Child Support Assurance Program - good or bad?

M

mrs potts

Member
Just wondering how everyone feels about this ...

Should MD implement the Child Support Assurance Program? This program provides single-parent families with a guarenteed amount in child support. If the noncustodial parent is unable to make the payment, the state will provide the additional funds to make the payment.

Example:
Dad works at MCD ... makes $200 every two weeks. Can't pay the court ordered child support payment of $300 since he needs to have a place to live, have transportation, etc. Dad pays $100 and the state kicks in the additional $200. Mom gets her money every month and hopefully does not require as much public assistance.

Should MD do it or not?
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Originally posted by mrs potts
Just wondering how everyone feels about this ...

Should MD implement the Child Support Assurance Program? This program provides single-parent families with a guarenteed amount in child support. If the noncustodial parent is unable to make the payment, the state will provide the additional funds to make the payment.

Example:
Dad works at MCD ... makes $200 every two weeks. Can't pay the court ordered child support payment of $300 since he needs to have a place to live, have transportation, etc. Dad pays $100 and the state kicks in the additional $200. Mom gets her money every month and hopefully does not require as much public assistance.

Should MD do it or not?
Click to expand...
NO

they should make a mandatory minumum based on a 40 hour week at minumum wage. Make them pay or toss them in jail. Simple. If they do not make what the court ordered they should adjust the support to match income but no lower than the minimum. the state already makes up the difference with TANF and food stamps. I don't want to pay more to make up for a deadbeat than I already am. Besides it is still public assistance whether the state pays her TANF or some other goofy named subsidy to make up the difference. Get tough, jail, bolonga 3 times a day in a cell that is 65 degrees. After a couple weeks of that you will see how fast they get a job and pay what is owed.

Signed,

Male child support recipient who is owed over $2,000 in back support from a deadbeat woman who hops from job to job to beat garnishment. [
 
Last edited:
M

mrs potts

Member
You can't deny that over 35% of American families headed by a single mother or father live in povery (www.tcf.org). This rate is more than double to rate for all families.

Families who receive regular child support payments lift half a million children out of poverty (Sorenson and Ziberman, 1999).


BTW Pete - don't do "mother-in-law" research!
 
M

mrs potts

Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
No

What they're talking about IS public assistance.
Click to expand...

Yes - but hopefully will require less public assistance and thus freeing additional funds for another person or family.
 
Last edited:
G

grandpa

Member
NO

Why should we, the taxpayers support these people. I didn't have any of the pleasure of producing these children, why should I have to support them. Sorry, the beeeding hearts have bled me dry. No one had to take care of my kids but me. Our society is turning into a (bum) handout , welfare nation.
Don't get me started!:burning:
 
M

mrs potts

Member
The state of New York has implemented this program on a large scale. Analysts studying the child support assurance program concluded that yearly administrative costs were $47 higher than traditional welfare cases, but it saved over $320 in cash assistance, food stamps and program costs recouped from child support obligors (www.cga.sta.ct.us/2001/rpt/plr/htm/2001-r-0767.html). The study also concluded that program participants generated more state and federal tax revenues.
 
RoseRed

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by *archimedes*
I'd support it if the recipients get sterilized and I got to smack the them in the back of the head really hard when they picked up their checks each month.
Click to expand...
:killingme :killingme :killingme
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Originally posted by mrs potts
You can't deny that over 35% of American families headed by a single mother or father live in povery (www.tcf.org). This rate is more than double to rate for all families.

Families who receive regular child support payments lift half a million children out of poverty (Sorenson and Ziberman, 1999).


BTW Pete - don't do "mother-in-law" research!
Click to expand...
These statistics don't move me. Those 35% would live in poverty even if they didn't have children. By having children the simple magnified their poverty. They misuse assistance, refuse to marry or name the father to ensure more assistance while they shack up with the sire, have more kids to get bigger checks and otherwise abuse the system. The liberal "social engineers" can continue to practice their "re-distribution of wealth" voodoo and they will continue to take and squander. You cannot force someone to give a crap if they don't want to, I do not want to finance the effort to finance them so they can live at a higher lifestlye while they don't give a crap.

