Enhancing child support by pooling excess funds.

[Boojatta]

For a given public school, we can consider the one source of the majority of its funding. That source probably also funds other schools. This network from a fund to a collection of schools (and all the children who go to those schools) can be used as a guide. Corresponding to each majority funding source could be a new fund to be used exclusively for helping custodial parents who need help paying for the costs of caring for their children. In particular, it would pay for such basic costs as food, clothing, and transportation.

Some money ordinarily thought of as earmarked for a particular child would flow through the network to the fund and then back down to custodial parents in the network whose children have the greatest unsatisfied needs. What would be the source of funds? Currently existing guidelines for court-ordered child support payment amounts could be maintained. However, spending of those payments would be itemized. A court orders child support payments because money is needed to raise a particular child, but it does not necessarily need to require all of that money to be spent on that particular child.

Some items would have no upper bound. For example, there would be no upper bound associated with medical expenses. If a child needs medical care, then that care should be funded using as much of the child support payments as necessary. If no money earmarked for a given child remains because of high medical costs for that child, then none of the money earmarked for that child would go into the local fund for enhancing child support.

However, associated with other expenses there would be some upper bound. For example, for the year 2008, the total for food, clothing, and transportation might be $3000 per month. Perhaps that's not enough for some privileged children. Perhaps some people might oppose any proposal to cap payment from a non-custodial parent's court-ordered child support to one child's consumption of food, clothing, and transportation at $3000 per month. Some people might consider such a proposal to be incompatible with women's rights.

However, it should be possible for legislators to agree upon some cap. For example, maybe the cap should be $6000 for one child's monthly consumption of food, clothing, and transportation in the year 2008, the amount to be adjusted for inflation in future years. In that case, if the items that have no upper bound (such as medical expenses) do not eat up the money, then money would go to the capped items up to the maximum allowed amount. Any excess would then go into the local fund for enhancing child support.

[LiberalFighter]

1. No. Any child support ordered should be used exclusively for the child(ren) support.

Not for other child(ren) that are not part of the family. You will end up with a revolt if this was implemented. The non-custodial parent is paying for their child's support and should not be forced to support other children. Child support is determined by the total income of both parents and other factors. If there is an excess then child support should be reduced not given to someone else.

It would be a tax that unfairly burdens the non-custodial parent. And child support is not tax-deductible.

Non-custodial parents should not even be paying support beyond what is needed for the child.

Courts won't go for having all child support itemized by the custodial parent. They will revolt. They will avoid it at all cost.

Child support should not be one size fits all standard. Each family and child is different for their needs.

[Boojatta]

2. "The non-custodial parent is paying for their child's support and should not be forced to support...

other children."

Do parents pay taxes for their child's education? Would it be wrong for any of those taxes to help pay for the education of other children?

If non-custodial parents -- who would pay child support amounts according to the existing guidelines and not be asked to pay more than those guidelines require -- were to attempt to "revolt", then perhaps people who don't have any children could revolt and stop paying taxes that help fund the education of people who have children.

[LiberalFighter]

4. The difference is that taxes are levied based on property or income by everyone.

Not just by non-custodial parents as you would suggest. THAT would be a disportionate.

The purpose of child support is to provide for one's children and encourage responsibility. Having payment go to other children would encourage other non-custodial parents to avoid their responsibilities.

[Boojatta]

5. I apologize. I made an error in my final sentence above.

It should have ended as follows: "...could revolt and stop paying taxes that help fund the education of the children of people who have children." I hope that you will ignore the original and accept this modification.

The difference is that taxes are levied based on property or income by everyone.

Are you suggesting that, provided that everyone were to pay at least one penny per month into some general fund for child support, then you would have no objection to the proposal in the Original Post?

The purpose of child support is to provide for one's children and encourage responsibility.

What would prevent the "encourage responsibility" part from being given as a justification for the proposal in the Original Post? Military conscription in Switzerland -- which can cost a person his or her life -- might be justified partly on the grounds that it encourages all citizens to take responsibility for the security of Switzerland. Why can't the diversion of excess funds -- that are already required to be paid by law and would not be increased by the proposal in the Original Post -- be justified on the grounds that it encourages citizens to recognize a general responsibility for children?

Having payment go to other children would encourage other non-custodial parents to avoid their responsibilities.

Fire extinguishers could conceivably encourage people to play with fire. Would you propose removing all fire extinguishers from public school buildings? Did it occur to you that some children might have unsatisfied needs simply because some non-custodial parents have low incomes, even though those non-custodial parents may be paying everything they are legally required to pay, plus extra money that they are not legally required to pay?

[LiberalFighter]

7. Why should the public pay more than what they need to in taxes

when non-custodial parents have the income to pay child-support but refuse? Why should children under a child support order be benefiting because another family receives more than what they need?

