Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Fugget about it!Follow

#102 Jan 21 2014 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
Cake?!

I'll take a middle piece plz.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#103 Jan 21 2014 at 4:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Smash wrote:
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.


Whether or not what you said is valid is irrelevant to my point that child support should not be that way. You may disagree with my proposition, but defining the current system anyway other than addressing my proposal doesn't counter my argument. In any case, the damage is the lack of a parental figure, not money. You can't fix that with money. Furthermore, the fallacy still stands under your theory, that the "damages" are more when I make more money. How are the damages more for a person who makes 200k a year as opposed to a person who makes 50k a year without an assumption?

I know each state varies on their laws, but from my understanding, even if the man were to move to another state and get a better paying job, then the child support would increase along with his pay. That completely contradicts your claim of paying what the child would have been getting because he more than likely wouldn't have moved if he didn't get a divorce in the first place. It's very possible that his life was enhanced after the divorce.

Jophiel wrote:
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.


I never said that they were welfare. That's something that you all created. Again, my example is a basket of fruit where I mention apples and oranges. You all keep saying "apples are not oranges", when my point is about fruit. In this case, the "fruit", is the government ensuring the most basic needs. Whether or not that is through local laws (apples) or welfare (oranges) is irrelevant.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#104 Jan 21 2014 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,225 posts
There may (or may not) be the lack of a parental figure. Lots of divorced couples work out custody arrangements that allow them both to be parents to their kids. Is it ideal? I dunno; is anything?

There is almost certainly going to be a fall-off in terms of income, though, when parents split. Two households cost more to run. That's going to affect everyone's bottom line, including the kid who may not be able to afford college since his parents divorced.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#105 Jan 21 2014 at 5:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Samira wrote:
There may (or may not) be the lack of a parental figure. Lots of divorced couples work out custody arrangements that allow them both to be parents to their kids. Is it ideal? I dunno; is anything?

There is almost certainly going to be a fall-off in terms of income, though, when parents split. Two households cost more to run. That's going to affect everyone's bottom line, including the kid who may not be able to afford college since his parents divorced.


I didn't mean that there weren't any parental figure at all, but the damage is now Jimmy is separated from one of them at least most of the time and is seen as the mediator of the once "happy" family. That's the real damage.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#106 Jan 21 2014 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I never said that they were welfare. That's something that you all created. Again, my example is a basket of fruit where I mention apples and oranges. You all keep saying "apples are not oranges", when my point is about fruit. In this case, the "fruit", is the government ensuring the most basic needs.

Right. In that case, alimony and child support are screwdrivers. They're not about government ensuring most basic needs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Jan 21 2014 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,856 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I never said that they were welfare. That's something that you all created. Again, my example is a basket of fruit where I mention apples and oranges. You all keep saying "apples are not oranges", when my point is about fruit. In this case, the "fruit", is the government ensuring the most basic needs.

Right. In that case, alimony and child support are screwdrivers. They're not about government ensuring most basic needs.

Wait... the drink or the tool?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#108 Jan 21 2014 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,332 posts

Whether or not what you said is valid is irrelevant to my point that child support should not be that way. You may disagree with my proposition, but defining the current system anyway other than addressing my proposal doesn't counter my argument. In any case, the damage is the lack of a parental figure, not money. You can't fix that with money. Furthermore, the fallacy still stands under your theory, that the "damages" are more when I make more money. How are the damages more for a person who makes 200k a year as opposed to a person who makes 50k a year without an assumption?


Because the damages are that lack of income due to the absense of the person. What's the fucking confusing part? If I steal a Honda Civic or a Maybach, I've stolen "a car", but the Maybach owner has suffered more damages. If I hit Lebron James in the knee with a sledge hammer, the Heat suffer more damage than if I hit Rashard Lewis in the knee. Not complicated. Does the alternative of "daddy wanted you to know that it's time to sell your horse and toys and move with mom to the middle class apartment building. Why? Because daddy needs another car, princess. You know how it is" somehow more equitable? Why the fuck, if so? Lot's of things "shouldn't be that way" We shouldn't have to have laws against rape and murder, people just shouldn't, **** happens, though.
____________________________
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 *****. 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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#109 Jan 21 2014 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Is LeBron still a thing? I thought after the spectacular failure of the superteam we were allowed to not care. This is why I don't follow sports. Well, this and how boring they truly are.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#110 Jan 21 2014 at 9:45 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Right. In that case, alimony and child support are screwdrivers. They're not about government ensuring most basic needs.


You haven't explained why they are somehow excluded from the overall concept of protecting the people, or in this case, providing the most basic needs to a child. The reason why you haven't is because you can't. The local and federal government create laws and programs to protect children. To argue against that is ludicrous. Whether or not if it's a law or a program is irrelevant, the end state is the same.

smash wrote:
Because the damages are that lack of income due to the absense of the person. What's the ******* confusing part? If I steal a Honda Civic or a Maybach, I've stolen "a car", but the Maybach owner has suffered more damages. If I hit Lebron James in the knee with a sledge hammer, the Heat suffer more damage than if I hit Rashard Lewis in the knee. Not complicated. Does the alternative of "daddy wanted you to know that it's time to sell your horse and toys and move with mom to the middle class apartment building. Why? Because daddy needs another car, princess. You know how it is" somehow more equitable? Why the ****, if so? Lot's of things "shouldn't be that way" We shouldn't have to have laws against rape and murder, people just shouldn't, sh*t happens, though.


