Feminization of Poverty
Ed Nilges
feminization and juvenalization of poverty as men leave their
families with insufficient support, an article by Jason DeParle
in the New York Times for March 3rd puts the case quite starkly:
"The percentage of children living in poverty jumped to 36 percent
from 19 percent in just four months after a breakup, Federal
researchers found.
Only 44 percent of absent fathers were paying child support four
months after the breakup, a figure that changed little a year
later. Although mothers worked more after a breakup, their efforts
did not compensate for the fathers' absence, and family income
declined by 37 percent.
Because of the drop in family size, the 37 percent decline in
income translates to a 26 percent drop in per capita income."
Peter Barbee
What? I'm supposed to believe these numbers because a journalist
wrote them down in a newspaper? I can make up numbers too.
Probably the most biased words in Ed's postings are his phrase "...men
leave their families..." and DeParle's phrase "...absent fathers...".
Both of these phrases indicate a stampede of men abandoning their
families. What about the fact that at least 65% of divorces involving
children are instigated by mothers (ref. Judith Wallerstein, _Second
Chances_, result of 15 year longitudial study of divorced families
and 10 year involvment in counseling center for divorce). Her figure
is lower than other sudies (for which I don't have as reliable
references and/or trust). Who is abandoning who? And who is being
asked to pay for it?
There are glaring problems with the numbers that Ed quoted, I won't
bother to go into each one. But it does show that if you want to
misrepresent an observation the best way to do it is with statistics.
Peter B
Ed Nilges
>In article <12...@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EGNI...@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>>In answer to the fatuous "refutations" posted to soc.men of the
>>feminization and juvenalization of poverty as men leave their
>>families with insufficient support, an article by Jason DeParle
>>in the New York Times for March 3rd puts the case quite starkly:
>>
>>
>> "The percentage of children living in poverty jumped to 36 percent
>> from 19 percent in just four months after a breakup, Federal
>> researchers found.
>>
>> Only 44 percent of absent fathers were paying child support four
>> months after the breakup, a figure that changed little a year
>> later. Although mothers worked more after a breakup, their efforts
>> did not compensate for the fathers' absence, and family income
>> declined by 37 percent.
>>
>> Because of the drop in family size, the 37 percent decline in
>> income translates to a 26 percent drop in per capita income."
>
>What? I'm supposed to believe these numbers because a journalist
>wrote them down in a newspaper? I can make up numbers too.
DeParle's numbers were taken from Census Bureau figures. Not the
flawed 1990 census, but a separate study. And if the methodolog-
ical problems of the 1990 census infect this study in some degree,
the study paints a rosy picture. This is because the 1990 census
may have undercounted the poor, minorities, and the homeless. If
the separate child support study underrepresents the poor, etc.,
then the figures are even worse in reality, for it's poor men
who cannot pay.
I too have problems with the semiofficial newspaper The New York
Times when, for example, it reports unanimous support for Gulf
aggression. But DeParle's figures are easily checked by obtain-
ing the study he references, and he'd look like an idiot were his
statements so readily falsifiable.
Peter, I view your denial as somewhat of the same sort of denial
that Germans use on the Holocaust. Although Lyotard writes that
it is in the nature of a wrong for people to disagree that it
ever occured, I believe you commit another wrong by denying that
the feminization of poverty occurs.
In 1986, I lived in downtown Seattle. One day I was walking down
the steep decline of Madison street when a middle-class-appearing
young woman, with a beautiful, healthy baby in tow, asked me for
money. Her story was that her husband had kicked her out and
refused to pay child support. A few months later I saw this woman
again. Her face was dirty, her hair unwashed, her baby dirty and
(now about a year or so old) compulsively and dully kicking at
newspaper kiosks.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
>
>Probably the most biased words in Ed's postings are his phrase "...men
>leave their families..." and DeParle's phrase "...absent fathers...".
