single mommy asks for $46K/mo child support!

[MatureDJ]

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/113244/linda-evangelista-son-46000-monthly-spending

 

[Serialized3]

they need to tax these rich cocksuckers a lot more!

 

[speed dawg]

they need to tax these rich cocksuckers a lot more!

Why??? So our esteemed government can hand it off to welfare recipients? The more these rich c0cksuckers spend, the more somebody else gets to make money, therefore the economy is stimulated.

 

[women haze]

Why??? So our esteemed government can hand it off to welfare recipients? The more these rich c0cksuckers spend, the more somebody else gets to make money, therefore the economy is stimulated.

Problem is they aren't spending it...they are hoarding it away. No new Job positions, no raises, no incentives for hard working individuals

instead they are losing it to greedy hors or saving it for a rainy day when Obama is out of office

 

[women haze]

They do not have to spend the money to stimulate the economy. Saving HELPS the economy by raising investment.

It is a fallacious argument to say we need to consume to grow. We need to invest to grow.

Consumers spend money which increases demand, which influences investments and the cycle continues.

If you are SAVING it meaning not using on anything just holding it in one spot...how will it flow?

Isn,t that the whole point of having money? to spend it? YES i understand that it is good to save money for a cushion or that just in case aspect. Yet, while we are "saving" money our Dollar is decreasing due to investments that do not benefit the us in the least as a nation.

How fair is that?

 

[mrRuckus]

If you are SAVING it meaning not using on anything just holding it in one spot...how will it flow?

It's NOT saved in one spot. You put your money in the bank, and then the bank lends it out to others who then spend it. There isn't some big vault that says "women haze" on the front of it at the bank with your money in it.

Banks can't lend out money they don't have. That's why your savings account pays you interest. They pay you to let them lend your money out to other people who then build a business or research a new techonlogy or something (aka grow the economy)

And what sort of rich person sits around with a whole lot of cash anyway (yeah i know that there are times that it is wise to do that, but let's not get all technical)? Money works to make more money. Rich people are rich and stay rich because they are wisely invested everywhere, which means the money is out there doing something. Not sitting on a giant amount of cash not doing anything in their money bin like Scrooge McDuck.

I think it was day one of my macroeconomics class when I was a young chap of 18 when the professor walked in and said that savings grows the economy. But that sure as hell can't be looked at as "0 spending is good!" It's not that black and white. The economy doesn't grow more because you spend more; you spend more because the economy grew.

Isn't this how every economic cycle goes anyway? The economy starts to suck, everyone stops spending and is afraid to spend, which means they're saving, and then the economy turns around and people go back to spending. Everytime we have some economic downturn everyone panics and after a while it all turns around, like clockwork.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Child support should be capped. A billionare paying $46k a month is nothing relatively. It's the guy making $30-50K or so a year paying $700-800 a month or whatever it typically is for a child or two, leaving him with barely enough to survive.

No parent no matter how well off is required to provide more than the necessities to their child, eg food, clothing and shelter. Anything else like designer clothes, fancy meals in restaurants, private schools etc is the parent's option.

The government has no problem determining the minimum monthly amount in welfare a child needs to be supported who lost a parent or the parents are disabled. I'm pretty sure it is below $600/month. But when it's a father having to shoulder the bill, then the sky's limit.

On top of that, these able- bodied mothers should be responsible for half of the child's support. So what do you have here maybe $300-400/month that the father should have to pay at most. Anything else he wants to give to his child should be his option.

Any support over $300-$400/month even if the father can afford more is nothing more than a payment to the mother or alimony. So let's see, the woman almost always gets primary custody of the children and excessive child support payments, how is that not just the woman stealing from a father? Stealing his money and child(ren) without having to provide anything in return like being a wife, sex, etc.

 

[zekko]

The government has no problem determining the minimum monthly amount in welfare a child needs to be supported who lost a parent or the parents are disabled. I'm pretty sure it is below $600/month. But when it's a father having to shoulder the bill, then the sky's limit.

Good point.
And if the guy's unemployed (not unlikely in this economy) he gets thrown in jail for awhile. Then when he gets out he is ordered to get a job to pay the support, but now he has to find the job with a record.

Any support over $300-$400/month even if the father can afford more is nothing more than a payment to the mother or alimony

Of course the mother is going to benefit from the money. It's paid directly to her, after all. If the money is paying for living arrangements, the mother is going to get to live there. If she buys them a meal, she will get to share in it.
If you have kids you are really putting your financial future at risk.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Good point.
And if the guy's unemployed (not unlikely in this economy) he gets thrown in jail for awhile. Then when he gets out he is ordered to get a job to pay the support, but now he has to find the job with a record.

Yes it is not even just about child support or giving money to the woman. It is really about punishing and victimizing a man who has a child. It's like if you want to excercise nature's perogative as a man to procreate, then we are going to punish you for it. It's really a violation of men's civil and human rights, on top of violating the constitution which calls for equal rights and protection. Men are effectively treated as less than equal to women. By making marriage and children too expensive and painful, the system is effectively preventing men from having a wife or children.

Of course the mother is going to benefit from the money. It's paid directly to her, after all. If the money is paying for living arrangements, the mother is going to get to live there. If she buys them a meal, she will get to share in it.
If you have kids you are really putting your financial future at risk.

But if the child support was based solely on half of the base cost (or even all)of supporting the child, which the goverment has no problem determining when it is paying, then there'd be no financial windfall or benefit to the woman. Of course the goal is really to benefit the woman and not the child. But as I mentioned, it really about punishing men, and forcing them to give resource to a woman and get nothing in return.

 

[zekko]

By making marriage and children too expensive and painful, the system is effectively preventing men from having a wife or children.

Pretty much, almost. It's a huge risk to take.
I do think a man should be responsible for his children.
But since custody is almost always granted to the female (and maybe that's the real problem), the guy always get stuck paying support. And I know a lot of guys who are practically destitute because of it. I wouldn't even know how to begin to live on what some of these guys have to. A lot of Raman noodles, I guess.

I don't know how they determine the amount of support.
Your idea about establishing a base cost to take the windfall out of it is interesting. Maybe if a guy was wealthy, he could voluntarily add some more to help out his kid.
Of course I wouldn't hold my breath.