I'm asking the same question. You have yet addressed the fallacy. In your examples, the things damaged have an "objective" price tag. How do you calculate the price tag of the child? I'm arguing that the cost should be equivalent to the actual "damage" done, not the maximum potential amount of "damage".

To use your example. If you damaged my Honda Civic, then you should be charged for the damages to my Honda Civic. You shouldn't be charged damages to a Maybach just because I make enough money to own one. That's the fallacy that is made when you force a person who makes 200k a year to pay more than a person who makes 75k a year. You are assuming that the money spent on the former child is more than the latter child. That guy making 200k a year could be addicted to drinking and gambling and the inability to manage money is the cause for the divorce.

If the average cost of living of an 11 year old is $300, then that's the "damage" owed. If that price tag exceeds a certain percentage on where the parent is unable to survive, then adjustments should be made. Else, why should you have to pay your "Honda Civic" child "Maybach" money just because you can? That money can be better saved for the child later in life.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#111 Jan 21 2014 at 10:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You haven't explained why they are somehow excluded from the overall concept of protecting the people, or in this case, providing the most basic needs to a child.

Sure I did. Because it's a different area of the law and the point of child support isn't to "provide the most basic needs" but rather to address the damages caused to the guardian parent when they are left to raise the child without the second party. Not my fault if you can't get that. You can keep arguing about it if you want but the fact that child support cases are handled as they are sort of speaks for itself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 Jan 22 2014 at 3:08 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You haven't explained why they are somehow excluded from the overall concept of protecting the people, or in this case, providing the most basic needs to a child.

Sure I did. Because it's a different area of the law and the point of child support isn't to "provide the most basic needs" but rather to address the damages caused to the guardian parent when they are left to raise the child without the second party. Not my fault if you can't get that. You can keep arguing about it if you want but the fact that child support cases are handled as they are sort of speaks for itself.


You haven't explained how the "damages" are not the "basic needs" and how the real damage isn't the separation itself.

To further prove my point..... let's assume that I moved in with you and your wife, a mutual friend. I don't work or pay bills, but am a graduate student. You and your wife decide to not only pay my tuition, but to fund all of my needs. Several months later, you two divorce and you move away. What damages have you done to me? What do you owe me? According to your logic, you "damaged" me and now you owe me money.

Of course that's absolutely absurd, those laws are created to ensure that men (for the most part) aren't impregnating a bunch of women without taking the responsibility of raising their child. Think about the men who currently don't pay child support, now imagine if it weren't the law. To pretend that child support is for anything else other than supporting the child (hence the name) is absurd. Else, you would owe me money in my example.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#113 Jan 22 2014 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,363 posts
If you're a graduate student you're probably not a minor. 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
#114 Jan 22 2014 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Unless you're Neil Patrick Harris.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#115 Jan 22 2014 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You haven't explained how the "damages" are not the "basic needs"

That's asking me to prove a negative. Why don't you find me examples from some child support statutes defining it as limited to covering basic needs. For example, the Illinois law makes a clear reference to "the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved" as a factor in determining the payment amount. That obviously goes beyond "basic needs".

Quote:
Several months later, you two divorce and you move away. What damages have you done to me?

None. But then child support is paid the the guardian parent anyway and not the child. So the real question would be what damage has my ex-wife incurred. And in this case it would be none because neither of us has any legal responsibility towards you therefore neither of us can be damaged in that respect.

Quote:
Of course that's absolutely absurd

Correct. Your understanding of the law is absurd.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#116 Jan 22 2014 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
I'm feeling quite damaged by this.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#117 Jan 22 2014 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,905 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm feeling quite damaged by this.

Ur fragile.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#118 Jan 22 2014 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The fallacy is "The amount of money that you would spend on a child monthly increases as you earn more money".


Um... Smash is correct though. It's not a fallacy. Parents normally spend more on their children based directly on how much they earn. The child of the father earning $200k/year who is the primary breadwinner will live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood, attend a nice school, and participate in a host of expensive activities (like horseback riding, some kind of sport, trips to Europe, etc). If the parents get divorced and the mother (who lets assume is the stereotypical stay at home mom who sacrificed her career to raise the kids and thus has little to no earning potential) is granted custody, and the courts only require the father to pay some minimal amount of money sufficient to provide them with a roof over their heads in the ghetto, that's going to massively negatively impact the child.

Child support should be based on earnings because it's supposed to replace the support the child would have if it was in the custody of that parent. It's not about the government providing anything, but the government simply requiring that the parent(s) provide that support.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Jan 22 2014 at 6:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
catwho wrote:
If you're a graduate student you're probably not a minor. Smiley: oyvey


That's the point. I'm arguing that these "damages" aren't "you broke my windshield and you have to replace it" but "you have a legal obligation to financially support this child, being divorced doesn't remove that responsibility". If it were the former, then it wouldn't matter if I were a minor, related or not, you would still owe me money for "damages".