>Both of these phrases indicate a stampede of men abandoning their
>families. What about the fact that at least 65% of divorces involving
>children are instigated by mothers (ref. Judith Wallerstein, _Second
>Chances_, result of 15 year longitudial study of divorced families
>and 10 year involvment in counseling center for divorce). Her figure
>is lower than other sudies (for which I don't have as reliable
>references and/or trust). Who is abandoning who? And who is being
You quote Wallerstein. I could play your game of the skeptic,
but I've read Wallerstein's book. You fail to mention how she
she describes consistent downward mobility on the part of
children and their mothers...how it is typical that physicians
sons grow up with their mothers, and become at best medical
technicians or unix gurus. There's nothing wrong per se with
finding your niche and downward mobility, but Wallerstein's
point is that the reason it happens is because the father does
not pay legally required amounts of child support, or at best
ceases to pay when the child is 18, meaning no money for
college. Many kids at this point have to join the military
(and are dodging camel shit in the Gulf as we post) to get $$
for school.
Wallerstein describes a phenomenon recognized by Barbara
Ehrenreich as part of an even larger syndrome...the fact that
middle-class families in our society typically push kids out
of the nest very early compared to other societies. My
uncle, Edward Nilges, was still living at home at the age of
29 when he went off to World War II (to be killed in action.)
Nowadays, using a rhetoric of self-reliance, parents typically
require kids to be self-supporting in college. Ehrenreich
points out that this is not the case in other advanced societies,
and shows how it puts the pressure on kids to select high-
paying but unfulfilling careers. Fathers who cut off all
support at age 18 when able to pay are part of this syndrome.
>asked to pay for it?
>
>There are glaring problems with the numbers that Ed quoted, I won't
>bother to go into each one.
Mostly because you cannot. The main problem with the numbers I
quote is that they make men look bad.
>But it does show that if you want to
>misrepresent an observation the best way to do it is with statistics.
You are right that statistics can be used to distort reality.
But DeParle's article simply repeats simple statistics, and
I can supplement these stats with anecdotal evidence. The picture
that emerges is that many men don't care about their ex-families
because their ex-families can no longer be viewed as chattels and
moveables.
>
>Peter B
Christian Overton
> "The percentage of children living in poverty jumped to 36 percent
> from 19 percent in just four months after a breakup, Federal
> researchers found.
>
> Only 44 percent of absent fathers were paying child support four
> months after the breakup, a figure that changed little a year
> later. Although mothers worked more after a breakup, their efforts
> did not compensate for the fathers' absence, and family income
> declined by 37 percent.
>
> Because of the drop in family size, the 37 percent decline in
> income translates to a 26 percent drop in per capita income."
These numbers, while perhaps accurate, portray an extremely distorted
picture of the situation --- one that has been used to penalize
responsible fathers. One problem with these statistics is that they
lump results from all economic classes, whereas the vast majority of
fathers who fail to pay child support are from the lower income
classes. However, it is the middle class fathers, those who are most
likely to pay child support (in fact far more likely than
non-custodial middle class mothers), who are most penalized by a
system that has been shaped by bogus numbers such as those presented
above. This arena is emotionally highly charged and lawmakers have
often responded by enacting legislation that presumes that all fathers
are "dead-beat dads" and treats them accordingly. And even when the
legislation in supposedly sex neutral, the fact of the matter is that
fathers are on the defensive, in effect "presumed guilty", when they
walk into the court room. For example, here in Pennsylvania, the
tender years doctrine has been discarded, but you will find virtually
no difference in the outcomes of child custody cases before and after
the doctrine was discarded.
A significant reason fathers fail to maintain contact with their
children is because of the abuse they suffer at the hands of the legal
system --- Allen Wells is an extreme example of this type of abuse.
In the long run, the system must become fairer with regard to child
support and more importantly with regard to child custody, so that
breakdowns in father-child relationships occur less often and so that
children are exposed to a less hostile atmosphere than is left in the
wake of court decisions.
Chris
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| G. Christian Overton || Telephone: (215) 648-2420 |
| Center for Advanced Information Technology || Internet: ov...@prc.unisys.com |
| Unisys || FAX: (215) 648-2288 |
Bob Kirkpatrick (Spokane)
According tthe Office of Support Enforcement, one third of absent parents
(usualy, but not always, fathers) are in arrears in their child support.
Even this figure is a bit bogus, as well as rather misleading.
First, 'in arrears' is indicative of any monetary amount, including change.
My support amount includes whole dollar amounts, but also 7 cents. I don't
pay the 7 cents. As far as OSE is concerned, I'm in arrears, and owe back
support for two years. This amounts to the staggering figure of $1.68.
