[Rei Murasame]

Household's have a leader/head. If the woman is given sole custody, then she is the one speaking on behalf of that household, right?

[Decky]

Household's have a leader/head. If the woman is given sole custody, then she is the one speaking on behalf of that household, right?

What's your point? The Queen as the head of state has the right to speak on my behalf.

Just because someone decides to speak on someone elses behalf doesn't mean that what they say is actually what that person would say if given the choice.

[Thompson_NCL]

Household's have a leader/head. If the woman is given sole custody, then she is the one speaking on behalf of that household, right?

What an absurd notion. The children have no right to access to their father and vice versa because the mother is a bitch?

The whole idea of child support is (in theory at least) to make sure the father continues to contribute to the upbringing of his children for whom he has joint responsibility. It doesn't have anything to do with patriarchy, which is why women also have to make child support payments if the father has custody.

If we have the disgusting situation where two lesbians have a kid and then break up, would you still argue child support is a bad idea? If one of the dykes runs off and lives the high life whilst the other is stuck struggling to raise a kid with the sole economic burden?

[Rei Murasame]

Yes, I would still make that same argument. There are risks in life, and one of those risks is called 'marriage'.

Child support should be abolished.

[Thompson_NCL]

Why should the child have to lose out though? They didn't agree to the risk. Are you saying that you would rather a child have to survive on a single parent income?

Do you believe in the concept of a contract?

Also, I struggle to fathom why you think this is a patriarchal creation. You do realise many men would not want to pay child support, right? If I could impregnate a dozen women with no financial consequences then why would I not want to do that? My primary biological desire is to procreate as much as possible, not to stop at two because I cannot afford more.

[Rei Murasame]

Do children have the competence to sign a contract? Why the hell should I care whether the child agrees or not?

[Decky]

Why should the child have to lose out though? They didn't agree to the risk. Are you saying that you would rather a child have to survive on a single parent income?

I believe Rei (and many others) believe that the state should pay people who raise children full time as they are doing one of the mos important jobs in the nation. So it isn't a binary choice between two incomes or impoverishment.

[Thompson_NCL]

:lol: Do children have the competence to sign a contract? Why the hell should I care whether the child agrees or not?

I don't even understand where you're going with that, it makes no sense.

I believe Rei (and many others) believe that the state should pay people who raise children full time as they are doing one of the mos important jobs in the nation. So it isn't a binary choice between two incomes or impoverishment.

Oh, so we ALL have to pay child support?

[Decky]

Oh, so we ALL have to pay child support?

When you are retired they will be the ones looking after you and paying taxes to pay your pension won't they? Don't bother mentioning any tax you have paid; the government spends that the second they get it.

[Thompson_NCL]

When you are retired they will be the ones looking after you and paying taxes to pay your pension won't they? Don't bother mentioning any tax you have paid; the government spends that the second they get it.

There are many arguments against that

1. If I wasn't taxed so highly, I'd be able to save more of my income and support myself in retirement.
2. My children could support me in the traditional extended family model.
3. I have a private pension anyway.
4. The government should not be spending my pension money, that is immoral.

In any event this model is never going to last. In order for it to work you'd need a constantly growing population which will need to grow faster every generation. It's not sustainable on a national level and sure aint sustainable on a global level.

[Decky]

1. If I wasn't taxed so highly, I'd be able to save more of my income and support myself in retirement.

Perhaps, you have no idea how much it will cost.

2. My children could support me in the traditional extended family model.

Everything I have seen shows that western society is moving even further away from that model where we are all atomised individuals. How many people can rely on this?

3. I have a private pension anyway.

You will still get the state pension as well though won't you?

4. The government should not be spending my pension money, that is immoral.

No arguments with the first bit but where did you get the idea that the government should never do immoral things? Sometimes Dresden's suburbs needs flattening and no one else has strategic bombers.