Jophiel wrote:
That's asking me to prove a negative.

Asking to prove a negative doesn't automatically mean impossible or difficult. You are merely creating a cop-out from answering the question. Me asking you to prove that God doesn't exist isn't the same as asking you to prove that you are not a woman. Both are proving a negative, but one is much easier to do. In this case, proving that these damages aren't in reference to basic needs which can be done by proving that the damages are 100% something else.

Jophiel wrote:
Why don't you find me examples from some child support statutes defining it as limited to covering basic needs. For example, the Illinois law makes a clear reference to "the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved" as a factor in determining the payment amount. That obviously goes beyond "basic needs".


1. I didn't say "limited" to basic needs or my example of unemployment benefits would be a complete contradiction. You can't live off the unemployment benefits. The concept in which you fail to grasp is that the government's role is to ensure that the most basic needs are met. The states are authorized to add more to the law, not take away. It's not illegal to prevent your children from having videogames, televisions, cars, cellphones or anything else that would make childhood enjoyable, but it is against the law to prevent your children from having an education, food, water and shelter. So obviously the laws support "basic needs". If it isn't against the law to not provide or even remove the former things from a child during a marriage, then why is it law to mandate keeping them after a divorce? You are only proving my point that it clearly goes beyond "basic needs" when current laws only mandate basic needs.

2. My overall complaint is that you can't accurately determine the standard of living of the child purely based off the income of the parents without making assumptions. Just because I make 200k a year, doesn't mean I have private tutors and horse riding lessons for my child. I may spend roughly the same amount of money on my child as my neighbor who only makes 120k a year, so why should I pay significantly more? We may live in the same valued house, drive the same type of car, etc.
If the standard of life of the child is $300 a month, then why am I obligated to pay more?

Jophiel wrote:
None. But then child support is paid the the guardian parent anyway and not the child. So the real question would be what damage has my ex-wife incurred. And in this case it would be none because neither of us has any legal responsibility towards you therefore neither of us can be damaged in that respect.

Whether or not if the damages are paid to the guardian is irrelevant because the "damages" only exist because of the child. Under your logic, damages would still occur and you would owe your wife additional money because I was there. However, you are correct in contradicting your previously flawed logic and saying that you wouldn't owe anything because you don't have any LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY towards me. If this were a simple "damage" case, it wouldn't matter if you had legal responsibility over me. The legal responsibility is a huge factor in this because the point of child support is actually supporting the child. You have a legal responsibility to support the child and you leaving with no support would be damaging to the spouse and the child. It's really not that hard to grasp.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#120 Jan 22 2014 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The fallacy is "The amount of money that you would spend on a child monthly increases as you earn more money".


Um... Smash is correct though. It's not a fallacy. Parents normally spend more on their children based directly on how much they earn. The child of the father earning $200k/year who is the primary breadwinner will live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood, attend a nice school, and participate in a host of expensive activities (like horseback riding, some kind of sport, trips to Europe, etc). If the parents get divorced and the mother (who lets assume is the stereotypical stay at home mom who sacrificed her career to raise the kids and thus has little to no earning potential) is granted custody, and the courts only require the father to pay some minimal amount of money sufficient to provide them with a roof over their heads in the ghetto, that's going to massively negatively impact the child.

Child support should be based on earnings because it's supposed to replace the support the child would have if it was in the custody of that parent. It's not about the government providing anything, but the government simply requiring that the parent(s) provide that support.


Your first statement says that it's not a fallacy, then you follow it up with a bunch of assumptions. Way to prove my point. You don't know any of that stuff without actually examining each family, only assume. maybe you don't know what "fallacy" means?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#121 Jan 22 2014 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
2. My overall complaint is that you can't accurately determine the standard of living of the child purely based off the income of the parents without making assumptions

That would be the purpose of the legal hearing.

Honestly, there isn't even any reason to keep going around in circles where you say "But your logic...!" because the current legal precedent already supports my logic. You have a flawed understanding of the purpose and legalities of child support, it's as simple as that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Jan 22 2014 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,332 posts

I'm asking the same question. You have yet addressed the fallacy. In your examples, the things damaged have an "objective" price tag. How do you calculate the price tag of the child? I'm arguing that the cost should be equivalent to the actual "damage" done, not the maximum potential amount of "damage".

To use your example. If you damaged my Honda Civic, then you should be charged for the damages to my Honda Civic. You shouldn't be charged damages to a Maybach just because I make enough money to own one. That's the fallacy that is made when you force a person who makes 200k a year to pay more than a person who makes 75k a year. You are assuming that the money spent on the former child is more than the latter child. That guy making 200k a year could be addicted to drinking and gambling and the inability to manage money is the cause for the divorce.

If the average cost of living of an 11 year old is $300, then that's the "damage" owed. If that price tag exceeds a certain percentage on where the parent is unable to survive, then adjustments should be made. Else, why should you have to pay your "Honda Civic" child "Maybach" money just because you can? That money can be better saved for the child later in life.