Additionally, OSE, without benefit of Court, but from their own policies,
will occasionally decide to raise the support amount. I know of a number of
people this has happened to. Each of them went to Court and were told that
no significant change of circumstances existed, and the original order for
support were reaffirmed. Even so, the OSE took the position that these
people 'owed' the amount they hadn't paid. So they are classed in arrears,
even though there is no legal standpoint for the classification.
In this state, and perhaps others, I don't know for sure, up to 51% of the
paying parents income may be tapped. If they happen to be unemployed, there
are circumstances where income may be imputed. This means that a judge goes
to a chart (provided by the dolts at OSE) and from it, determine what a
person should have for an income at a particular age. I know one individual
who works as a temp on and off --it's the only work he can find-- and has
an income which doesn't exceed $800 per month. The court imputed income of
$1900 per month and awarded support on 42% of that figure. In essence, he
pays $755 per month. He stays with friends because it leaves him nothing to
live on himself.
Whoever wrote the article about women and poverty obviously did little or
no research. Journalists like that are to be ridiculed. Would someone post
the name, article name, and publication for me? I want to write exception
articles --with REAL statistics-- and post both on the various networks.
Ed Nilges
>In article <12...@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EGNILGES@pucc (Ed Nilges) writes:
>> "The percentage of children living in poverty jumped to 36 percent
>> from 19 percent in just four months after a breakup, Federal
>> researchers found.
>>
>> Only 44 percent of absent fathers were paying child support four
>> months after the breakup, a figure that changed little a year
>> did not compensate for the fathers' absence, and family income
>> declined by 37 percent.
>>
>> Because of the drop in family size, the 37 percent decline in
>> income translates to a 26 percent drop in per capita income."
>
>These numbers, while perhaps accurate, portray an extremely distorted
>picture of the situation --- one that has been used to penalize
>responsible fathers. One problem with these statistics is that they
>lump results from all economic classes, whereas the vast majority of
>fathers who fail to pay child support are from the lower income
>classes.
This is untrue. Judith Wallerstein found that in terms of their earning
power it is the upper income men, not men of the poorer classes,
who fail to pay child support. Allen Wells, whose failure to pay
is now assured by his self-murder, was upper income even after he
left his Clearpoint job paying 83,000 and took a job at 60,000 with
Microsoft.
Christian Overton
>In article <16...@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> overt@antony (Christian Overton) writes:
>>These numbers, while perhaps accurate, portray an extremely distorted
>>picture of the situation --- one that has been used to penalize
>>responsible fathers. One problem with these statistics is that they
>>lump results from all economic classes, whereas the vast majority of
>>fathers who fail to pay child support are from the lower income
>>classes.
>
>power it is the upper income men, not men of the poorer classes,
>who fail to pay child support.
>
Ed,
Perhaps you can help me out here. First, I don't understand what "in terms of
their earning power means". Could you clarify this sentence? Second, I don't
know who Judith Wallerstein is. Could you supply a reference to her work and
her credentials? Third, a comment: my sources are at distinct odds with your
information. Again, the numbers that are used to justify one position or
another in this area must be looked at closely. For example, in the landmark
work of Lenore J. Weitzman (of which I'm sure you are aware), she claims that
"women and minor children in their household experience a 73 percent decline in
their standard of living WHEN INCOME IS COMPARED TO NEEDS (Weitzman, 1985) . In
contrast, men experience a 42 percent rise in their standard of living one year
after divorce" (from "The Divorce Law Revolution and the Transformation of Legal
Marriage"). The key here, which I've put in caps, is WHEN INCOME IS COMPARED TO
NEEDS. These figures have been used to justify large increases in child support
over the last 10 years, but if you examine the typical situation in middle class
families after divorce with children, you will find that the father (let's say
it again, THE FATHER, in over 90% of cases) moves out into a one bedroom apt.,
and the MOTHER stays in the marital home. The FATHER'S income certainly didn't
increase 42% in a year, but his NEEDS for food, clothing, and housing as defined
by Weitzman, did decline so his overall standard of living, as defined by
Weitzman did go up. I don't know how you view it, but when I moved out of my
house into an apartment, I didn't consider this a step up in my standard of
living. Moreover, it gets pretty embarrassing when the kids come over and there
is no yard for them to play in, no toys because they stay at Mom's house, etc.
But enough of the anecdotal accounts.
