And I thought check-cashing places charged high fees...
Glenn and I subscribe to Forbes
which I was reading this morning and caught an article on Tim Geithner. The article was good, but the more interesting tidbit I found was one about how debt-collection agencies are one of the winners of the stimulus package (in a highlighted box within the same article). Get a load of this:
Yeah, right, lack of communication. Anyway, why should the stimulus package use tax payers' money to subsidize a group of sharks like Supportkids charging outrageous fees for shaking down "deadbeat dads"? And what about deadbeat-moms of which there are many?
I propose that all the men out there who are not collecting child support from these women sign up with this company. Apparently, Supportskids is quite successful as they state:
My guess is that dads don't try and collect from women who don't pay. But if they do, I hope they're smart enough not to pay a 34% commission.
which I was reading this morning and caught an article on Tim Geithner. The article was good, but the more interesting tidbit I found was one about how debt-collection agencies are one of the winners of the stimulus package (in a highlighted box within the same article). Get a load of this:Debt-collection agencies. They thrive on others' misfortunes, of course. They'll really love the $1 billion headed for states to help them collect child support. Nearly every state outsources deadbeat-dad services to companies like Supportkids, an Austin, Tex. firm that was recently sued by the state of Virginia for alledgedly interfering with the enforcement of child support obligations by taking 34% of the debt it collects as a fee. (The company says the suit is "the result of a lack of comunication with the state" and hopes it will be resolved before going to trial.)
Yeah, right, lack of communication. Anyway, why should the stimulus package use tax payers' money to subsidize a group of sharks like Supportkids charging outrageous fees for shaking down "deadbeat dads"? And what about deadbeat-moms of which there are many?
I propose that all the men out there who are not collecting child support from these women sign up with this company. Apparently, Supportskids is quite successful as they state:
Supportkids is the leader in non-traditional child support enforcement, providing an alternative to government agencies. With over 16 years in business, our total collections exceed $400 million. We collect over to $3.9 million every month for families all across the nation, many of whom went years without child support payments.
My guess is that dads don't try and collect from women who don't pay. But if they do, I hope they're smart enough not to pay a 34% commission.
Labels: economics, men's rights (or lack thereof), politics
posted by Helen at 8:49 AM
27 Comments:
When my ex and I divorced, I made more than she did, so I didn't seek child support. It was written that way into our decree. She was only to pay 30% of their medical expenses.
Which she never did. Worse yet, she stiffed me on a tax bill, so after orthodontics and old taxes, she owed me around $7,000.
I asked her repeatedly to pay, but she never did. After waiting for 8 years, I finally told her that I would seek child support as well as the back money due me. I'd had enough with being a "nice guy."
The interesting thing was my kids' reactions.
She cried to them about how mean and unfair I was to do this. My daughter, the oldest and by this time an adult, said, "You mean she never paid anything?? I thought she was paying you something all this time." She was pretty ticked off.
My middle child, a son and a senior in high school at that time, tried to straddle the fence. "Well, I can see how she owes you the money, but you do make more than she does."
And my youngest, a teenage son, was initially mad at me. Then once he understood that she had been skipping out all this time, he was mad at her.
My ex sought a mediation firm and now pays child support and, after that, the money owed from before. It's pulled from her paycheck. It costs me $25 a year, and not some hefty commission.
For years, I did the guy thing and didn't collect or push it, but if you're the one with custody, it's better to show the kids that it's about respect and responsibility.
They sure care about the kids, don't they? Leaches.
34% commission rate? Who do they think they are, lawyers?
LarryJ, I'm sure that is exactly who they are.
Every man that is a custodial Parent should get Child Support from the ex and in equal terms as a man would pay, it's only fair. And when this happens things might start to straighten out a little. Women want to be equal, well, give it too them. I'm all for equality but, lets make it across the board. Not just where it favors women.
Sad_Dad:
The system is set up, deliberately or not, to lighten the load in situations that women are typically in.
A woman can be driving a Mercedes and living in a $5 mil house but not be ordered to pay child support because the stuff is coming from the new boyfriend or husband (she may show no income or little income). The slant for women is that women tend to "marry up". I would tend to say that someone should order her to cash in any valuable gifts she has gotten and use that for child support, but the rest of society doesn't see it that way.
Her new husband, on the other hand, may well be paying child support to someone else, because he has to actually earn the income himself to have nice stuff like that.
Also, judges will order men without visible income to pay child support at rates corresponding to the last time they had full-time employment or corresponding to their profession (doctor, lawyer, Indian chief). That is called "imputed income". Judges, especially male judges, almost never put that pressure on women. They just don't. The woman just says she's not working now, because she's a homemaker, and she is left alone.
