Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?

Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

If a husband and wife divorce, are the children entitled to massive piles of cash to maintain a standard of living that was established during the marriage? Should there be a limit on it? If you believe they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living, what if parents decide to just "cut their kids off" to avoid them becoming spoiled brats? Should that be illegal?

EDIT: Added (alimony, Childsupport) to title.

The basis for child support is that when you have a child, you are responsible for 18 years (realistically, more like 24 today if they attend college...often more if they go to graduate school). That obgligation does not cease simply because you decide you cannot get along with your spouse. So, yes, your obligation to your children remains regardless of marital status.

I can get into this more later, but the biggest problem is that anything called childsupport is given to the custodial spouse and not counted as their income (in most cases, the reciever is not required to report it). Most fathers don't really object to giving their children money, they object to their ex spouse benefitting and sometimes not contributing even as much as they did prior to marriage.

Also, the court does not take time and energy into account. That is, a father who takes part-time job so that he can watch his kids, might very well be held responsible for the same child support as before... (or that he might have to work overtime to maintain that level of support and also pay for his own rent, etc is not taken into consideration).

It gets particularly asinine when you factor in remarriage. This is more critical in states like PA that are not joint property states. Basically, the one with custody can remarry. The new spouse's income is not considered.. that spouse is not legally obligated to support the step kids. That's sounds reasonable, but it can mean that someone marries a multi millionaire (literally) and the former spouse can have an available wage that is well below the poverty line, but not get a dime credit... even if that other spouse spends more actual time with the kids (but they do't live at that house). Yes, that is an extreme example, but a real one.

Anyway, gotta go do lunch for the kids

PLAYER57832 wrote:

keiths31 wrote: ]

Funny thing that...she made more money than I did and had health benefits at her work. I didn't. You aren't excusing my EX-wife's behaviour, but you do list excuses as to why she may have acted the way she did. She didn't sideline her career. She went back to work as soon as she was able to stand on two feet again. Don't generalize. Sometimes people (male or female) are just jerks...

Except, the reason I separated my response was because I WAS bringing it back to the general. You gave an example, fine, but the thread discussion is about the overall situation.

And.... I am the wife of a divorced guy with kids. So, I do have a clue

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

keiths31 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

Your quote is wrong...should read "deadbeat parents".

Fair enough, I agree completely.

What can I say...I'm old, and not hip enough to get with the times. <smile>

Except, I do believe you are younger than I...

shieldgenerator7 wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

I respect and value Woodruff's opinion. I think people who waste youths' time teaching them baton twirling routines should be hunted down and shot. Of course, unlike Woodruff, I think they should be shot with a taser, for the lulz. Not executed in a back alley or something like he suggets.

for a moment there I thought you had made friends again with woodruff, now it seems like you're out to get him.

shieldgenerator7 wrote:Honestly, I take the traditional viewpoint when I say when a married couple has a child, the mother should stay home and take of him and the dad should go out and work to support his family.

shieldgenerator7 wrote:If they divorce (hopefully they won't), the dad should only have to pay child support only if he is able to see the child or has custody of the children.

Woodruff wrote:pimpdave has transformed into a permatroll. He apparently simply cannot help himself. Fortunately for him, he has the moderators in his hip pocket.

pimpdave wrote:

Woodruff wrote:pimpdave has transformed into a permatroll. He apparently simply cannot help himself. Fortunately for him, he has the moderators in his hip pocket.

Wrong. Maybe your arguments for my being banned are just complete fallacy. I'm not doing anything against the rules. Anything I've written in the last few days has been done by you, Phatscotty, and especially Night Strike. But you and they haven't ever been punished for it. So why is it that you think the mods should show favoritism and punish me where they haven't punished others?

pimpdave wrote:Also, you're the only one calling people names. I am not a permatroll nor am I a cowardly pussy or any of those other awful swear words you called me in your most recent abusive PM (which I won't repeat here since I don't post Private Messages) and it all hurts my feewings!

Woodruff wrote:Look fuckhead. Stop the fucking lying. How pathetic is your life, really, that you take enjoyment out of lying about other people? You must be some sort of a doormat in real life.

Woodruff wrote:What leads you to believe that's the case? I know...your buddy moderators told you, right?

Army of GOD wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?

Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

If a husband and wife divorce, are the children entitled to massive piles of cash to maintain a standard of living that was established during the marriage? Should there be a limit on it? If you believe they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living, what if parents decide to just "cut their kids off" to avoid them becoming spoiled brats? Should that be illegal?

Not only should it be legal, but it should be illegal to support a child that is older than 18 up to a certain amount. I'm all for working your ass off and making money, but because you worked your ass off shouldn't be a reason for you to spoil your children to the point where they don't have to work at all.

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Woodruff wrote:There we go...I've fallen for your trolling again!

Nobunaga wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?

Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

If a husband and wife divorce, are the children entitled to massive piles of cash to maintain a standard of living that was established during the marriage? Should there be a limit on it? If you believe they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living, what if parents decide to just "cut their kids off" to avoid them becoming spoiled brats? Should that be illegal?

Not only should it be legal, but it should be illegal to support a child that is older than 18 up to a certain amount. I'm all for working your ass off and making money, but because you worked your ass off shouldn't be a reason for you to spoil your children to the point where they don't have to work at all.

... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

Nobunaga wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

... I was just repeating what Player told me many times. Success in life is a roll of the dice, not a damned thing we can do about it.

....

Woodruff wrote:
Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote: ...it should be illegal to support a child that is older than 18 up to a certain amount. I'm all for working your ass off and making money, but because you worked your ass off shouldn't be a reason for you to spoil your children to the point where they don't have to work at all.

I agree, to a point. However, if a child is going to college, working hard and the parents can afford to help, they should. The cost of tuition to some of the better colleges, in particular, is too high for most students to work their way through. (I realize that cost of college is overrun in some cases, but that is a different topic. Just saying that going to college is not "being lazy" or "spoiling", IF they are working at it).

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

... I was just repeating what Player told me many times. Success in life is a roll of the dice, not a damned thing we can do about it.

....

Sure, if you're of the mindset that you are powerless to change your environment.

There's a large group of people who think that they have a large influence over their environment. They make their own "luck." Those kind of people tend to succeed with that kind of mentality.

By blaming one's external environment on things like "luck," then those kind of people would tend not to blame themselves. By doing so, then how can they begin to target what's wrong with themselves in order to fix their situation/environment?

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

What if they are deadbeats because they are on drugs? No leniency?

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

What if they are deadbeats because they are on drugs? No leniency?

Nobunaga wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

... I was just repeating what Player told me many times. Success in life is a roll of the dice, not a damned thing we can do about it.

....