, unless that amount is under $10,000/year.

And if they don't have to file taxes, then they can't cheat on them. Smiley: rolleyes


I consider anyone receiving free federal housing and food stamps, and most people claiming disability, as being on welfare.


SSI is a different program than welfare.

So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?

She tried that once. Worked in a sponge factory for $2/hour. Minimum wage laws didn't apply since they classified themselves as some sort of jobs training. She quit, not because she was at risk of losing her SSI (not at $2/hour...) but because they were abusive and intolerant of doing anything except inspecting sponges, and would lock up any disabled laborer who started behaving funny for the rest of the shift. I'm pretty sure that "jobs training" factory got shut down not long after she left.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#73 Jan 16 2014 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?


Let's check the GOP platform....let's see....mentally ill, basically unemployable....here we go, yes, they have a plan. Shot behind the chemical shed, apparently.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#74 Jan 16 2014 at 12:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
I've heard a lot of horror stories (biased of course) in reference to paying child support and alimony. Those are two laws that definitely need to be changed. For starters, child support should be paid in reference to cost of living of a child, not a percentage of your paycheck or flat rate per child.

Nope, they are calibrated pretty well, really. People just don't like their actions having consequences. Makes no sense for someone with an income of $20M/yr to pay $500/mo in child support. It disadvantages the child, The "support" part has never been intended to mean "life support so the kid doesn't starve to death" it's always meant "support the lifestyle the child would have had if there had been no separation".

Are there calculating women tricking men into having children and paying for their lavish lifestyles? Probably. Enough that someone should change a law over it? Not ever vaguely close. Legislation never has to meet the "PERFECT OR NOTHING!!!!" standard. I don't give a fuck about anyones "My cousin's ex wife is a **** anecdotes, incidentally. I mean feel free, but expect ridicule and skepticism.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#75 Jan 16 2014 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?


Let's check the GOP platform....let's see....mentally ill, basically unemployable....here we go, yes, they have a plan. Shot behind the chemical shed, apparently.
All this needless twisting of the GOP position. You take the worst case scenario and pretend it's their answer to everything, use it to bash them and make them appear worse than they are.

If someone would take a closer look they'd realize that's only done under a very specific set of circumstances when the first exorcism fails, the person is an immediate to risk the health and safety of others, and they can't get a more experienced priest to attempt the ritual again before sundown.

Typical liberal propaganda. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#76 Jan 16 2014 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
******
30,638 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?


Let's check the GOP platform....let's see....mentally ill, basically unemployable....here we go, yes, they have a plan. Shot behind the chemical shed, apparently.
All this needless twisting of the GOP position. You take the worst case scenario and pretend it's their answer to everything, use it to bash them and make them appear worse than they are.

If someone would take a closer look they'd realize that's only done under a very specific set of circumstances when the first exorcism fails, the person is an immediate to risk the health and safety of others, and they can't get a more experienced priest to attempt the ritual again before sundown.

Typical liberal propaganda. Smiley: oyvey


And when you say "immediate risk to the health and safety of others" you include "needs government assistance to house, food, and clothe, correct?
#77 Jan 16 2014 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
She is literally taking away my money at the point of a gun.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#78 Jan 16 2014 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?


Let's check the GOP platform....let's see....mentally ill, basically unemployable....here we go, yes, they have a plan. Shot behind the chemical shed, apparently.
All this needless twisting of the GOP position. You take the worst case scenario and pretend it's their answer to everything, use it to bash them and make them appear worse than they are.

If someone would take a closer look they'd realize that's only done under a very specific set of circumstances when the first exorcism fails, the person is an immediate to risk the health and safety of others, and they can't get a more experienced priest to attempt the ritual again before sundown.

Typical liberal propaganda. Smiley: oyvey


And when you say "immediate risk to the health and safety of others" you include "needs government assistance to house, food, and clothe, correct?
More twisting, I don't see how this could be more simple, but since you only listen to the left-wing controlled media I'll humor you. Smiley: oyvey

No. The family is expected to provide a crucifix for the ceremony, a supply of holy water from an approved protestant denomination, and a proper set of restraints for the possessed. As long as they can ensure everyone's safety, they can get government assistance for the individual both in between attempts and while the victim recovers from their ordeal.

