sqg123 is offline sqg123 Post #201  November 5,2009, 7:22pm
sqg123's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 521

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
As a generalized answer, yes. (Jumping back in not having read the recent pages.)

I think financial obligation to children is strictly proportional to possession. If I have 100% possession, I have 100% of the obligation; if I have 0% possession, then I have 0% obligation. Anything other is unjust.

Also, I do not agree that housing is “child support.” Nor are expense elements which may have been affordable under a two-income family, but are no longer affordable under a one-income household, such as the luxurious recreational activities and consumer purchases cited in some posts – things I can not even afford for myself, as a single person, I should certainly not be obligated to pay to a non-resident child.

Women receiving “child support” ought not be permitted replacement male companionship without foregoing the funding. (Agreed, this is impractical to enforce.)

My basic set of ethics is that the standard of living which attaches to my work ethic belongs to me, and to no one else, for any reason.

***

I get that people have strong contrary opinions, and at the end of the day all I can do is avoid liability to these unjust laws by avoiding having children.
So following your logic it would be perfectly fine not support your children. As long as you don't live with them you have no responsibility to them.

Today, like many days I am grateful that my children's father is such a kind and decent man. My children were blessed by his support of them during the years they grew up. Which by the way was freely given as I never asked for or received a court order regarding child support.
Last edited by sqg123; November 5,2009 at 7:24pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
LizziePooh is offline LizziePooh Post #202  November 5,2009, 7:28pm

Unregistered

Joined: May 2008

SoCal

Posts: 7,705

See profile

D_Lion wrote :

Further, I state that a person should never have a government-mandated expense which causes extraordinary hardship, such as losing one's home or being deprived of his income.
Like healthcare? Or you mean like the state of California taking 10% more in taxes out of my paycheck beginning this month that they will payback (the government's idea of pay it forward). I did not know I offered to loan the state my money because they did such a poor job with my other money!

[/rant] [/rant]. lol!!

***

I find your statements that are like this one very curious, DL. It is the only time I see you inconsistent. People who even come close to you spending money on are out to get your money and a "subsidy" from you but you have no problem with the state subsidizing people, even though they do it with your money (and very inefficiently I might add, though one can argue that. But they can't argue that you do approve of "subsidy" sometimes.). I find it very intriguing because it does not compute in my mind how you can get to both.

(And totally off-topic, but very intriguing to me. lol!)
 
  Reply With Quote
Wonderwoman402 is offline Wonderwoman402 Post #203  November 5,2009, 7:32pm
Wonderwoman40…'s Avatar

L'Chayim!

Virtuoso

Joined: Jan 2009

Omaha, NE

Posts: 4,495

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
Fair personal value, but I think my ability to survive matters more. In any case, I don't think "thousands of dollars of tye-kwon-do lessons" warrants a man being homeless, as some posts appear to contend. Heck, that's more than most of my cars; more than the down payment on my house!
For the record, my ex-husband is far from homeless, and he bought a new car thanks to me accepting only 2/3 of what the state says he should be paying in child support.

Yeah, there are a lot of other things I could have spent $5,000 on, but right now I cannot think of anything else that would have brought her (and me, by extension) such happiness and satisfaction. When you have children, you set priorities based on what you think is best for the child and what you can afford. You also make sacrifices... not for any dollar payback, but because there is an intangible value in seeing your kid excel and grow.

Her TKD lessons were worth every penny. She earned that black belt, and for the rest of her life it is hers. Like I said... it is priceless.
Last edited by Wonderwoman402; November 5,2009 at 7:37pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
LizziePooh is offline LizziePooh Post #204  November 5,2009, 7:34pm

Unregistered

Joined: May 2008

SoCal

Posts: 7,705

See profile

I just don't think, DL realizes there is more to having/possessing a kid. He just does not get what "having" a kid really means.


And that is why you can argue all day long with him but 1) you won't get to an understanding - and btw, you can disagree and understand and 2) he should not be the voice of the differing opinion for this thread because he can't argue it well because he just does not get it and he just seems extreme. lol!

But I think the thing about the frog is...don't touch the money. You can give whatever you want, but he will only give what he deems necessary and what is just. He knows that about himself, so who am I to fault him? He knows enough that he should not have a kid. Seems sane to me. lol!
 
  Reply With Quote
mari3434 is offline mari3434 Post #205  November 5,2009, 7:46pm
mari3434's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 196

See profile

cardguy wrote :
Yes, and? The fact that it's more expensive for you and your partner to live apart doesn't free you from financial obligation to your children. Yes, both partners will have a lower standard of living apart than together....so? That's not unjust, just cause and effect.

And to further support cardguy's argument D-Lion, the premise that the non-custodial parent should not financially contribute towards the child (ren) upon separation because each household will have their separate expenses is flawed. This would simply support the argument that the parent who has primary residence with the children should receive child support. Indeed, not only does the primary parent have to pay for his/her own residence and other household items, but the children's as well. It would be unjust if the primary parent had to support the household and the children's daily expenses on his/her own - the non-custodial parent would invariably have the higher standard of living.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #206  November 5,2009, 7:52pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

jayjay wrote :
Ok....as sabete wrote, to me those are entirely different things. I'd expect a man to contribute toward the welfare of his children regardless....but if I found out a woman I'm getting to know is or was getting alimony I'd be pretty turned off unless there were some extenuating circumstances.
That is wierd to me because most divorces involving a man that earns more results in some financial settlement.Why would that bother you??For the most part, a wife will supply support of a husband allowing him to be more successful in his work. I mean if she did half of the housework, cooked some meals, & relieved his stress then she is part of building any positive life that either of them achieves. Both parties are involved in building a life together & both should share in those benefits. Sometimes people do get hosed in divorces. Alimony, in & of itself, is not a bad thing.Alimony & child support can both be abused by a parent though. That I can see as negative. Sometimes the children don't see that much of the money that was to be applied to them. In many cases, alimony is earned.I don't assume that a divorced woman got more than she deserved through a divorce settlement. I would look for signs that she was capable of greed or abuse of a system to try to figure that out though.
 