Yeah, no. We'll agree to disagree, and you'll still be wrong.
____________________________
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 *****. 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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#123 Jan 22 2014 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The fallacy is "The amount of money that you would spend on a child monthly increases as you earn more money".


Um... Smash is correct though. It's not a fallacy.


Your first statement says that it's not a fallacy, then you follow it up with a bunch of assumptions. Way to prove my point. You don't know any of that stuff without actually examining each family, only assume. maybe you don't know what "fallacy" means?


First off, we'll ignore that you're incorrectly using the word "fallacy" to mean "false". For the record, a fallacy is a logical argument that does not follow the "rules" of actual logic. So saying that my dog is male, therefore all dogs are males, is a fallacy. But saying "more dogs are male than female" is not, nor can it ever be a "fallacy". It may be false, if it's actually untrue (like say if we count up all the dogs in the world and discover that there are not actually more males than females), but it's a statement of fact, not a logical progression. Therefore, it can't be a fallacy.

But, assuming you actually meant "false", we can move on from there and say that since this is just about a fact being true or not, then we can apply things like our own experiences and observations as a means of at least getting a starting point with regards to the truth of the matter. Now, while the fact that every single custodial parent I've ever known in my life has spent money on their children as a direct function of their own earnings does not prove that this is always true, it does strongly suggest that it's more common than the alternative. And the fact that every single person other than you who has commented in this thread about this has expressed a similar observation, it suggests that this phenomenon is not just something I'm making up.


We can, at the very least, say that this is strong evidence that people tend to spend more on their children if they make more money. Right? I mean, in addition it just plain making more sense for this to be true, that is. Do you actually think that most people *don't* spend more money on their children if they earn more?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Jan 22 2014 at 9:50 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,332 posts
But saying "more dogs are male than female" is not, nor can it ever be a "fallacy"

I have 9 dogs, 7 are male, therefore more dogs are male than female.

You're not good at this "logic" thing.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2014 10:51pm 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 *****. 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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#125 Jan 22 2014 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,856 posts
gbaji wrote:
Do you actually think that most people *don't* spend more money on their children if they earn more?


I think I found out what the issue is. *Insert racist joke about father figures in the African American community*
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#126 Jan 23 2014 at 1:36 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That would be the purpose of the legal hearing.

Honestly, there isn't even any reason to keep going around in circles where you say "But your logic...!" because the current legal precedent already supports my logic. You have a flawed understanding of the purpose and legalities of child support, it's as simple as that.
You saying that doesn't make it true. Given the fact that every state calculates child support differently not only contradicts your claim but supports the notion of ridiculing how certain states calculate child support. There is nothing wrong with Texans criticizing how Floridians calculate child support. Just because it's the law doesn't remove ridicule. Furthermore, you act as if there are no laws that are absurd or need changing. So, I guess we live in a world where laws are only added, because every law created is constitutional, sane and unbiased.Smiley: rolleyes You are literally arguing "because it's law, it makes sense". I guess you really don't support SSM in the states that don't support it...

This man was sentenced to 6 months in jail partially for OVERPAYING in child support. So, you can pretend that just because that's how it's currently done, then it somehow makes sense, but that's not actually true. Even under your flawed understanding, it wouldn't make sense to find someone in contempt for overpaying in child support.


Gbaji wrote:
First off, we'll ignore that you're incorrectly using the word "fallacy" to mean "false". For the record, a fallacy is a logical argument that does not follow the "rules" of actual logic. So saying that my dog is male, therefore all dogs are males, is a fallacy. But saying "more dogs are male than female" is not, nor can it ever be a "fallacy". It may be false, if it's actually untrue (like say if we count up all the dogs in the world and discover that there are not actually more males than females), but it's a statement of fact, not a logical progression. Therefore, it can't be a fallacy.

But, assuming you actually meant "false", we can move on from there and say that since this is just about a fact being true or not, then we can apply things like our own experiences and observations as a means of at least getting a starting point with regards to the truth of the matter. Now, while the fact that every single custodial parent I've ever known in my life has spent money on their children as a direct function of their own earnings does not prove that this is always true, it does strongly suggest that it's more common than the alternative. And the fact that every single person other than you who has commented in this thread about this has expressed a similar observation, it suggests that this phenomenon is not just something I'm making up.

We can, at the very least, say that this is strong evidence that people tend to spend more on their children if they make more money. Right? I mean, in addition it just plain making more sense for this to be true, that is. Do you actually think that most people *don't* spend more money on their children if they earn more?
Holy crap dude... Are you new? If I EVER question anyone EVER on the definition of ANY word EVER, then rest assured that I looked it up first. With that being said, no, I did not mean simply "false", but "misleading and deceptive logic". The problem isn't that "rich people spend more money on their kids than poor kids". The problem is assuming the amount of money the rich people spend on their kids. So the fallacy is, since rich people spend more money on their kids than poor people, than the differential amount spent on kids will be equal to the difference in the parental income.

If I get a 10% raise, that doesn't mean that I will distribute that raise equally in all of my spending. I might save it all, invest that 10% or use it to pay debt. It doesn't mean that I will increase the amount of money directly spent on my children. I'm not going to start buying my children Jordans and high priced name brand clothes just because I have the money to do so.

