4 ms·

Not sexist, but you're wrong. Child support should represent the minimum acceptable contribution of the non-custodial parent (father, in the vast majority of c

Not sexist, but you're wrong. Child support should represent the minimum acceptable contribution of the non-custodial parent (father, in the vast majority of cases) to the child's welfare. Should he contribute a lot more, in cash, gifts, and college support? Absolutely. I would. However, the government shouldn't require him to do so, and the spending should be at his discretion. Right now, that freedom is completely taken away. The custodial parent should not be getting a huge check and the freedom to spend the money however she wants. If I end up having a kid with a wife who divorces me to live it up with an illiterate biker, those CS payments damn better be going to the kid's college, not her beau's lottery-ticket budget. It's a bizarre inconsistency. Parents can stay married and financially neglect their children. They can make $300k combined per year and still refuse to pay for their kids' college. Yet, if they divorce, the one parent who rarely sees the kids (usually father) is forced not to pay up merely to the minimum level of decency, but far beyond that if he's "rich" like the article's author.

mynameishere 17y ago
The actual expense of raising children involves the time spent and associated opportunity cost.
- krschultz 17y ago
  Which often the father wants to give but the court grants custody to the mother. And then he is forced to pay alimony as well. Note that if you have a child out of wedlock the same things do not apply. Moral hazard anyone?
  - sachinag 17y ago
    Wait, what? Of course you pay child support if you fathered the kid, regardless if you married the mother or not. It's the whole point of Maury Povich "You Are Not The Father" episodes.
    - jibiki 17y ago
      > Of course you pay child support if you fathered the kid But not alimony?
      - krschultz 17y ago
        Right, which are two different things
- anamax 17y ago
  Yes there are time and opportunity costs paid by the custodial parent. However, a custodial parent also gets significant benefits that the non-custodial parent doesn't get. (Otherwise, why fight for custody?) Surely it's fair to take those into account as well.
jibiki 17y ago
The counterargument says that a marriage is basically an agreement where the woman agrees to lend her womb to a man in exchange for him supporting her and her children. That's way too sexist for me (if that's what marriage is, then we should change it,) but I'm still not convinced that a man should be allowed to leave and only provide half the minimum support for his children. It seems like the woman is seriously getting screwed in that situation: she has to raise the kids on her own AND find > 1/2 the money to support them. Nobody gets married with that understanding, and nobody wants to.
- Notorious_PWN 17y ago
  Nobody gets married with that understanding, and nobody wants to. If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him.
  - jibiki 17y ago
    > If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him. The law frequently provides protection for people who enter certain contracts, even when they ought to know better. For instance, if I loan money to someone who then goes bankrupt, I am entitled to some of their property. Even if it was a really stupid loan. In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...)
    - Notorious_PWN 17y ago
      In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...) I agree with you. I think men and women are, innately, about equal in terms of stupidity and bad intentions. They diverge for cultural reasons. Men (in general) are rewarded more for individual accomplishments but also are punished more severely for misbehavior, and both of these discrepancies are morally wrong. What this leads to is a country in which the women, on average, are more spoiled and less ambitious than the men. Most men have a spell when they get burned by their bad tastes in women-- before their tastes mature, they go after the popular bubbly/slutty chicks everyone else wants, and most of them get their asses handed to them. Thing is, for men, these sorts of spoiled/immature/stupid traits get burned out of them when they're young, because they grow up knowing that they have no one to blame but themselves. That doesn't happen as much for women.

mynameishere 17y ago

The actual expense of raising children involves the time spent and associated opportunity cost.

krschultz 17y ago
Which often the father wants to give but the court grants custody to the mother. And then he is forced to pay alimony as well. Note that if you have a child out of wedlock the same things do not apply. Moral hazard anyone?
- sachinag 17y ago
  Wait, what? Of course you pay child support if you fathered the kid, regardless if you married the mother or not. It's the whole point of Maury Povich "You Are Not The Father" episodes.
  - jibiki 17y ago
    > Of course you pay child support if you fathered the kid But not alimony?
    - krschultz 17y ago
      Right, which are two different things
anamax 17y ago
Yes there are time and opportunity costs paid by the custodial parent. However, a custodial parent also gets significant benefits that the non-custodial parent doesn't get. (Otherwise, why fight for custody?) Surely it's fair to take those into account as well.

jibiki 17y ago

The counterargument says that a marriage is basically an agreement where the woman agrees to lend her womb to a man in exchange for him supporting her and her children. That's way too sexist for me (if that's what marriage is, then we should change it,) but I'm still not convinced that a man should be allowed to leave and only provide half the minimum support for his children. It seems like the woman is seriously getting screwed in that situation: she has to raise the kids on her own AND find > 1/2 the money to support them. Nobody gets married with that understanding, and nobody wants to.

Notorious_PWN 17y ago
Nobody gets married with that understanding, and nobody wants to. If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him.
- jibiki 17y ago
  > If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him. The law frequently provides protection for people who enter certain contracts, even when they ought to know better. For instance, if I loan money to someone who then goes bankrupt, I am entitled to some of their property. Even if it was a really stupid loan. In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...)
  - Notorious_PWN 17y ago
    In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...) I agree with you. I think men and women are, innately, about equal in terms of stupidity and bad intentions. They diverge for cultural reasons. Men (in general) are rewarded more for individual accomplishments but also are punished more severely for misbehavior, and both of these discrepancies are morally wrong. What this leads to is a country in which the women, on average, are more spoiled and less ambitious than the men. Most men have a spell when they get burned by their bad tastes in women-- before their tastes mature, they go after the popular bubbly/slutty chicks everyone else wants, and most of them get their asses handed to them. Thing is, for men, these sorts of spoiled/immature/stupid traits get burned out of them when they're young, because they grow up knowing that they have no one to blame but themselves. That doesn't happen as much for women.