JPC, Rapper "50 Cent" Needs your help...

[flomaster]

Originally Posted by Ponytail

"The $25,000 a month in child support and household expenses that rapper 50 Cent pays to the mother of his 10-year-old son is not enough, says the boy's mother, Shaniqua Tompkins."

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...ent&id=5415953

PLEASE help poor, poor Fitty, would ya?

Well you know its expensive when you wear Air/Gucci/V-Dub spinning sneakers ya know! Oh and don't forget the gold toofusuzes! Jeez haven't you guys kept up with the times!!!!

[This_person]

Originally Posted by MMDad

There are different rules for the Uber-wealthy. The "fundamental flaw" is that numbnuts like you and JPC without ever bothering to find out what the laws and rules really are.

Because the link was bylined in NY state, I went to the NY state Division of Child Support Enforcement web site. They listed three types of non-custodial parent obligations: Normal, Self-Support Reserve (those with net incomes of $8,981 to $12,123), and Poverty (net income less than $8,981). The guideline for a single child in NY is 17%. They list no other rules, but clearly they refer to the 17% as a "guildeline" for a reason, leaving it up to the parents and courts.

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

First of all, it takes two to tango.

Precisely, he tangoed, now he has to pay the band. It's not his kid's fault he was too horny to have self control, and doesn't love the child's mother. HE is responsible for where he ejaculates.

For most of us, yeah, percentages are the way to go. But forcing him to pay 10% of what he makes is just pointless. Wouldn't you agree that the child probably isn't getting much of anything out of that $22,000/month and wouldn't you agree that that's not how much she needs to pay all the bills either?

I certainly have no idea what this woman is doing with the money. If she's using it for a mansion and servants and fine food, I'd say the kid is getting the advantages of it (unless the kid is living in the garage or something). If mom has drivers for her limos, and the kid takes that to school, the kid's getting the money, too. Blaming the gold digger for living that life too is really outside the point. Should she be punished (and thus punish the kid) because the rich dad doesn't love her?

I know you're not trying to say that this kid's cup runneth over, his needs are met in full and then some, and the government shouldn't get involved in unjust luxuries to the child But, the rich have a different lifestyle than you and I do. The kid shouldn't be punished (meaning, be deprived the same percentage of his wealthier parent's income he would get if the parent only made $100,000/year) because the parent's don't love one another. Even if you're rich, you are obligated to provide for your child by similar means as those 95% of us that aren't rich. We make exceptions for those who CAN'T provide, not those who WON'T provide.

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I agree that there are different laws for the rich and for the poor.

But in child support the results are the same that the child support is only ONLY paying for extras and for luxuries.

So fitty cents can by GOD raise his children in modest means if he wants but the unjust child support system is ordering the child to be spoiled with riches and luxuries.

When the child turns 18 then fitty cents does not have to give that son squat.

So the child support law orders the child be spoiled against the parents own wishes and then at 18 the gov goes away like a thief in the night claiming it did no wrong.

This is evil gov laws, ignorant parenting police.

I thought people couldn't get any dumber than I read this post. You proved me wrong.

There are a lot of single mothers who can't afford homes or anything else. This is because of a number of factors, dumbazz.

First of all, women do not get fair pay. Period, end of story. They can do the same work as a man and only make 1/3 of what the man makes, so she is not getting enough for a living.

Not to mention even renting a house is so utterly expensive that that's the entire paycheck that woman makes right there.

I can't believe how stupid you are, I really just can't believe you haven't died because of your own stupidity.

[Poohhunny1605]

Originally Posted by flomaster

Well you know its expensive when you wear Air/Gucci/V-Dub spinning sneakers ya know! Oh and don't forget the gold toofusuzes! Jeez haven't you guys kept up with the times!!!!

Ha Ha! As the song goes...

you need to be insured, Geico for your money, she went to the doctor go lypo with your money.

When she leave your Azz she gonna leave with half, 18 years, 18 years, and on the 18th birthday found out wasn't hizzzzz lol!

Poor Fifty!

