Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
RogerFGay
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay072402.htm
Child Support's Wacky Math is a book about the way that Virginia and
other states modify child support orders in consideration of
visitation and shared parenting. It promises two things; to prove that
the formula is grossly in error, and to show how reality gets lost and
logic muddled in the overly political process that now dominates the
child support system. It delivers on both promises with room to spare.
complete book review
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay072402.htm
RogerFGay
the child support guideline model used in more states than any other.
The author lives in Virginia, and picks specifically on Virginia, but
the problem exists in many other states. From what I've seen, most
states that use the percent formula are not adjusting properly either.
Dwayne Shrum
income on paper, but the obligor is almost guaranteed to pay 100% of the
table-look-up for the combined income, not just their own or their percent
of the combined. The problem is that the threshold of how much time the
"lesser" parent has with their children is so high, anything less than 72
days to 122 overnights (depending upon the state) is ignored and assumed to
be 0 time... even when the parent is fit, proper, and willing to parent.
Example... I was getting 3 months each year. But I have to pay 100% of the
combined income of me and my ex for 2 children. Any time that I do actually
parent is an additional financial burden on only me, despite that I am
paying what is supposed to be the amount that both of us should be spending
on them all year.
I would like, at minimum, to see the CS laws modified to limit all fit,
proper, and willing NCP's to the guidelines for the combined income level as
if they get 1/2 year weather they are permitted by order or CP, or not.
This would reverse the financial incentive to deprive a parent of parenting
time back to the person who ultimately has the ability to permit it. In
other words, in my case I should only have to pay what the joint parenting
worksheet with 6 months parenting time would say I should pay...not 0 time.
Then if a judge or ex interferes with my parenting time, I do have "some"
money left for me to fight for my civil and constitutional rights to parent.
What is done now is nothing less than stealing children, hiding behind them,
and using that thievery for demand of dollars not deserved.
No parent should be rewarded for depriving their child from their other
parent.
Dwayne
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02072...@posting.google.com...
Jill
through the ether:
What do you mean by states using the percent formula are not adjusting
properly either?
I ask because in the past year, Wisconsin was ordered to stop using
the straight percentage guidelines or lose all their federal CS
funding, kickbacks, etc. They got caught out with some bad
bookkeeping or something because their monthly CS owed by fathers
fluctuated all over the place...sorry I can't recall exactly what else
was wrong but I'll ask my husband later as he's kept up on it.
Two counties in Wisconsin were the biggest violaters (Milwaukee and
Waukesha--the 2 biggest CS counties) and of course these counties
along with the State of Wisconsin went into a panic. Creating a fixed
CS monthly amount will cut into their false arrears game but not to
worry as they found a way to make up the potential differences to some
degree.
The counties now have been "converting" old percentage guideline
cases but surprise, surprise...they just come to a fixed number that
is "equal" to the old percentage "average" amount and the new number
almost always is quite a bit MORE than what fathers paid under the old
fluctuating percentage guidelines. Funny how that works, eh?
Jill
Dwayne Shrum
biggie adjustments should be 1) the percent of combined income the NCP earns
and 2) the amount of parenting time permitted by the NCP.
In NC, they have three worksheets (formulas).
A - Sole Custody, where the NCP pays 100% of the combined income of both
parents regardless of parenting time the NCP enjoys and used for most joint
custody cases.
B - Shared Custody, where the NCP pays <100% of the guideline table based
upon their actual percentage of income compared to the combined income and
then less their parenting time.
C - Split Custody for when one parent has one or more children, and the
other has one or more children - split the kids up - both are CP's.
The shared custody worksheet B is ONLY permitted to be used when there is at
least 122 overnights enjoyed by the NCP AND the judge permits it.
On the worksheet A, joint custody parents can only pay 100% of their OWN
actual income (or imputed income) instead of the combined total income, if
their modified gross income is $800/mo or less. so if an NCP makes $1,500,
has 3 subsequent children and is given 50% of table credit for them (~$250),
then his modified gross income is still $1,250/mo - and thus an ex who makes
$607/mo in disability SSI checks is then added back to the NCP's MGI for a
combined total parental income of $1,857/mo!
The NCP has to pay 100% on for the children for 12 months that are with him
for up to 1/3 of the year. CP, in essence, is computed to not have to pay
anything and NCP, on the otherhand, has to pay CP's part too, which CP
already has in their hands when they cash their own checks.
Fuzzy logic, highway robbery, new math.
"Jill" <perspic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d401fbd...@news.earthlink.net...
RogerFGay
>
> Income Shares sounds good to some,
It's total pathetic crap. I almost hit the floor the first time I read
the report recommending its use. Bunch of dishonest pseudo-science.
I've become an historian on the matter. You just wouldn't believe ...
>
> I would like, at minimum, to see the CS laws modified to limit all fit,
> proper, and willing NCP's to the guidelines for the combined income level as
> if they get 1/2 year weather they are permitted by order or CP, or not.
FYI press release:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/FatherMag/visit_bsi.htm
Dwayne Shrum
news:<3RR%8.121478$88.19...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> >
> > Income Shares sounds good to some,
>
> It's total pathetic crap.
I completely agree.... I think it really is a mentality of not, "what does
it take to rear a child", but rather, "let's put all our money in one big
virtual pot and see how little I can let you keep".
frazil
> through the ether:
>
> >Anyone in the forum familiar with the "Income Shares" formula? It's
> >the child support guideline model used in more states than any other.
> >The author lives in Virginia, and picks specifically on Virginia, but
> >the problem exists in many other states. From what I've seen, most
> >states that use the percent formula are not adjusting properly either.
>
> What do you mean by states using the percent formula are not adjusting
> properly either?
>
> I ask because in the past year, Wisconsin was ordered to stop using
> the straight percentage guidelines or lose all their federal CS
> funding, kickbacks, etc. They got caught out with some bad
> bookkeeping or something because their monthly CS owed by fathers
> fluctuated all over the place...sorry I can't recall exactly what else
> was wrong but I'll ask my husband later as he's kept up on it.
As I recall in Georgia, also one of the few states that used the percent of
income model, the court found that the model violated the equal protection
clause of the constitution (state?) because the formula didn't consider the
CP's income.
>
> Two counties in Wisconsin were the biggest violaters (Milwaukee and
> Waukesha--the 2 biggest CS counties) and of course these counties
> along with the State of Wisconsin went into a panic. Creating a fixed
> CS monthly amount will cut into their false arrears game but not to
> worry as they found a way to make up the potential differences to some
> degree.
No doubt!
>
> The counties now have been "converting" old percentage guideline
> cases but surprise, surprise...they just come to a fixed number that
> is "equal" to the old percentage "average" amount and the new number
> almost always is quite a bit MORE than what fathers paid under the old
> fluctuating percentage guidelines. Funny how that works, eh?
Not funny at all! (yes I know you were being sarcastic)
Its completely understandable considering human nature. 1) People hate to
lose; 2) People are greedy; and 3) People are selfish.
Because people hate to lose, the government (Remember the government is just
a bunch of people. These people are just like the rest of us. Some good,
some bad, and most somewhere in between), even if it lost if court, will
find some other remedy to achieve the same outcome as the one that they
lost. Call it revenge, call it justice, whatever. Call this the "Oh Yeah,
I'll show you" response. Or Perhaps the "Be careful of what you wish for,
you might just get it" response.
Now considering that the Federal government provides a pretty handsome
incentive (percentage of CS money collected) to fund the CS collection
program that means that states can spend their tax revenue on other
programs. IOW what is not spent on Program A can be spent on Program B, so
it really dosen't matter if the incentive is tied to Program A. Call this
the "Rob Peter to Pay Paul" Principal .
Last but not least, consider each individual's role in the situation.
People generally have short memories, so the natural tendency is to take the
"What have you done for me lately view". Legislators know this and
therefore they are quite eager to propose the next new great program to make
the voters happy so they can keep there jobs the next time around. They are
equally not eager to propose controversial ideas for fear of pissing of the
large number of voters. (Notice how this election year the energy proposals
that were once a top priority even after 9/11, haven't made it out of
congress, but the new laws to fight corporate corruption sailed through
congress in the blink of an eye?) IOW, all they care about is keeping
their jobs (Sound familiar, I admit I really want to keep my job. But at
least I think my excuse is better than most peoples. It keeps me from being
threatened with loss of license, jail, etc. Yes, I know I'm being selfish)
Further since good CS collections mean good revenue for the state in the
form of Federal incentives, legislators are inclined to maximize revenue to
be able to do spend that revenue toward other programs that will ensure
their jobs next voting cycle (See: Rob Peter to pay Paul" Priciple). The
people working in the CS agency also know that the legislators are unlikely
to cut programs that bring money to the state, and since they also want to
keep their jobs they aren't going to want to lower the amount they collect
(See: "Oh Yeah, I'll show you" response)
And further (driving the point home) you can't expect CP's would fight these
natural human tendencies in the quest of justice, because they are so busy
in their noble pursuit of taking care of the children that you, loss hating,
greedy, selfish, NCPs left behind, no matter how pure they are.
Or maybe they are just as loss hating, greedy, and selfish as the rest of
us.
Naw couldn't be.
Thanks I needed that!
>
> Jill
>
RogerFGay
>
> I ask because in the past year, Wisconsin was ordered to stop using
> the straight percentage guidelines or lose all their federal CS
> funding, kickbacks, etc. They got caught out with some bad
> bookkeeping or something because their monthly CS owed by fathers
> fluctuated all over the place...sorry I can't recall exactly what else
> was wrong but I'll ask my husband later as he's kept up on it.
>
I think you might be referring to Wisconsin's decision to tie the
percent to actual income -- i.e. adjusting it every month to the
actual paycheck. This was especially important to seasonal workers
like some construction workers for example, who can experience an
economic boom in the summer but be unemployed for months in the
winter. The fed, under Clinton, slammed Wisconsin for that during the
election season. Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson was thought of as
the Republican's welfare reform guru. As you know, Tompson is now
Secretary of HHS under Bush.
The OCSE (that approves plans) has never told any state that they had
to stop using the percent formula -- even though they would if they
were honest.
RogerFGay
>
> I am sure Roger can do better explaining the details, but I know that two
> biggie adjustments should be 1) the percent of combined income the NCP earns
> and 2) the amount of parenting time permitted by the NCP.
>
>
Use of combined income such as in the Income Shares formula leads to
completely random results in relation actual standard of living,
children's needs, and the parents' relative ability to pay. There is
absolutely nothing rational about using combined income.
The percent formula has the same problem in that it produces
completely random results in relation to children's needs and the
relative ability of the parents to support them.
RogerFGay
>
> As I recall in Georgia, also one of the few states that used the percent of
> income model, the court found that the model violated the equal protection
> clause of the constitution (state?) because the formula didn't consider the
> CP's income.
>
>
That's correct, but the equal protection clause was not all it
violated. The court will reach the state supreme court either later
this year or early next (presumably after the election - which doesn't
amaze me particularly).
Here's a link to an article about the case, which also contains a link
to the decision. In addition, two links to debate articles against the
chair of the ABA child support committee who wrote two articles
defending the constitutionality of guidelines.
The beginning of the end of child support reform
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay032002.htm
Laura Morgan at the Bottom of the Slippery Slope
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay042402.htm
The Constitutionality of Child Support Guidelines Debate, Part II
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay052202.htm
RogerFGay
(see below or first post in this thread) to make comments and respond
to questions here? He travels a lot on business, but he might be able
to stop in once a week and participate.
roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message news:<4b6433c3.02072...@posting.google.com>...
Sunny
Child support changes sought
State risks federal penalty
By TOM KERTSCHER
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: Jan. 5, 2001
The federal agency that Gov. Tommy G. Thompson has been picked to lead
is threatening to cut millions of dollars in aid to Wisconsin unless
the state changes the way it calculates child support payments for
66,000 families.
Key Issue
Now: In 66,000 child support cases, Wisconsin calculates payments owed
as a percentage of the paying parent's income.
Future: The federal government is ordering the state to set a fixed
monthly amount for the payments.
Section: Wisconsin's transition
Besides the threat from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, the state faces paying $1.7 million of an estimated $5
million cost to reopen those 66,000 cases, with no state money yet
budgeted for the job. The federal government would pick up the rest of
the cost.
But state officials said Friday that they have begun drafting
legislation to make the change and hope to alter all of the cases by
the end of the year.
Once the change is made, "we'll do a better job collecting," said
Jennifer Reinert, secretary of the state Department of Workforce
Development, which oversees child support.
The state handles about 189,000 child support cases. In two-thirds of
them, the paying parent - usually the father - pays a fixed amount of
support every month. The amount changes only if one parent or the
other goes to court.
In the other 66,000 cases, however, the paying, or non-custodial,
parents pay varying amounts of support each month, based on a
percentage of their income. Often, these parents work seasonal jobs,
earn most of their money on commission or have fluctuating income for
other reasons.
Wisconsin is the only state that allows so-called percentage-expressed
child support orders. For years, the federal government has been
pressuring the state to drop them. Finally, with the threatened loss
of federal funding as well as possible fines, state officials have
begun mobilizing in recent weeks to change to a fixed-amount-only
child support system.
Barb DeMarco, a 47-year-old Madison mother of two, said her percentage
order worked well in theory, because her support payments were
supposed to rise automatically with any increase in her former
husband's income. But the system never seemed to work as it was
supposed to, she said.
"It was a major hassle," said DeMarco, whose younger child turned 18
last June.
Deducted from paychecks
In nearly all child support cases in Wisconsin, employers deduct
payments from the payer's paycheck and forward them to the state,
which sends them to the custodial parent. But state officials say
percentage orders have been difficult for employers to manage, and the
state often has no way of verifying that the payments are correct.
Similarly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which
funds the lion's share of child support enforcement programs across
the country, dislikes percentage cases because it cannot determine
whether Wisconsin is collecting all the child support that should be
paid.
Now, HHS - which Thompson soon will lead if the U.S. Senate confirms
him - has indicated that it will cut at least $665,000 in federal
child support aid to the state because of the problems with percentage
cases. And it is threatening to impose millions of dollars more in
cuts, or in fines that the state would have to pay, unless the state's
66,000 percentage cases are converted to fixed monthly payments.
Because Thompson has not yet taken over HHS, he will not comment on
policy matters, his spokesman said.
Reinert, of the state Department of Workforce Development, said her
staff is drafting legislation that would force the change to fixed
payments. Then officials will begin to seek the estimated $1.7 million
- which she called a "worst-case scenario" - to pay for the
conversions.
Reinert acknowledged that because the money is not part of her
department's 2001-'02 budget request, getting it from the Legislature
"is not as simple."
State Sen. Brian Burke (D-Milwaukee), co-chairman of the Legislature's
Joint Finance Committee, said he supports having the state cover the
cost of the conversion so that it would not fall to the counties,
which enforce child support orders. But he said he could not gauge how
Republicans might view the issue.
State Rep. John Gard (R-Peshtigo), Burke's co-chairman, could not be
immediately reached.
Because the money is not already in the budget, it would be
"extraordinarily difficult" to take money from another part of the
budget, Burke said.
Although changing the percentage cases to fixed payments might be
costly, it can be relatively simple. Ozaukee and Sauk counties are
already sending letters to parents in some child support cases,
pointing out that percentage orders might soon be banned and asking
them to switch to fixed-amount orders. The counties are suggesting
fixed amounts based on the paying parents' current income.
If both parents in a given case agree, they can simply sign and return
the paperwork. Milwaukee County plans to begin mailing similar letters
this month.
But because many child support cases involve bad relations between the
parents, financial complexities or other issues, they will have to be
converted from percentages to fixed amounts in court. Milwaukee
County, which has 15,000 percentage cases, estimates it will need $1.5
million to create a temporary court for conversions.
Based on a formula
What would not change is the formula that Wisconsin uses to calculate
child support payments in all cases.
The formula generally calls for a parent supporting one child to pay
17% of the parent's gross income, depending on the time the parent
spends with the child. That percentage rises if the parent supports
more children in the same home, up to a maximum of 34% for five or
more children in a home. Courts would continue to adjust the formula
for special circumstances.
As for scrapping the percentage-payment system, parents with fixed
payments would have to go to court each time they wanted to adjust the
monthly payments. But often those adjustments can be made without
attorneys, using help from county child support enforcement agencies,
officials said.
Parents who pay support and have fluctuating incomes may find it
difficult to change to a fixed-payment system.
"That's going to be a hard thing for people, especially the ones who
pay regularly," said Rhonda Gorden, who heads Ozaukee County's child
support collections.
But John Hayes, director of the Milwaukee County Department of Child
Support Enforcement, said he expects that most custodial parents will
like being on a fixed-payment system so that they can count on
receiving the same amount of support each month. Fixed payments also
make it easier for the county to ensure that all support that is due
actually gets paid, he said.
Rachel Biittner, spokeswoman for the state Department of Workforce
Development, said that even though Wisconsin is at odds with federal
officials over the percentage-payment cases, the state ranks high in
child support enforcement. Federal figures show that in fiscal 1999,
Wisconsin ranked fourth in the nation by collecting $483,215 in
support for every full-time child support enforcement employee,
exceeding the national average of $277,818, she said.
Pam Carter, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human
Services in Washington, said Wisconsin could lose not only millions of
dollars in child support funding but also up to $318 million in
federal welfare funds if it doesn't eliminate percentage cases from
its child support system. It was not known how much any fines could
be.
But the federal agency does not want to cut funds or impose fines, she
said.
"We'll try to work with them," Carter said.
Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Jan. 6, 2001.
Barry Pearson
> of the book (see below or first post in this thread) to make comments
> and respond to questions here? He travels a lot on business, but he
> might be able to stop in once a week and participate.
I would be interested in his views (and indeed, yours) about the mathematics of either the current UK scheme
or the new (yet to start) UK scheme.
There is obviously a problem with understanding what they are, for anyone who doesn't know already.
NEW SCHEME
The formula for the new scheme is easy, see:
"The basics of the new formula":
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/reform/new_formula.htm
CURRENT SCHEME
The current scheme (introduced by the Child Support Act 1991) is ... complicated! (I provide the spreadsheet
that many people use to help them predict their assessments, and I certainly don't know all about the
formula!) This scheme is not based on percentages - it is built from "benefit rates" (cf. welfare rates).
One way of showing the effect of the formula is to look at some graphs, which show typical percentages (there
are about 1.6 US$ per UKŁ):
"Comparisons based on housing costs":
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/comparisons_housing_costs.htm
"Comparisons based on numbers of qualifying children":
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/comparisons_numbers_of_children.htm
Another way is to provide a very brief & crude summary, which I'll attempt:
Incomes are net, not gross. Amounts are per week. (NRP = non-resident parent). The building blocks of the
formula are the "benefits rates", which are the amounts that government pays out to households in certain
conditions. For example, a lone parent who isn't working gets help from the government with the rent, plus an
adult allowance (about Ł54) plus a family premium (about Ł15) plus an allowance for each child (about Ł34).
The "logic" (quite good) is that if these are what the government pays out, they are suitable for working out
what children & parents need in the child support scheme.
Step 1 is to work out the "maintenance needed": this uses the above components. (It includes a controversial
"carer's allowance", based on the adult component, on the assumption that younger children need care as well
as food & clothes, etc. It falls, then disappears, as the children get older).
Step 2 is to work out the "assessible income" of each parent: this is the net income, less housing costs, less
basic cost of living using similar components to the above (which will also allow for any of the NRP's
children living with him or her). In other words, it is an attempt at identifying some sort of "disposable
income". The combined "assessible income" amount is used in step 3 to decide what each is expected to spend on
the child.
Step 3 takes up to 50% of the combined (mother's + father's) "assessible income" until the "maintenance
needed" (step 1) is covered. The parents are expected to pay this amount in the proportion of their own
"assessible income" to the combined "assessible income". (So, once their own living costs have been allowed
for, parents are each expected to spend 50% of what is left, up to the point at which the child's costs have
been met).
Step 4 applies in the minority case that the "maintenance needed" is available in less than the 50% of the
combined "assessible income". It is a sort of "share in the wealth" feature - additional amounts are expected
from each parent from their "assessible income" that hadn't just had 50% of it taken - 15% / 20% / 25% for 1 /
2 / 3-or-more children.
Step 5 applies various caps: the NRP's remaining money must not fall below what her or she would get on
benefits (which is considered to be the minimum needed in the UK); there is a cap of 30% of the NRP's net
income; and there is a cap which for tricky reasons is about Ł160 / Ł255 / Ł350 for 1 / 2 / 3 children. Then
any amount which doesn't exceed any of these caps is the liability. (Per week, remember).
According to a recent answer in Parliament: "The mean average percentage of net income ... paid by a
non-resident parent is 15% where one child is involved, 18% where two children are involved and 19% where
three or more children are involved. This excludes cases where the net income for maintenance assessment
purposes is nil". (About half of all cases have nil assessible income).
Views?
(The current scheme is so complicated that it cannot be administered - this is largely because there is too
much information & evidence needed, not because the sums themselves are hard, although in fact they are. That
is why the vastly simpler new scheme is being introduced).
Child Support Agenda for the 21st Century
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/what_next.htm
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
Jill
through the ether:
>perspic...@yahoo.com (Jill) wrote in message news:<3d401fbd...@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>>
>> I ask because in the past year, Wisconsin was ordered to stop using
>> the straight percentage guidelines or lose all their federal CS
>> funding, kickbacks, etc. They got caught out with some bad
>> bookkeeping or something because their monthly CS owed by fathers
>> fluctuated all over the place...sorry I can't recall exactly what else
>> was wrong but I'll ask my husband later as he's kept up on it.