Then again, you have already proven your inability to manage money in the waitress/tipping thread, so I guess it's to be expected.Smiley: lol




Edited, Jan 23rd 2014 9:38am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#127 Jan 23 2014 at 3:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
You're not good at this "logic" thing.
Water is wet.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#128 Jan 23 2014 at 5:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,856 posts
Almalieque wrote:
This man was sentenced to 6 months in jail partially for OVERPAYING in child support. So, you can pretend that just because that's how it's currently done, then it somehow makes sense, but that's not actually true. Even under your flawed understanding, it wouldn't make sense to find someone in contempt for overpaying in child support.


Actually, he was apparently jailed for underpaying (and eventually paying it off), violating visitation schedules, and what appears to be contempt of court (something about walking out in the middle of the trial). He never actually "overpaid" he was just paying what he owed.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#129 Jan 23 2014 at 5:11 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Yeah, no. We'll agree to disagree, and you'll still be wrong.
Smiley: disappointed

You claimed that a person should pay the appropriate amount of damages for what was damaged, e.g, a Honda Civic. Well, you aren't doing that if you are basing the child support off of a percentage of income as opposed to the actual amount of money to support the child (even to include horse riding lessons).
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#130 Jan 23 2014 at 5:19 AM Rating: Excellent
**
580 posts
When gbaji, smash, Jophiel are all in almost perfect agreement your argument is wrong.
____________________________
.
#131 Jan 23 2014 at 5:21 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
This man was sentenced to 6 months in jail partially for OVERPAYING in child support. So, you can pretend that just because that's how it's currently done, then it somehow makes sense, but that's not actually true. Even under your flawed understanding, it wouldn't make sense to find someone in contempt for overpaying in child support.


Actually, he was apparently jailed for underpaying (and eventually paying it off), violating visitation schedules, and what appears to be contempt of court (something about walking out in the middle of the trial). He never actually "overpaid" he was just paying what he owed.


I've seen both sides of the story.. In any case, the point is, each state does it differently and what is legal in one state doesn't mean it's legal in another state. So it's perfectly legit to criticize how a law is done.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#132 Jan 23 2014 at 5:25 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
When gbaji, smash, Jophiel are all in almost perfect agreement your argument is wrong.


They might think it's wrong, but have yet proven anything.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#133 Jan 23 2014 at 5:32 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,856 posts
Almalieque wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
This man was sentenced to 6 months in jail partially for OVERPAYING in child support. So, you can pretend that just because that's how it's currently done, then it somehow makes sense, but that's not actually true. Even under your flawed understanding, it wouldn't make sense to find someone in contempt for overpaying in child support.


Actually, he was apparently jailed for underpaying (and eventually paying it off), violating visitation schedules, and what appears to be contempt of court (something about walking out in the middle of the trial). He never actually "overpaid" he was just paying what he owed.


I've seen both sides of the story.. In any case, the point is, each state does it differently and what is legal in one state doesn't mean it's legal in another state. So it's perfectly legit to criticize how a law is done.


Well, that's pretty much what is stated in the video that even the article your link shows.

"Hall quickly paid almost three grand in back child support. When Hall and his ex-wife appeared in Judge Lisa Millard's court last November he owed nothing. But the attorney representing the child's mother wanted Hall to pay her three Grand in attorney fees and Judge Millard agreed. Court documents also revealed Hall wasn't following the Court's scheduled times to pick up his Son."

"Judge Lisa Millard says Hall walked out of court after he was found in Contempt, which she says is a big 'No, No.' ".

So it looks to me like there is a TON more to the story that just "Guy overpaid child support out of the goodness of his hart and went to jail for it!!!", even from the source that the article was based on. And the title is a flat out lie. Since he didn't overpay, he paid back child support.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2014 6:33am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#134 Jan 23 2014 at 6:12 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,332 posts
I've seen both sides of the story.. In any case, the point is, each state does it differently and what is legal in one state doesn't mean it's legal in another state. So it's perfectly legit to criticize how a law is done.

You need to learn to let **** go, ace. When you find yourself arguing federalism, it's a good bet you're on the wrong side.
____________________________
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 *****. 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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#135 Jan 23 2014 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
'Criticize how a law is done'?

I need a drink.
#136 Jan 23 2014 at 9:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Tirith wrote:
Well, that's pretty much what is stated in the video that even the article your link shows.

"Hall quickly paid almost three grand in back child support. When Hall and his ex-wife appeared in Judge Lisa Millard's court last November he owed nothing. But the attorney representing the child's mother wanted Hall to pay her three Grand in attorney fees and Judge Millard agreed. Court documents also revealed Hall wasn't following the Court's scheduled times to pick up his Son."

"Judge Lisa Millard says Hall walked out of court after he was found in Contempt, which she says is a big 'No, No.' ".