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Because the link was bylined in NY state, I went to the NY state Division of Child Support Enforcement web site. They listed three types of non-custodial parent obligations: Normal, Self-Support Reserve (those with net incomes of $8,981 to $12,123), and Poverty (net income less than $8,981). The guideline for a single child in NY is 17%. They list no other rules, but clearly they refer to the 17% as a "guildeline" for a reason, leaving it up to the parents and courts.Precisely, he tangoed, now he has to pay the band. It's not his kid's fault he was too horny to have self control, and doesn't love the child's mother. HE is responsible for where he ejaculates.I certainly have no idea what this woman is doing with the money. If she's using it for a mansion and servants and fine food, I'd say the kid is getting the advantages of it (unless the kid is living in the garage or something). If mom has drivers for her limos, and the kid takes that to school, the kid's getting the money, too. Blaming the gold digger for living that life too is really outside the point. Should she be punished (and thus punish the kid) because the rich dad doesn't love her?

I know you're not trying to say that this kid's cup runneth over, his needs are met in full and then some, and the government shouldn't get involved in unjust luxuries to the child But, the rich have a different lifestyle than you and I do. The kid shouldn't be punished (meaning, be deprived the same percentage of his wealthier parent's income he would get if the parent only made $100,000/year) because the parent's don't love one another. Even if you're rich, you are obligated to provide for your child by similar means as those 95% of us that aren't rich. We make exceptions for those who CAN'T provide, not those who WON'T provide.

I absolutely disagree with that. You want the government to make 50 Cent give this kid (his kid, yes) a well-privliged lifestyle because he and some ho got it on. You're saying the state should punish him for this.

The kid isn't being punished, unless of course he isn't seeing new toys with that money. Knock it off.

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Poohhunny1605

Ha Ha! As the song goes...

you need to be insured, Geico for your money, she went to the doctor go lypo with your money.

When she leave your Azz she gonna leave with half, 18 years, 18 years, and on the 18th birthday found out wasn't hizzzzz lol!

Poor Fifty!

I reffered to that song a few posts back. Good song.

[AndyMarquisLIVE (Premo)]

I have a better idea, since we're all for taking fitty's money. Instead of giving more to the already privliged kid, give it to the less wealthy. Deal?

Of course I know what your answer will be.

[Ponytail]

Regardless of what income the parents make, Child support is usually granted such that the child is able to live at the same level of economic comfort post-divorce as they would pre-divorce as to keep the child OUT of the reasons for divorce, and as a pawn after the divorce. This is the fact that most parents, that are required to pay seemingly enormous amounts of child support, fail to recognize. The parents, BOTH parents, are the ones that are SUPPOSED to suffer, taking a hit in the shorts and a degradation of lifestyle, for the benefit of the child for it is NOT the childs fault that the marriage did not succeed.

This does get thrown out of whack and used by the bitter half (yes, I said bitter) to make the other one suffer. This is where the lawyers can make it ugly normally for both sides.

If the paying parent was a low-life scum bag pre-divorce, the courts generally attempt to make that individual straighten up and essentially finally take some responsibility and get a job and keep it, hence the seemingly large amount of child support ordered to pay by the said scumbag claiming to be poor.

That doesn't cover all low-income/high child support cases, I know. I've seen folks on boths sides of that coin get screwed. But as any lawyer will tell you, paying something is better than paying nothing. Make a case showing that you can't afford to pay it by paying what you can, instead of complaining, running from the law, and paying nothing.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

I absolutely disagree with that. You want the government to make 50 Cent give this kid (his kid, yes) a well-privliged lifestyle because he and some ho got it on. You're saying the state should punish him for this.

How is he being "punished" for paying the same percentage anyone else would have to? Why is it punishment for him to pay even half of the "guideline", which he's not even coming close to? He gets to take more off of his net, because he pays a higher percentage in taxes....why would he not pay at the same percentage rate as the rest of us?

[Chasey_Lane]

Originally Posted by kwillia

See what happened when he listened to JPC...
http://www.mugshots.com/Music/50+Cent.htm