>>
>
>I think you might be referring to Wisconsin's decision to tie the
>percent to actual income -- i.e. adjusting it every month to the
>actual paycheck.
Yes and no. Yes that is what I mean and No, it was not Wisconsin's
*decision* to do so. They may not have been ordered to do it so much
as warned about losing the federal money but they *were* indeed told.
For example, let's say Daddy says you will loose your allowance if you
don't clean your room--you may decide to clean it but was it *really*
your decision to do so? Or was the threat of losing $$$ the deciding
factor?
Left on their own, Wisconsin would never have given up their beloved,
socialist Percentage Plan on their own.
>This was especially important to seasonal workers
>like some construction workers for example, who can experience an
>economic boom in the summer but be unemployed for months in the
>winter.
Well yes, that's the obvious and the way it was officially put.
But in reality and if you look closer, it is no different for *any*
worker who earns overtime. In fact it is no different for the *bulk*
of workers in Wisconsin which is why this was such a huge concern in
the family court system in Wisconsin.
Common sense tells us that overtime is not static from month to month.
For example many workers often experience "economic booms" due to
overtime which may or may not also be tied to seasonal factors. Many
workers see no over time in January, and February (for example) and
an abundance of overtime in July, August, September, and October.
(Think Christmas for one possible reason why this would be so. The
climate in Wisconsin is another thing that often affects overtime.)
The way CSA's (at least in Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties) compute
monthly amounts of CS owed for bookkeeping purposes is to take the
Year End income (from tax returns or if need by Social Security hands
it over to them, often without the man's knowledge) and divide that
Year End Income figure it by 12 Months. (If the man is remarried,
they are supposed to remove the new wife's income and assests...but
guess what...the CSA "forgets" to do that often times. The family
court judge had a bird when she found out my income was included in
the CSA's figues on my husband...only because my husband caught it.)
Yes, I know there are 13 months in a Fiscal Year. There are 52 weeks
in a calendar year and not 48 as the Divide By 12 uses in its
calculations. That is part of the book-cooking that brings in big
time False Arrears. A man under the Percentage Plan will always be in
arrears every year just from these facts alone. Why? Because he's
got a whole month of income that fits in now concrete month. So now
it gets lumped into each month of the year starting with January. And
then there's the interest attached because of this...starting with
January. Every man in Wisconsin will be in arrears every year...
*Even if he is garnished correctly the entire time.*
Now factor in the overtime. The factoring of overtime is done by the
CSA in that same Year End Gross Income Divided By 12 that I mention
above.
Therefore, some of the overtime that the man didn't earn until August
will obviously be included in January's CS Amount Owed. He will be
found in *arrears* and penalized with interest for money he didn't
earn for another SEVEN months.
The only way to make this kind of bookkeeping work correctly and
fairly is for every man paying CS to be paid once a year on December
31.
However, the CSA and the government call this current system of record
keeping "fair." Nevermind that It amounts to the kind of bookkeeping
Enron and Worldcom are being called on the carpet for. It is nothing
but shameless and illegal book cooking. Shady bookkeeping methods of
bookkeeping designed solely to maximize the amount of mommy support
women can now collect for their entire lifetime. Women who's kiddies
have all grown up can now keep getting CS. Sweet, no?
So ok the man is in arrears according to the CSA. That means the CSA
can now add the 1.5 % interest on the Total Arrears Every Month. In
January that doesn't amount to a whole lot. BUT in November and
December it is quite a bit of interest owed on money that was never in
arrears in reality.
Add to that that the CSA does not balance accounts or books once a
year. They never balance anything unless asked to do it by a man
paying CS and then he usually must get a court order before the CSA
will do so. (More $$$ such men can't afford to spend.) And what he
gets IF he gets anything is a handwritten mumbo jumbo mess from some
CSA clerk who is not even a bookkeeper. No computer generated
reports. Certainly never a balance sheet. NEVER records of what was
paid in or WHEN or what was sent to mommy or WHEN. They claim they
don't have those records and can't keep them on their Lockheed super
computer.
Oh...and any Tax Intercepts they have taken ove the years, do not show
up on the handwritten mumbo jumbo they call an "audit." When asked
they say the intercepts were taken into account on the "audit"....just
trust them. And the family court judges do so without blinking.
If a man doesn't ask for a yearly update on his account, the CSA never
sends one. Not even once a year. No matter how much they have
generated in False Arrears. Master Card and Visa must, by law notify
you if you owe them money and if you are in default. The CSA is
exempt from such rules.
Rather the CSA allows their cooked book False Arrears to add up year
after year after year. When the average man does find out
varies...usually it is when he goes in to remove his last child and
close out the CS account. SURPRISE!!!! He finds he owes anywhere
from $5,000 to $50,000+ in False Arrears even though he was *always*
garnished. Now just try to go back and prove you don't owe it after
10 years of so. Especially when you've relied by court order on the
CSA to keep all the records.
The family court judge my husband appeared before actually said it
isn't the CSA's job to keep CS records. That's one reason he is in
the appeals court right now.
You can't tell me anything about this stuff in Wisconsin, Roger. I've
been living it for more than 5 years now. It is a holy hell. A
nightmare that doesn't make it to the public's ears.
If you'd ever like to do an article on this I'd be willing to share my
husband's info but not until the appeals are over.
>The fed, under Clinton, slammed Wisconsin for that during the
>election season. Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson was thought of as
>the Republican's welfare reform guru. As you know, Tompson is now
>Secretary of HHS under Bush.
Don't start me on Thompson. I'm no big fan of his either. He merely
got Wisconsin to lose it's title as The Welfare State by putting it
all on to private men whether or not they were fathers or whether or
not it was fair.
>
>The OCSE (that approves plans) has never told any state that they had
>to stop using the percent formula -- even though they would if they
>were honest.
No, Wisconsin was told. The Milwaukee Urinal (Journal) even printed a
lengthy article on it. Later I'll look for it in their online
archives and try to find it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
removed it. They've done that sort of thing before. My husband may
have saved the paper article because it affected his case directly
even though he is not and never has been a seasonal worker. Anyway
the Bottom Line of the Milwaukee Urinal's story was more about their
liberal concerns regarding womenandchildren not getting as much free
moola, IIRC.
Jill
Jill
through the ether:
>QUESTION TO EVERYONE: Do you want me to invite the author of the book
>(see below or first post in this thread) to make comments and respond
>to questions here? He travels a lot on business, but he might be able
>to stop in once a week and participate.
I'd very much like to hear what the author knows on this topic, Roger.
Thanks for offering.
Jill
Jill
sent through the ether:
That's the article I was thinking of, Sunny! Thanks for posting it
and saving me the time. I hate getting close to the Urinal even in
cyberspace. <g> I have a personal grudge against them.
Jill
Jill
sent through the ether:
<snip>
>Child support changes sought
>
>State risks federal penalty
>By TOM KERTSCHER
>of the Journal Sentinel staff
>Last Updated: Jan. 5, 2001
>
>The federal agency that Gov. Tommy G. Thompson has been picked to lead
>is threatening to cut millions of dollars in aid to Wisconsin unless
>the state changes the way it calculates child support payments for
>66,000 families.
>
>Key Issue
>
>Now: In 66,000 child support cases, Wisconsin calculates payments owed
>as a percentage of the paying parent's income.
>
>Future: The federal government is ordering the state to set a fixed
>monthly amount for the payments.
This is what I referred to when I said the way it eventually has
worked is that the men who were paying as a % of their income
previously now find the amount "fixed" by a judge is far more than
they were previously paying.
>
> Section: Wisconsin's transition
>
>Besides the threat from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
>Services, the state faces paying $1.7 million of an estimated $5
>million cost to reopen those 66,000 cases, with no state money yet
>budgeted for the job. The federal government would pick up the rest of
>the cost.
>
>But state officials said Friday that they have begun drafting
>legislation to make the change and hope to alter all of the cases by
>the end of the year.
If any legislation was drafted or passed, I haven't heard of it.
However, all the cases have not been altered by the end of 2001. It
is still going on and on and on. Family court judges made changes
when a case came back before them as happened with my husband. Other
fathers tell me they've received letters summoning them to come into
court. 66,000+ cases mean a lot of people and most of these cases
were in only 2 counties.
>
>Once the change is made, "we'll do a better job collecting," said
>Jennifer Reinert, secretary of the state Department of Workforce
>Development, which oversees child support.
Oh sure they will and I'll tell you why below.
>
>The state handles about 189,000 child support cases. In two-thirds of
>them, the paying parent - usually the father - pays a fixed amount of
>support every month. The amount changes only if one parent or the
>other goes to court.
I would be surprised if the numbers in this were correct. So far as I
know, the bulk of cases in the 1980's and 1990's in Wisconsin's 2
largest counties, Milwaukee and Waukesha, were almost always set as a
Percentage of Income.
>
>In the other 66,000 cases, however, the paying, or non-custodial,
>parents pay varying amounts of support each month, based on a
>percentage of their income. Often, these parents work seasonal jobs,
>earn most of their money on commission or have fluctuating income for
>other reasons.
Funny how the most common fluctuation in income...overtime...was not
directly mentioned.
>
>Wisconsin is the only state that allows so-called percentage-expressed
>child support orders. For years, the federal government has been
>pressuring the state to drop them. Finally, with the threatened loss
>of federal funding as well as possible fines, state officials have
>begun mobilizing in recent weeks to change to a fixed-amount-only
>child support system.
>
>Barb DeMarco, a 47-year-old Madison mother of two, said her percentage
>order worked well in theory, because her support payments were
>supposed to rise automatically with any increase in her former
>husband's income. But the system never seemed to work as it was
>supposed to, she said.
>
>"It was a major hassle," said DeMarco, whose younger child turned 18
>last June.
My heart breaks for her. <gag> What Barb isn't saying is that when
Mr. X Husband was laid off, or fired, under the Percentage of Income,
Barb wasn't entitled to One Red Cent in CS.
The most inept math student understands that 0% of ZERO = 0. Nothing,
nada, zip.
That was what the spokeswoman above meant about making it easier to
collect CS under the new arrangement.
When Mr. X Husband didn't work, etc. poor Barb could not claim arrears
and the CSA might try to put him in arrears, but as in my husband's
case, those 0's were the first thing to get tossed out of the CSA's
"audit." Had to. It was the law...on the books. The judge had no
discretion with that.
Women could come to court and allege "shirking" and they'd always win
but few women knew this or were about to pay for an attorney on their
own.
Now just ask me about how the CSA provides and acts as an attorney for
women in Wisconsin FREE of charge. Even when the women can afford to
pay for their own attorney. Talk about Conflict of Interest. Is the
CSA supposed to be the accurate dispenser of CS and the accurate
Keeper of the Records? OR are they supposed to be Free Attorneys for
mommies? And if they are acting for mommies, how are they nonbiased
in their other duties?
>
>Deducted from paychecks
>
>In nearly all child support cases in Wisconsin, employers deduct
>payments from the payer's paycheck and forward them to the state,
>which sends them to the custodial parent. But state officials say
>percentage orders have been difficult for employers to manage, and the
>state often has no way of verifying that the payments are correct.
Lie. The employer must send the CSA the Gross Income Earned for the
wage period along with the Net Income Earned and the Amount of Wages
Garnished. It is a report they must send in addition to the actual
money. Wisconsin employers hate the amount of payroll time and wages
they must spend doing this work for the state.
However, Waukesha County's CSA whined the same thing above...that they
don't have these records from employers. The real story is that they
simply do not enter these figures from the reports in the CSA computer
and they throw the reports out...when I don't know. Maybe weekly,
monthly, yearly, or as I suspect immediately.
>
>Similarly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which
>funds the lion's share of child support enforcement programs across
>the country, dislikes percentage cases because it cannot determine
>whether Wisconsin is collecting all the child support that should be
>paid.
Another tear jerking moment.
>
>Now, HHS - which Thompson soon will lead if the U.S. Senate confirms
>him - has indicated that it will cut at least $665,000 in federal
>child support aid to the state because of the problems with percentage
>cases. And it is threatening to impose millions of dollars more in
>cuts, or in fines that the state would have to pay, unless the state's
>66,000 percentage cases are converted to fixed monthly payments.
>
>Because Thompson has not yet taken over HHS, he will not comment on
>policy matters, his spokesman said.
Typical Thompson.
>
>Reinert, of the state Department of Workforce Development, said her
>staff is drafting legislation that would force the change to fixed
>payments. Then officials will begin to seek the estimated $1.7 million
>- which she called a "worst-case scenario" - to pay for the
>conversions.
I haven't heard more of this. I will say that DWD is the source of
most of the evil in the county CSA's. JMO, of course.
>
>Reinert acknowledged that because the money is not part of her
>department's 2001-'02 budget request, getting it from the Legislature
>"is not as simple."
But its for the children, so I'd be surprised if she didn't have some
success. This is precisely the sort of info the Urinal and local TV
stations would never report to the public.
>
>State Sen. Brian Burke (D-Milwaukee), co-chairman of the Legislature's
Hmmm...not sure but I think he's the guy who just got into major
problems with campaign law violations. I'll have to check that out.
>Joint Finance Committee, said he supports having the state cover the
>cost of the conversion so that it would not fall to the counties,
>which enforce child support orders. But he said he could not gauge how
>Republicans might view the issue.
>
>State Rep. John Gard (R-Peshtigo), Burke's co-chairman, could not be
>immediately reached.
>
>Because the money is not already in the budget, it would be
>"extraordinarily difficult" to take money from another part of the
>budget, Burke said.
>
>Although changing the percentage cases to fixed payments might be
>costly, it can be relatively simple. Ozaukee and Sauk counties are
>already sending letters to parents in some child support cases,
>pointing out that percentage orders might soon be banned and asking
>them to switch to fixed-amount orders. The counties are suggesting
>fixed amounts based on the paying parents' current income.
Not both incomes? Gee...what a surprise.
>
>If both parents in a given case agree, they can simply sign and return
>the paperwork. Milwaukee County plans to begin mailing similar letters
>this month.
>
>But because many child support cases involve bad relations between the
>parents, financial complexities or other issues, they will have to be
>converted from percentages to fixed amounts in court. Milwaukee
>County, which has 15,000 percentage cases, estimates it will need $1.5
>million to create a temporary court for conversions.
A brand new $$$ bonanza for family law attorneys, judges, and their
lackeys. Just follow the money trail...
>
>Based on a formula
>
>What would not change is the formula that Wisconsin uses to calculate
>child support payments in all cases.
>
>The formula generally calls for a parent supporting one child to pay
>17% of the parent's gross income, depending on the time the parent
>spends with the child.
Another fib. Some parents have the visitation factor, I'm sure though
in 15 years I've never met any. The bar for meeting this visitation
break is set fairly high in Wisconsin for father.
It was, however, the prime motivation for my husband's ex using
restraining orders and PAS to run my husband completely out of his
chidlren's lives. She is not the only one by far.
>That percentage rises if the parent supports
>more children in the same home, up to a maximum of 34% for five or
>more children in a home. Courts would continue to adjust the formula
>for special circumstances.
Of course.
>
>As for scrapping the percentage-payment system, parents with fixed
>payments would have to go to court each time they wanted to adjust the
>monthly payments. But often those adjustments can be made without
>attorneys, using help from county child support enforcement agencies,
>officials said.
Hahahahahahahahah! That is soooo funny. I already pointed out who
they work for.
>
>Parents who pay support and have fluctuating incomes may find it
>difficult to change to a fixed-payment system.
>
>"That's going to be a hard thing for people, especially the ones who
>pay regularly," said Rhonda Gorden, who heads Ozaukee County's child
>support collections.
People? I guess she's worried about the handful of women who actually
pay the CS they are ordered to pay.
>
>But John Hayes, director of the Milwaukee County Department of Child
>Support Enforcement, said he expects that most custodial parents will
>like being on a fixed-payment system so that they can count on
>receiving the same amount of support each month. Fixed payments also
>make it easier for the county to ensure that all support that is due
>actually gets paid, he said.
Translation: Most mothers will like getting more CS than before.
>Rachel Biittner, spokeswoman for the state Department of Workforce
>Development, said that even though Wisconsin is at odds with federal
>officials over the percentage-payment cases, the state ranks high in
>child support enforcement. Federal figures show that in fiscal 1999,
>Wisconsin ranked fourth in the nation by collecting $483,215 in
>support for every full-time child support enforcement employee,
>exceeding the national average of $277,818, she said.
Translation: Wisconsin is better at redistributing the wealth and
taking a cut off the top than most states.
>
>Pam Carter, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human
>Services in Washington, said Wisconsin could lose not only millions of
>dollars in child support funding but also up to $318 million in
>federal welfare funds if it doesn't eliminate percentage cases from
>its child support system. It was not known how much any fines could
>be.
I note that almost all the quotes from the government come from women
heading CS related agencies. I also note that Waukesha County, the
2nd biggest county and one of the biggest CS violaters, did not ring
in on any of this.
>
>But the federal agency does not want to cut funds or impose fines, she
>said.
>
>"We'll try to work with them," Carter said.
Since the feds are the state's partner in crime, that is obvious.
Jill
Sunny
wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:48:40 -0500, Sunny <mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>sent through the ether:
>
>That's the article I was thinking of, Sunny! Thanks for posting it
>and saving me the time. I hate getting close to the Urinal even in
>cyberspace. <g> I have a personal grudge against them.
>
>Jill
No prob.... just did a quick googlization.
My husband would love to pay a set amount.
His ex nickle-&-dimes him to death. She has the kids spy on him and
report back if we have bought anything new, and if he so much as wears
a new shirt she threatens to take him to court for "hiding income"
from her. She even browbeats him for not living off my salary and
giving *all* of his money to her. Once in a while he pays in a blues
band for peanuts, and she is right in his face with her hand out,
demanding her percentage of the take (which sometimes amounts to a
couple of dollars after expenses). Meanwhile, she gets a full 25% of
his gross (for two kids), before tax, plus $550 a month in
"maintenance" (alimony). If he makes overtime, she gets a cut of
that, too. She actually ends up making more money than both he and I
do combined. It would not be worth it for him to work a second job to
make ends meet, because she would just cash in on that, too. It's a
good thing we don't have kids of our own, because they would be made
to suffer the brunt of the CS cash outflow.
I'm thinking that if he could pay on the set amount plan instead of
the 25% percentage taken from his paycheck, she'd at least quit
hounding him all the time for more...... but he would have to hire a
lawyer and go back to court. No guarantees, either.
Sunny
>I have a personal grudge against them.
Sounds like that might be an interesting story that you could share
with us some time! :o)
Jill
sent through the ether:
>Jill wrote regarding the Wisconsin State Journal:
No...The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal....that's where the quoted article
came from. Better known as the Milwaukee Urinal.
>
>>I have a personal grudge against them.
>
>Sounds like that might be an interesting story that you could share
>with us some time! :o)
Not really all that interesting. Long ago when I sometimes read the
rag, I wrote letters to the editor, one was even printed unedited.
Then one day they returned a letter all marked up with editing notes
and threatened me with a libel suit. Since it was my opinion but with
facts supporting it, I fail to see how it was libel.
It was the very idea that they would threaten an ordinary citizen with
a libel suite for merely stating an opinion that really pissed me off.
They knew it would intimidate as I don't have the legal or financial
resources they do. Not to mention the time to play silly games with
them in court.
They could have just ignored or rejected my letter as they did with so
many others I sent to them. Clearly they thought I was dangerous and
wanted to silence me. All they did was put an end to my reading their
crappy newspaper. I still speak my mind but not in their forum.
The Urinal is a paper run by a gaggle of liberals and femitwits who
can't play fair, be honest, or hear the truth.
I do occasionally buy the paper when I need to wrap and pack things or
in case the dishwasher or toilet overflows. But I never read it.
Jill
RogerFGay
> The "logic" (quite good) is that if these (benefit rates) are what the government pays out, they are suitable for working out
> what children & parents need in the child support scheme.
>
children & parents .... depends on how the amount needed by parents is
applied. From what I can see below, the benefit rates are not properly
applied.
> Step 1 is to work out the "maintenance needed": this uses the above components. (It includes a controversial
> "carer's allowance", based on the adult component, on the assumption that younger children need care as well
> as food & clothes, etc. It falls, then disappears, as the children get older).
But the benefit rates include what children & PARENTS need. What
you're saying here seems to imply that the "child support" scheme
isn't about child support. It's about supporting the custodial parent.
>
> Step 2 is to work out the "assessible income" of each parent: this is the net income, less housing costs, less
> basic cost of living using similar components to the above (which will also allow for any of the NRP's
> children living with him or her).
Definitely sounds good.
>
> Step 3 takes up to 50% of the combined (mother's + father's) "assessible income" until the "maintenance
> needed" (step 1) is covered. The parents are expected to pay this amount in the proportion of their own
> "assessible income" to the combined "assessible income".
Now we're talkin' --- that's more based on relative "ability to pay"
rather than relative income. A very good step.
>
> Step 4 applies in the minority case that the "maintenance needed" is available in less than the 50% of the
> combined "assessible income". It is a sort of "share in the wealth" feature - additional amounts are expected
> from each parent from their "assessible income" that hadn't just had 50% of it taken - 15% / 20% / 25% for 1 /
> 2 / 3-or-more children.
a. I can't see this together with the idea that adult needs have
already been included in step one. Get rid of adult needs in step one
and maybe we can talk, but b. this isn't the way to do this. Please
tell whoever is in charge that the mathematics for the standard of
living adjustment have been derived. There's no longer any reason to
throw out these whatever ya feel like percentages.