Edited, Jan 16th 2014 11:30am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#79 Jan 16 2014 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?


Let's check the GOP platform....let's see....mentally ill, basically unemployable....here we go, yes, they have a plan. Shot behind the chemical shed, apparently.



Or elected governor of a red state.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#80 Jan 16 2014 at 2:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Catwho wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?

You realize that there's Republicans out there advocating for actual ten year old girls to be out there working, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Jan 16 2014 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Catwho wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?

You realize that there's Republicans out there advocating for actual ten year old girls to be out there working, right?

They have to learn there is no free lunch somehow! Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#82 Jan 16 2014 at 11:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
catwho wrote:


They tend to also be bad at paying alimony and child support, unfortunately.


I've heard a lot of horror stories (biased of course) in reference to paying child support and alimony. Those are two laws that definitely need to be changed. For starters, child support should be paid in reference to cost of living of a child, not a percentage of your paycheck or flat rate per child.


I always thought that percentages or flat rates were to keep from taking away all of someone's paycheck so they can afford housing and food.... It's @#%^ing expensive to raise a child.


That's a good point, but there's a cut off where the percentage of your income far surpasses the expenses in raising a child. In any case, the goal shouldn't be to help the parent to save money, but to insure that the child is properly taken care of.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#83 Jan 20 2014 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,638 posts
Almalieque wrote:
That's a good point, but there's a cut off where the percentage of your income far surpasses the expenses in raising a child. In any case, the goal shouldn't be to help the parent to save money, but to insure that the child is properly taken care of.


Of course, but if the parent in question can't afford their rent/mortgage because of child support costs, that doesn't help the child at all. It's actually supposed to calculate, based on your income, about how much you would be spending on support for the child if you both lived in the same household. That's assuming that the child would be "properly taken care of," but that's not necessarily the case if both parents have **** jobs.
#84 Jan 20 2014 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
Oh, looks like the sockpuppet finally got banned. I'm replying to myself in a few places. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#85 Jan 20 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's a good point, but there's a cut off where the percentage of your income far surpasses the expenses in raising a child. In any case, the goal shouldn't be to help the parent to save money, but to insure that the child is properly taken care of.


Of course, but if the parent in question can't afford their rent/mortgage because of child support costs, that doesn't help the child at all. It's actually supposed to calculate, based on your income, about how much you would be spending on support for the child if you both lived in the same household. That's assuming that the child would be "properly taken care of," but that's not necessarily the case if both parents have sh*tty jobs.


I understand when both of the parents do not have a lot of money, but when the parent does have enough money to support the child, it should be based on the child, not the income. Unless both parents have low income, then the parent who cant afford to care for the child shouldn't have custody of the child. Granted, that should be on a case by case scenario. The fallacy is "The amount of money that you would spend on a child monthly increases as you earn more money".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#86 Jan 20 2014 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
The fallacy is "The amount of money that you would spend on a child monthly increases as you earn more money".

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're a man who hasn't had to pay for horseback riding lessons. The idea is to minimize negative impact on the child. Going from private tutors in Bel Aire to public school in Long Beach has a negative impact. It's not a fallacy, at all. Yet again, that point isn't to provide for a child adequately in an objective sense. It's to provide the same lifestyle or as close to it as possible as the child would have had without the marriage dissolving.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#87 Jan 21 2014 at 5:17 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're a man who hasn't had to pay for horseback riding lessons.

No, because that's not something I would ever spend money on.

The idea is to minimize negative impact on the child. Going from private tutors in Bel Aire to public school in Long Beach has a negative impact.

The standard education of a child is more akin to a public school in Long Beach than a private tutor in Bel Aire. If the concern is minimizing negative impact on the child, then the parents should remain a happy couple. Seems unrealistic? Exactly, divorce is part of life, just like going to public schools. I view the role of the government to ensure the fundamentals of life, not the luxuries.