So it looks to me like there is a TON more to the story that just "Guy overpaid child support out of the goodness of his hart and went to jail for it!!!", even from the source that the article was based on. And the title is a flat out lie. Since he didn't overpay, he paid back child support.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2014 6:33am by TirithRR


I read that at first on a different article; however, when I read it again, I guess I overlooked that. The part that I didn't want to bring up because it may be false or irrelevant is that the rules changed without his knowledge. Error aside, the point is that states have varying rules that might appear silly in other states.

smash wrote:

You need to learn to let sh*t go, ace. When you find yourself arguing federalism, it's a good bet you're on the wrong side.

Smiley: lol Like you? You realized that child support isn't "you hit my car and now you owe me" type of damages and are trying to project your embarrassment onto me. You and I both know that if I took you to court for $345.76 worth a damages to my car, not only would I have to prove that worth, the judge will not mandate you to pay a penny more (excluding lawyer and court fees). The judge isn't going to look at your salary to determine the amount of damage, leaving you to argue the actual worth of the damage.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#137 Jan 23 2014 at 9:19 PM Rating: Excellent
It's amazing to me that you think that's an apt analogy.
____________________________
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
#138 Jan 24 2014 at 5:46 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,856 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You realized that child support isn't "you hit my car and now you owe me" type of damages and are trying to project your embarrassment onto me. You and I both know that if I took you to court for $345.76 worth a damages to my car, not only would I have to prove that worth, the judge will not mandate you to pay a penny more (excluding lawyer and court fees). The judge isn't going to look at your salary to determine the amount of damage, leaving you to argue the actual worth of the damage.


How much it costs to repair any given vehicle is not proportional to how much you earn, so of course that won't be a factor in how much you have (or your insurance has) to pay. But how much you spend on a child is. You might come up with some hypothetical situation where a person earns a few hundred thousand USD a year and doesn't spend more on their kid than a person earning 40 thousand, but that is hardly the rule.

Edited, Jan 24th 2014 6:46am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#139 Jan 24 2014 at 6:20 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,332 posts
Like you? You realized that child support isn't "you hit my car and now you owe me" type of damages and are trying to project your embarrassment onto me.

No, it's exactly like that, precisely, and has been in common law since about 1520.

The judge isn't going to look at your salary to determine the amount of damage, leaving you to argue the actual worth of the damage.

Actually they do, all the time. Damages are frequently predicated on ability to pay, hence the common legal expression "you can't get blood from a stone".

Look I'm sorry you had some sort of broken personal epiphany and decided that centuries of jurisprudence are "wrong" somehow. They aren't. Given the two options of either: You misunderstanding how the law works, OR: Everyone else in the world, including people who have dedicated their lives to the study of family law have been perpetually wrong forever...you continue to choose the second one? Why? What do you possibly gain?

No one here is going to say "gee your ideas have merit and are thoughtful and insightful" when they are actually the worthless drivel you've been spewing in this thread. Wrong forum for that. They aren't interesting ideas. They're akin to "the Earth is pear shaped, right so" then 100 posts of people explaining that the Earth isn't pear shaped. That's all this discussion has been. People explaining to you, as if you were a small child, how you are wrong, and you missing the point.

You should move on. I am moving on.

Let us go then, you and I, with the rest of the forum for us to spy, like a patient etherized upon a table.
It's time for all the works and days of hands that lifted and dropped these questions on our plates to be done.

To the other threads we will go, and talk of Gubernatorial braggadocio.

Or you can stay here, I don't really give a fuck.
____________________________
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 *****. 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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#140 Jan 24 2014 at 6:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,225 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
It's amazing to me that you think that's an apt analogy.


I fervently wish I could say the same.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#141 Jan 24 2014 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Samira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
It's amazing to me that you think that's an apt analogy.
I fervently wish I could say the same.
There's a zen like calm in being desensitized.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#142 Jan 24 2014 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Yesterday was a weird day.
____________________________
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
#143 Jan 24 2014 at 3:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Tirithh wrote:

How much it costs to repair any given vehicle is not proportional to how much you earn, so of course that won't be a factor in how much you have (or your insurance has) to pay. But how much you spend on a child is. You might come up with some hypothetical situation where a person earns a few hundred thousand USD a year and doesn't spend more on their kid than a person earning 40 thousand, but that is hardly the rule.

Almalieque previously wrote:
The problem isn't that "rich people spend more money on their kids than poor kids". The problem is assuming the amount of money the rich people spend on their kids. So the fallacy is, since rich people spend more money on their kids than poor people, than the differential amount spent on kids will be equal to the difference in the parental income.


Smash wrote:
No, it's exactly like that, precisely, and has been in common law since about 1520. Actually they do, all the time. Damages are frequently predicated on ability to pay, hence the common legal expression "you can't get blood from a stone".

There's a difference between the inability to pay a damage vs simply not paying the damage. I've acknowledged this from the beginning. The fact that you're now addressing this only confirms your inaccuracy.
Almalieque previously wrote:
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.

Smash wrote:
Look I'm sorry you had some sort of broken personal epiphany and decided that centuries of jurisprudence are "wrong" somehow. They aren't. Given the two options of either: You misunderstanding how the law works, OR: Everyone else in the world, including people who have dedicated their lives to the study of family law have been perpetually wrong forever...you continue to choose the second one? Why? What do you possibly gain?