>
> Step 5 applies various caps: the NRP's remaining money must not fall below what her or she would get on
> benefits
Negativo comprehendo. She's not actually going to be paying anything
to anybody is she? Or is this where I'm supposed to realize that step
one makes sense in some way? If the latter, why can't we just take the
rational approach of figuring out what she and the children need
together to begin with. Oh, this is logically funny. Once you have
assessable income, you know whether or not she has money enough to
contribute. The rest is based on her assessible income. Maybe there's
a missing step. Does this feature kick in only when her assessible
income is negative? Something is either being considered more times
than it needs to be or it's wrong. I'm not entirely sure which yet.
But either way, the design has strange features that it doesn't need.
>
> According to a recent answer in Parliament: "The mean average percentage of net income ... paid by a
> non-resident parent is 15% where one child is involved, 18% where two children are involved and 19% where
> three or more children are involved.
What they're claiming then is that a fixed percent (depending on
number of children) is what parents spend on children above the base.
In that respect, it's like the Delaware-Melson and traditional Swedish
model. But Melson was only able to see 5% above the base rate. And
once again, it's no longer necessary to throw out these whatever ya
want guesses in percentages. The mathematics of the standard of living
adjustment have been worked out.
See: "New Equations for Calculating Child Support and Spousal
Maintenance
With Discussion on Child Support Guidelines" 1994
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/Alimony2/ALIMONY2.htm
Dwayne Shrum
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02072...@posting.google.com...
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Urc09.2645$Uh1.1...@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
> > The "logic" (quite good) is that if these (benefit rates) are
> > what the government pays out, they are suitable for working out
> > what children & parents need in the child support scheme.
>
> children & parents .... depends on how the amount needed by parents
> is applied. From what I can see below, the benefit rates are not
> properly applied.
>
> > Step 1 is to work out the "maintenance needed": this uses the above
> > components. (It includes a controversial "carer's allowance", based
> > on the adult component, on the assumption that younger children
> > need care as well as food & clothes, etc. It falls, then disappears,
> > as the children get older).
>
> But the benefit rates include what children & PARENTS need. What
> you're saying here seems to imply that the "child support" scheme
> isn't about child support. It's about supporting the custodial parent.
Chuckle! That is why this is controversial!
See:
"Categories of expenditure on children"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/cost_of_children/cost
_of_children_categories.htm
It includes "care" - health-care, childcare, other care, baby sitting. Part of
the cost of children is not just food & clothes, etc, but also the cost of
getting these into & onto the child. Otherwise a young child starves & freezes.
If both parents work, there is surely no doubt here - there is a service cost as
well as a consumables cost.
Some say "this is a vital part of the cost of raising a child". Some say "this
is paying to keep the adult providing these services alive, and if that is the
lone parent, it is paying to keep the lone parent alive". Both are correct. A
payment may be genuinely for both purposes. The cost of buying ANY service
includes the cost of keeping the service provider alive. If someone other than
the lone parent provides the service, people will accept this (although they may
then say "but the lone parent could do this cheaper"). But if it is the lone
parent who provides this service, people complain that it is spousal
maintenance. Even though it is probably cheaper than paying for a commercial
service!
This cost is a genuine cost of raising a child. In fact, the lone parent is
providing cheap childcare which would otherwise have to be provided commercially
at higher cost. What sticks in people's throats is that although they are paying
for childcare which they probably know is necessary, the service provider
happens to be the ex, which they resent! Yet they would not like to pay the full
cost of commercial childcare. (I have never seen anyone propose a plausible
answer to this - they just complain!)
This is financially a correct component. But it will never be accepted
emotionally.
> > Step 2 is to work out the "assessible income" of each parent: this is the
net
> > income, less housing costs, less basic cost of living using similar
> > components to the above (which will also allow for any of the NRP's
> > children living with him or her).
>
> Definitely sounds good.
>
> > Step 3 takes up to 50% of the combined (mother's + father's) "assessible
> > income" until the "maintenance needed" (step 1) is covered. The parents
> > are expected to pay this amount in the proportion of their own
> > "assessible income" to the combined "assessible income".
>
> Now we're talkin' --- that's more based on relative "ability to pay"
> rather than relative income. A very good step.
>
> > Step 4 applies in the minority case that the "maintenance needed" is
> > available in less than the 50% of the combined "assessible income".
> > It is a sort of "share in the wealth" feature - additional amounts are
> > expected from each parent from their "assessible income" that hadn't
> > just had 50% of it taken - 15% / 20% / 25% for 1 /
> > 2 / 3-or-more children.
>
> a. I can't see this together with the idea that adult needs have
> already been included in step one. Get rid of adult needs in step one
> and maybe we can talk, but b. this isn't the way to do this. Please
> tell whoever is in charge that the mathematics for the standard of
> living adjustment have been derived. There's no longer any reason to
> throw out these whatever ya feel like percentages.
It is simply based on the known fact that on average richer people spend more on
their children than poorer people. Reality happens not to obey the mathematics
used here -
"We also found, at first sight strangely, that average spending did not vary
greatly with income of a family; about 20 per cent from the bottom quartile to
the top income quartile."
(Sue Middleton, co-researcher of Small Fortunes, in evidence to the Social
Security Select Committee)
but it does exist.
"Sharing wealth and the "Small Fortunes" research"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/wealth_sharing/wealth
_sharing_and_small_fortunes.htm
> > Step 5 applies various caps: the NRP's remaining money must
> > not fall below what her or she would get on benefits
>
> Negativo comprehendo. She's not actually going to be paying anything
> to anybody is she? Or is this where I'm supposed to realize that step
> one makes sense in some way? If the latter, why can't we just take the
> rational approach of figuring out what she and the children need
> together to begin with. Oh, this is logically funny. Once you have
> assessable income, you know whether or not she has money enough to
> contribute. The rest is based on her assessible income. Maybe there's
> a missing step. Does this feature kick in only when her assessible
> income is negative? Something is either being considered more times
> than it needs to be or it's wrong. I'm not entirely sure which yet.
> But either way, the design has strange features that it doesn't need.
Er ... NRP is the non-resident parent who is paying. You may have got this the
wrong way round!
Re-think from the "obligor's" point of view. These are caps on the payer's
liability.
> > According to a recent answer in Parliament: "The mean average
> > percentage of net income ... paid by a non-resident parent is 15%
> > where one child is involved, 18% where two children are involved
> > and 19% where three or more children are involved.
>
> What they're claiming then is that a fixed percent (depending on
> number of children) is what parents spend on children above the base.
> In that respect, it's like the Delaware-Melson and traditional Swedish
> model. But Melson was only able to see 5% above the base rate. And
> once again, it's no longer necessary to throw out these whatever ya
> want guesses in percentages. The mathematics of the standard of living
> adjustment have been worked out.
[snip]
No, they are not claiming that. They are saying what the result is, not how the
result is derived. They have a complicated formula, which happens to yield the
above averages, over a large range (large standard deviation). (Any real number
is a percentage of any other real number, but that doesn't imply a causal
relationship).
This formula has proved too complicated to operate in the UK. So the new scheme
is a simple percentage of NRP's net income (with a few twists). Most NRP's want
to get onto the new scheme ASAP. Probably most Parents With Care think likewise.
With adjustments to the social security rules, most NRPs & most PWCs will be
favoured by the formula.
Child Support Agenda for the 21st Century
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/what_next.htm
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
James Buster
> As I recall in Georgia, also one of the few states that used the percent of
> income model, the court found that the model violated the equal protection
> clause of the constitution (state?) because the formula didn't consider the
> CP's income.
Since income shares is mathematically identical to a strict
percentage-of-ncp-income model, why doesn't it too violate equal
protection?
Frighteningly, some posters here say that in their states the NCP's
payment *rises* with increasing CP income. That's truly shocking.
James Buster
> In nearly all child support cases in Wisconsin, employers deduct
> payments from the payer's paycheck and forward them to the state,
> which sends them to the custodial parent. But state officials say
> percentage orders have been difficult for employers to manage, and the
> state often has no way of verifying that the payments are correct.
Why not? Doesn't the state get its monthly W-2 statements from
every employer for purposes of figuring payroll taxes? Verifying
that XX% of $D was paid is *trivial*. What am I missing here?
As for the employers, their complaints are bullshit. If your
payroll office can figure out how much 7.65% of your paycheck is
(that's the employee portion of FICA, in case you didn't know) they
can figure out how much CS to deduct, if told the percentage.
> Similarly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which
> funds the lion's share of child support enforcement programs across
> the country, dislikes percentage cases because it cannot determine
> whether Wisconsin is collecting all the child support that should be
> paid.
DHHS are obviously morons. IRS is told every cent you make. Matching
that with the deemed percentage is trivial.
> The formula generally calls for a parent supporting one child to pay
> 17% of the parent's gross income, depending on the time the parent
> spends with the child.
Which isn't how real parents spend money. In real families, the
percentage decreases with rising income.
> But John Hayes, director of the Milwaukee County Department of Child
> Support Enforcement, said he expects that most custodial parents will
> like being on a fixed-payment system so that they can count on
> receiving the same amount of support each month.
Of course. Only CP preferences matter.
James Buster
> Some say "this is a vital part of the cost of raising a child". Some say "this
> is paying to keep the adult providing these services alive, and if that is the
> lone parent, it is paying to keep the lone parent alive". Both are correct. A
> payment may be genuinely for both purposes. The cost of buying ANY service
> includes the cost of keeping the service provider alive. If someone other than
> the lone parent provides the service, people will accept this (although they may
> then say "but the lone parent could do this cheaper"). But if it is the lone
> parent who provides this service, people complain that it is spousal
> maintenance. Even though it is probably cheaper than paying for a commercial
> service!
They damn well *should* complain. That a commercial service is
more expensive is *irrelevant*. The CP is a *parent*, and parents
do not deserve compensation for time and effort spent raising their
own children. That is the price of being a parent.
RogerFGay
>
> This cost is a genuine cost of raising a child. In fact, the lone parent is
> providing cheap childcare which would otherwise have to be provided commercially
> at higher cost.
No. This is not a genuine cost of raising a child. It has something to
do with the cost of being a lone parent. Apply the same reasoning to
the cost of working. Deduct all the fathers expenses, including a car
to get to work, a house to live in so that he can rest up to go to
work, food to sustain himself so that he can work, and the pay for the
time he spends working. Don't forget the extra fee for filling out the
child support checks. Since it takes money to support a child, all the
above costs are directly related to the cost of raising children.
These are costs born by the non-custodial parant.
Barry Pearson
news:<Rxi09.3184$7v5.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> > This cost is a genuine cost of raising a child. In fact, the lone parent
> > is providing cheap childcare which would otherwise have to be
> > provided commercially at higher cost.
>
> No. This is not a genuine cost of raising a child. It has something to
> do with the cost of being a lone parent.
It is a genuine part of the cost of raising the child! It makes the family worse
off in a way that wouldn't exist if the child didn't exist and/or was older. The
cost happens to increase on average in a separated family compared with an
intact family, but that is what we are dealing with here.
In an intact family, this cost still exists, but is sometimes less explicit.
Sometimes it is handled by having 2 parents to cover one-another, sometimes it
is handled by the family's lost opportunity costs of having a part time worker,
and sometimes it is handled by paying large amounts in commercial childcare. But
it is a genuine part of the cost of raising children in intact as well as
separated families, and needs to be considered in a formula that tries to
examine all costs.
Remember - this amount happens to be what the government is prepared to pay for
cheap childcare - in other words, to enable a lone parent to stay out of work to
care for a child rather than work. If that same parent got a low paid job that
needed further assistance from the government, at that point the assistance
would include an explicit childcare component - and it could be MUCH higher than
the adult allowance of an out-of-work lone parent. The adult allowance of a
non-working lone parent is about £54 per week. (This is however many children
there are, and this is spread among all the non-resident parents if there are
more than one). The government can pay out over £94 for 1 child and up to £140
for 2 or more children per week in explicit childcare assistance for a family
(separated or intact) which has taken low pay & needs help. (Childcare is
expensive & not always readily available in the UK).
> Apply the same reasoning to
> the cost of working. Deduct all the fathers expenses, including a
> car to get to work, a house to live in so that he can rest up to go
> to work, food to sustain himself so that he can work, and the pay
> for the time he spends working. Don't forget the extra fee for
> filling out the child support checks. Since it takes money to
> support a child, all the above costs are directly related to the
> cost of raising children.
> These are costs born by the non-custodial parant.
Unlike childcare costs, some of these would exist if the child didn't exist
and/or was older. They are not fundamentally part of the cost of raising the
child. If you want to claim that the marginal extra costs of needing a better
job because there is a child to be supported should be considered to be part of
the cost of raising a child - fine. That is a different argument, but if he
doesn't actually change his job, what is that cost? And, of course, you may then
have to decide what to do about costs if the PWC works too - do they get ADDED
to the "maintenance needed" for the child?
The things you mention are covered to some extent by the current formula:
- Housing costs are subtracting from net income up to half of net income or £80
per week, whichever is greater.
- Travel expenses are covered beyond a certain point, by subtracting an
allowance per mile beyond a certain mileage per week from net income.
- Food is subtracted from net income, because it is included in the adult
allowance which is subtracted.
(I don't understand the idea of subtracting the pay for the time he spends
working. He needs to work anyway).
Don't make the mistake of believing that the UK's current formula is as
illogical as some of the situations that have been described here for the US,
etc. In fact, it is an attempt to identify genuine costs & allowances in a
non-arbitrary way (using amounts that the government itself is prepared to pay
out in assistance for similar purposes). One of its problem is that this makes
it vastly too complicated to administer here, hence the reforms. (Another of its
problems is that many NRPs don't earn enough to raise children! In an intact
family, they get government assistance. Once separated, only the PWC gets such
assistance. This is one of the issues I helped raise with government).
Barry Pearson
Yes, it is the price of being parent - for both parents. It is one that has
financial implications, as expected for something that involves cost & effort.
One of the financial implications is that sometimes money has to be paid out for
commercial childcare!
Whether families are intact or separated, childcare has a financial implication
even if it is not always explicit. Sometimes it is handled by having 2 parents
to cover one-another, sometimes it is handled by the family's lost opportunity
costs of having a part time worker, and sometimes it is handled by paying large
amounts in commercial childcare. But it is a genuine part of the cost of raising
children in intact as well as separated families, and needs to be considered in
a formula that tries to examine all costs.
Problems with childcare are one of the issues in the way of the UK government's
programme for reducing child poverty, because they inhibit earning. These are
very real problems which won't go away by saying they are part of the price of
parenting. (And to repeat what I've pointed out before - 60% of children in
poverty in the UK live in households with both their parents - this is not just
about separated families).
frazil
> frazil wrote:
> > As I recall in Georgia, also one of the few states that used the percent
of
> > income model, the court found that the model violated the equal
protection
> > clause of the constitution (state?) because the formula didn't consider
the
> > CP's income.
>
> Since income shares is mathematically identical to a strict
> percentage-of-ncp-income model, why doesn't it too violate equal
> protection?
>
the same result.
The percent of income model only considers the income of the NCP when
setting a CS amount. The income shares model combines both the CP's and
NCP's income and then apportions the CS amount based on the percentage of
the NCP's contribution to the combined income.
Now don't get me wrong I'm not defending the result of either model. The
income shares model has its own problems, but that model was not what the
Georgia court was asked to rule on.
> Frighteningly, some posters here say that in their states the NCP's
> payment *rises* with increasing CP income. That's truly shocking.
In theory that can be the result. But in practice, it is the exception. In
income shares states, as the combined income increases so does the amount of
combined CS, but as the CP's income increases relative to the NCP's income,
the portion of the combined income attributed to the NCP decreases. The
result is that the NCP's CS amount stays about the same.
frazil
> Sunny wrote:
> > In nearly all child support cases in Wisconsin, employers deduct
> > payments from the payer's paycheck and forward them to the state,
> > which sends them to the custodial parent. But state officials say
> > percentage orders have been difficult for employers to manage, and the
> > state often has no way of verifying that the payments are correct.
>
> Why not? Doesn't the state get its monthly W-2 statements from
> every employer for purposes of figuring payroll taxes? Verifying
> that XX% of $D was paid is *trivial*. What am I missing here?
The fact that the right hand doesn't tell the left hand what it's doing
(i.e. CS payment is handled through the CSA and payroll taxes are handled by
the Department of Revenue).
>
> As for the employers, their complaints are bullshit. If your
> payroll office can figure out how much 7.65% of your paycheck is
> (that's the employee portion of FICA, in case you didn't know) they
> can figure out how much CS to deduct, if told the percentage.
True it is not difficult to figure out how much to deduct, but becuase
payroll taxes and CS payments are handled through different State entities,
it creates more work.
>
> > Similarly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which
> > funds the lion's share of child support enforcement programs across
> > the country, dislikes percentage cases because it cannot determine
> > whether Wisconsin is collecting all the child support that should be
> > paid.
>
> DHHS are obviously morons. IRS is told every cent you make. Matching
> that with the deemed percentage is trivial.
Only if you want the DHHS to get everything the IRS gets.
>
> > The formula generally calls for a parent supporting one child to pay
> > 17% of the parent's gross income, depending on the time the parent
> > spends with the child.
>
> Which isn't how real parents spend money. In real families, the
> percentage decreases with rising income.
Yep, that is one of the problems with guideline models to determine CS
amounts.
>
> > But John Hayes, director of the Milwaukee County Department of Child
> > Support Enforcement, said he expects that most custodial parents will
> > like being on a fixed-payment system so that they can count on
> > receiving the same amount of support each month.
>
> Of course. Only CP preferences matter.
Seems that way, doesn't it?
frazil
I might agree with this reasoning if the service provided is a service I
actually want. As the matter stands it is a service one is required to
take. The objection is that NRP is 1) required to pay for a service that
they may not want to pay for or a service that they may not need; and 2)
precluded from using other alternatives. For example if I can change the
spark plugs on my car, why is it necessary for me to pay for the services of
a mechanic to change the spark plugs, even if I do it myself. It has
nothing to do with the service provider being the ex, it has everything to
with freedom of choice. If the NRP could choose the service provider then
one could argue it is a legitimate cost.
>
> This is financially a correct component. But it will never be accepted
> emotionally.
It is only a financially correct component, if the NRP chooses to avail
themselves of the service. For example suppose the NRP's parents are
willing to provide the service free of charge, why then should the NRP pay
for the service, when they have the alternative not to have to pay for the
service.
Ah yes the fallacy of averages. While averages may be a legitimate way to
characterize a population. It is not a legitimate way characterize the
individual members of the population. IOW, if the average height of males
in the world is 5' 8", that doesn't mean I'm 5' 8" tall. If fact,
probability theory would predict that I'm not 5' 8" tall.
Of the 3 types of averages it is the modal average that would have the most
legitimacy because that is the most frequently occurring situation.
>
> "We also found, at first sight strangely, that average spending did not
vary
> greatly with income of a family; about 20 per cent from the bottom
quartile to
> the top income quartile."
> (Sue Middleton, co-researcher of Small Fortunes, in evidence to the Social
> Security Select Committee)
>
> but it does exist.
But not frequently.
I'm not sure what you are trying to convey here. But it appears that they
are using a formula to derive the amount spent and then using the average
results of the formula justify a simplification of the formula. What it
doesn't address is the ligitimacy of the formula used to derive the initial
results upon which the simplification is based. Reminds me of the old
computer programmer's axiom. Garbage in: Garbage out.
>
>
> This formula has proved too complicated to operate in the UK. So the new
scheme
> is a simple percentage of NRP's net income (with a few twists). Most NRP's
want
> to get onto the new scheme ASAP. Probably most Parents With Care think
likewise.
> With adjustments to the social security rules, most NRPs & most PWCs will
be
> favoured by the formula.
But what they are not doing is verifying that the complicated formula yields
ligitimate results. They further compound the problem by simplifying the
formula based on the results of a formula which they can not verify. Is
this a great world or what!
frazil
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not. Your system doesn't allow for it
not. Your system assumes that money must be paid out for commercial day
care. And, as you admit, that is not always true.
>
> Whether families are intact or separated, childcare has a financial
implication
> even if it is not always explicit. Sometimes it is handled by having 2
parents
> to cover one-another, sometimes it is handled by the family's lost
opportunity
> costs of having a part time worker, and sometimes it is handled by paying
large
> amounts in commercial childcare. But it is a genuine part of the cost of
raising
> children in intact as well as separated families, and needs to be
considered in
> a formula that tries to examine all costs.
Your system doesn't recognize implications. Your system only recognizes one
implicatiuon. IOW, you are arguing that the cost has nothing to do with the
situation. I'm arguing that the cost has everything to do with the
situation. Thus the legitimacy of the rule depends on the situation in
which it is applied.
Whether or not the cost of daycare is a legitimate cost, depends on the
particular circumstances.
Dwayne Shrum
> Sunny wrote:
> > In nearly all child support cases in Wisconsin, employers deduct
> > payments from the payer's paycheck and forward them to the state,
> > which sends them to the custodial parent. But state officials say
> > percentage orders have been difficult for employers to manage, and the
> > state often has no way of verifying that the payments are correct.
>
> Why not? Doesn't the state get its monthly W-2 statements from
> every employer for purposes of figuring payroll taxes? Verifying
> that XX% of $D was paid is *trivial*. What am I missing here?