I do not doubt that half a million families are boosted out of poverty by regular child support payments. So do it ! Force these deadbeats to pay. If the state wants to take steps to ensure do as they do in several other states, force the noncustodial parent to pay the state and the stae then cuts the check. This way the state knows dollar for dollar who is paying and who is not. The minute they miss a payment, issue a warrant. We need to stop playing softball with these people and streamline the process. Do you know how long it takes to enforce a support order through the CSRA across state lines? How about get a contempt of court order issued ? How long it takes to revoke professional or drives licences? How long it takes to actually jail an offender? One word answers all these questions.......FOREVER. There is a new industry of private collections who will go after deadbeats now for a hefty percentage. Why is there a private firm that will do this? Because governments spend more time passing out money and not collecting it and they suck at it. State laws and enforcement are toothless.

Mother in law research? :confused:
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Originally posted by mrs potts
Yes - but hopefully will require less public assistance and thus freeing additional funds for another person or family.
Click to expand...
This is the goofiest argument ever.

I am going to cut your TANF $300 this month but don't worry we are going to boost your child support paid by your deadbeat by $300 from our funds, that way you will be on less public assistance.
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Originally posted by mrs potts
The state of New York has implemented this program on a large scale. Analysts studying the child support assurance program concluded that yearly administrative costs were $47 higher than traditional welfare cases, but it saved over $320 in cash assistance, food stamps and program costs recouped from child support obligors (www.cga.sta.ct.us/2001/rpt/plr/htm/2001-r-0767.html). The study also concluded that program participants generated more state and federal tax revenues.
Click to expand...
Link wont open

But anyway so? The administrative costs are higher I assume per month because they have to pay attention instead of running the checks off a mimeograph machine.

Tax revenue HA, you know why? Because when you buy things with vouchers and stamps it is tax free. You substitute cash for the tax free assistance and you get a trickle.......miniscule.....tiny bit of increased tax revenue from the people who ill afford taxes to begin with. :banghead:
 
Nanny Pam

Nanny Pam

************
Re: NO

Originally posted by grandpa
Why should we, the taxpayers support these people. I didn't have any of the pleasure of producing these children, why should I have to support them. Sorry, the beeeding hearts have bled me dry. No one had to take care of my kids but me. Our society is turning into a (bum) handout , welfare nation.
Don't get me started!:burning:
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: What he said!
 
Pete

Pete

Repete
Originally posted by mrs potts
mother-in-law research:

Don't judge all by your own situation.

IE: mother hops job to job to avoid paying.
Click to expand...
I don't do mother-in-law research. I stated the mother in my case job hops to avoid collection through garnishment, that is fact not generalization.

I grew up in the deep south and have witnessed this "Uncle sugar" crap for years. Further I researched it on several occasions, the first time for myself and then for others. I have recalculated child support obligations and prepared the court forms necessary to go back to court for several people who needed it and done all the post-divorce litigation on my case. So I know how the gig works.
 
dustin

dustin

UAIOE
Absofriggin lutely not.

I was going to say,"well maybe if they tested it out on a select group of individuals first", but decided against it as these tests do jack squat and the people chosen arent always the best candidates plus factor in all kinds of errors and biasing done on the government side and what you get in the end is a screwed up peice of garbage.

People should take up their own slack.

What needs to be taken care of is the 3 month waiting period here in MD in the court system for the "nonchild support payers". At least I think that's what the issue is :confused:
 
K

Kizzy

Guest
I say NO WAY!

They need to start garnishing more wages for child support and/or do a direct debit from accounts to collect the support.

No matter which way you look at this type of program, it is still a government handout.
 
Toxick

Toxick

Splat
Waitaminnit...

So we, the taxpayers, get the joys of paying child support, without having all the unprotected sex first.

Nosir - I don't like it.


Maybe what they should do is try actually enforcing the laws that are already in place. Put dead-beat parents in fcking jail where they belong.



Off the top of my head I can think of two people who should be in jail for YEARS of unpaid child support.

Scumbags both of them - and (SURPRISE) there has been NO intervention by social services or any other government agent - and NOW the government wants to throw money at the problem.

:burning:


In all honesty, to make a long story short, I would benefit greatly from this ridiculous plan - and I still think it's a Very Bad Idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top