In any event this model is never going to last. In order for it to work you'd need a constantly growing population which will need to grow faster every generation. It's not sustainable on a national level and sure aint sustainable on a global level.

I believe the government intends to keep importing people to sustain the sytem.

[Stormsmith]

two points:

If you have hetro sex, you may have a baby. If either party cannot or does not want to support it, use a condom. End of.

If you don't want to accept child support, don't. But don't expect me to pick up the tab. I'm already paying for you and your kids education, health care etc, and that's fine up to a point. I regard this as an investment for the privilage of being a citizen in a wonderful, blessed country. But I am not the Bank of Single Parents who don't want to work to support their self induced medical condition cum hobby: their kids.

I can live with contributing to the social safety net, to bailing out people in need for a short term, but not as a cradle to graduation programme. If working singles can't support their child, lobby for a rise in minimum wage.

I don't ask others to pay for my horses, I don't appreciate being told someone else has a higher claim on my earnings that I.

[Rei Murasame]

I don't even understand where you're going with that, it makes no sense.

Okay, I'll say it unvarnished: Children have no say. They have no say in anything, and ought to be seen and not heard.

Oh, so we ALL have to pay child support?

Ever heard of Child Benefit?

[Thompson_NCL]

Okay, I'll say it unvarnished: Children have no say. They have no say in anything, and ought to be seen and not heard.

I understood that part, I just don't understand what it has to do with anything? No one is saying that the child should make the decision, but what you're describing is quite selfish behaviour on the part of one parent. If the child has two parents, they should be supported financially by two parents so they can get the very best they can in life.

Ever heard of Child Benefit?

See the replies above. That is just child support by proxy and I see no reason why everyone should have to pay just so you can remove the second person from the childs life.

[Stormsmith]

I believe Rei (and many others) believe that the state should pay people who raise children full time as they are doing one of the mos important jobs in the nation. So it isn't a binary choice between two incomes or impoverishment.

Really? When were they interviewed for the post? What are their qualifications? Who made the decision to hire them?

Oh! They weren't answering a job vacancy advert. I see. Soooo would I be correct in assuming these parents made a decision to have a child? If they are qualified to be good parents, oughtn't they have figured out what it would cost to rear a child? And they went ahead either (a) not doing their due diligence or (b) were happy to welcome a child into a life impoverished? Hardy sounds like someone likely to be chosen by society to do one of the most important jobs in the nation

Thank God they didn't decide they could walk into a hospital and do heart surgery with the same lack of qualifications, thinking that they could do that important job too

[Thompson_NCL]

A very good reply, but I suspect in a socialist state your womb is public property anyway, so big brother decides who inseminates you anyway.

[Stormsmith]

No, most countries are signaturies to international human rights compacts, and I'd leave if they weren't

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Lap tops are for shortnailed smurfs

[Rei Murasame]

No one is saying that the child should make the decision, but what you're describing is quite selfish behaviour on the part of one parent.

Who cares? What you're describing is selfish behaviour on the part of the public. If you think that Child Benefit should be abolished, then just say so. Otherwise I won't know where you stand.

Why does no one ever just say what they want to do?

[Stormsmith]

Rei, I did.

We used to have a child's benefit like programme here. Mothers were sent a cheque monthly. It began in an age where married women didn't work, and had little power within a marriage. They couldnt easily divorce a drunken sot of a husband. Times change. Laws change.

If you think you don't need the father's maintain cheques, you'll have to come up with a much, much better argument on why you have the gall to expect me to cough up for your child. Get a better job, get a second job, lobby for higher wages, stop setting the example that you need not be a responsible adult, because that is no one's idea of doing this important job you chose to undertake well.

In short parents need to grow up before their kid does.

[Rei Murasame]

I can't be bothered to have the argument. We're just not going to agree anyway, and I'm frankly sick of revisiting these same points over and over every week.

I'm happy to pay for other people's children with my tax money. I have none of my own, and so to me, their cute faces are the faces of the future.

I don't expect you two to ever understand that.