>
> As for the employers, their complaints are bullshit. If your
> payroll office can figure out how much 7.65% of your paycheck is
> (that's the employee portion of FICA, in case you didn't know) they
> can figure out how much CS to deduct, if told the percentage.
>
> > Similarly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which
> > funds the lion's share of child support enforcement programs across
> > the country, dislikes percentage cases because it cannot determine
> > whether Wisconsin is collecting all the child support that should be
> > paid.
>
> DHHS are obviously morons. IRS is told every cent you make. Matching
> that with the deemed percentage is trivial.
EXACTLY!!! Here, our last DSS head was a complete moron. Since he retired,
a new person took his place, is working with LA Dad's in surprisingly
supportive way, but indicates she won't be there long... she hates the
politics that interfere with her doing her commissioned tasks... getting
parents to do what she gets told the courts say.. She is a real person -
not a moron - hence her seemingly internal conflict of the unwritten duties.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have this position - elected, instead.
frazil
So why don't you consider that sometimes there is no cost because a family
member provides the service at no cost.
Why don't you think that no one would take care of a kid if there was
nothing to gain personally?.
What you are trying to argue is that the cost of the ex's services is
legitimate. But you won't allow that ex's service to be subject to
competition. If the ex's service can not compete, then perhaps the cost is
not legitimate.
>
> Remember - this amount happens to be what the government is prepared to
pay for
> cheap childcare - in other words, to enable a lone parent to stay out of
work to
> care for a child rather than work. If that same parent got a low paid job
that
> needed further assistance from the government, at that point the
assistance
> would include an explicit childcare component - and it could be MUCH
higher than
> the adult allowance of an out-of-work lone parent. The adult allowance of
a
> non-working lone parent is about £54 per week. (This is however many
children
> there are, and this is spread among all the non-resident parents if there
are
> more than one). The government can pay out over £94 for 1 child and up to
£140
> for 2 or more children per week in explicit childcare assistance for a
family
> (separated or intact) which has taken low pay & needs help. (Childcare is
> expensive & not always readily available in the UK).
And your first mistake is thinking that what the government is prepared to
pay has a rational basis
And if the amount the government is prepared to give out has no rational
basis, it is no more rational than any other formula. IOW, the result can
not be justified without first being able to justify the means that gets you
to the result.
One of its problem is that this makes
> it vastly too complicated to administer here, hence the reforms. (Another
of its
> problems is that many NRPs don't earn enough to raise children! In an
intact
> family, they get government assistance. Once separated, only the PWC gets
such
> assistance. This is one of the issues I helped raise with government).
Being too complicated doesn't justify simplification. In fact the
complications argue against simplifications.
Barry Pearson
news:ai0nvj$id0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Barry Pearson <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1gv09.21413$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > It is a genuine part of the cost of raising the child! It makes the
> > family worse off in a way that wouldn't exist if the child didn't exist
> > and/or was older. The cost happens to increase on average in a
> > separated family compared with an intact family, but that is what
> > we are dealing with here.
> >
> > In an intact family, this cost still exists, but is sometimes less
> > explicit. Sometimes it is handled by having 2 parents to cover
> > one-another, sometimes it is handled by the family's lost
> > opportunity costs of having a part time worker,
> > and sometimes it is handled by paying large amounts in commercial
> > childcare. But it is a genuine part of the cost of raising children in
> > intact as well as separated families, and needs to be considered in
> > a formula that tries to examine all costs.
>
> So why don't you consider that sometimes there is no cost because a
> family member provides the service at no cost.
>
> Why don't you think that no one would take care of a kid if there
> was nothing to gain personally?.
>
> What you are trying to argue is that the cost of the ex's services is
> legitimate. But you won't allow that ex's service to be subject to
> competition. If the ex's service can not compete, then perhaps the
> cost is not legitimate.
Read what I said - the formula (NOT my formula) was based on identifying amounts
for various components based on research, increases for inflation, etc. Some
amounts will sometimes be too high for a particular case, some will sometimes be
too low, but that is what will happen when the detailed costs of each case are
not separately identified. And the government has decided from experience that
it can't afford to sort out the detailed costings of each case. And many parents
wouldn't want it to - they don't want that level of intrusion, nor do they want
opportunities for lawyers to get involved.
Also read what I said about commercial childcare typically costing a LOT more
than the "adult allowance". The "in work" tax credits recognise childcare costs
of up to £135 per week for one child, and up to £200 for 2 or more (then the
government will pay 70% of those amounts). But the adult allowance is £53.95,
and few non-resident parents actually end up paying it all. (The average Full
Maintenance Assessment for all non-resident parents is about £21 per week, which
is less than a third of the researched costs of raising a first child).
[snip]
> And your first mistake is thinking that what the government is prepared
> to pay has a rational basis
It is not a mistake. The govenment uses research based on "basket of goods" type
analysis, updated by inflation figures, etc. It is widely recognised that the
figures are low - they are really for temporary poverty relief, not for long
term living (and certainly not for comfortable living). For example, they tend
to include consumables, but not the replacement of durables. So they are really
designed to keep the social security bill under control while avoiding people
starving to death. It could be argued that they should be set higher for child
support purposes, to allow for the replacement of durables over childhood. But
they ARE decided rationally.
[snip]
> > Don't make the mistake of believing that the UK's current formula
> > is as illogical as some of the situations that have been described
> > here for the US, etc. In fact, it is an attempt to identify genuine
> > costs & allowances in a non-arbitrary way (using amounts that
> > the government itself is prepared to pay
> > out in assistance for similar purposes).
>
> And if the amount the government is prepared to give out has no
> rational basis, it is no more rational than any other formula. IOW,
> the result can not be justified without first being able to justify the
> means that gets you to the result.
It HAS got a rational basis, based on researched costs of living, tailored to be
as low as the government can get away with in order the keep taxes down. It has
been working with many variations for decades, typically without people starving
to death, and typically (unless you have LOTS of children, or commit fraud!)
without making a good living out of it. (The amounts per child are probably too
low, some other amounts are too high or too low depending where you live, but
with millions of people claiming benefits, it is necessary to make some
simplifying decisions then require people to adapt to them).
Then the attempt was made to fit those into a child support formula. One problem
is that it probably didn't go far enough, and there are examples where you think
"why is this in and not that" - sometimes there are subtle answers, sometimes
perhaps it just wasn't important enough, or they haven't yet got round to
fitting it into the formula. (The formula has got much more complicated over
time). Another problem is that certain features (such as the 50% rate from the
assessable income taken to build the maintenance needs, and the 15% / 20% / 25%
rates beyond that for "wealth sharing", and the exact points at which the
carer's allowance reduces) are still somewhat arbitrary. But there is no known
way of correcting those without making things even harder to administer. The
government is not going to return to using courts to judge individual cases for
the 2 million potential cases in the scope of the CSA.
The result of the complexity is that the formula yields results that can't
easily be predicted just by looking at it. A lot of my own analysis made
extensive use of my spreadsheet, and I believe I have spotted features that have
never been published before, and may not even have been known before. Sometimes
the components have a rational basis, but the results appear to defy common
sense - often because of those arbitrary numbers in the previous paragraph. This
is just one of the reasons why I believe that simplification is needed.
> > One of its problem is that this makes
> > it vastly too complicated to administer here, hence the reforms.
> > (Another of its problems is that many NRPs don't earn enough
> > to raise children! In an intact family, they get government assistance.
> > Once separated, only the PWC gets such
> > assistance. This is one of the issues I helped raise with government).
>
> Being too complicated doesn't justify simplification. In fact the
> complications argue against simplifications.
Read what I said "vastly too complicated to administer here". Note "... to
administer ..."! That DEMANDS simplification - and so do most people involved in
the system.
On my web site I have listed some important characteristics of a child support
system, which I'll quote below. They are based on my analysis over years, much
of it based on talking to mothers & fathers involved in CSA cases.
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/what_next/formula.htm
The amount should be calculated according to a formula, and not rely on the whim
of decision makers. It should also be simple with relatively little information
of personal circumstances needed to make the calculation.
- Predictable: People should be able to plan their financial affairs. This
applies to both payer and payee.
- Plausible: All concerned must be able to understand what all the features are
for. (Whether they agree with them or not). Features must be explainable, and
not be arbitrary. The features of the formula must relate to the support of
children, and be consistent with the policy objectives (eg. relieving child
poverty or whatever).
- Practical: It must be possible to administer all aspects of the system in
practice with quality achievements. There should be no features such as
discontinuities which encourage bad behaviour by the people concerned.
The formula should be freely publicised.
WHY?
All of the features above - predictable, plausible, practical - are simply
characteristics that most people want from the systems that impact their lives.
They would apply to motor cars, an examination system, the remote control for a
television, etc. By default, they should apply here too. Consider what happens
with the child support of the 1991 & 1995 Acts:
- Unpredictable: The parent with care often can't predict whether money will
arrive, or if so how much. (A given amount of money is more valuable if it is
predictable). The non resident parent often receives unexpected increases in
liability. (A give amount of money is often more affordable if it is
predictable). The "departures" scheme appears like a battle with unpredictable
consequences for both sides.
- Implausible: No one really understands what all the features are for. Few
could truly justify them, since some features (such as certain percentages) are
simply arbitrary. Some liabilities don't correspond to researched costs of
children. There are many areas where there is a valid but unanswerable question:
"if they take X into account why don't they also take Y into account?"
- Impractical: The formula is demonstrably impossible to administer in practice.
The formula is badly-behaved, with unexpected consequences that encourage
undesirable behaviour (such as leaving work, emigration, even suicide). A scheme
that takes a lot of circumstances into account will be subject to reviews more
often as circumstances change.
There are many people who don't want a simple formula. They typically claim that
a system that took more circumstances into account would be fairer (which
normally means that it would make the person concerned better off). But in
general, for the non resident parent, that is probably not true. A simple scheme
has to play safe and set a low average amount. A scheme that uses far more
circumstances about both parents need not play safe.
Many different ways of operating a child support system have been tried in the
UK, and also in the rest of the world. The perfect approach has not been found,
and commentators sometimes appear to act according to the principle "the grass
is greener over there", or "the next radical change will work, honest". Much of
the choice appears to be between "a simple scheme which can't hope to be fair in
all details, but may be implementable", and "a complicated scheme which can't
hope to be fair in all details, but which relies on very fallible human beings
and is incomprehensible to all concerned".
Hank
If you want to see a moron, all you have to do is look at ken Pangborn. What a
moron! Ken Pangborn has lied about what I have written here and when that
didn't work, he started his stupid stertourssa posts . That's fine. Ken can
spend hour after hour on the internet flaming me instead of working on his
so-called "job". He will continue to use anonymous remailers to attack me or
himself to further his platform that I am Stacy Alexander. I will proceed to
give my opinions and recommendations for a cause that I believe in: Getting
Pangscum off the net at any cost!
Hank B. Boatright
Tampa
Rob Ingalls
> Child Support's Wacky Math
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay072402.htm
>
> Child Support's Wacky Math is a book about the way that Virginia and
> other states modify child support orders in consideration of
> visitation and shared parenting. It promises two things; to prove that
> the formula is grossly in error, and to show how reality gets lost and
> logic muddled in the overly political process that now dominates the
> child support system. It delivers on both promises with room to spare.
>
> complete book review
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay072402.htm
Hi. I'm Rob Ingalls, the author of the above mentioned book. Roger had
asked me to stop by and join the discussion thread. I'm in the process
of building a web site that discusses the book, along with other
pertinent information. You are welcomed to e-mail me for that web site
address (it also lists the book for sale... so I didn't want this to
come across as a sales pitch.)
The reason I wrote the book was that (1) I was going through my own
experience in divorce and realized the frustration and discrimination
that is blatantly obvious (at least to myself and those going through
the same experiences), and (2) I was absolutely astonished that basic
math and logic had been replaced by such emotionally charge agendas of
others. When I tried to voice my complaints about certain issues, I
was basically told that there were "experts" working on this for years
and that I didn't know what I was talking about. Well, in math or
science, there is something called 'proof.' Many told me I was wrong,
but when I challenged them to prove I was wrong, there was no
response. So I wrote the book to prove they were in error. I presented
my proof. I'm still waiting for theirs.
I believe in the KISS principle. Keep It Simple S-----. Step back when
things become too confusing. Get back to basics. Look at the BIG
picture. I also believe in fairness for all parties, both for the
Custodial Parent and the Non-Custodial Parent. Without fairness, then
unnecessary problems arise. In this book, all I've tried to do was to
bring some common sense down to a basic level that everyone,
hopefully, can understand.
Rob
Nemesis
If you want to see a moron, all you have to do is look at Stacy
Alexander and David Moroe. What morons! David has lied about what I
have written here and when that didn't work, he started his stupid
hate campaign with his moron buddy Alexander. That's fine. They can
spend hour after hour on the internet flaming me instead of working on
important father's rights issues. They will continue to use anonymous
remaiers to attack me or themselves to further their platform that I
am Ken Pangborn. I will proceed to give my opinions and
recommendations for a cause that I believe in : Getting Davey-poo
MOORON and SPAZZ off the net at any cost!
Andre Lieven
I want to bounce an aspect of CS calculations off of you and get
your input on it. I'll preface this by saying that I have no kids,
and so CS isn't a personal experience topic for me, just one of
elementary justice.
OK, many CS regimes calculate housing costs on a 50/50 basis
( For one child, which will be the constant in this example ),
so a CP, in a two bedroom apartment, with one child, and paying
( Using Ottawa's range of prices ) around $850/mo for same.
Thus, her share of the housing cost would be $425/mo ( 1/2 of
$850/mo ), and her ex would be paying $212.50/mo ( 1/2 of the
child's presumed share of $425/mo ) in housing costs.
Yet, were we to use a default accounting of, what would this
CP's housing costs be, were they not the parent of any child,
then they'd ( most likely, to compare like to like ) be living
in a one bedroom apartment, which in such a building as the
aforementioned two bedroom at $850/mo, costing about $725/mo.
Thus, by having the child be apportioned as a half share,
relative to the CP living alone costing, this CP gets a
hidden amount of alimony in the sum of $87.50/mo, derived
by $850/2= $425+ $212.50 ( her share )= $637.50 v/ $725.
( In addition to having the NCP effectively pay 100% of the
child's actual housing costs at the CP's residence )
So, by using a 50/50 model with one child, the CP gets to
pay *less* for their accomodations than does a single person
living at the same standard of housing.
Any thoughts ?
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Barry Pearson
> Barry Pearson <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Rxi09.3184$7v5.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
[snip]
> > This cost is a genuine cost of raising a child. In fact, the lone parent
> > is providing cheap childcare which would otherwise have to be
> > provided commercially at higher cost. What sticks in people's
> > throats is that although they are paying for childcare which they
> > probably know is necessary, the service provider happens to be
> > the ex, which they resent! Yet they would not like to pay the full
> > cost of commercial childcare. (I have never seen anyone propose a
> > plausible answer to this - they just complain!)
>
> I might agree with this reasoning if the service provided is a service I
> actually want. As the matter stands it is a service one is required to
> take. The objection is that NRP is 1) required to pay for a service
> that they may not want to pay for or a service that they may not need;
> and 2) precluded from using other alternatives. For example if I can
> change the spark plugs on my car, why is it necessary for me to pay
> for the services of a mechanic to change the spark plugs, even if I do
> it myself. It has nothing to do with the service provider being the ex,
> it has everything to with freedom of choice. If the NRP could choose
> the service provider then one could argue it is a legitimate cost.
The FIRST item on my Agenda is that we need to get shared parenting (call it
what you like - shared residence, joint custody, etc) sorted out. Only when both
parents have adequate rights to "parent" as well as "support" their children can
a child support system expect to be credible.
The way to exercise control of the goods & services provided while raising
children is to do so directly while they are in that parent's care. Interfering
with what the other parent does during that parent's period of care is unlikely
to work - and of course, fathers typically don't want mothers interfering
either.
I was describing the UK's current system (which will be replaced as soon as they
can get the IT sorted out). It was designed to be an administrative system able
to cater for up to 2 million cases (currently it is just over 1 million).
Therefore it didn't attempt to examine the detailed costs for each case, but
instead used standard costs (based on the benefits system). The previous
court-based systems didn't work properly either. The UK often make uniform rules
then expects people to adapt: a speed limit has to suit everyone, even though
better drivers with better cars might be safer faster; the benefits system pays
out standard amounts, even though different people may have different
preferences; etc.
> > This is financially a correct component. But it will never be
> > accepted emotionally.
>
> It is only a financially correct component, if the NRP chooses to
> avail themselves of the service. For example suppose the NRP's
> parents are willing to provide the service free of charge, why
> then should the NRP pay for the service, when they have the
> alternative not to have to pay for the service.
Good point, and one that often arises. Another point that often arises is "why
call a person "Parent With Care" if they use childcare a lot?" But these
arguments can apply both ways, especially if shared parenting can be sorted out.
The new scheme is based on the realisation that it has proved impossible to
administer a system that attempts to sort out all the details, so it applies
much simpler rules that leave non-resident parents with (on average) higher
proportions of net income, then expects all concerned to adapt. My Agenda takes
that further by trying to get more symmetry into the system.
[snip]
> > It is simply based on the known fact that on average richer
> > people spend more on their children than poorer people.
> > Reality happens not to obey the mathematics used here -
>
> Ah yes the fallacy of averages. While averages may be a
> legitimate way to characterize a population. It is not a legitimate
> way characterize the individual members of the population.
> IOW, if the average height of males in the world is 5' 8", that
> doesn't mean I'm 5' 8" tall. If fact, probability theory would
> predict that I'm not 5' 8" tall.
>
> Of the 3 types of averages it is the modal average that would
> have the most legitimacy because that is the most frequently
> occurring situation.
See above - attempts to use courts to examine individual cases and make
judgements without a formula failed. Similar cases would end up with
significantly different results. That is one of the justifications for the CSA -
to take out what were clearly arbitrary judgements, and apply standardisation.
That failed too, because it took so much into consideration that it couldn't be
administered.
However, one thing is very clear - as income falls, child support HAS to fall,
as a safety measure for the non-resident parent if for no other reason.
Therefore, the converse must also apply up to a point.
As for using the modal situation - that is "zero"! The largest category of
non-resident parents are those out of work and therefore have an assessment to
pay nothing or a minimal amount. Needless to say, no one is going to that that
category seriously as the basis for the formula!
> > "We also found, at first sight strangely, that average spending
> > did not vary greatly with income of a family; about 20 per cent
> > from the bottom quartile to the top income quartile."
> > (Sue Middleton, co-researcher of Small Fortunes, in evidence
> > to the Social Security Select Committee)
> >
> > but it does exist.
>
> But not frequently.
It frequently exists. Better off people freqently spend more on their children -
there is the evidence of your own eyes, and the evidence from research such as
the Small Fortunes research. What the Small Fortunes research showed was the
effect is not as pronounced as the government's formula would suggest, but it
certainly showed the effect exists.
[snip]
I was simply stating what the percentages were as a result of the current (1991)
formula. This answer in Parliament came years (perhaps 4 years) after the new
(2000) formula was first proposed. Read it simply as an indication of what
results the current formula yields, for comparison with other systems in the
world, and for comparison with the new system.
> > This formula has proved too complicated to operate in the UK.
> > So the new scheme is a simple percentage of NRP's net income
> > (with a few twists). Most NRP's want to get onto the new scheme
> > ASAP. Probably most Parents With Care think likewise.
> > With adjustments to the social security rules, most NRPs & most
> > PWCs will be favoured by the formula.
>
> But what they are not doing is verifying that the complicated formula
> yields ligitimate results. They further compound the problem by
> simplifying the formula based on the results of a formula which they
> can not verify. Is this a great world or what!
The current formula was a serious attempt to derive a system in which each
component had legitimacy. Yes, it used standard components rather than amounts
decided by separate examination of each individual case, but that is a
consequence of having failed to implement a satisfactory system based on
examination of individual cases (even at a time when the caseload was much
smaller). The basic components were not arbitrary - they were based on what the
government was prepared to pay out in similar circumstances, which is hardly a
recipe for extravagant amounts! So instead of trying to identify what the basic
consumables for a particular child costs, based on the child's preferences,
local shop prices, ability of the PWC to prepare meals from cheap products, etc,
it simply says "£33.50".
The new formula had different origins. Some of the principles used to derive it
were flaky indeed, but one principle that kept occurring was "if there is 1
child, the non-resident parent will have at last 85% of net income left, etc,
and this is enough to adapt to". Some of the thinking was based on what the NRP
has left, as well as what the NRP pays. That is why most NRPs probably want to
get onto the new formula ASAP.
Barry Pearson
> Barry Pearson <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ODv09.21485$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > Yes, it is the price of being parent - for both parents. It is one that
> > has financial implications, as expected for something that involves
> > cost & effort.
> > One of the financial implications is that sometimes money has to be
> > paid out for commercial childcare!
>
> Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not. Your system doesn't allow for
> it not. Your system assumes that money must be paid out for
> commercial day care. And, as you admit, that is not always true.
Not MY system! It is the current UK system for which the law to replace it was
passed in 2000, and which is now waiting IT problems to be sorted out.
See my other response to you - the current system uses standard amounts rather
than examining individual cases, because the government thought that was the
only way they could administer the expected number of cases. Even that approach
didn't work, so now they are simplifying things a lot more.
The current formula does NOT assume the use of commercial childcare - that would
involve much higher amounts! It uses the amount that the government is prepared
to pay out for cheap childcare - which is the "adult allowance" for a lone
parent. See the rest of my statement immediately below.