Ed, I am in complete agreement with you that the custodial parent should receive
child support. I utterly despise people who abandon their children financially
or emotionally. The issue is not whether or not the custodial parent should
receive child support, the issue is how FATHERS are treated by the court system
--- to be blunt, it sucks. One last anecdote: I tried to get custody of my
kids, but I made some of the same mistakes that Allen Wells made --- chief among
them was that I left the marital home and left the kids there with their mother.
(Hey, what did I know, men are suppose to leave when the marriage breaks down so
as to disrupt the kids as little as possible.) When my wife decided shortly
thereafter to pack up and leave PA for AL, I sued for custody, but as you might
guess, unless I could show overwhelming evidence of her unfitness as a parent,
she wins. A court appointed psychologist said, correctly I should add, that we
were both excellent parents. So off she went with the children to AL. Tell me
Ed, do you think this was in the best interest of the children?
Chris
--
Ed Nilges
>In article <70...@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>Ed,
>
>Perhaps you can help me out here. First, I don't understand what "in terms of
>their earning power means". Could you clarify this sentence? Second, I don't
Wealthy men typically pay very little child support as a fraction of their
income, whereas poorer men have to shell out as much as 70% of net pay.
Upper-income men are often doctors, lawyers, and othe professionals
who bill clients and therefore can't be tapped at the source (in 1994,
child support will be deducted from the paychecks of wage earners:
no arrangement will be made when the father is self-employed.) I sug-
gest that this is a real unfairness which soc.men should address, and
that child support should be a progressive rather than a regressive
"tax". Upper income men should pay more, and lower income men should
receive assistance in the form of matching funds once they demonstrate
responsibility, consistency, and willingness to pay. For example,
child support payments could be made deductible to BOTH the payer
and the receiver when adjusted gross income is below a certain level.
Currently these payments are tax-free to the receiver but fully taxable
to the payer. This would go far towards improving compliance with
support awards, since the payer would not get his deduction without
some proof of payment.
>know who Judith Wallerstein is. Could you supply a reference to her work and
>her credentials? Third, a comment: my sources are at distinct odds with your
She's a PhD who followed about 100 families in Northern California
over the last ten years. Although I read her book last year, the
name escapes me: however, it is in print (and available in paperback).
Bronis Vidugiris
)> Only 44 percent of absent fathers were paying child support four
)> months after the breakup, a figure that changed little a year
)> later. Although mothers worked more after a breakup, their efforts
)> did not compensate for the fathers' absence, and family income
)> declined by 37 percent.
)>
)> Because of the drop in family size, the 37 percent decline in
)> income translates to a 26 percent drop in per capita income."
)
)What? I'm supposed to believe these numbers because a journalist
)wrote them down in a newspaper? I can make up numbers too.
A good starting point for looking at the statistics is 'Statistical
Abstracts of the US'.
I don't have the figures in front of me, but my guess is that they
are probably 'true', but misleading. Somewhere around 75% of men who
are ordered to pay child support pay it, according to US Census Bureau
figures. These figures are probably _low_ (more men than this pay)
for two reasons:
1) They are old figures, and recent changes in the law have made it
harder to avoid payment.
2) They are based on surveys, so women may well under report payment
rates.
So, how are the figures that Ed reports possibly true, or close? Though
in the case where a woman is divorced she is awarded child suport about
80% of the time, single mothers don't fare nearly so well. I don't recall
this particular figure off the top of my head, but it's low - real low.
When I did look at these figures, I concluded that they, ultimately, were a
result of the frequncy with which poor (ie not rich :-) ) women were having
children out of wedlock these days. It seems that paying these women to
support themselves and the child is not an effective discouragement for this
behavior somehow - even though from what I've heard the payment isn't enough
to cover the costs, so the explanation isn't simple greed. [It may be
greed combined with ignorance, though. But then again, maybe not.]
For the sake of balance between the genders, I'd like to be able to quote
statistics about how often men are awarded child support, and payment rates
therof. Unfortunately, I can't do this. I know they are not abstracted,
and I believe (though I haven't yet verified it) that they are not even
collected!
It seems that the public isn't interested as much in reading about how men
are not awarded child support though. I have seen some pretty horrendous
figures on this, but these are probably small-sample sized geographically
limited and axe-grinding-by-design type statistics every bit as bad as the
"men's standard of living goes up 74% after a divorce" statistics.