@sad_dad ... Every parent that the primary physical custodian does have the right to receive child support, at least that is the case in Tennessee. I have been on both sides of the child support equation, and I can assure you that the courts were equally obnoxious either way.
Occasionally, I've talked to men who have custody the majority of the time and they (the men) are paying child support to the ex-wife.
When asked why they don't go back to court, assert the new conditions, and demand that their child support be eliminated, they answer:
"My lawyer told me that if I upset her, it could lead to catastrophic changes, like her getting full custody and then moving away. Don't kick a dead dog."
And, while obviously completely unfair, that's probably very good advice.
Women are just not these oppressed victims that they are playing, and I wish a critical mass of (chivalrous, stupid) men would wake up and see it. But they won't and probably never will.
LissaKay sez:
"Every parent that the primary physical custodian does have the right to receive child support ..."
--------
The laws are written in a gender-neutral way today. One spouse may also have to pay "spousal support" to the other spouse.
The problem is that we know (wink, wink) which spouse is which. And, more importantly, so do the courts.
Women pay far less child support and far more women are in default of their payments (by the way).
To be precise, far more women ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS are in default. Not on an absolute basis, because women will most likely get custody.
Here is the child support law in Tennessee:
http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=
Judges have a great deal of leeway, and chivalry rears its ugly head (to the benefit of women, though).
Hmm, the link went right to the specific laws for me. I tried it again, though, and just landed at the Tennessee Code.
Click on the folder on the left, then on Title 36 Domestic Relations, then on Chapter 5 Alimony and Child Support.
I am less inclined to believe that the imbalance in the numbers is due to the courts being biased than to our differing natures and attitudes as men and women. True, my experience was limited to my own case in Anderson County, Tennessee, but I also had extended contact with a large number of non-custodial mothers, custodial fathers, both mothers and fathers battling ex-spouses for visitation rights and child support.
Yes, more mothers end up with the kids than dads do. This, however, is largely due to the dads just agreeing to that arrangement. When custody is disputed, though, in the vast majority of the cases, it goes to the father. According to the American Bar Association, 70% of the custody battles go to dad. But only about 15% of the time is custody disputed. The rest of the time, the decision is by mutual agreement of the parents.
So too with child support, and mothers being in default more often. Most often, and as it was in my case, the father generally has a higher income than the mother. Sometimes it's a "macho" thing, in which the dad doesn't want this "help" from his former wife. My case was perhaps unique ... we started out with him refusing to accept anything from me, even giving back money that I tried to give him, because his income was 2 to 3 times more than mine. However, as soon as he had an axe to grind, child support enforcement was the first place he went to use it as a way to try to destroy me. When that didn't work, he then turned to using the kids, all the while cheered on my his jealous new wife.
The court was neither lenient nor sympathetic to me because I was a woman. In fact, I often felt I was treated rather harshly. When I protested that paying my ex 41% of my $8.50 an hour pay did not leave me enough to survive on, and made little difference in his standard of living, given his $50K a year salary (plus his wife's), I was told that it was just tough - my choice was to pay up or go to jail, and the state of Tennessee did not give a rat's patootie if I could survive on what was left.
A few years later, I was given sole custody of one of the children. He had been abused by his father, had mental illness issues and needed special care and treatment. I tried to get a little extra support to meet his needs, most of which were caused by his father. The same court, the same chancellor as above told me tough - if I couldn't meet his needs on my own, perhaps I should have left him in foster care and let the state take care of him.
In divorce, custody and child support disputes, neither mothers nor fathers as a group can claim to be innocent victims, nor should they all be castigated as evil demons. As I said above, I came into contact with a lot of divorced parents in various situations, all across the country, and the only generalization I think can be made is that some parents choose their actions with the best interest of the child at heart, and some do not. It is sad thing to realize that the majority do fall into the latter category, and the courts are right there with them.
Courts of law are no place to hash out family issues. For the sake of the children, this needs to be changed.
"According to the American Bar Association, 70% of the custody battles go to dad."
-----
Where does the American Bar Association say that?
Here is something I found with Google (it was about a very one-sided PBS documentary:
"For example, feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler claimed in her book Mothers on Trial that fathers win 70% of custody battles. However, this widely cited factoid was based on a biased, pre-selected sample of 60 women who had been referred by feminist lawyers or women's aid groups because they had custody issues."
LissaKay:
Here's something to think about:
1) It's no coincidence that your husband earns more than you. Women marry up.