  Reply With Quote
mari3434 is offline mari3434 Post #207  November 5,2009, 8:16pm
mari3434's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 196

See profile

I have concluded that D-Lion just doesn't "GET IT." I am not even going to bother rebutting his logic anymore.
 
  Reply With Quote
nightling is offline nightling Post #208  November 5,2009, 8:18pm
nightling's Avatar

all I'll leave are smoke rings in the dark.

Power Poster

Joined: Sep 2009

Misery

Posts: 6,939

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
That is wierd to me because most divorces involving a man that earns more results in some financial settlement.Why would that bother you??For the most part, a wife will supply support of a husband allowing him to be more successful in his work. I mean if she did half of the housework, cooked some meals, & relieved his stress then she is part of building any positive life that either of them achieves. Both parties are involved in building a life together & both should share in those benefits. Sometimes people do get hosed in divorces. Alimony, in & of itself, is not a bad thing.Alimony & child support can both be abused by a parent though. That I can see as negative. Sometimes the children don't see that much of the money that was to be applied to them. In many cases, alimony is earned.I don't assume that a divorced woman got more than she deserved through a divorce settlement. I would look for signs that she was capable of greed or abuse of a system to try to figure that out though.
Permanent alimony these days is hardly ever granted or so I am told by a friend who is a divorce attorney. There are a few exceptions ... marriages that lasted decades where the woman was a homemaker and has no training are one of few exceptions. Most of the time these days alimony is temporary and geared toward expenses for education to prepare for a career.
 
  Reply With Quote
nightling is offline nightling Post #209  November 5,2009, 8:20pm
nightling's Avatar

all I'll leave are smoke rings in the dark.

Power Poster

Joined: Sep 2009

Misery

Posts: 6,939

See profile

A child has a right to be supported and loved by both parents, regardless of what roof they sleep under.
 
  Reply With Quote
alissag is offline alissag Post #210  November 5,2009, 8:33pm
alissag's Avatar

Life's not about weathering the storm but learning to dance in the rain!

Pacesetter

Joined: Oct 2009

RSM, CA

Posts: 241

See profile

nightling wrote :
Permanent alimony these days is hardly ever granted or so I am told by a friend who is a divorce attorney. There are a few exceptions ... marriages that lasted decades where the woman was a homemaker and has no training are one of few exceptions. Most of the time these days alimony is temporary and geared toward expenses for education to prepare for a career.
I do know that in California, if you are married longer than 10 years, a judge COULD order that the man pay spousal support for life, or until she remarries. 10 years is the benchmark (for some reason). If less than 10 years, spousal support would be for half the marriage (max is 4 years 5 months). I chose to decline spousal support, despite my +10 years of marriage.

Whatever! I'm done reading this thread, a bunch of people that LOVE to stereotype everyone.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« What talent do you WISH you had? | About You | Drama Queens and Crisis Kings »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Secure call is worthless to buy passat1 Using eHarmony 13 February 3,2011 11:24am
Shall I call, email, or not? funnyengineergal Dating 65 October 6,2009 7:56pm
To Call or Not to Call islandrain80 Dating 9 September 15,2009 1:38pm
Do I go on the date or trust my gut? Seriousminded 40 plus singles 18 September 5,2009 7:44pm
Wait for him to call or just call them? jeeknx 40 Something 7 August 13,2009 11:57am

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“Just a thought... After reading your post, here's what I picked up on: When I got home last night, I sent him a quick message saying thanks for meeting and how nice it was to meet him. I know he ... ” –  TheThinker

Join the “What now?” discussion

“Brokensmile, my heart goes out to you. I have to admit that when I read your other thread, I felt like things were moving in this direction. It's definitely a very unsatisfying place to be because ... ” –  boschimsp

Join the “The End Maybe Coming” discussion

“My condolences on the death of your mother. I can't imagine losing my mother at that young an age. It was hard enough at the age of 12, but at the very least I got to know her a bit. My memories now ... ” –  Simplicity-2012

Join the “Has anyone lost their mother at a young age? How did it change your life?...or did it?” discussion

“Thank you all so much! I appreciate the time you all took to read this story. AND YOU ARE ALL RIGHT!” –  LadyVee

Join the “Confusing Man (LONG STORY)” discussion

“ You said you didn't want anything too serious yet you made out with him. He is likely thinking you are ok with a FWB situation.” –  Simplicity-2012

Join the “Question on casual dating?” discussion

“Not so fast my little blue friend cause I'm winning!!” –  Simplicity-2012

Join the “Last Post Wins!” discussion

“I agree that it sounds like you might want to do a profile review as well as share a sample email that you might send to match. (If you choose to do the latter please just be careful to strip off ... ” –  boschimsp

Join the “Email advice” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:14am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0