It's not a fallacy, at all.
You never addressed the point. Just because I make 200k a year, doesn't mean that I would pay more for my child than I would making 50k a year. Forcing me to pay more, just because I make more assumes that I would spend more monthly as my income increases. That is the fallacy.

Yet again, that point isn't to provide for a child adequately in an objective sense. It's to provide the same lifestyle or as close to it as possible as the child would have had without the marriage dissolving.

And yet again, the point of the government is to provide the necessities, not the luxuries. That is why unemployment benefits is merely a hundred dollars a week and not the same or close to your previous pay. What if a parent gets a much lower income job or just decides not to spend excessive money on horseback riding lessons? Is there a government mandate to ensure that your child keeps their gig fiber connection when you disconnect it when you can afford it? As long as you aren't depriving your child the necessities (e.g. food, shelter, clothes, sleep, etc.), the government shouldn't be involved.

Edited, Jan 21st 2014 1:18pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#88 Jan 21 2014 at 5:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,735 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Yet again, that point isn't to provide for a child adequately in an objective sense. It's to provide the same lifestyle or as close to it as possible as the child would have had without the marriage dissolving.

And yet again, the point of the government is to provide the necessities, not the luxuries. That is why unemployment benefits is merely a hundred dollars a week and not the same or close to your previous pay. What if a parent gets a much lower income job or just decides not to spend excessive money on horseback riding lessons? Is there a government mandate to ensure that your child keeps their gig fiber connection when you disconnect it when you can afford it? As long as you aren't depriving your child the necessities (e.g. food, shelter, clothes, sleep, etc.), the government shouldn't be involved.


Child Support is not Government welfare, so why compare the two?

Edited, Jan 21st 2014 6:46am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#89 Jan 21 2014 at 6:23 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Tirith wrote:

Child Support is not Government welfare, so why compare the two?
Because they both feed into the overall concept of the government ensuring the necessities for the common citizens. Whether or not it's a FASFA loan, welfare, unemployment benefits, child support, alimony, minimum wages, USDA restrictions, etc. these are all laws created and maintained to ensure that citizens have access to the most basic needs in life. If you desire more and better, then it's up to you to get it.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#90 Jan 21 2014 at 6:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,679 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Tirith wrote:

Child Support is not Government welfare, so why compare the two?
Because they both feed into the overall concept of the government ensuring the necessities for the common citizens. Whether or not it's a FASFA loan, welfare, unemployment benefits, child support, alimony, minimum wages, USDA restrictions, etc. these are all laws created and maintained to ensure that citizens have access to the most basic needs in life. If you desire more and better, then it's up to you to get it.


Child support isn't anything like the tax-payer funded, government dispersed safety net programs you listed above. The government only gets involved in child support because of legal contractual obligation.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#91 Jan 21 2014 at 7:31 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Elinda wrote:


Child support isn't anything like the tax-payer funded, government dispersed safety net programs you listed above. The government only gets involved in child support because of legal contractual obligation.


If it's a law, then the government is involved. Just because it's not at the federal level, doesn't mean it isn't a government mandate. Once again, I'm not saying that the items in the list are synonymous, but they support the aforesaid concept. No one has yet even attempted to counter the argument, only to argue that I'm comparing apples to oranges when my argument is about fruit.

P.S. There's a reason why I mentioned USDA regulations and minimum wages. Do you consider those "tax-payer funded safety net programs"?

Edited, Jan 21st 2014 3:34pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#92 Jan 21 2014 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
The reason they are arguing that is because you made it the center of your argument. The Reason you are against the situation is because government is not responsible for luxuries, but just the fundamentals. The problem with this situation is that the government is not providing anything in this situation. You are trying to equate two situations that are in no way analogous. There may be points you could argue around not having as high child support, but the governments role in providing the essentials of life is not one of them.