2) If you had been a man, the judge may well have set the CS payment higher and told you to "be a man" and get a job where you can earn more. If you don't earn more, you still make the payment - it's your problem. That's "imputed income".
The Department of Justice, the International Statistics Corporation and numerous relevant studies have all unequivocably stated that 89.9% of all statistics on the Internet are made up.
JG -
Before I spend even one more second of my time on this, I need to know - is this turning into a personal attack attempt on me and all other women by default (much like feminists do to men who try to talk with them), or do you wish to have a grown up discussion?
LissaKay:
I'm pretty much done discussing (I think), but I have seen feminists over and over - not that you're a feminist, but you may be - using authority figures like the Department of Justice or the American Bar Association and then making things up.
The Department of Justice says that 1/4 of all women on college campuses are raped. For example. (No - Mary Koss, hired by Ms. Magazine, said that).
I was discussion the issues. You have to bring your personal anecdotes into it - and if you do, I felt it proper to analyze them a bit. I can analyze them in a lot more detail.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In other words: Don't spend one more second of your time on this.
Last point:
"... attack on ... all other women by default ..."
and
"do you wish to have a grown up discussion"
------
Both fine examples of shaming language.
JG -
Fine, you can make assumptions as you wish, however, you should know this - I am not and have never been a feminist, not the type that claim the name today, anyway. I abhor all that modern feminism stands for - gender based victimhood as well as gender based superiority. I abhor the same thing in whatever the male version of feminism too.
Also, when we married, both of us were dirt poor. If anything, he "married up" because I had two years of college, he only had a diploma. We ended up, ten years later, with a marked difference in income due solely to the fact that I spent all that time at home with our three children while he gained experience and better positions in a blue-collar trade.
Be careful with your "analysis" there, I think you have it confused with "assumption" and we know what that can lead to.
LissaKay,
I really do say this with respect - I am speaking to the argument, not to you in any particularly personal way, and so I hope you will bear with me as I try to explain the following.
You mentioned something further up that you do not believe that "there is bias in the courts, but rather that it has to do with differing natures and attitudes of men and women."
That is extremely astute. And, I think you are bang on correct... although, those differing natures and attitudes will eventually get codified into law exactly because of such sex-specific natures and attitudes, don't you think? It kind of becomes a chicken and egg thing. The law is, after all, not much more than a code of our social attitudes and moral values, wouldn't you agree?
However, I would like to ask you, further upon that idea that such bias is due to men's and women's natures and attitudes, if it is not possible that you (women, in general, automatically rush to provide examples, and "with women's special way of knowing," immediately try to discredit any male grievances by illustrating an example you know that contradicts the generalization.
I mean, is it possible that this is what motivates you, and virtually all other women who get presented with this type of evidence, to immediately launch into the same argument? (The attitudes and natures of men and women) It generally starts off with "I'm not a feminist, but..."
Usually, further down the line, comes in the rationale that anything the opposing argument has said "is generalizing" and somehow, there is the insinuation that such generalizing is wrong.
My, oh my, how badly our Academics have infected us with this ridiculousness of "consensus" and the using of the dialectic to bring us down to the lowest common denominator.
And that is what happens when you dismiss an argument because of generalizations or assumptions... you are, in fact, dumbing down the human intellect.
After all, generalizations are where wisdom comes from.
Wisdom is not always 100% correct, you know. Sometimes it is wrong, and that wrong merely adds to the wisdom, and becomes self correcting - wisdom is about psychological growth, and without generalizations, it cannot exist.
One wonders how this anti-wisdom attitude has become so prevalent in our society that it creeps up almost invariably in every argument nearly as quick as a "misogynist" slur. I might add that this is true of both men and women - although from vastly different motivations. (Just so you didn't think I was only generalizing about women, although, in general, when most women hear criticisms of both men and women, both genders are mostly only upset about what was said about the ladies. - That too ends up being codified into law after time.)
After a certain amount of time, you (society) have to start paying attention to wisdom, because it is the only way to rise above the confusion and obtain a higher, more intellectual train of thought.
That's what achieving "consensus" is all about, btw - it is about lowering the level of the debate to the point where everyone agrees. That is also called the lowest common denominator. Through the dialectic, this is called achieving consensus. To be noted is that since achieving consensus involves seeking the lowest common denominator upon which all can agree (and calling that the truth - which obviously leads to falseness and "un-wisdom"), it also becomes evident that once consensus has been achieved, there ain't nobody left who stands for anything at all!
