Advice and Support from Thousands of Users Just Like You

About You Your healthy mind, body, and spirit play a vital role in all the important relationships of your life. Share your advice and insights here.

Reply
Page 21 of 25 « First 11 19 20 21 22 23 Last »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
sqg123 sqg123 is offline
sqg123's Avatar

Pacesetter

Join Date: Apr 2008

Posts: 416

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 5th, 2009 at 09:24 pm.
- November 5th, 2009, 09:22 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#201   Reply With Quote
LizziePooh LizziePooh is offline
LizziePooh's Avatar

LizziePooh has decided to put her luck to the test.

Virtuoso

Join Date: May 2008

Posts: 4,320

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] <---- (thanks, Scarlet for that ----> [/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!)
- November 5th, 2009, 09:28 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#202   Reply With Quote
Wonderwoman402 Wonderwoman402 is online now
Wonderwoman402's Avatar

Enthusiast

Join Date: Jan 2009

Posts: 718

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 5th, 2009 at 09:37 pm.
- November 5th, 2009, 09:32 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#203   Reply With Quote
LizziePooh LizziePooh is offline
LizziePooh's Avatar

LizziePooh has decided to put her luck to the test.

Virtuoso

Join Date: May 2008

Posts: 4,320

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!
- November 5th, 2009, 09:34 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#204   Reply With Quote
mari3434 mari3434 is offline
mari3434's Avatar

Quick Study

Join Date: Oct 2009

Posts: 106

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.
- November 5th, 2009, 09:46 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#205   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

bigfincat bigfincat is offline
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Join Date: Nov 2008

Posts: 2,800

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.
- November 5th, 2009, 09:52 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#206   Reply With Quote
mari3434 mari3434 is offline
mari3434's Avatar

Quick Study

Join Date: Oct 2009

Posts: 106

See profile

I have concluded that D-Lion just doesn't "GET IT." I am not even going to bother rebutting his logic anymore.
- November 5th, 2009, 10:16 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#207   Reply With Quote
nightling nightling is online now
nightling's Avatar

nightling -- there is pain, there is rain. No one's ever completely sane.

Veteran

Join Date: Sep 2009

Posts: 1,356

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.
- November 5th, 2009, 10:18 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#208   Reply With Quote
nightling nightling is online now
nightling's Avatar

nightling -- there is pain, there is rain. No one's ever completely sane.

Veteran

Join Date: Sep 2009

Posts: 1,356

See profile

A child has a right to be supported and loved by both parents, regardless of what roof they sleep under.
- November 5th, 2009, 10:20 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#209   Reply With Quote
alissag alissag is offline
alissag's Avatar

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

Pacesetter

Join Date: Oct 2009

Posts: 266

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.
- November 5th, 2009, 10:33 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#210   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Reply
Page 21 of 25 « First 11 19 20 21 22 23 Last »

Bookmarks

« What talent do you WISH you had? | Array | The Three Cs of Great Sex »
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
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 On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shall I call, email, or not? funnyengineergal Dating 65 October 6th, 2009 09:56 pm
To Call or Not to Call islandrain80 Dating 9 September 15th, 2009 03:38 pm
Secure call is worthless to buy passat1 Using eHarmony 0 August 16th, 2009 11:44 am

Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“PY You are totally making sense....That's the kinda stuff that either makes for great love stories or depressing ones about love lost. Maybe I need to go re-watch the Notebook to rev up my Emotional ... ” – SincerelySarcastic

Join the “Is it meant to be?” discussion

“arby8 I can understand your confusion. First I will answer your IceBreaker question. Never send an IceBreaker because it is interpreted as a sign that you are a non-paying member. OK now how it ... ” – Gr8Guyn2008

Join the “Newbie with a question about how it all works...” discussion

“” – littlebluemonkeymind

Join the “Is everyone but me dating?” discussion

“I think the same rules apply, send a few messages back and forth, move to phone and then if there is still chemistry there after communicating for a certain period of time than make arrangements to ... ” – stevex

Join the “Need to know” discussion

“It is actually kind of funny that I am saw this thread today because just last night I was thinking about how I probably spend far too much being paranoid and worrying about how a relationship is ... ” – stevex

Join the “always so paranoid” discussion

“I went fishing with the alien and caught a bunch of fish but unfortunately, none of them was big enough to keep. Then, someone gave us a big flounder while we were there. It was such a great day! ... ” – AsianFusion

Join the “Monday November 23rd weekend & date roundup!” discussion

“I would never intentionally get into the express line. One day at Wal Mart I realized I had gone into the express with too many items and started to back out. The clerk told me to come ahead. ... ” – k9force

Join the “Ever been Caught in the Wrong Line?” discussion

“ I was discussing POF with a friend last night. She has given up on POF as she has found that it is a site with a lot of ladies of the evening and guys looking for them.” – Gr8Guyn2008

Join the “What am I doing wrong?” discussion



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:23 pm.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.0