Edited, Jan 21st 2014 7:41am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#93 Jan 21 2014 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
Decent human beings wouldn't need the government to enforce payments for childcare. Unfortunately, the country is full of deadbeat dads, so it became an either/or proposition: Either force the fathers (or mothers in rare cases) to provide money to raise their children, or else make the burden fall on the taxpayers.

The government only got involved to save themselves money in the process.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#94 Jan 21 2014 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,679 posts
Almalieque wrote:

P.S. There's a reason why I mentioned USDA regulations and minimum wages. Do you consider those "tax-payer funded safety net programs"?

Yes.

The government enforces court decided child support. It's not a government welfare program.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#95 Jan 21 2014 at 7:52 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Catwho wrote:
Decent human beings wouldn't need the government to enforce payments for childcare. Unfortunately, the country is full of deadbeat dads, so it became an either/or proposition: Either force the fathers (or mothers in rare cases) to provide money to raise their children, or else make the burden fall on the taxpayers.

The government only got involved to save themselves money in the process.


I'm not against the law in concept. My proposition is to transition from a flat rate/percentage of income to the average cost of living when the payer reaches a certain level of income. I would much rather save money for my child's first car or for college tuition than give a monthly stipend 3 times of what is necessary to survive, especially if the mom is just spending it on herself.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#96 Jan 21 2014 at 7:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Elinda wrote:
Yes.


Explain how USDA regulations are the same as welfare.

Elinda wrote:

The government enforces court decided child support. It's not a government welfare program.

I'm not saying that the items in the list are synonymous, but they support the aforesaid concept. No one has yet even attempted to counter the argument, only to argue that I'm comparing apples to oranges when my argument is about fruit.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#97 Jan 21 2014 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,458 posts
Catwho wrote:
Decent human beings wouldn't need the government to enforce payments for childcare.
Once they're forced to pay then they're pillars of the community, deserving of sainthood. And we pretend it was voluntary after all.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#98 Jan 21 2014 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
Because they both feed into the overall concept of the government ensuring the necessities for the common citizens.

No. That's not what child support is, *at all*. Child support results from a tort against the child. It derives from common law, which is why you occasionally have weird anachronisms (forcing married men to pay support for children that result from wife's cheating, etc). What child support *is not* is some sort of child welfare provision. It's the paying of damages, plain and simple. The statutory complexity arises from the fact that the court is essentially forced to act in loco parentis because of the obvious conflict on the part of the actual guardian of the child. Again, let me emphasize that the *child is receiving compensation for damages* the child *is not* receiving some sort of general welfare payment. Codified guidelines as to income percentages and the like are all ad hoc and state by state. Society seems to have decided that juries deciding damages in these cases is inappropriate so they're rendered via statue or the bench. That in no way makes them distinct from a normal tort where you run over my foot and I sue you. Enforcement is statutorily singled out occasionally as well because we've decided as a society that children are a unique class and require unique laws. Again, this is arbitrary. We could decide on statutory special enforcement of any damage payment. Malpractice, for example, could have special "deadbeat doc" laws, but this isn't something we've decided to value that way as a society.

Edited, Jan 21st 2014 9:09am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#99 Jan 21 2014 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Because they both feed into the overall concept of the government ensuring the necessities for the common citizens. Whether or not it's a FASFA loan, welfare, unemployment benefits, child support, alimony, minimum wages, USDA restrictions, etc.

Alimony and child support don't belong in that list. They're not welfare but more akin to a civil tort or someone having to pay damages to another party for wronging them. Not exactly that, of course, but much closer to it than they are to government funded welfare-style programs.

Edit: I see Smash said about the same, only wordier.

Edited, Jan 21st 2014 8:37am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Jan 21 2014 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts
I see Smash said about the same, only wordier.

I don't have the starry eyed Midwestern optimism of a person who assumes "a civil tort" will be well understood by this audience and not lead to thoughts of delicious cake.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#101 Jan 21 2014 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
******
43,458 posts
Well, now it's going in that direction. I could go for a slice of cheesecake now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Belkira, ElneClare, Anonymous Guests (30)