Somehow, it seems, men are expected to manage being single parents without
financial support - and they often do. In at least one case, publicised
here on the net, the man is not only raising the child, but he's paying the
woman alimony for the privelege, rather than getting support from the woman
as would be his due under a fair system. The sad thing is he probably made
a wise choice given the current system.
Annie
*- "tax". Upper income men should pay more, and lower income men should
*- receive assistance in the form of matching funds once they demonstrate
*- responsibility, consistency, and willingness to pay. For example,
Ok..I can't keep quiet any longer...
I just can't believe so many gullible men who have been spoon-fed this
feminist pap have accepted and swallowed it whole.
Can you explain to me, please, why non-custodial parents <read as "men">
should pay more if they make more, versus less if they make less?
Does the fact that my ex-husband (hypothetically) makes 100k a year mean
that *MY EXPENSES INCURRED IN RAISING MY CHILD* somehow magically grow
in direct correlation to my ex's income??
WHERE did our society come up with the premise that as a woman I automatically
get custody, and if I am not financially fit to pay for it, I still get it
and my ex just has to pay for it all? If I request custody, then dammit
I better be prepared to pay NO LESS then 50% of the cost to raise that
child. And no more.
*REGARDLESS* of income, each parent should be required to contribute
50% of the *cost* of raising that child. In this day and age it is not
so difficult to calculate what the baseline cost of raising a child is;
nor to make periodic adjustments to that figure. If the glegislatures can
calculate that $5000 is the minimum yearly need for a man <and thus in many
states the courts may take ALL but $5000 of a man's income and give it to the
ex>, then they can certainly calculate a 'minimum needs' figure for raising
a child.
I expect my ex to contribute to 1/2 of what it costs to supply the basics
for my daughter. I fought for custody. I won. I was and am prepared
to contribute that other 50%, AND to pay entirely for those things which *I*
deem my daughter should have which are not necessities (such as ballet
lessons). If I wasn't even willing to take on that much responsibility,
perhaps the wrong parent got custody. And now that I have custody, why
should my ex have to shell out for every whim of mine in terms of what I
want for my daughter? I fought for the right to have sole determination over
those decisions. The luxury <yes, luxury> of sole determination should
carry with it the financial responsibility of those determinations.
Obviously this does not address joint custody [which at best is usually
a pacifier to get the father to back off a custody suit, as "physical
custody" still usually goes to the mother]. Of course, ever notice how
in most joint custody arrangements when mom has the kids, dad pays support,
and when dad has the kids, dad gets to not pay support. Funny, why isn't
mom paying support during those times?
--
*----> WANTED! Used pair of Rollerblades...woman's size 7/7.5/8 <----*
Anne (She Devil) Mitchell - Stanford Law - shed...@leland.stanford.edu
No disclaimer necessary as this is *my* account, and besides - nobody
would ever accuse anyone else of having these opinions anyway!
Rod VAN MECHELEN
>
> "The percentage of children living in poverty jumped to 36 percent
> from 19 percent in just four months after a breakup, Federal
> researchers found.
>
> Only 44 percent of absent fathers were paying child support four
> months after the breakup, a figure that changed little a year
> later. Although mothers worked more after a breakup, their efforts
> did not compensate for the fathers' absence, and family income
> declined by 37 percent.
>
> Because of the drop in family size, the 37 percent decline in
> income translates to a 26 percent drop in per capita income."
This clearly demonstrates that a significant number of women are not
qualified to be single parents. If they can't provide the spport
their ex-husbands could, if they cannot provide the same standard
of living their husbands could, then why do the courts and society
continue to impose upon men the ludicrous concept that women make
better single-parents than men do?
I bring this up not to denigrate women (which, of course, a number
of people are likley to assume), but to highlight the fact that
there is always more than one way to look at things. The above cited
provide the slanted view that all these poor women and children are
suffering because of mean men. But there's another way to look at it:
the children are suffering because their mean moms refused to give
up custody to their fathers.
Looking at it from both perspectives might lead us to a more
equitable system, where the courts are not biased against awarding
fathers custody of the children.
rod
Jim Livingston
>receive assistance in the form of matching funds once they demonstrate
>responsibility, consistency, and willingness to pay. For example,
Men should pay 1/2 half the cost of raising a child. Not some percentage
of gross income pulled from a hat. Therfore it is concievable that a two
individuals in different economic brackets pay the same amount of
child-support.