> > Whether families are intact or separated, childcare has a
> > financial implication even if it is not always explicit. Sometimes
> > it is handled by having 2 parents to cover one-another,
> > sometimes it is handled by the family's lost opportunity
> > costs of having a part time worker, and sometimes it is handled
> > by paying large amounts in commercial childcare. But it is a
> > genuine part of the cost of raising children in intact as well as
> > separated families, and needs to be considered in
> > a formula that tries to examine all costs.
>
> Your system doesn't recognize implications. Your system only
> recognizes one implicatiuon. IOW, you are arguing that the
> cost has nothing to do with the situation. I'm arguing that the cost
> has everything to do with the situation. Thus the legitimacy of the
> rule depends on the situation in which it is applied.
>
> Whether or not the cost of daycare is a legitimate cost, depends
> on the particular circumstances.
[snip]
See above - particular circumstances are not taken into account for
administrative reasons. (Except for schemes called "departures" & "variations",
which are intended to have a narrow gateway).
I believe that the simplification has gone too far. My Agenda proposes that
symmetry is needed, and that needs 2 extra variables in the formula (6 instead
of 4). Other affects could also be added, but that is my minimum set. The
minster's reason for rejecting my proposal (in a personal letter to me) is on my
web site. I disagree with her reasoning.
Jill
through the ether:
Hi Rob,
Thanks for writing. Is your book available at Barnes and Noble or
Amazon.com? I would like to at least have a look at the ground you
covered in the book before posing any direct questions.
My CS concerns at present have to do with the way false arrears are
generated using not so much fuzzy math as unprofessional accounting
methods...basically cooking the books while not balancing them.
It doesn't sound as though this is something your book would deal with
but for any man now paying CS, this is the next hurdle they will
likely face when their children are all adults and they seek to close
out their CS accounts.
I would be very interested in visiting your web site once you have it
up and running. Thanks for your time, Rob.
Jill
Rob Ingalls
Jill, the book is available on-line at both Barnes & Nobel (B&N) and
Amazon. I think B&N is cheaper at the moment (less than $10).
My web site address is: http://members.cox.net/wackymath/
On your concern, it's like statistics, you have to step back and think
about it from different angles to see if it is true or if the numbers
are false. And you have to ask yourself if it was an honest mistake or
manipulated to show something that isn't true.
People in politics, courtrooms, etc., are so used to dealing with
'spin' that they start believing it to be true. The deception becomes
the reality for them. I always question things, statements, even
so-called facts. I guess just my nature.
For your "false arrears" issue and the "unprofessional accounting
methods"... again, the best way is to step back, let go of the
emotions, and scrutinize each aspect of it. Usually it is a mixture of
fact and fiction. It seems people quickly accept things as fact,
especially if it comes from someone with lots of credentials. But
people are people. They make errors. They may have hidden agendas.
Even their own biases can sway them in a wrong direction
subconsciously. The key is to show why something is right or wrong,
not just state that. Like I mentioned in my previous posting, when I
tried to show why certain things were wrong, I was just told that I
was wrong, with nothing to back up their statements. It was just an
opinion of theirs. But to them, it was fact. Changing the direction of
people, especially if they have been doing it one way for so long, is
like trying to change directions of a huge ship.... it takes awhile.
Hope that helps.
Rob
Mike Barnard
>Child Support's Wacky Math is a book about the way that Virginia and
>other states modify child support orders in consideration of
Why is this posted to a UK group? The cnances of any laws being used
in both countries is unlikely, surely.
--
Mike Barnard,
Rustington
UK.
Remove ".trousers" spamblock from email address to reply.
Barry Pearson
news:jlaaku0jbrjijtpha...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Jul 2002 07:57:31 -0700, roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote:
>
> >Child Support's Wacky Math is a book about the way that
> >Virginia and other states modify child support orders in
> >consideration of
>
> Why is this posted to a UK group? The cnances of any
> laws being used in both countries is unlikely, surely.
Roger often posts articles about child support to uk.gov.agency.csa . Sometimes
this is informative, because it shows global trends.
In this particular case, it is clear that the current UK system is so different
from the Virginia system that it is difficult to detect any common lessons.
Indeed, that is pretty true about US systems in general, not just the Virginia
system.
I detect a tendency on the part of people who deal with the US child support
systems to assume that the objectives, motivations, formulae, faults and lessons
of the US systems will automatically translate to the UK (and elsewhere). Those
of us who are aware of the UK system know this is not the case. In fact, the UK
has some lessons for other parts of the world - for example, the UK has
liability based on bio-parentage (since 1991), whereas some parts of the world
have yet to catch up on this. The US appears to have changed its system to move
the average liability upwards, while the UK is in the process of revising its
scheme in a way which will reduce the average liability. Etc.
Be tolerant. At least you can get an insight into what things COULD have been
like in the UK!
James Buster
>>percentage-of-ncp-income model, why doesn't it too violate equal
>>protection?
>
> Because they are not mathematically identical, even though they may yield
> the same result.
That's mathematically absurd. If "X = A" and "Y = A", "X = Y". QED.
> The percent of income model only considers the income of the NCP when
> setting a CS amount. The income shares model combines both the CP's and
> NCP's income and then apportions the CS amount based on the percentage of
> the NCP's contribution to the combined income.
That's the same thing. Really.
>>Frighteningly, some posters here say that in their states the NCP's
>>payment *rises* with increasing CP income. That's truly shocking.
>
> In theory that can be the result. But in practice, it is the exception. In
> income shares states, as the combined income increases so does the amount of
> combined CS, but as the CP's income increases relative to the NCP's income,
> the portion of the combined income attributed to the NCP decreases. The
> result is that the NCP's CS amount stays about the same.
In those states I was thinking of, the NCP pays the combined total CS
amount, not the smaller amount apportioned according the the NCPs
percentage of the combined income. Thus the NCP's CS amount *rises*
as CP income rises. Rather sick, if you ask me.
James Buster
> It frequently exists. Better off people freqently spend more on their
> children
Of course they do, in absolute dollars, not percentage of income.
The problem with every CS scheme I've seen implemented assumes that
the amount spent, as a percentage of income, stays constant or *rises*
with increasing income.
Barry Pearson
At low incomes that is to be expected. Think about what should happen as
someone's income falls. Eventually, they have barely enough to live on (housing,
food), and little or nothing left for CS liability. So the liability should be a
very small percentage of the income. At this stage, it probably covers little of
the real costs of raising a child. Then as their income rises, and they have
extra money beyond bare essentials, some of this extra can be diverted to the
child, and as a percentage of income it should rise.
This should occur up to the point where the liability is perhaps somewhere in
the range half to full cost of raising a child (depending on the other parent's
circumstances). After this, it should rise much slower, because, as you say,
expenditure on children doesn't rise as a percentage of income. At some point
there should probably be a cap.
Now, this is actually how the UK's current formula works! See the graphs at the
links below. The peak occurs at higher than the researched expenditure on a
child in a (not well off) intact family, but that is partly to do with the
controversial component to cover cheap childcare that has been discussed
earlier. (Children do tend to cost more in a separated family).
"Comparisons based on numbers of qualifying children"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/compariso
ns_numbers_of_children.htm
"Comparisons based on housing costs"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/compariso
ns_housing_costs.htm
Unfortunately, this still doesn't work properly. The fast rise from the "low
income protection" stage to the "disposable income" stage is a disincentive to
earn more. The peak amount is very hard to convince people of (people here are
not convinced!) It occurs at the wrong stage - this is a person on average or
less than average income, paying 30% of net income even for one child! Even if
that is the amount a child costs, it is still too hard to find. (In an intact
family, both parents would be getting some help from the state, such as Child
Benefit, but in a separated family, only the parent with care does. I have been
doing some work with Families Need Fathers to make this clearer).
The UK schemes work on NET income, which I agree with the government makes more
sense. (I would like to hear from anyone who believes that working on GROSS
income is better - why?) But I used a tax spreadsheet to see how this worked in
terms of gross income:
"Marginal increases in total deductions as GROSS income increases"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/compariso
ns_with_income_tax.htm
What these showed is that too many problems came at once. Tax increases as a
percentage of gross income at the same time that CS does so, and the
non-resident parent may be left with 11 pence (or cents!) in the extra pound (or
dollar!) earned to spend on himself. Some just give up.
The new scheme should help with a number of these issues - it is mathematically
"better behaved". We'll see.
RogerFGay
>
> See above - attempts to use courts to examine individual cases and make
> judgements without a formula failed.
I've seen this claim many times as a justification for centrally
controlled administrative systems. But I've never once seen any
credible evidence that the system of justice that western civilization
requires failed, nor any convincing evidence that going to the extreme
end of socialist / communist bureacratic institutions is a better
idea.
Similar cases would end up with
> significantly different results.
The only research supported claims that I've seen took a very limited
number of variables into consideration -- just as the new child
support formulae do. They would say for example, that two men living
on the same street with the same job and take home pay, paid different
levels of child support. But that's a correct result if they have a
different number of children, the mothers' incomes are different, and
/ or they have different schedules for caring for the children -- one
perhaps a divorced father splitting care 50-50 while the other is
might have had a child outside his own marriage and doesn't even
exercise visitation rights.
That is one of the justifications for the CSA -
> to take out what were clearly arbitrary judgements, and apply standardisation.
The argument resolved and analyzed objectively was that judging case
by case does not give the same results as using an overly simplified
and obviously biased formula. The presumption in such research has
been that the overly simplified bureacratic formula is the preferred
answer, therefore getting a different result is bad. In other words,
there is simply no credible research whatsoever concluding that
western civilization failed and we must now rely on extreme socialist
bureacracy for better efficiency and fairness.
> That failed too, because it took so much into consideration that it couldn't be
> administered.
It wasn't logical or credible to begin with. The idea itself is wrong.
It will never be right no matter how much tampering it gets. The whole
thing rests on one central Big Lie. The lie will never be the truth
even if the trial and error process goes on forever.
RogerFGay
>
> >Child Support's Wacky Math is a book about the way that Virginia and
> >other states modify child support orders in consideration of
>
> Why is this posted to a UK group? The cnances of any laws being used
> in both countries is unlikely, surely.
Reform of child support has been international. I've written about
that more than once and have another article in the works on exactly
that -- citing two UK cases and comparing that to problems in the US.
Yes, there are some slight differences between the way we go about
things. But the general problem is exactly the same problem. I think
people in the UK should know that people in the US have presented
professional mathematical proofs that ... among other things show that
it can be done. There's a difference between what is mathematically,
logically, and sciencifically correct and child support law developed
by hook crook and special interest funding. I believe it really is of
international interest that there are people who can prove that
something is right or wrong.
RogerFGay
>
> Unfortunately, this still doesn't work properly. The fast rise from the "low
> income protection" stage to the "disposable income" stage is a disincentive to
> earn more.
What evidence is there that use of the old formula actually resulted
in people working less to avoid higher payment?
> The new scheme should help with a number of these issues - it is mathematically
> "better behaved". We'll see.
>
>
It looks like the old formula was reasonably well-behaved, even if it
was wrong.
John O
"Jill" <perspic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d46cbb6...@news.earthlink.net...
> On 30 Jul 2002 09:17:11 -0700, roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) sent
> through the ether:
>
> >"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Hlt19.4104$fw4.81029@newsfep2-gui>...
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, this still doesn't work properly. The fast rise from the
"low
> >> income protection" stage to the "disposable income" stage is a
disincentive to
> >> earn more.
> >
> >What evidence is there that use of the old formula actually resulted
> >in people working less to avoid higher payment?
>
> (and I) will derive little or NO benefit from his working longer and
> harder. Nor will his children. Only the ex-wife gains from my
> husband earning more money. There is no statute in place in Wisconsin
> that says the CP *must* spend any or all of the CS on the children.
> And my husband's ex clearly does not. The current system is the one
> that provides disincentives to earning more.
>
> Wisconsin is one of those states that computes CS by considering the
> 2nd wive's income (that is if she has money to pay towards living
> expenses, then there is more money freed up for the NCP to pay even
> more CS--over the percentage guidelines). Which is why I will not
> work more than a part time job unless my husband is out of work. I
> absolutely refuse to support (even indirectly) another grown woman in
> any manner OR the children she chose to bring into the world. Why
> should I support the children of a woman who refuses to work to
> support her own offspring? I did not marry her nor did I have
> anything to do with her having children. Again this looking for
> extra money for mommy from everyone at large is a major disincentive
> to earning more money.
A strange observation by BP. Higher rates of taxes, it is argued by almost
every party on the Right and most, now, on the Left, act as a disincentyive
to earn more.
Why should CS be any different?
>
> Jill
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Hlt19.4104$fw4.81029@newsfep2-gui>...
> >
> > Unfortunately, this still doesn't work properly. The fast rise
> > from the "low income protection" stage to the "disposable
> > income" stage is a disincentive to earn more.
I hope there is no doubt about the disincentive resulting sometimes from
receiving only 11% of extra income? The only question is surely how many people
are influenced by this disincentive.
> What evidence is there that use of the old formula actually
> resulted in people working less to avoid higher payment?
(Note - I talked of a disincentive to earn more, not an incentive to work less.
These are very different).
Obviously there is no adequately controlled test available. Who knows what they
would have done?
NACSA (an anti-CSA lobby group) has been trying to make a case for this based on
answers in Parliament. Here are a couple of examples of the evidence they are
using:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001130/text/01130w3
6.htm#01130w36.html_spnew0
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010202/text/10202w0
5.htm#10202w05.html_spnew5
The problem is that I have no evidence of what a similar population would have
done in the absence of the CSA. (I have similarly been a bit sceptical about
NACSA's evidence for suicides, although there is no doubt that the CSA has often
been cited in Coroner's Courts).
What I do know is that, because I am an expert on the UK's child support system,
I am often approached by people "in the system", and get the chance to talk to
them. (Some of them post to uk.gov.agency.csa ). A number of these have dropped
out of work, and even emigrated. I don't know how representative of the general
population of CSA cases they are.
> > The new scheme should help with a number of these issues -
> > it is mathematically "better behaved". We'll see.
>
> It looks like the old formula was reasonably well-behaved,
> even if it was wrong.
I suppose it depends on what we mean by "well behaved". Here are some pages that
show what I believe is poor behaviour:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/compariso
ns_marginal_increases.htm
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/compariso
ns_with_income_tax.htm
I believe the new scheme, based on a very simply percentage of income approach,
shows vastly better behaviour.
John Jones
"Jill" <perspic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d46cbb6...@news.earthlink.net...
> On 30 Jul 2002 09:17:11 -0700, roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay)
sent
> through the ether:
>
message news:<Hlt19.4104$fw4.81029@newsfep2-gui>...
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, this still doesn't work properly. The fast
rise from the "low
> >> income protection" stage to the "disposable income" stage is
a disincentive to
> >> earn more.
> >
> >What evidence is there that use of the old formula actually
resulted
> >in people working less to avoid higher payment?
>
because he
> (and I) will derive little or NO benefit from his working
longer and
> harder. Nor will his children. Only the ex-wife gains from my
> husband earning more money.
From him according to his ability to earn
To her according to his ability to pay.
John O
We-ell, there is the research from a year or so back by some bods up at York
Uni, which suggested that the net effect of being screwed through the family
courts was to make men less inclined to be law-abiding: the state/individual
contract has been impaired.
And I have seen some research elsewhere - Uni of London - about attitudes
post Separation, which includes a high degree of 'helplessness' and
depression, which would probably act as a disincentive to working more.
Barry Pearson
news:3d46d1fc$0$4225$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
> > On 30 Jul 2002 09:17:11 -0700, roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) sent
> > through the ether:
> > >"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:<Hlt19.4104$fw4.81029@newsfep2-gui>...
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately, this still doesn't work properly. The fast rise from
> > >> the "low income protection" stage to the "disposable income"
> > >> stage is a disincentive to earn more.
> > >
> > >What evidence is there that use of the old formula actually
> > > resulted in people working less to avoid higher payment?
> A strange observation by BP.
Er ... pardon? Don't you mean "A strange observation by RFG"?
I said "The fast rise from the "low income protection" stage to the "disposable
income" stage is a disincentive to earn more."
Roger asked "What evidence is there that use of the old formula actually
resulted in people working less to avoid higher payment?"
> Higher rates of taxes, it is argued by almost every party on the
> Right and most, now, on the Left, act as a disincentyive
> to earn more.
Yes, which is why I was a little puzzled by Roger's query.
> Why should CS be any different?
[snip]
It isn't. And when combined with taxes & NI, so that the combined withdrawal
rate can be as high as 89p in the £, as I show on my web site, it leads to
people saying "stuff it, why bother to try to earn more?"
What I do know is that, because I am an expert on the UK's child support system,
I am often approached by people "in the system", and get the chance to talk to
them. (Some of them post to uk.gov.agency.csa ). A number of these have dropped
out of work, and even emigrated. I don't know how representative of the general
population of CSA cases they are.
Here are some pages that show what I believe is poor behaviour:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/compariso
ns_marginal_increases.htm
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/compariso
ns_with_income_tax.htm
I believe the new scheme, based on a very simply percentage of income approach,
shows vastly better behaviour.
Barry Pearson
news:<g6Q09.25198$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> > See above - attempts to use courts to examine individual cases
> > and make judgements without a formula failed.
>
> I've seen this claim many times as a justification for centrally
> controlled administrative systems. But I've never once seen any
> credible evidence that the system of justice that western civilization
> requires failed, nor any convincing evidence that going to the extreme
> end of socialist / communist bureacratic institutions is a better
> idea.
Er ... "the system of justice that western civilization requires" may well
include "centrally controlled administrative systems"!
You appear to believe that these are opposites. I see no evidence that these are
opposites. Neither do I accept that "centrally controlled administrative
systems" are purely to do with "socialist / communist bureacratic institutions".
(I can see why someone may want to force the similarity, in order to make a
point that they can't make some other way. But it isn't so).
I thought I was right-wing. I have recently been informed by means of a simple
quiz that I am "libertarion" (whatever than means). I see a place for lots of
different systems. A reason for this is that my philosophy is "avoid harm to
innocent people, else let people do what they like". And sometimes simple
results such as "the tragedy of the commons" says that some central principles
(which doesn't have to mean central agencies) are sometimes needed to avoid harm
to innocent people.
It is always worth looking at the rage expressed by so many people posting in
these newsgroups. Where are the posting from? Socialist / communist countries?
Often not - often, they are posting from the US, which has a wonderful way of
letting local people determine their own local situation, and a terrible way of
letting local organisations determine other local people's situations. The US
is, in its own special way, the ultimate example of "centrally controlled
administrative systems"! The cental control is the Constitution. And it IS
control - this was surely always intended. It is control to limit powers - but
still control. And it is therefore limited in its ability to control local
excesses. The US child support system(s) appears to be in a complete mess, and
it is hard to see how it can be got out of that mess without having to do it
piecemeal state by state. (Unless there is a Constitutional solution).
> > Similar cases would end up with
> > significantly different results.
>
> The only research supported claims that I've seen took a very limited
> number of variables into consideration -- just as the new child
> support formulae do. They would say for example, that two men living
> on the same street with the same job and take home pay, paid different
> levels of child support. But that's a correct result if they have a
> different number of children, the mothers' incomes are different, and
> / or they have different schedules for caring for the children -- one
> perhaps a divorced father splitting care 50-50 while the other is
> might have had a child outside his own marriage and doesn't even
> exercise visitation rights.
I suggest you try to get hold of some of the extensive research & reports in the
UK. They are not available as on-line text (although I actually bought my own
copies on-line!) but they are pretty thorough. Try:
Report of the Committee on One-Parent Families
July 1974
Command paper Cmnd 5629 & 5629-I
ISBN 0-10-156290-X
ISBN 0-10-156291-8
"Children Come First"
White paper in 1990, precursor to the CSA
ISBN 0-10-112642-5
OK, just the reports themselves total over 1000 pages, but we want them to be
comprehensive, don't we? The pre-CSA system was a mess!
> > That is one of the justifications for the CSA -
> > to take out what were clearly arbitrary judgements, and apply
> > standardisation.
>
> The argument resolved and analyzed objectively was that judging case
> by case does not give the same results as using an overly simplified
> and obviously biased formula. The presumption in such research has
> been that the overly simplified bureacratic formula is the preferred
> answer, therefore getting a different result is bad. In other words,
> there is simply no credible research whatsoever concluding that
> western civilization failed and we must now rely on extreme socialist
> bureacracy for better efficiency and fairness.
Who (apart from you!) says that this is not a Western way of solving the
problem? Some rules that say in advance "this is how things are", then people
can adapt without having to worry about officials or other interested parties
overturning the results. Who (apart from you) thinks that what is happening here
is "extreme socialist bureacracy"? I don't recognise those positions - I think
you are making them up to discredit ideas that you simply don't like.
When I look at socialist / communist systems, what strikes me is that people
cannot predict and/or plan for the future - they become helpless & dependent on
"the state". If they try to innovate, they may be squashed. Officials may change
the rules at any time, and anyway probably hide the rules. Central control is
dynamic.
I know of no workable system where there is no need for rules. But rules should
be clear & published & stable. You can plan your life, and if you find a novel
future - fine! The UK's reformed child support system is really primarily a
(democratically decided) formula. The idea is that all concerned (mother,
father, children) can predict the results, and plan for them, and adapt to them.
Then they can get on with their lives without further intrusion. (Taxes work
that way. So do rules for schooling - nearly, etc. Are these sorts of rules so
wrong?)