What is your background? F/M? Custodial/Non-Custodial?

[Boojatta]

8. I'm confused by your first question.

Are you actually expressing concern about a possible tax of one penny per month as being "more than they (the public?) need to (ought to?)" pay?

[LiberalFighter]

9. YES

[Boojatta]

10. Well, I imagine that you are very concerned about the price

of blank cassette tapes to be used for recording one's own conversations and the price of making a photocopy of one's own handwritten compositions using a photocopier in a public library.

If there is any case law that could be accepted as a precedent influencing a judgment by a court in America and that case law is not in some public library branches, then I suppose that you are very concerned about the time and money needed to travel to a public library that contains that case law. Or is it okay for the law to be inaccessible, while some newspapers, novels, videos, or other non-essential items are made accessible in every single public library?

[happyslug]

3. What are you talking about??? I suspect some sort of REDUCTION in Child support.

Lets remember, Child support has had two big pushers over the last 20 years, First was Welfare Reform. During the debates for Welfare Reform it was discovered that the number one reason women and children were on Welfare was that Child support payments were to LOW. If you could increase child support payments in both amounts AND collection it took people off Welfare. This was the last big push, Congress set up a system where the state can plug into and collect Child support.

The Various State Courts have previously like a set percentage, but Congress found those rates, at the bottom end of the scale, was to low to keep children off Welfare. Thus the rates at the bottom had to go up, starting at about 1/3 of your wages at minimum wage for one child (2/3 for two, and Congress lifted the 25% limit on attachments so states could collect up to 60% of a person's wages).

At the same time, most State court Supreme Court were setting the percentage. In my home state of Pennsylvania these two points came into conflict. Basically the Federal Government told the State Government to increase the amount collected from low income people, but the State Supreme Court wanted to keep it low for high income people (Like State Supreme Court Judges). Thus Pennsylvania came up with a system where it starts at 1/3 of your wages at minimum wages and then goes up (But the actual percentage goes down) to 10% at 100,000 a year. Pennsylvania has revamp this system several times, but the basic theme has stayed the same.

Now, the courts have a problem. Certain expectations is expected of parents of Children are expected (i.e. you are expected to be able to provide assistance to that child in ratio to your income). Thus a father is expected to pay more for the care of his children as his income goes up. Pennsylvania stopped it at about 10% if you are high income, but the Feds also have to be taken care of. The Feds do NOT want these children on Welfare unless it is clear the father can NOT pay.

Thus I do NOT see any changes in the collection of Welfare, the Federal Government provides money to run various state collection efforts. The States are working within this system and if the non-custodial parent pays what the courts order it is not a problem (Given that most such child support is deducted from wages the paying parent do NOT even see the money).

Does the present system have problems? Yes, but so does any system. The biggest problem is getting non-custodial parents working so they wages can be attached NOT in the amount ordered collected. Second by people who has no income to pay (Mostly disable people in SSI).

[Boojatta]

6. "What are you talking about?"

I suppose that I could ask you the same question, but I would prefer to identify some specific part of your post and explain why I think it would be appropriate for you to clarify it or justify it. Until I identify a specific part of your post and explain why I'm having trouble understanding what you're talking about, I do not ask what you're talking about.

However, I do ask this: would you care to draw attention to any particular part of the Original Post consisting of at least one full sentence and not merely a phrase such as "child support"?

[JosephSchmo]

11. Where is 36K a year supposed to come from?

You never addressed this in your plan.

[Boojatta]

12. Where did you get the figure 36K from? I don't see a connection with the OP.

It might be interesting to follow this link to see another DU thread that I started before I started this thread:
Should there be an upper bound on some components of child support payments?

I haven't traced exactly how that thread proceeded, but it seems that (and I might be wrong about this), the Original Post of the thread at that link doesn't specify what would happen to money above the upper bound. Some people apparently assumed that the money would simply be refunded to the non-custodial parent. Once that assumption was applied in the discussion, the only obvious alternatives would be to accept it for the sake of argument, to dispute it, or to identify it and question its origin. I suppose it depends on whether one wishes to discuss exactly what was proposed in the Original Post or whether one wishes to discuss what would be anticipated to happen if some group of legislators tried to enact something approximately like or something consistent with what was proposed in the Original Post of the thread at the above link.

However, some people objected to a $3000 per month upper bound on spending for one child's food, clothing, and transportation without indicating that their objection was grounded in opposition to refunding the money to the non-custodial parent. Ironically, there has been opposition to the proposal in the Original Post of this thread grounded in opposition to anything other than refunding the money to the non-custodial parent.

[Boojatta]

13. Kick