Tom Chapin
> Of course, ever notice how
>in most joint custody arrangements when mom has the kids, dad pays support,
>and when dad has the kids, dad gets to not pay support. Funny, why isn't
>mom paying support during those times?
I, um, resemble that remark! Luckily it was only a nominal amount...
--
tom chapin att!hrccb!tjc t...@hrccb.att.com
Cliff Tomplait
>One last anecdote: I tried to get custody of my
>kids, but I made some of the same mistakes that Allen Wells made --- chief
>among them was that I left the marital home and left the kids there with
>their mother. (Hey, what did I know, men are suppose to leave when the
>marriage breaks down so as to disrupt the kids as little as possible.)
Sorry, Christian. It was not a chief mistake to leave the marital home.
Your chief mistake was being born male.
In my case, I stayed in the home (she took what she wanted, robbed the
savings/checking accounts, etc while I was on a business trip) and have
paid thousands of dollars to keep what she said she had no interest in
(until her lawyer saw it as a source of "attorney's fees").
I don't believe that it matters what a father does, or doesn't do, in a
divorce suit. The system is designed to oppress the father, especially
if he seeks custody (horrors!) of his children.
Laszlo Nobi
>In article <70...@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Wealthy men typically pay very little child support as a fraction of their
>income, whereas poorer men have to shell out as much as 70% of net pay.
>Upper-income men are often doctors, lawyers, and othe professionals
>who bill clients and therefore can't be tapped at the source (in 1994,
>child support will be deducted from the paychecks of wage earners:
>no arrangement will be made when the father is self-employed.) I sug-
What does "as a fraction of their income" have to do with anything? Do
you believe that if a person making $1500 per month pays 20% of that ($300)
in child support a person making $10K per month should pay $2000 per month in
child support? What a line of CRAP! Do you really believe that anyone
would or could actually spend that kind of money on a kid? (not to mention
the monetary support that the custodial parent is SUPPOSED to provide).
Sounds like a profit making proposition to me....I believe that the only
sound basis for the amount of child support is first a determination of the
actual cost for "basic needs" of the child, then a fair way to proportion
those costs between the parents.
>gest that this is a real unfairness which soc.men should address, and
>that child support should be a progressive rather than a regressive
>"tax". Upper income men should pay more, and lower income men should
>receive assistance in the form of matching funds once they demonstrate
>responsibility, consistency, and willingness to pay. For example,
I agree that upper income men (?) should pay more, but only up to the point
that any additional payments become "profit" to the custodial parent. I
also feel that there should be some "discretionary" support on the part
of the non-custodial parent that is deducted from support payments in cases
where the non-custodial parent buys things that he or she deems are
essential for the child and can't get the custodial parent to buy them.
I know I provide over 100% of the support for my kids, but I can't get
their mother to buy them new coats for the winter. Yet, she and her
husband just went and bought a brand new car.....now I know why my child
support recently went up over 50%.
>child support payments could be made deductible to BOTH the payer
>and the receiver when adjusted gross income is below a certain level.
>Currently these payments are tax-free to the receiver but fully taxable
>to the payer. This would go far towards improving compliance with
>support awards, since the payer would not get his deduction without
>some proof of payment.
The payer SHOULD be allowed to deduct child support payments, but why should
the receiver be allowed to do the same when it is already tax-free income?
Ed, from your postings it appears that you are either very naiive about
child support or you are a "receiver" and want to protect your interests.
I noticed that you always refer to "men" as the payers...
Anything that appears to be a flame is intentional-
Laszlo
Ed Nilges
>
>The payer SHOULD be allowed to deduct child support payments, but why should
>the receiver be allowed to do the same when it is already tax-free income?
You did not understand the proposal. I propose that child support be
tax-free to the payer and that the receiver should RETAIN her current
tax deduction. I did not, of course, propose that the receiver "double
dip."
>
>Ed, from your postings it appears that you are either very naiive about
>child support or you are a "receiver" and want to protect your interests.
>I noticed that you always refer to "men" as the payers...
I have been divorced for ten years. Since that time I have paid almost
100,000 in child support, consistently and on-time.
+--------------------------------+ Edward G. Nilges
| Child support, tax-deductible | Princeton University
| to payer AND receiver: an idea | Information Center
| whose time has come. | Bitnet: EGNILGES@PUCC
+--------------------------------+ (609) 258-2985