When I see stories about court actions in the US, I have a lot of trouble seeing
how parents can plan their lives, when a court may suddenly intrude, possible at
some cost to the people involved in lawyer's fees. Aren't there people who have
been through the court mill in the US who wish that it could have been decided
by a simple administrative formula without the time & effort of court
appearances, and the cost of lawyers, and the unpredictability of possibly
unconstrained human judgement?
> > That failed too, because it took so much into consideration that it
> > couldn't be administered.
>
> It wasn't logical or credible to begin with. The idea itself is wrong.
> It will never be right no matter how much tampering it gets. The whole
> thing rests on one central Big Lie. The lie will never be the truth
> even if the trial and error process goes on forever.
Not true. It was logical, it tried to take sensible account of relevant facts,
and failed because it forgot that matters like this can't simply be decided
according to mathematics. The human factor is needed too. It may be
mathematically right to turn income into liability in a certain way, but if that
causes disincentives, it has still failed. There are people at the end of the
mathematics - that is one of the things that the 1991 formula forgot.
The new formula not only applied (some - too little!) logic, it also said "how
much has the non resident parent got left?" Perhaps a far more important
question than "how much should he pay?"
RogerFGay
>
> > Higher rates of taxes, it is argued by almost every party on the
> > Right and most, now, on the Left, act as a disincentyive
> > to earn more.
>
> Yes, which is why I was a little puzzled by Roger's query.
>
That's your evidence? Some politicians said it?
James Buster
> I hope there is no doubt about the disincentive resulting sometimes from
> receiving only 11% of extra income? The only question is surely how many
> people are influenced by this disincentive.
Would *you* work more hours if you netted 11% of each marginal dollar
in gross income? I wouldn't. It's not about "screwing the wife & kids",
although that's how women's advocates would portray any man making the
same decision. It's about the return on time spent being so low it's
just not worth it. Unless one is so impoverished by the CS order that
you can't meet basic living expenses, a result that seems altogether too
common these days, no sane person would work for 11% net.
Andre Lieven
Amazing, the idiocy of this Barry kook.
He can't see that, if hes making $10 an hour, that working more
for a net return of *$1.10* an hour *isn't* a disincentive to
work more hours ?
Man, thats just SO dumb.
RogerFGay
>
> Er ... "the system of justice that western civilization requires" may well
> include "centrally controlled administrative systems"!
>
> You appear to believe that these are opposites. I see no evidence that these are
> opposites. Neither do I accept that "centrally controlled administrative
> systems" are purely to do with "socialist / communist bureacratic institutions".
> (I can see why someone may want to force the similarity, in order to make a
> point that they can't make some other way. But it isn't so).
>
Barry, Just a tip -- starting with "Er" doesn't make your argument
stronger. These policies that we're discussing were well developed in
the communist world and they were imported to the west. There is a
clear distinction between the system that defines western civilization
and the socialist system. I can only believe that you know that, and
you've got me wondering why you're taking me through the paces of
false logic. There are bureacrats in London, therefore we're all
commies anyway. It is just incredible that you claim that there is not
distinction between communism and western civilization.
> I thought I was right-wing.
You seem to be the only one who thinks that you're right-wing.
> A reason for this is that my philosophy is "avoid harm to
> innocent people, else let people do what they like".
But the bureacratic child support system with its simple biased
politically controlled formula does not do the least harm. This is an
exact opposite of a government treating individuals with respect. It
is not only a system that gives individuals too little respect, it
simply does not acknowledge the individual at all. This isn't just
theory either Barry. These policies that we're discussing were well
developed in the communist world and they were imported to the west.
> The US
> is, in its own special way, the ultimate example of "centrally controlled
> administrative systems"! The cental control is the Constitution. And it IS
> control - this was surely always intended. It is control to limit powers - but
> still control.
Are you practicing to be a propagandist? Your argument that there is
no difference between the communist system and the system defined by
the US Constitution is absurd.
>
> OK, just the reports themselves total over 1000 pages, but we want them to be
> comprehensive, don't we? The pre-CSA system was a mess!
>
There is apparently no evidence that it was a mess. It just wasn't the
socialist system that reformers wanted.
>
> When I look at socialist / communist systems, what strikes me is that people
> cannot predict and/or plan for the future - they become helpless & dependent on
> "the state".
Controlled by the state. That's right Barry, and that's exactly what
the child support system does. Barry -- it's fact. This is a system
that was in fact imported from communist countries. It was designed by
communists based on communist ideology and bureacratic method. It's a
fact.
If they try to innovate, they may be squashed. Officials may change
> the rules at any time, and anyway probably hide the rules. Central control is
> dynamic.
>
Exactly. So again it matches the child support system. You're proving
my case.
> I know of no workable system where there is no need for rules. But rules should
> be clear & published & stable.
They get that way through adherence to that messy Common Law system
that supporters of the child support system hate so much. You know,
it's one of those basic things that defines western civilization that
reformers have done away with and won't allow to come back -- the
thing reformers have claimed failed. If you can't equate a claim of
failure of the system of Common Law with the claim of failure of
western civilization as we know it -- God help you.
You can plan your life, and if you find a novel
> future - fine! The UK's reformed child support system is really primarily a
> (democratically decided) formula.
"Democratically" defined -- well, you're using exactly the word the
socialists use to justify blanket denial of individual rights. You
can't support arbitrary contol of indivduals by the state -- i.e. the
power part of the collective, and also claim that you support doing
the least harm and letting people do what they want. They are exact
opposites.
Barry Pearson
news:ai7kmm$7q7$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
I am the one who says that the child support formula is a disincentive to
earning more.
Roger Gay is the one who appears to be questioning this.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0207300817.19aab627@posting.g
oogle.com
Barry Pearson
Indeed, that is why I say on my web site "an NRP is likely to say "stuff it, why
bother to try to earn more?"" (It was Roger Gay who is asking the above
question - I was trying to answer it, but it is hard to find proof).
I have shown some of the worst effects on my web site:
"Marginal increases in liability as net income increases"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/compariso
ns_marginal_increases.htm
"Marginal increases in total deductions as GROSS income increases"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/comparisons/compariso
ns_with_income_tax.htm
"Case Study 1 - Removing the incentive for the NRP to work"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/wftc/wftc_case_study_
1.htm
The latter case study (based on the discussions I have with some of those
effected by the child support system - in this case, typically new partners of
non-resident parents) has led me to propose that some of the disincentive should
be removed.
Barry Pearson
Here is what I said in another article, in response to your question "What
evidence is there that use of the old formula actually resulted in people
working less to avoid higher payment?"
(Note - I talked of a disincentive to earn more, not an incentive to work less.
These are very different).
Obviously there is no adequately controlled test available. Who knows what they
would have done?
NACSA (an anti-CSA lobby group) has been trying to make a case for this based on
answers in Parliament. Here are a couple of examples of the evidence they are
using:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001130/text/01130w3
6.htm#01130w36.html_spnew0
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010202/text/10202w0
5.htm#10202w05.html_spnew5
The problem is that I have no evidence of what a similar population would have
done in the absence of the CSA.
What I do know is that, because I am an expert on the UK's child support system,
I am often approached by people "in the system", and get the chance to talk to
them. (Some of them post to uk.gov.agency.csa ). A number of these have dropped
out of work, and even emigrated. I don't know how representative of the general
population of CSA cases they are.
A number of others have responded to this thread, reinforcing the disincentive
effect. It isn't simply the high "tax" rate - if that were constant (eg. 50% at
all levels of pay) then the disincentive wouldn't be as strong, because everyone
would see it whatever they earned. It is the way the rate changes at certain
points - for example, with the current CSA formula, the combined tax & CS
deduction can be 89% of extra pay at the point where a non resident parent is
trying to go from earning less than average to earning more than average. With
the new formula, it never gets more than 65%, and then only with 3 children. For
one child, it stays less than 50%.
Barry Pearson
news:<Hlt19.4104$fw4.81029@newsfep2-gui>...
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, this still doesn't work properly. The fast rise from the
> >> "low income protection" stage to the "disposable income" stage is a
> >> disincentive to earn more.
> >
> >What evidence is there that use of the old formula actually resulted
> >in people working less to avoid higher payment?
>
> (and I) will derive little or NO benefit from his working longer and
> harder. Nor will his children. Only the ex-wife gains from my
> that says the CP *must* spend any or all of the CS on the children.
> And my husband's ex clearly does not. The current system is the one
> that provides disincentives to earning more.
I agree. That applies to the UK as well.
I believe that politicians forget to look not just at the raw numbers, but at
how those numbers will influence people's behaviour.
> Wisconsin is one of those states that computes CS by considering the
> 2nd wive's income (that is if she has money to pay towards living
> expenses, then there is more money freed up for the NCP to pay even
> more CS--over the percentage guidelines). Which is why I will not
> work more than a part time job unless my husband is out of work. I
> absolutely refuse to support (even indirectly) another grown woman in
> any manner OR the children she chose to bring into the world. Why
> should I support the children of a woman who refuses to work to
> support her own offspring? I did not marry her nor did I have
> anything to do with her having children. Again this looking for
> extra money for mommy from everyone at large is a major disincentive
> to earning more money.
[snip]
I agree. One of my proposals is to take all influence of the new partner out of
the formula. This is based on many discussions with new partners of non resident
parents, and my analysis shows that having such an influence in the formula
leads to all kinds of silly incentives & disincentives:
"Case Study 1 - Removing the incentive for the NRP to work"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/wftc/wftc_case_study_
1.htm
"Case Study 2 - Bizarre child support changes as the new partner's income
changes"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/wftc/wftc_case_study_
2.htm
"Case Study 3 - No incentive for the NRP to earn more"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/wftc/wftc_case_study_
3.htm
Please see if any of these match your experience. It is possible that they only
apply to the UK, because it is the households tax credits, not the whole new
partner's income, that is taken into account.
Mr.T
>"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Hlt19.4104$fw4.81029@newsfep2-gui>...
>>
>> Unfortunately, this still doesn't work properly. The fast rise from the "low
>> income protection" stage to the "disposable income" stage is a disincentive to
>> earn more.
>
>What evidence is there that use of the old formula actually resulted
>in people working less to avoid higher payment?
ME !!!!
I was working 2 jobs - one full time decent Local Authority
one, and a high paying weekend warehouse job. I demanded details of
how the formula was worked out (and I worked as a benefits assessor
for the local authority - so when the woman at the CSA told me I
wouldn't understand it I was a little annoyed. Anyway I worked out how
the assessment was worked out as soon as I got the brown envelope. I
immediately quit the weekend job - so threw away over 100 pounds a
week.
Within the year I also resigned from my decent local authority
job as I didn't have enough money to live on, so I stopped earning
20,000 pounds a year. The local authority job had also offered me
promotions which I declined as I told them why should I take on more
responsibility for an extra 15pence in the pound they offered me (or
whatever it is)
>
>
>> The new scheme should help with a number of these issues - it is mathematically
>> "better behaved". We'll see.
I'll watch carefully should I decide to return to Blighty, and
not be blighted.
Mr T
>>
>>
>
>It looks like the old formula was reasonably well-behaved, even if it
>was wrong.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
But where did the fool get all his money ?
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:ai7kmm$7q7$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> James Buster (bit...@mac.com) writes:
>> > Barry Pearson wrote:
>> >> I hope there is no doubt about the disincentive resulting sometimes from
>> >> receiving only 11% of extra income? The only question is surely how many
>> >> people are influenced by this disincentive.
>> >
>> > Would *you* work more hours if you netted 11% of each marginal dollar
>> > in gross income? I wouldn't. It's not about "screwing the wife & kids",
>> > although that's how women's advocates would portray any man making the
>> > same decision. It's about the return on time spent being so low it's
>> > just not worth it. Unless one is so impoverished by the CS order that
>> > you can't meet basic living expenses, a result that seems altogether too
>> > common these days, no sane person would work for 11% net.
>>
>> Amazing, the idiocy of this Barry kook.
>>
>> He can't see that, if hes making $10 an hour, that working more
>> for a net return of *$1.10* an hour *isn't* a disincentive to
>> work more hours ?
>>
>> Man, thats just SO dumb.
>
> I am the one who says that the child support formula is a disincentive to
> earning more.
Yet, you're *defending* the present system, which is tyrannical,
at best...
> Roger Gay is the one who appears to be questioning this.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0207300817.
And, when folks here such as Mr. Snyder pointed out massive flaws in your
" plan ", you... *fled*.
Yeah... Thats showing us the courage of your convictions...
RogerFGay
>
> When I see stories about court actions in the US, I have a lot of trouble seeing
> how parents can plan their lives, when a court may suddenly intrude, possible at
> some cost to the people involved in lawyer's fees. Aren't there people who have
> been through the court mill in the US who wish that it could have been decided
> by a simple administrative formula without the time & effort of court
> appearances, and the cost of lawyers, and the unpredictability of possibly
> unconstrained human judgement?
>
Here's an example of how the new system works, free form the
unpredictability of human judgment:
RogerFGay
>
> Who (apart from you!) says that this is not a Western way of solving the
> problem? Some rules that say in advance "this is how things are", then people
> can adapt without having to worry about officials or other interested parties
> overturning the results. Who (apart from you) thinks that what is happening here
> is "extreme socialist bureacracy"?
Western civilization as we know it is based on protection of
individual rights, and includes the ban of arbitrary government
intrusion. Among the basics that need to be understood is the
difference between fact and political decision. When you see
government decreeing facts arbitrarily and enforcing en masse
judgments in contradiction to actual facts in individual cases, you
know you've crossed the border out of western civilization.
Generally, we can find arbitrary government control and manipulation
in many places outside of the western bubble, in some places without
constraint. We don't need theory to identify the child support system
as communist. It's an established fact that the child support system
recently imported to the west, including rigid en masse formulae for
determining the amount to be ordered and rigid enforcement policies
that deny individual rights were imported from socialist countries.
It's a fact.
BTW: It didn't work worth a shit in Soviet Russia either. It's just
part of the story that pushed a very large portion of the Russian
economy into the black market and contributed to the catastrophic
failure of their system. It's that system that didn't work, Barry.
You've got it backwards repeating the idea that the Common Law system
failed.
Barry Pearson
Let's recap.
You started a thread called "Child Support Reforms International Conspiracy".
To me, "Child Support" is to do with sorting out the cash flow for raising
children in separated families, so "Child Support Reforms" follows from that. I
am pursuing Child Support Reforms, and I thought you were too. But you said "...
child support reforms are not in fact about child support ...". So strike the
first part of that subject!
What was the "International Conspiracy" you were concerned with? According to
you, the conspiracy is an agenda to assert precedence over the sovereign laws of
independent nations by convincing the US to take up a treaty which sets out
individual rights & personal freedoms.
The Convention (or treaty) you are concerned with identifies a set of individual
rights and personal freedoms. The purpose behind it was to encourage nations to
recognise those rights & freedoms, or if "teeth" are provided, to provide
individuals with a remedy when "the state" overrides their rights & freedoms.
You appear to oppose that ability of individuals to exploit that Convention, and
want to stop it affecting the US or the remedies of US citizens.
The value of external conventions can be illustrated by UK experience. The
current UK government is mounting perhaps the strongest attack on civil
liberties, personal privacy, and the criminal justice system, since WW2. One of
the main tools that people are using to challenge this, with some success, is
the European Convention on Human Rights, plus its associated Court. It has been
incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998. In the tension between
"the state" and "the individual", that ability to override national sovereignty
has strengthened the position of the individual.
A characteristic of communist states, totalitarion regimes, and dictatorships,
is that they restrict the influence of external norms, and completely thwart the
ability of their citizens to challenge "the state" by using those conventions &
influences as a remedy. They maintain the position that they have no need of
such external ideas, and they certainly won't tolerate any weakening of "the
state's" power over the individual. Just imagine Soviet Russia (when it existed)
incorporating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into its laws, or North
Korea allowing citizens any access to any of the United Nations mechanisms
concerned with human rights!
I know that you don't support such political systems. But this leaves me
wondering why you share tactics with them. How far have you thought this
through? Too often, "national sovereignty" simply means "the unrestricted power
of the state or existing systems".
If I had to choose between "strengthening individual rights & personal freedoms"
and "preserving national sovereignty", I will choose the individual over the
nation/state. Where do other people position themselves on this? Where do you
fit?
I've snipped nearly all the rest, because "Child Support Reforms" and "Child
Support's Wacky Math" are about improving way the the cash flow for raising
children in separated families is sorted out. They are not about attacking or
defending the Western political system.
However, I found the following interesting:
> > The UK's reformed child support system is
> > really primarily a (democratically decided) formula.
>
> "Democratically" defined -- well, you're using exactly
> the word the socialists use to justify blanket denial
> of individual rights.
[snip]
My question is - what is your position on "democracy"?
The current UK government stated before it was elected that it would sort out
the Child Support system. Then it got elected, and it is doing so. By any
plausible definition, they have a mandate to do so.
Are you saying that it shouldn't have stated that it would sort it out?
Are you saying that, having got elected, they should have reneged on their
statement?
In fact - just what ARE you saying?
RogerFGay
>
>
> You started a thread called "Child Support Reforms International Conspiracy".
>
Yes, child support reforms have been part of an international
movement. That much is certainly an obvious fact by now to you and I.
Certainly it should be obvious in this forum that fathers in the US
and the UK are fighting the same problems as a result, but it's also a
fact that the problem is more widespread than that, and that they
result from similar reforms in many countries. Among them -- Great
Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, France,
Germany, Switzerland, Austria, among others (Source: The Child Support
Agenda http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay071702.htm )
> To me, "Child Support" is to do with sorting out the cash flow for raising
> children in separated families,
To me, if you add the word "properly" in the right place in your
description, it's child support without the quotes. "Child support"
with quotes is what we have today as the result of child support
reforms. That is, it's called "child support" but it's not.
But you said "...
> child support reforms are not in fact about child support ...".
Yes. See above. It should be clear.
>
> A characteristic of communist states, totalitarion regimes, and dictatorships,
> is that they restrict the influence of external norms, and completely thwart the
> ability of their citizens to challenge "the state" by using those conventions &
> influences as a remedy.
You're trying to defend external intrusions generically, generalizing
from cases in which you think external influences had a good effect.
But you're over-generalizing again, just as you did with bureacrats in
London. Having bureacrats in London does not mean that the West is and
has always been indistinguishable from communist countries. US
assistance to Western Europe in WWII does not prove that every
military invasion is a good thing. External influence to rid the world
of the communist plague is something the majority of people in former
communist countries wanted really, really badly and assisting people
in dictatorships to be free is a good thing too. But signing treaties
that cause free nations to be less free and more bureacratic and then
appealing to new mechanisms that at best might give back half as much
freedom and justice is a con job that I'm not willing to accept.
They maintain the position that they have no need of
> such external ideas, and they certainly won't tolerate any weakening of "the
> state's" power over the individual. Just imagine Soviet Russia (when it existed)
> incorporating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into its laws, or North
> Korea allowing citizens any access to any of the United Nations mechanisms
> concerned with human rights!
>
Your argument is that using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
as fundamental law in Soviet Russia would have been a good thing. I
agree. But that doesn't generalize to acceptance of treaties for the
US or other Western countries, that are designed to make them more
like Soviet Russia.
> I know that you don't support such political systems. But this leaves me
> wondering why you share tactics with them. How far have you thought this
> through? Too often, "national sovereignty" simply means "the unrestricted power
> of the state or existing systems".
>
Neither the US nor the UK, nor any country in Western Civilization is
based on the idea that states should have unrestricted power. That's
the whole point. You're arguing that external intervention that
interfers with systems that have been established with human rights as
the prime concern must be considered good, because it can be
considered good in opposite circumstances. You generalize on the wrong
variables and end up with an invalid conclusion.
> If I had to choose between "strengthening individual rights & personal freedoms"
> and "preserving national sovereignty", I will choose the individual over the
> nation/state. Where do other people position themselves on this? Where do you
> fit?
>
I would say the same thing. What we're arguing about is that your
specific suggestions do not correspond to this general position. The
problem is that you have expressed no concern for the fall of western
civilization -- fundamentally based on individual rights and personal
freedom -- you won't even acknowledge its existence, or that it ever
did exist.
>
> I've snipped nearly all the rest, because "Child Support Reforms" and "Child
> Support's Wacky Math" are about improving way the the cash flow for raising
> children in separated families is sorted out. They are not about attacking or
> defending the Western political system.
>
Oh but they are, even though I do not remember what it was you
snipped. I'm quite sure I was extremely explicit in several of my
articles on the topic; for example, my critisism of NOW's analysis
ends with
"It is time for us to return to western civilization."
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay062702.htm
In "The Child Support Guideline Problem" I explain that the reforms
are plagerized laws from Soviet Russia:
http://adrr.com/law1/csp11.htm
In "The Constitutionality of Child Support Guidelines Debate, Part II"
I analyze some of the effects of the reforms, corresponding to the
problems and eventual fall of the Soviet Union.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay052202.htm
And there is another thread in this forum "Family verses Communism" in
which the specific ideas of anti-family Marxist Communism can and are
easily compared with current child support reforms in the west and the
accompanying history of propaganda -- which is certainly tied to
radical Marxist feminism, an international political movement.
> My question is - what is your position on "democracy"?
>
Did you know that communism, in the minds of Marxist communists, is
the perfect democracy? It's pure democracy, and pure democracy sucks.