Almalieque previously wrote:
You saying that doesn't make it true. Given the fact that every state calculates child support differently not only contradicts your claim but supports the notion of ridiculing how certain states calculate child support. There is nothing wrong with Texans criticizing how Floridians calculate child support. Just because it's the law doesn't remove ridicule. Furthermore, you act as if there are no laws that are absurd or need changing. So, I guess we live in a world where laws are only added, because every law created is constitutional, sane and unbiased.Smiley: rolleyes You are literally arguing "because it's law, it makes sense". I guess you really don't support SSM in the states that don't support it...

Smash wrote:
No one here is going to say "gee your ideas have merit and are thoughtful and insightful" when they are actually the worthless drivel you've been spewing in this thread. Wrong forum for that. They aren't interesting ideas. They're akin to "the Earth is pear shaped, right so" then 100 posts of people explaining that the Earth isn't pear shaped. That's all this discussion has been. People explaining to you, as if you were a small child, how you are wrong, and you missing the point.

You should move on. I am moving on.

Let us go then, you and I, with the rest of the forum for us to spy, like a patient etherized upon a table.
It's time for all the works and days of hands that lifted and dropped these questions on our plates to be done.

To the other threads we will go, and talk of Gubernatorial braggadocio.

Or you can stay here, I don't really give a ****.


Smiley: lol Drivel? Your last counter was not only something that I agreed to from the beginning, but it does not in any way counter the point that I'm making. You obviously have no point and have just concluded to what you always do when you're trapped in the corner....result in insults. Paying for child support is not the same as paying for a scratched car. You can pretend that I'm the only one who doesn't believe that, but you would be in denial.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#144 Jan 24 2014 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The fallacy is "The amount of money that you would spend on a child monthly increases as you earn more money".


Almalieque wrote:
The problem isn't that "rich people spend more money on their kids than poor kids".


And yet, that's exactly what you said was the "fallacy".

Quote:
The problem is assuming the amount of money the rich people spend on their kids. So the fallacy is, since rich people spend more money on their kids than poor people, than the differential amount spent on kids will be equal to the difference in the parental income.


Yeah, no. That's not what you said earlier. If you had said that originally, fewer people would have disagreed with you.

Quote:
If I get a 10% raise, that doesn't mean that I will distribute that raise equally in all of my spending.


Yup. I get that. Everyone gets that. But that's not what you said earlier. You said that if you get a 10% raise (or any amount of increased earnings) then 0% of that extra money will go towards providing more for your kids. No one said there is a direct 1 to 1 ratio of increased earnings to increased spending on raising a child. However money spent raising a child will tend to go up as earnings increase.


Quote:
Then again, you have already proven your inability to manage money in the waitress/tipping thread, so I guess it's to be expected.Smiley: lol



The one where you insisted that a $5 tip was always sufficient money to pay a waitress regardless of the size of the bill? Interesting. I sense a trend with you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 Jan 24 2014 at 5:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Gbaji wrote:

And yet, that's exactly what you said was the "fallacy".
.....
Yeah, no. That's not what you said earlier. If you had said that originally, fewer people would have disagreed with you.



That's what you interpreted. That's what happens when you assume the stupidest interpretation as opposed to something that makes more sense. All I did was clarify something that you obviously misunderstood. Now reread all of my comments in context and see if a light bulb goes off. My point has always been that you can't assume the amount of money that I would spend on my child based off of my income.

Gbaji wrote:
Yup. I get that. Everyone gets that. But that's not what you said earlier. You said that if you get a 10% raise (or any amount of increased earnings) then 0% of that extra money will go towards providing more for your kids.

Quote me saying that.

Gbaji wrote:
The one where you insisted that a $5 tip was always sufficient money to pay a waitress regardless of the size of the bill? Interesting. I sense a trend with you.

No, where I argued that the tip should based on service and not the price of your bill. A waiter who keeps my drinks filled, got my order right and was overall friendly with me while bringing me 20 $1 Tacos through out a sports game deserves a bigger tip than a waiter who left me out to dry and only brought me a $30 steak.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#146 Jan 24 2014 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,856 posts
I tip a much higher percent on a 7 dollar breakfast at IHOP, because a 1 dollar tip makes me feel like I'm insulting the lady that just spent 40 minutes bringing me my food and refilling my drinks. And I'm not sure if the waitress who brought me that 28 dollar entree with a couple 9 dollar appetizers at the seafood place down the road really worked that much harder than the IHOP waitress...

Edited, Jan 24th 2014 7:59pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#147 Jan 24 2014 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Almalieque wrote:
That's what you interpreted. That's what happens when you assume the stupidest interpretation as opposed to something that makes more sense. All I did was clarify something that you obviously misunderstood. Now reread all of my comments in context and see if a light bulb goes off. My point has always been that you can't assume the amount of money that I would spend on my child based off of my income.


No. Your argument has consistently been that you think that courts should require a set amount of child support regardless of the earnings of the parent. If you had actually argued that we can't assume how much money a parent would have otherwise spent on the child and thus can't assess a proper child support payment, then we all would have responded by pointing out that judges have managed to do precisely this for quite a long time now, so maybe telling them now that it's impossible is somewhat pointless.

