Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Fugget about it!Follow

#127 Jan 23 2014 at 3:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 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!
*****
16,939 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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).
#130 Jan 23 2014 at 5:19 AM Rating: Excellent
**
589 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#132 Jan 23 2014 at 5:25 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#133 Jan 23 2014 at 5:32 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,939 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
******
30,084 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
***
1,065 posts
'Criticize how a law is done'?

I need a drink.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#136 Jan 23 2014 at 9:09 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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!
*****
16,939 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
******
30,084 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
******
29,245 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
******
49,907 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#144 Jan 24 2014 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.

#146 Jan 24 2014 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,939 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
******
35,010 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#149 Jan 24 2014 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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
#150 Jan 24 2014 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CST
someproteinguy, Anonymous Guests (56)