It's one of the most unstable, inhuman, and oppressive systems ever
invented. Intelligent people who've lived with socialist "democracy"
point out that "all power comes from the people" -- but that once
given, it cannot be taken back (except by another revolution). There
is no mechanism in "democracy" itself for protection of individual
rights and freedom. Once the power is passed, those in power presume
legitimacy for the exercise of unlimited, unmitigated power -- the
antithesis of a system that protects individual rights and freedom.
The revolution itself must lead to the fundamentals required for the
protection of individual rights and freedom, and anyone in power who
works to violate those rules must be deposable. To provide a stable
system that protects individual rights and freedom, one needs a system
of checks and balances operating on rules that are "external to" the
rules controlled by those in power - the very rules that the
revolution for individual rights and freedom established. Through a
series of historical events, the UK and US established such systems.
Those are the systems you would like to see overthrown by other
external influences.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:crA19.1866$xq1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > What I do know is that, because I am an expert on the UK's
> > child support system, I am often approached by people "in
> > the system", and get the chance to talk to them. (Some of
> > them post to uk.gov.agency.csa ). A number of these have
> > dropped out of work, and even emigrated. I don't know
> > how representative of the general population of CSA cases they are.
>
> We-ell, there is the research from a year or so back by some bods
> up at York Uni, which suggested that the net effect of being screwed
> through the family courts was to make men less inclined to be
> law-abiding: the state/individual contract has been impaired.
OK, but that is different from what I was talking about (see earlier posts),
which was the consequences of the disincentives in the child support formula. In
other words, if you only take home 11% of any extra earnings, what will happen?
Yes, some / many will not bother - but how many?
(Your research sounds like Prof Jonathan Bradshaw? His main focus is on the
non-resident parent, hence his - and colleagues' - important book "Absent
Fathers?")
> And I have seen some research elsewhere - Uni of London - about
> attitudes post Separation, which includes a high degree of
> 'helplessness' and depression, which would probably act as a
> disincentive to working more.
[snip]
Ditto. The effect you describe is real, but would happen in the absence of the
CSA, or with a different CSA formula.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<y2F29.12014$Eq4.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> > You started a thread called "Child Support Reforms
> > International Conspiracy".
>
> Yes, child support reforms have been part of an international
> movement. That much is certainly an obvious fact by now to
> you and I.
I don't call this "an international movement". That sounds like some
centrally-directed trend. That isn't the case here.
I believe that the emergence of a variety of child support systems across world
is driven by common social problems needing solutions in many countries. Then
the countries devise their solutions, drawing on others where they can, but
tailoring them to their local situations. (The UK did something very different
from other countries in 1991 - and suffered for that!)
There is hardly an international conspiracy about traffic laws - but all
countries with traffic tend to have similar problems, and end up with similar
solutions. Ditto for countries with lots of separated families, and a populace
that has become unaccustomed to fates that used to befall some parents & some
children from those families. There wasn't some golden age when the financial
issues of separated families were sorted out properly, in contrast to today.
There were simply times when it was possible to hide the issues, either because
there weren't so many people involved, or because it was easier to hide these
issues.
> Certainly it should be obvious in this forum that fathers in the US
> and the UK are fighting the same problems as a result, but it's also a
> fact that the problem is more widespread than that, and that they
> result from similar reforms in many countries. Among them -- Great
> Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, France,
> Germany, Switzerland, Austria, among others (Source: The Child Support
> Agenda http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay071702.htm )
Yes, and I suspect mothers & children are ALSO fighting similar problems in all
these countries. The harsh truth is that separated families tend to cost more
but have fewer total resources. If the cashflow is done "properly", all of them
will be worse off. And all of them will then complain in forums focused on their
own constituency. At the moment, things are not done "properly" - you and I are
both involved in trying to improve that. But don't assume for a second that it
is only men who are suffering - I know too many women, and some children, who
are also suffering. (The average CS liability in the UK is perhaps about
one-third to one-half of the cost of raising a child in a separated family, or
an even smaller proportion when childcare is included).
Over the last few years I have realised that in fact there will never be a
satisfactory solution to the cashflow issues until the "upstream" problem of the
residence / custody issues are sorted out. That is why they are the first item
on my Agenda.
> > To me, "Child Support" is to do with sorting out the cash flow for
> > raising children in separated families,
>
> To me, if you add the word "properly" in the right place in your
> description, it's child support without the quotes. "Child support"
> with quotes is what we have today as the result of child support
> reforms. That is, it's called "child support" but it's not.
Sorry, but that is the sort of word-play that I haven't got time for. And your
thread didn't have quotes, so does that mean your thread was about the cashflow?
(But, as you said yourself, it wasn't).
[snip]
> Your argument is that using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> as fundamental law in Soviet Russia would have been a good thing. I
> agree. But that doesn't generalize to acceptance of treaties for the
> US or other Western countries, that are designed to make them more
> like Soviet Russia.
That treaty is not "designed to make them more like Soviet Russia"! Go read it!
> > I know that you don't support such political systems. But this leaves me
> > wondering why you share tactics with them. How far have you thought this
> > through? Too often, "national sovereignty" simply means "the unrestricted
> > power of the state or existing systems".
>
> Neither the US nor the UK, nor any country in Western Civilization is
> based on the idea that states should have unrestricted power. That's
> the whole point. You're arguing that external intervention that
> interfers with systems that have been established with human rights as
> the prime concern must be considered good, because it can be
> considered good in opposite circumstances.
No I'm not arguing that. I see little actual CURRENT evidence that these
countries HAVE "been established with human rights as the prime concern". I
think some of them WERE so established - I think that is what the US
Constitution attempted - but it appears to have long since departed from that
aim. However, that is a UK citizen's view of the US, and US citizens here may
tell me that in fact the US does treat human rights with priority. The UK
apparently hasn't had "human rights as the prime concern" for a long time, if
ever.
[snip]
> > If I had to choose between "strengthening individual rights &
> > personal freedoms" and "preserving national sovereignty", I
> > will choose the individual over the nation/state. Where do
> > other people position themselves on this? Where do you fit?
>
> I would say the same thing. What we're arguing about is that your
> specific suggestions do not correspond to this general position. The
> problem is that you have expressed no concern for the fall of western
> civilization -- fundamentally based on individual rights and personal
> freedom -- you won't even acknowledge its existence, or that it ever
> did exist.
The Soviet Union didn't invade the West and replace its systems. No one revoked
the US Constitution. I guess that aliens haven't replaced all politicians with
compliant zombies. Bill Gates didn't attend a communist school. The US doesn't
have a habit of signing up to treaties & conventions that originated elsewhere.
Similarly for the UK, etc, although not so much.
The West is what it is today because it turned ITSELF into what it is today. It
built on earlier versions of Western ways of doing things, and used Western
transformation processes. There is no one else to blame. What we see IS the
Western way of doing things (Western civilisation) - for the start of the 21st
Century. Perhaps future historians will talk about our institutions as being
"typical Western-style institutions". But I know of nothing other than what we
currently see that can validly be called "Western civilisation at the start of
the 21st Century".
I guess the US's OCSE was created by democratically elected Western politicians,
using Western legislative processes. In the UK, one of the most right-wing prime
ministers we have had faced up to the unions and broke their power, and
de-nationalised & privatised to vastly reduce the size of "the state". Then,
partly to reduce welfare/benefits expenditures, she started the CSA so that
separated families would have to take more financial responsibility instead of
relying so much on "the state". The UK's CSA is a product of right-wing thinking
about reduced dependency on "the state".
Was there a time in 17xx or 18xx or 19xx that epitomised "the Western way of
doing things", or "Western civilisation"? Was it stable (probably stagnant),
vulnerable to being overtaken by more dynamic nations? Or was it dynamic
(perhaps 1969 & the Apollo Programme), and hence already contained the seeds of
its own transformation? Or is this just nostalgia?
It is not an accident that I call my Agenda the "Child Support Agenda for the
21st Century", and that it is published on a web site called "Child Support
Analysis for the 21st Century". The political, economic, social,and
technological environments have changed so much that things are not going to
revert back to the way they were. But government responses are often designed
for the moment, not for the future. I believe we need to think about what child
support should look like in a decade, or two, or more. Hence my web site.
> > I've snipped nearly all the rest, because "Child Support Reforms"
> > and "Child Support's Wacky Math" are about improving way
> > the the cash flow for raising children in separated families is
> > sorted out. They are not about attacking or defending the
> > Western political system.
>
> Oh but they are, even though I do not remember what it was you
> snipped.
I disagree. They are not. We will have to disagree on this point.
> I'm quite sure I was extremely explicit in several of my
> articles on the topic; for example, my critisism of NOW's analysis
> ends with
>
> "It is time for us to return to western civilization."
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay062702.htm
That article "About California NOW's Family Court Report" in general doesn't
appear to be to do with "It is time for us to return to western civilization".
And since it talks about the US Constitution, it doesn't appear relevant to the
UK anyway.
> In "The Child Support Guideline Problem" I explain that the
> reforms are plagerized laws from Soviet Russia:
> http://adrr.com/law1/csp11.htm
So what? Is everything that comes from some regime you despise automatically
bad? You should examine each case on its merits. (And the UK didn't use anything
resembling those laws).
> In "The Constitutionality of Child Support Guidelines Debate, Part II"
> I analyze some of the effects of the reforms, corresponding to the
> problems and eventual fall of the Soviet Union.
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay052202.htm
You said that the Soviet Union went further. You didn't show that the CS reforms
had anything to do with the fall!
[snip]
> > My question is - what is your position on "democracy"?
>
> Did you know that communism, in the minds of Marxist communists, is
> the perfect democracy? It's pure democracy, and pure democracy sucks.
[snip]
Wow! In that case, let's stop discussing this now.
democracy: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible
members of the state, typically through elected representatives". (New Oxford
Dictionary of English). That is what I mean by democracy.
As I quote on my web site: "Politicians and diapers have one thing in common.
They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason".
Barry Pearson
This was NOT free from the unpredictability of human judgement!. Look at what
was said:
- "I found out later that some FOC employee had just upped my support. There was
no order from a judge. They just did it. In court, they admitted that they do
this all the time".
- "I was in a trial recently in St. Clair County and the local FOC referee got
up on the stand under oath and explained how it was the county's policy that if
a child support payer lost his job, the support payment would not be lowered.
When I asked this person to point to that policy, to explain where it came from,
the FOC referee admitted that it was just their opinion".
- "In my case, I also found that the Wayne County FOC was operating as if its
employees had the authority to issue warrants and show-cause orders. Of course,
in our system only judges can adjudicate our constitutional rights by issuing
such warrants and orders. But for some reason, many judges have allowed FOC
referees to make these decisions."
This is a system with the unpredictability of human judgement written right
through it. Perhaps this wasn't intended, but it is clearly the fact. I would
hope that in the UK those people would be fired, and preferably their management
too. This is a good illustration of what happens when human judgement (see
above) overrides a carefully considered policy/formula.
Now think about devising a system that REALLY doesn't have the unpredictability
of human judgement incorporated into it! That is what I am trying to do.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<RID19.6378$fw4.162576@newsfep2-gui>...
> >
> > Who (apart from you!) says that this is not a Western way of
> > solving the problem? Some rules that say in advance "this is
> > how things are", then people can adapt without having to
> > worry about officials or other interested parties overturning
> > the results. Who (apart from you) thinks that what is happening
> > here is "extreme socialist bureacracy"?
>
> Western civilization as we know it is based on protection of
> individual rights, and includes the ban of arbitrary government
> intrusion. Among the basics that need to be understood is the
> difference between fact and political decision. When you see
> government decreeing facts arbitrarily and enforcing en masse
> judgments in contradiction to actual facts in individual cases, you
> know you've crossed the border out of western civilization.
That is YOUR view of how Western civilisation used to be. And if it ever
existed, it would have been pretty good.
Was there a time in 17xx or 18xx or 19xx that epitomised "Western
civilisation"? Was it stable (probably stagnant), vulnerable to being overtaken
by more dynamic nations? Or was it dynamic (perhaps 1969 & the Apollo
Programme), and hence already contained the seeds of its own transformation? Or
is this just nostalgia?
Don't just quote theory - you can't say "there is THEORY of Western civilisation
that would be better that this situation"! What is the date; what is the
location? I simply don't believe it ever existed! (Don't just say "Western
civilisation" as though there was only ever one! Say something like "Western
civilisation as it existed in the US in 1969", or whatever).
I KNOW the difference between facts & policy decisions. And I am looking for
FACTS here. Your statements look more like those of an opposition politician
than an engineer. Soory, but that is how they appear to me.
> Generally, we can find arbitrary government control and manipulation
> in many places outside of the western bubble, in some places without
> constraint. We don't need theory to identify the child support system
> as communist. It's an established fact that the child support system
> recently imported to the west, including rigid en masse formulae for
> determining the amount to be ordered and rigid enforcement policies
> that deny individual rights were imported from socialist countries.
> It's a fact.
No it isn't. Utter poppycock! Who do you think you are fooling with statements
like that?
I believe that the emergence of a variety of child support systems across world
is driven by common social problems needing solutions in many countries. Then
the countries devise their solutions, drawing on others where they can, but
tailoring them to their local situations. (The UK did something very different
from other countries in 1991 - and suffered for that!)
There is hardly an international conspiracy about traffic laws - but all
countries with traffic tend to have similar problems, and end up with similar
solutions. Ditto for countries with lots of separated families, and a populace
that has become unaccustomed to fates that used to befall some parents & some
children from those families. There wasn't some golden age when the financial
issues of separated families were sorted out properly, in contrast to today.
There were simply times when it was possible to hide the issues, either because
there weren't so many people involved, or because it was easier to hide these
issues.
> BTW: It didn't work worth a shit in Soviet Russia either. It's just
> part of the story that pushed a very large portion of the Russian
> economy into the black market and contributed to the catastrophic
> failure of their system. It's that system that didn't work, Barry.
> You've got it backwards repeating the idea that the Common Law system
> failed.
I believe I have it right. We'll see. Perhaps we will have to continue this
discussion in a decade's time.
RogerFGay
>
> That is YOUR view of how Western civilisation used to be. And if it ever
> existed, it would have been pretty good.
>
Are you familiar with the Common Law system in England? Do you know
how it works and what it's major components are? Can you identify what
is being lost as English Common Law is superseded by international
law?
>
> > Generally, we can find arbitrary government control and manipulation
> > in many places outside of the western bubble, in some places without
> > constraint. We don't need theory to identify the child support system
> > as communist. It's an established fact that the child support system
> > recently imported to the west, including rigid en masse formulae for
> > determining the amount to be ordered and rigid enforcement policies
> > that deny individual rights were imported from socialist countries.
> > It's a fact.
>
> No it isn't. Utter poppycock! Who do you think you are fooling with statements
> like that?
>
You can't reach an objective conclusions if you refuse to accept the
facts Barry. And you're even refusing to see a difference between
western civilization and communism. If you understand the two systems,
it's blatantly obvious. But I don't see that you can while holding
onto the belief that there's no difference. Facts are facts, and this
one will continue to be a fact whether you like it or not.
The really odd irrational thing about your view is that you promote
internationalism (globalism) on the one hand, but do not seem in any
way to account for its effects. What countries are we integrating
with? Whose rules are used for which policies?
Are you denying the existence of socialism? What possible logic could
lead you to claim that the fact is "utter poppycock!" ?
RogerFGay
>
> This was NOT free from the unpredictability of human judgement!.
It was free of the normal WESTERN right of due process of law. That's
the thing you and the commies are not willing to allow. That's what
you claim failed and should not be allowed to return.
RogerFGay
>
>
> I don't call this "an international movement". That sounds like some
> centrally-directed trend. That isn't the case here.
>
OK Mr. Spin Doctor -- "centrally directed trend." (snicker) and mass
murderers are just people with difficult to meet needs.
So -- you think it's just coincidence that a dozen or so countries
whose citizens have fought and died to build and defend western
civilization suddenly find their governments simultaneously abandoning
it, in favor of obviously similar bizarre and fundamentally corrupt
socialist policies, right in the midst of a massive effort on
international integration (globalization) of which all said countries
are a part. Your mind must work in mysterious ways.
RogerFGay
>
> >Use of combined income such as in the Income Shares formula leads to
> >completely random results in relation actual standard of living,
> >children's needs, and the parents' relative ability to pay. There is
> >absolutely nothing rational about using combined income.
> >
> >The percent formula has the same problem in that it produces
> >completely random results in relation to children's needs and the
> >relative ability of the parents to support them.
>
>
> Exactly!
>
> An example,
>
People have been demonstrating this for a long time. Under the
Constitutional system and the British Common Law system as well, it
should only take one such demonstration in an individual case to void
the use of the formula. The fact that the formula has not been
declared void demonstrates that the system is no longer operating
according to the constitution.
RogerFGay
>
>
> Now think about devising a system that REALLY doesn't have the unpredictability
> of human judgement incorporated into it! That is what I am trying to do.
>
>
But you can't.
My mathematics of child support is the best and most advanced in the
known universe. It is developed to the point that it provides the only
real scientific theory and valid mathematical science of child support
that exists. If your quest is valid, then the job should already be
done. You should need only to study my work and you will have the
answer.
But Barry, even though the results of my equations are predictable
with absolute mathematical precision, the lives and circumstances of
the individuals who are subjected to child support decisions are not.
Even if we had a right to expect them to be (and we most certainly do
not) we would still have to make judgments about the interpretation of
information presented as input to the equations and we would have to
make judgments about circumstancial factors that are not explicitely
included as variables.
I must protest the idea most strongly -- even if I have absolute
certainty as to the validity of my theory and correctness of its
implementation -- that even upon certain scientific foundation I
should in effect be declared a dictator and the individual right to
challenge the results that my equations provide abolished. Do not
exclude those who are directly effected by the decision from the
process. Never do that. It will not only lead inevitably to revolt,
but it is poor science as well - mere arrogance.
The common law process is a scientific process. It has time and time
again gained proper stability and rational uniformity even in the face
of constant interrpution and interferance from the highly erratic and
unstable "democratic process" of legislation. A competent and honest
legislator would carefully build upon what is rationally and correctly
established in common law in designing new legislation. But you will
not have those scientific results when you abandon the system of
common law for one of unlimited and arbitrary tampering by a European
bureacracy.
Human rights Barry. Rights, not arbitrary entitlements. Individual
rights. They are required. If they are abandoned it will be the final
nail in the coffin of civilization as we know it.
Barry Pearson
When you talked of the end of Western civilisation, I saw this as hyperbole.
After all, Western civilisation has won. Communism is discredited & finished.
Islam is intellectually a spent force. Eastern nations are adopting Western
economic approaches in order to survive. I wondered whether you were having an
elaborate joke at my expense, but this idea of "the end of Western civilisation"
appears in your other writing as well. I have asked whether there is some date
in 17xx or 18xx or 19xx that epitomises "Western civilisation", but I haven't
seen a response.
Normally I should simply be able to read carefully what someone actually says.
But your words don't mean what they say. When you say "child support reforms",
you are not talking about child support. When you criticise "democracy", you are
not talking about what I & many others & my dictionary mean by democracy. I
don't think what you mean by "Western civilisation" is what I mean by that term.
"Individual rights & personal freedoms"? "Democracy"? "The Enlightenment"?
"Science"? I don't think those are what you are talking about.
Then I read your statement: "That's part of the miracle of the Common Law
system -- trial after trial (think like a scientist when I use the word
"trial") -- the trial courts try to get it right". I wonder if this provides the
clue? When you talk about "Western civilisation", are you really talking about
"the way law & the courts work in the USA"? I'll say why I think that is what
you are talking about, but only you can know.
- I saw PICSLT as a way of getting a better formula for calculating child
support liabilities. But - "Project for the Improvement of Child Support
LITIGATION Technology"? I now believe you intend it purely as a tool for use in
courts.
- In your article "About California NOW's Family Court Report" which ends "It is
time for us to return to western civilization", you appear to be complaining
about the usurping of powers of family courts.
- You say "The law requires that awards determined by the application of child
support guidelines be rebuttable", which appears to be primarily relevant to use
in courts.
I won't go on quoting from your work, because this really needs you to confirm
or deny it. But my reading of your articles is that what you really mean by
"Western civilisation" is the ability to argue matters in court in the
traditional US manner. And, to you, "the end of Western civilisation" means the
restriction by central formula of what courts are allowed to decide. That is
why, to you, "child support reform" is helping the end of Western civilisation.
If this IS what you really mean by "Western civilisation", then we must part
company. You need to remember that (depending on who you read) there are 2 or 3
times as many lawyers per head in the USA than in the UK, which in turn has more
lawyers per head than the vast majority of other nations. Frequent recourse to
law and the use of courts is a feature of the litigious nature of the USA. It is
not as common across "the West", and is not an important part of "Western
civilisation". While the long-stop protection of individual rights & personal
freedoms tends to need the law to "take on" the state, and is likely to need
support from conventions & treaties which may override national sovereignty,
much of life can be handled in other ways.
To me, courts are no more needed for establishing rational child support
liabilities than they are for establishing tax liabilities or benefits/welfare
rates. Neither, in the UK, have they credibility for doing so. And neither, for
many people (on all sides) affected by the child support system, would the
intrusion & costs of courts be welcome.
"Western civilisation 2002" has significant faults. But I believe the main
remedy for these would be a willingness of Western states to allow their
citizens to exploit the various conventions on rights & freedoms that already
exist, and that some of these Western states already promote elsewhere. Human
rights, children's rights, sexual equality, racial equality - these conventions
are somewhat bland, but experience suggests that they can cap the excesses of
"the state". That is where courts SHOULD have their power.