But that's not what you actually argued, so it kinda doesn't matter.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Yup. I get that. Everyone gets that. But that's not what you said earlier. You said that if you get a 10% raise (or any amount of increased earnings) then 0% of that extra money will go towards providing more for your kids.

Quote me saying that.


Ok. I already did:

Almalieque wrote:
The fallacy is "The amount of money that you would spend on a child monthly increases as you earn more money".


If that statement is false, as you claim, then the same statement with a "not" applied, is true: "The amount of money you would spend on a child monthly will *not* increase as you earn more money". Recall that this is a binary question. Either the amount of money you spend on your child increases if your salary increases, or it does not.

If the amount of money you spend on your child will not increase if your income increases, then if you get a 10% raise, you wont spend more money on your child. Get it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#148 Jan 24 2014 at 7:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I tip a much higher percent on a 7 dollar breakfast at IHOP, because a 1 dollar tip makes me feel like I'm insulting the lady that just spent 40 minutes bringing me my food and refilling my drinks. And I'm not sure if the waitress who brought me that 28 dollar entree with a couple 9 dollar appetizers at the seafood place down the road really worked that much harder than the IHOP waitress...

Edited, Jan 24th 2014 7:59pm by TirithRR


That's kind of my point. Don't get me wrong, the price of the bill is a major factor, but it's not a constant for everyone in every scenario. I tend to round to a solid number while taking in the amount of work accomplished.

Gbaji was arguing that average person (should) always weigh the tip the same way in every situation. I was arguing that in some cases, I might do the recommended tip, in other scenarios I might not. In any case, I'm not going to ever NOT buy something that I want and within my budget because of a tip, which is what he argued.

In other words, if my budget was $30 and the meal that I want cost ~$28-$29, I'm not going to forgo my meal in order to get my tip (and tax for that reason) in all under $30. If that extra couple of dollars makes that much of a difference, then you probably shouldn't be ordering $29 meals. Furthermore, you can also take that extra money back from somewhere else in your overall budget. Maybe buy a smaller cup of coffee for a week, etc.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#149 Jan 24 2014 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No. Your argument has consistently been that you think that courts should require a set amount of child support regardless of the earnings of the parent.
The series of quotes of me below say otherwise. You assumed the stupidest interpretation and argued against it, now you refuse to admit that you misunderstood.
Almalieque wrote:
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.

Almalieque wrote:
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.

Gbaji wrote:
If that statement is false, as you claim, then the same statement with a "not" applied, is true: "The amount of money you would spend on a child monthly will *not* increase as you earn more money". Recall that this is a binary question. Either the amount of money you spend on your child increases if your salary increases, or it does not.

If the amount of money you spend on your child will not increase if your income increases, then if you get a 10% raise, you wont spend more money on your child. Get it?

Read above. Everything that I've said has been consistent. The fallacy is the assumption that you would spend more. I didn't say that no one ever does. My quote below support that notion.

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.

That quote supports the notion that there's a point where the parent has reached their desired financial limit to support their child. As a result, any further raises in income will not change the amount of money that s/he will spend on their child. Therefore, you can't assume that the amount of money that a parent spends on a child monthly will increase as s/he earn more money. In other words, you can't assume how I distribute my 10% increase of a raise. Just because I got divorced making 200k a year, doesn't mean I was making 200k a 3 years ago.

Once again, you made an incredibly stupid inference and now you're trying to spin it on me as if I were arguing it.



Edited, Jan 25th 2014 4:14am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#150 Jan 24 2014 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,607 posts
Um... Ok. But that's more about you tilting at strawmills or something.

Can we agree that the courts should award child support based on the "standard of living to which he/she is accustomed"? Because that's the standard that is typically used. No one automatically assumes a given ratio of expense relative to income. It's always been based on providing an equivalent home, education, etc relative to what the child would have had if the marriage had not been dissolved.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#151 Jan 24 2014 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,974 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Um... Ok. But that's more about you tilting at strawmills or something.

Can we agree that the courts should award child support based on the "standard of living to which he/she is accustomed"? Because that's the standard that is typically used. No one automatically assumes a given ratio of expense relative to income. It's always been based on providing an equivalent home, education, etc relative to what the child would have had if the marriage had not been dissolved.


For me, that would depend on the situation. I can see the argument for that if "what the child is accustomed to" is similar to the cost of living of the area. If the wife was the one who wanted the daughter to have horseback riding lessons, I don't think the father should be forced to continue paying for the lessons. However, if the daughter had a horseback riding scholarship and the lessons were crucial for her advancement, then I would reconsider it.

The point being that I could spoil my children everyday for 10 years, giving them whatever they wanted. I can then wake up one day and donate everything to charity and live life without the luxuries and that would not only be legal, but applauded by many. So, it doesn't make sense for the court to force your children to have luxuries during a divorce, but not during a marriage.

The focus should be on the child. The amount should start off with "cost of living" and then go up/down from there.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 34 All times are in CDT
CoalHeart, gbaji, Kakar, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (30)