So to those who seek to "achieve consensus" by removing all valid theoritical assumptions, and by removing any and all generalizations because one can find an example that contradicts that assumption (can't I generalize that birds fly because penguins, ostriches, emus & kiwis can't? Must both scientists and poets always say a disclaimer when they utter the phrase "the birds of the sky... except for penguins, ostriches, emus and kiwis? Good grief!) Anyway, to all those who seek to eliminate generalizations, assumptions, and devolve the debate to the lowest common denominator, I loudly declare:
It must be hard living without a spine.
JG seems to have done a lot of the same reading and research that I have done... and let me assure you from my part, I have done some extensive research! And, since I have been silently following along with many of JG's comments for several months, I think he must have done the same.
As per some of the stats you have referred to, here is the answer key:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060307
..."The Mother of All Confabulations goes back to 1986. That's when feminist Phyllis Chesler alleged in her book Mothers on Trial that divorcing fathers win child custody in 70% of cases.
Never mind that the actual number of fathers winning custody was only 15%. [www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p60-217.pdf] And don't worry that Chesler's conclusion was based on a sample of 60 discontented women referred by feminist lawyers — still, it made for a great story.
A decade later, the National Organization of Women was beginning to run out of real issues. So it set out to invent new outrages calculated to rally the faithful.
In 1996 the N.O.W.-nincompoops passed a resolution that repeated Chesler's bogus 70% custody figure. Then they added a new twist, claiming that patriarchal oafs who wanted to stay involved in their children's lives after a divorce represented an "abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers." [www.now.org/organization/conference/1996/resoluti.html]
"
AND,
http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/11/breaking-silence-sorting-out-facts.html
The producers' own page of resources contains the assertion, based on the 1990 "Report of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study Committee," that "fathers who actively seek custody [8.75% of fathers] obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time." This is a highly misleading claim which implies that men usually win custody battles when they go to court. In fact, the majority of these cases are uncontested -- the fathers have sole or joint custody with the mother's consent. (See my 1999 Detroit News column for a deconstruction of the claim that fathers have the edge in custody disputes.)
Now, if I could only find some stats on how many people have rushed into a discussion about gender and boldly, and with authority, declared NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!
I don't know what the percentage of women who jump to that defense first and foremost is, but, I can tell you an assumption I have made that is most certainly true, in any given number of arguments discussing gender, "Not all women are like that" will be heard FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more often than the phrase "not all men are like that." (Unless they are rapists, then they are all like that.)
Hell, even on Dec 6th, the anniversary of the Marc Lepine murders at l'ecole polytechnique, back in 1989, I don't hear women OR men saying that "not all men are like that," even though Marc Lepine was 1 of 15 million Canadian men, and in 19 years, there has not been a rash of Canadian men immitating him. And yet, each year he is held up as an example of a reason why men should have more rights removed from them... (Of course, Genene Jones murdered over 50 babies while working as a nurse, and we are not trying to pass laws against female nurses).
Anyway, I am sure that JG, like me, has heard the "generalization argument" all too many times.
The question is, though, is it in women's attitude and nature to rush into any argument - even ones such as these where men have been taking bashing for 40 years without hardly protesting a peep - and even from women who agree that feminism is complete CRAP - women still rush and get downright pissy at any man who speaks openly and honestly, the way he sees it - and the general effect is that these women shut down the entire debate (and later complain that men don't want to stand up for themselves, lol, foolish little boys, eh?).
In general, this behaviour is so stereopically generalized of women's overall attitude towards the vast underlying cause of male discontent throughout the whole of society at large, that generally, one ought to assume that such stereotypes will present themselves at the outset of most discussions involving a general mixed-gender group of average height, medium skinned, 100IQ, middle class, averagely educated men and women. This is due not to an automatic clicking of logic, but rather, to bio-psychological mental charactistic that are found in both genders (but, for different motivations).
And, in general, that last paragraph was a load of grade A, generalized BS. But, then again - I think it might be close to achieving the almighty consensus we all worship and adore!
With over 16 years in business, our total collections exceed $400 million. We collect over to $3.9 million every month
=====================================
So if my math is correct:
34% of $400 million = $136 million
$136 million over 16 years = $8,500,000 per year.
Good to know that over 8 million dollars of child support didn't get to the children it was intended for. /sarcasm
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
080視訊聊天室080視訊聊天室視訊聊天室v6 0視訊聊天室v6 085cc免費影城85cc免費影城173liveshow視訊美女173liveshow視訊美女173視訊聊天173視訊聊天24h免費成人頻道24h免費成人頻道25xxx成人影城25xxx成人影城3388影片區3388影片區358成人影城
Post a Comment
<< Home