RogerFGay
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<uCV29.2279$mB4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > >
> > > This was NOT free from the unpredictability of human judgement!.
> >
> > It was free of the normal WESTERN right of due process of law.
> > That's the thing you and the commies are not willing to allow.
> > That's what you claim failed and should not be allowed to return.
>
> When you talked of the end of Western civilisation, I saw this as hyperbole.
>
Barry,
You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working toward
international socialist rule. Obviously you have no interest in logic
and reason, and you're pretending this is about the US verses Europe.
Anything having to do with the west is too complicated and subject to
your constant claim - against all real evidence - that it has failed.
Before you leave the debate -- if that's what you choose to do -- I
want to make sure I've mentioned that the fundamental politics of your
argument are factually incorrect. Western liberalism and Common Law
were born in England.
You reject the western rule of law. Look at what that's done for
countries outside of the west. Once you're outside the US and Western
Europe (go a little farther east) you'll find burning homes and bombed
out buildings as the direct result of raw group politics. You'll find
(socialist) systems that exploit group politics, intensify conflict,
and then use one group to hold another in check. You'll find rule by
religous sects and pseudo-religous war-lords related to oppression and
eternal war. You'll find poverty and lack of progress of all kinds.
As for Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation
TECHNOLOGY, it, as very clearly stated on the introductory page of the
web site, covers "the science, engineering, and application of child
support guidelines." LITIGATION is a word in the ENGLISH language and
does have to do with what happens in court. It is very much related to
the "application of child support guidelines." It's senseless to talk
about design of child support guidelines without taking the context of
their application into consideration. As an engineer you should know
that. You apparently do, and have it in mind that the western rule of
law should be eliminated; replaced by the socialist approach.
You've been unwilling to explain why you want that. Instead, you've
tried to play Europe verses the US, claimed the basic questions are
too complex to be answered, said that the system failed although
you're unwilling to say openly that you're claiming that the western
system failed, play Europe verses the US again, and now you seem to be
implying there's something funny about my research -- looks like
you're on the verge of deteriorating into a simple mud-slinger.
The mode of application of child support guidelines defines how they
will be designed. The western rule of law (including England before
its final fall) is absolutely superior to the socialist system of
group rights and entitlements granted according to who won the last
election.
Barry Pearson
news:4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com...
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
[snip]
> > When you talked of the end of Western civilisation, I saw
> > this as hyperbole.
>
> Barry,
>
> You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working
> toward international socialist rule.
Not true. I believe in the Western rule of law and I think you are deluded in
your mis-interpretation of it. I am certainly not working towards international
socialist rule! Frankly, that is a bit OTT even by your standards!
I am working towards individual rights & personal freedoms in defiance of state
sovereignty. I don't believe you are doing this. I am willing to see national
sovereignty have to take account of conventions concerning individual rights &
personal freedoms, whereas you appear to resist this.
"Socialist rule" is a non-starter, and I don't feel paranoid about it. I am
trying to solve serious problems, and I won't get blocked by irrelevant fears of
powerless systems, and I won't get diverted in order to support particular
ideologies at the cost of solving real problems.
The CSA in the UK is the product of right-wing thinking by a right-wing
government. It has nothing to do with socialism. Using a formula has nothing to
do with socialism. A formula for how much tax you should pay has nothing to do
with socialism. A formula for how much welfare should be paid has nothing to do
with socialism. They are formulae!
> Obviously you have no interest in logic and reason,
> and you're pretending this is about the US verses Europe.
I am fanatical about logic. I feel that your ideology has caused you to divert
from adequate standards of logic.
You appear to have completely missed the point that (depending on who you read)
there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA than in the UK, which
in turn has more lawyers per head than the vast majority of other nations.
Frequent recourse to law and the use of courts is a feature of the litigious
nature of the USA. It is not as common across "the West", and is not an
important part of "Western civilisation". While the long-stop protection of
individual rights & personal freedoms tends to need the law to "take on" the
state, and is likely to need support from conventions & treaties which may
override national sovereignty, much of life can be handled in other ways.
Your particular interest in the way the US works is different from the way the
rest of the English-speaking works, and even more different from the way the
rest of "the West" works, but that is just a small part. It has little more
relevance than whether we drive on the left or the right, or use Imperial rather
than metric measures, etc.
> Anything having to do with the west is too complicated and subject
> to your constant claim - against all real evidence - that it has failed.
The West hasn't failed. It has suceeded. It simply hasn't suceeded in the way
that YOU wanted it to!
I believe you are so hooked on a particular feature of US society - its
litigious nature - that you totally confuse this even with general US
civilisation (which has a lot more to offer), and you are totally out of touch
with "Western civilisation" in its wider sense, across the West, and across
countries which are now trying to keep abreast of the West.
Having a formula for child support liability is not a sign of the failure of the
West! Using a formula has nothing to do with socialism. It is a formula! It can
make things more predictable, more practical, and enable people to get on with
their lives.
> Before you leave the debate -- if that's what you choose to do -- I
> want to make sure I've mentioned that the fundamental politics of
> your argument are factually incorrect.
No, they are correct. You simply have a different opinion - that is your right,
but it is just an opinion.
> Western liberalism and Common Law were born in England.
Yes they were. Yet there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA
than in the UK. Why? I suggest this is because the US approach is not
representative of English Common Law. It is a separate form of law, specific to
the US, which has undoubtedly evolved from English Common Law. But still
different. Frankly, I believe that if the founders of the Constitution were
entirely satisfied with English Common Law, they wouldn't have declared
independence. But they wanted something significantly different. Fine - but just
accept that in 1776 the US started on a different path from the rest of the
West!
Don't let your desire for that US form of law delude you into thinking that this
is what English common law was all about. And certainly don't delude yourself
about the power of English common law - it is simply an approach to law, not the
be all & end all of law for ever more!
> You reject the western rule of law.
No I don't. I embrace the Western rule of law across much of the West, including
the UK. I do believe that the extremes to which the US has sometimes pushed it
are not representative of the West, and are different from its origins in
England. That doesn't make it wrong - or right - just different.
> Look at what that's done for countries outside of the west.
> Once you're outside the US and Western Europe (go a
> little farther east) you'll find burning homes and bombed
> out buildings as the direct result of raw group politics.
And none of those happened because someone adopted a formula for child support!
NONE! Ye Gods! Get a sense of perspective here! We are talking about using a
formula for sorting out the cash flow for raising children in separated
families. Stick to that simple, well-scoped, topic. It won't burn homes or bomb
people!
And I'll bite my tongue about some events in the US! Many countries suffer
hardships. If the US were to be judged purely by its hardships, it would stand
condemned. But I judge it (and other countries) also by their ability to evolve.
The US has a massive ability to evolve - but sometimes away from what YOU hold
dear!
> You'll find (socialist) systems that exploit group politics,
> intensify conflict, and then use one group to hold another
> in check. You'll find rule by religous sects and pseudo-religous
> war-lords related to oppression and eternal war.
> You'll find poverty and lack of progress of all kinds.
I read Skeptical Inquirer. As far as I can tell, you have just described the US!
I have visited the USA many times, on business & pleasure. I like the place, I
made several friends, and there are a numberof photographs from the USA on my
photographic web site. There will be many more in future. But I felt safer
walking around Beijing at night (or around markets in Nairobi, or around
Kashmir) than Washington DC at night - sorry, but that is a simple fact. The USA
has troubles which are clearly visible for a frequent visitor like myself.
Others will have to decide why this is so. But I believe that the ligitious
nature of the US sometimes disenfranchises poorer people. (This happens in the
UK too - we need to enfranchise poorer people, so that they actually feel as
though they belong to Western civilisation). This feature that you feel is so
important needs money to exploit it. In the UK, many people on all sides of the
child support system do NOT want to get involved with courts & lawyers, etc.
They feel it will shut them out and cost them money that they can ill afford.
They want a good predictable formula instead.
> As for Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation
> TECHNOLOGY, it, as very clearly stated on the introductory
> page of the web site, covers "the science, engineering, and
> application of child support guidelines." LITIGATION is a
> word in the ENGLISH language and does have to do with
> what happens in court. It is very much related to
> the "application of child support guidelines."
I now realise that what you are developing isn't a generalised formula for how t
o sort out the cash flow to raise children in separated families. Instead, you
have restricted your endevours to a means of sorting things out in court. That
is your choice, but I believe more is needed for those parts of Western
civilisation that don't think as you do.
I am trying to work out something more general and more powerful, which doesn't
rely on courts. That restricts the applicability of your work. You may find a
niche in the US, but I think you will have diminishing returns elsewhere. We'll
see - we can talk again in (say) 10 years.
> It's senseless to talk about design of child support guidelines
> without taking the context of their application into consideration.
> As an engineer you should know that. You apparently do, and
> have it in mind that the western rule of
> law should be eliminated; replaced by the socialist approach.
No, I simply believe that a formula can work. That is applicable to the West,
without compromising the Western rule of law. (It may not be liked by YOU, but
that is a different matter!)
Using a formula has nothing to do with socialism. It is a formula!
> You've been unwilling to explain why you want that.
I have explained my views and the background of them in vast detail on my web
site, and in any number of articles. But you may have chosen not to read (or
perhaps simply not accept) views that differ from your own. A formula can work.
It is not the end of Western civilisation. It is just a formula!
> Instead, you've tried to play Europe verses the US,
As I said, there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA than in
the UK. There are more per head in the UK than in the rest of Europe. They have
a different approach to sorting things out. Live with that fact.
> claimed the basic questions are too complex to be answered,
No, the basic questions are quite simple to be answered. My Agenda attempts to
answer them. The result is much simpler than your approach. It can be solved by
formula, it doesn't need litigation.
> said that the system failed
The UK CSA system failed - it tried to take too much into account, needing too
much evidence. It was not predictable, cost too much to administer, and was not
practical. It was too intrusive into people's lives. Few if any (mothers or
fathers) liked a system that used so much information. The system that preceded
the CSA system, based on various types of court, had also failed. There is no
dispute. I am now trying to find something that will work, and that needs to be
simpler.
> although you're unwilling to say openly that you're claiming
> that the western system failed,
Western civilisation has won. That is what we see now. I am building on what I
believe it will evolve into.
But most of Western civilisation doesn't depend on litigation to the extent of
the US. As I said, there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA
than in the UK. The US is unusual, not representative.
> play Europe verses the US again,
As I said, there are 2 or 3 times as many lawyers per head in the USA than in
the UK. Live with that fact.
> and now you seem to be implying there's something
> funny about my research -- looks like you're on the
> verge of deteriorating into a simple mud-slinger.
Your research is based on your opinion of the way US civilisation should be.
Fine! That doesn't mean that everyone believes US civilisation should be like
that.
More important, for me, is the fact that much of the rest of the West doesn't
think or behave like you. It would therefore probably be hard to translate your
work to the rest of the Western world, until you relax your view that it is
about litigation.
> The mode of application of child support guidelines defines
> how they will be designed. The western rule of law (including
> England before its final fall) is absolutely superior to the socialist
> system of group rights and entitlements granted according to
> who won the last election.
So you say. It is your opinion, unsubstantiated by evidence. But more important,
it is just your view that what you advocate is the epitome of the Western rule
of law! You simply have a view of it, and others have a different view of it.
I believe you are wrong, and that you are doing a disservice to your engineering
principles. Instead of trying to solve a problem, you are trying to support a
mechanism. You have unduly handicapped yourself. Step back and look at the
problem instead, free from ideology about how to solve it.
RogerFGay
> > policies developed and implemented within the framework of communism.
> [snip]
>
> No they haven't. They just don't do things the way YOU would like!
>
>
You can accuse me of liking western civilization with its requirements
for protection of basic human rights and against unwarrented
government intrusion all you like. It's true. I'm definitely strongly
opposed to intrusion by people who intrude on others, including those
who act like it's justifiable to continually experiement with the
masses (it wasn't right the first several times we tried it -- let's
try it again). When you imply that makes me wrong and push again for
acceptance of the full extremist left political agenda, you're just
giving yourself away.
RogerFGay
>
> Barry,
> You have had a dozen people say basically the same things to you in a dozen
> different ways.
> Yet you simply cannot face the possibility that you may be wrong on some
> things.
>
> HTH
>
> ~wd
Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push internationalism
(while its still heavily influenced by the Marxist left). Here we are
discussing the international effects of the success of the
international left's agenda in child support reform and he's playing
the nationalism card. I think the self-contradiction is more than
enough to invite suspecion.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<e2z49.2472$Xc2....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > They've abandoned due process and common law and
> > > replaced it with policies developed and implemented
> > > within the framework of communism.
> > >
> > would like!
>
> You can accuse me of liking western civilization with its
> requirements for protection of basic human rights and
> against unwarrented government intrusion all you like.
You are NOT "liking western civilisation"! You are simply liking YOUR particular
version of western civilisation.
YOUR version is simply one of very many versions of western civilisation. There
are many other valid and sensible versions. I, and many others, support
individual rights and personal freedoms without being forced by people like you
to do it YOUR way. In fact, being forced to do things YOUR way is obviously a
contravention of MY rights and freedoms.
What I am increasingly finding disturbing about your posts here is your desire
to impose YOUR particular views on me and on other nations and states that feel
they can manage their affairs in a different way. Do you have some sort of
totalitarian feeling that you MUST be right, therefore you insist that others
follow YOUR line? Don't you see where your attitude may lead? Chilling!
Barry Pearson
> Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push internationalism
> (while its still heavily influenced by the Marxist left).
No. I haven't told anyone that. Stop telling lies than can be disproved by
anyone who cares to search the Google Groups archive! What do you hope to gain
from those lies?
My agenda is as follows. I defy anyone to provide useful evidence of your
desperate assertions.
Roger - please stop your relentless personal attacks on me, that you have been
pursuing for many days now. Please stop telling lies about my agenda that don't
resemble my agenda. Please accept that it is possible to accept the principles
and values of western civilisation without having to agree with you! You,
believe it or not, are NOT the arbiter of "western civilisation"! You simply
have an opinion, as you, and very many millions of other people, are entitled to
have.
Until I see any merit in what you say, I will continue to pursue my agenda with
confidence.
wd
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02081...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push internationalism
> > (while its still heavily influenced by the Marxist left).
> [snip]
>
> No. I haven't told anyone that. Stop telling lies than can be disproved by
> anyone who cares to search the Google Groups archive! What do you hope to
gain
> from those lies?
>
> My agenda is as follows. I defy anyone to provide useful evidence of your
> desperate assertions.
>
> Roger - please stop your relentless personal attacks on me, that you have
been
> pursuing for many days now.
I for one have not seen any *personal* attacks, nor have i seen desperate
assertions.
Unless you consider challenging your agenda is an attack?
>Please stop telling lies about my agenda that don't
> resemble my agenda. Please accept that it is possible to accept the
principles
> and values of western civilisation without having to agree with you! You,
> believe it or not, are NOT the arbiter of "western civilisation"!
And neither are you.
You simply cannot understand this. YOU and YOUR agenda are simply
not as accurate as you desire it to be.
You are being very defensive when challenged. I wonder why.
> You simply
> have an opinion, as you, and very many millions of other people, are
entitled to
> have.
I find it odd you almost admit here that millions of others feel the same
way.
>
> Until I see any merit in what you say, I will continue to pursue my agenda
with
> confidence.
False confidence.
HAND
~wd
RogerFGay
>
> You are NOT "liking western civilisation"! You are simply liking YOUR particular
> version of western civilisation.
>
> YOUR version is simply one of very many versions of western civilisation.
BWAAAAAHAAAHAAAHA --- OK then, if I haven't been explicit enough
already. I'm totally against the Western Civilization that Karl Marx
predicted we'd evolve into. I'm as anti-Communist as anyone on the
planet. I'm very much for the Western Civilization that WE ALL KNOW as
the one in our lifetime; the one based on "classic" liberalism. For
the 100th time, it has to include protection for individual rights and
against unwarrented government intrusion. It's the one that got
countries in THE WEST labelled "free countries."
Barry Pearson
news:<ckz59.3250$7r5.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> > You are NOT "liking western civilisation"! You are simply liking
> > YOUR particular version of western civilisation.
> >
> > YOUR version is simply one of very many versions of western
> > civilisation.
>
> BWAAAAAHAAAHAAAHA --- OK then, if I haven't been
> explicit enough already. I'm totally against the Western
> Civilization that Karl Marx predicted we'd evolve into.
> I'm as anti-Communist as anyone on the planet.
So am I.
RogerFGay
> >
> > BWAAAAAHAAAHAAAHA --- OK then, if I haven't been
> > explicit enough already. I'm totally against the Western
> > Civilization that Karl Marx predicted we'd evolve into.
> > I'm as anti-Communist as anyone on the planet.
> [snip]
>
> So am I.
>
>
>
Then why are you working so hard in support of the communist system?
Barry Pearson
I am not doing so. What I support doesn't resemble the communism system. The
communist system is dead and discredited, and anyone with confidence in Western
civilisation should recognise that it doesn't need to be defended by spurious
accusations like yours. There are threats against our way of life needing
vigilance, but in the UK at least child support reform is not one of them. There
is a danger in crying wolf.
A month ago, if I had to itemise the vital features of non-communist system, or
itemise the vital features of "Western" civilisation, I would have had various
things on the list - largely in the category of the futility of "central
planning". Hence market economies, democracy and the ability to replace
politicians, freedom of career, lifestyle, travel, speech & publication, due
process, etc. And, for me, the modern equivalent of "the enlightenment", and the
use of critical thinking instead of dogma and ideology. And let's be absolutely
clear - to me, having a child support formula is NOT central planning. And more
than having mathematically-based child support litigation technology is central
planning.
I would not have had on the list the need for the degree of litigious activity
that exists in the USA. That is not a defining aspect of anti-communism or
Western civilisation - it is simply a valid choice by one nation, which other
anti-communist Western nations validly see no need to emulate. And, after your
sustained claims that such litigation is a key feature, I disagree, and I would
still not put it on the list.
I am self-employed with a passport and a driving licence. I publish a web site,
under my on name, hosted in the UK, which is openly critical of certain
government policies and names the politicians concerned. Most of the information
I use to criticise them comes from public sources - annual reports of government
agencies, the record of the proceedings of Parliament, the media, academics who
are also critical of the government, or at least questioning of it, etc. These
are all clues that I live in a society with a useful level of rights and
freedoms, and that I like doing so.
To me, the main threats in the UK at the moment are on the one hand the attack
on privacy, and on the other hand the lack of transparency in certain
decision-making, and the arbitrary nature of some decisions - and some of that
(apparent) arbitrariness arises in courts. There appears to be more damage done
in divorce and family litigation than is ever likely to be done with the
reformed CSA formula, poor as it is.
RogerFGay
> A month ago, if I had to itemise the vital features of non-communist system, or
> itemise the vital features of "Western" civilisation, I would have had various
> things on the list - largely in the category of the futility of "central
planning".
the futility of "central planning".
And you still claim you don't know why you're being critisized for
pushing the communist system?
Barry Pearson
news:<Md469.397$bg.3...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
> > A month ago, if I had to itemise the vital features of
> > non-communist system, or itemise the vital features of
> > "Western" civilisation, I would have had various
> > things on the list - largely in the category of the futility of
> > "central planning".
> > And let's be absolutely clear - to me, having a child support
> > formula is NOT central planning. And more than having
> > mathematically-based child support litigation technology is
> > central planning.
>
>
> And you still claim you don't know why you're being critisized for
> pushing the communist system?
I'm not pushing the communist system. That is just your false claim about what I
am doing. I assume you are making such false claims because if you don't make
false claims you don't have much of a case against my position! You REALLY ought
to study communism! Having a formula for child support liabilities is NOT
communism. Ye Gods!
"15% / 20% / 25% of net income" - is that communism? Is that what all the fuss
about "reds under the bed" was all about? Did we need a showdown involving 1000s
of nuclear missiles because of that? (It happens to be a poor formula, but so is
the 70 mph limit on motorways, and I don't accuse people of trying to undermine
Western civilisation because of that). It is a formula for adjusting the
cash-flow in separated families, not an attack on a way of life.
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> > No, they haven't abandoned Western civilistion.
[snip]
> One's income is no longer one's own but subject to
> arbitrary redistribution rules designed by the central
> authority.
[snip]
Just like income tax!
Lots of types of nation take SOME income off you and redistribute it according
to rules designed by a central authority. (We are only talking about SOME income
here, and I don't consider this is always arbitrary).
Are there ANY nations in the world that don't do this? Have there been any
significant nations in the last few centuries that haven't done this?
I note with amusement the following agreement in 1976 between the USA and USSR:
http://www.dbf.state.fl.us/bosp/republics.html
"... both the United States and the Soviet Union retain income tax jurisdiction
over their nonresident citizens, unlike most other countries."
RogerFGay
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<LWh49.3822$3q.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> [snip]
> > > No, they haven't abandoned Western civilistion.
> [snip]
> > One's income is no longer one's own but subject to
> > arbitrary redistribution rules designed by the central
> > authority.
> [snip]
>
> Just like income tax!
>
That's right. Just like income tax. Child support is not income tax.
The car you decide to buy is not income tax. The movie you decide to
see is not income tax. Your decision to take a walk in the evening is
not income tax. The way you cut your hair is not income tax. Decisions
to get married or divorced are not income tax. When everything is
treated like income tax, you no longer live in western civilization.
You cannot arbitrarily decide to treat anything like income tax and
still claim support for western civilization and individual rights.