Re alimony
|
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: bobbyj...@home.com (Bob Baker)
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
In article <7t0itn$ok...@kira.peak.org>, godd...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote: You said it when you agreed that the CP should receive no benefit from the >In article <_9LI3.1003$yg.16...@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>, >Bob Baker <bobbyj...@home.com> wrote: >>>>So you believe that CS amounts should not be based on the NCP income but >Where did I say that? Are you implying that the child of CS award. If a secretary for Microsoft somehow got pregnant by Mr. Bill, why should she receive an excessive CS amount? Do you really think that it would take 10K (or more) a month to raise this child. If you honestly believe that an award this size would be spent only on the child ... I have some *really* good bottom land in Florida for sale. >[snip] Why? If the parents never had a familial relationship, the child has never >>No it's not Pat. If the woman is to receive no benefit from the CS amount >>(which Marg agreed to) then the amount of money received in CS should be >>based stricktly on the amount to support the child, not to raise the CP's >>standard of living. >And just how are you going to judge the amount of CS it takes had a *lifestyle* to maintain. Why should having a child be like the lottery? B. Baker ..We've taken care of everything, Look around this world we've made, 2112 You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: godd...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
In article <CrXI3.1242$yg.22...@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
But I didn't agree to that. Others said i did. Different kettle of fish. If a secretary for Microsoft somehow got pregnant by Mr. Bill, >why should she receive an excessive CS amount? Do you really think that it It is irrelevant whether or not ALL of the CS is spent on >would take 10K (or more) a month to raise this child. If you honestly >believe that an award this size would be spent only on the child ... I >have some *really* good bottom land in Florida for sale. the child. The child gets what the parents can provide. Simple really. >>[snip] Why not? :-) If you can *catch* him, why shouldn't he >>>No it's not Pat. If the woman is to receive no benefit from the CS amount >>>(which Marg agreed to) then the amount of money received in CS should be >>>based stricktly on the amount to support the child, not to raise the CP's >>>standard of living. >>And just how are you going to judge the amount of CS it takes >Why? If the parents never had a familial relationship, the child has never pay to support his own child? Ah, I see, you'd like for *rich* men to pay the same as a poor one. Ain't gonna happen. >B. Baker Marg -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: bobbyj...@home.com (Bob Baker)
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
What right does the child have to Mr. Bill's cash? It's not like Mr Bill
had been providing a lifestyle for the child already. Sex should not be a 'lottery' where the woman can 'lie, cheat, and/or B. Baker ..We've taken care of everything, Look around this world we've made, 2112 You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: ja...@cornell.edu (John Fereira)
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
In article <si5J3.1562$yg.23...@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>, bobbyj...@home.com (Bob Baker) wrote: Fortunately, in my experience it rarely is. If that's what you're >Sex should not be a 'lottery' where the woman can 'lie, cheat, and/or >steal' to win .... experiencing, perhaps you have an inherent ability to choose women that lie, cheat, and.or steal. John Fereira You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: ja...@cornell.edu (John Fereira)
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
In article <37F4E3A6.11908...@northnet.com.au>, Edmund Esterbauer <edmu...@northnet.com.au> wrote: You've been hurt, haven't you. >Every child support recipient who does not work to contribute to the upkeep of > the child is a >thief- I guess they are not the exception as you make out but the norm. You'd like to believe that it *is* the norm as it supports a sour grapes >> In article <si5J3.1562$yg.23...@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>, bobbyj...@home.com >> >Sex should not be a 'lottery' where the woman can 'lie, cheat, and/or >> Fortunately, in my experience it rarely is. If that's what you're >> John Fereira Ithaca, NY ja...@cornell.edu You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: bobbyj...@home.com (Bob Baker)
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
In article <7t2o3r$mf...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, ja...@cornell.edu (John Fereira) wrote: But as long as the system could let it happen at all, then the system is >In article <si5J3.1562$yg.23...@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>, bobbyj...@home.com (Bob > Baker) wrote: >>Sex should not be a 'lottery' where the woman can 'lie, cheat, and/or >Fortunately, in my experience it rarely is. If that's what you're flawed, don't you think? B. Baker ..We've taken care of everything, Look around this world we've made, 2112 You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk (Pat Winstanley)
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 02:39:02 +1000, Edmund Esterbauer
<edmu...@northnet.com.au> wrote: So, all children who are supported by their parents are theives? >Every child support recipient who does not work to contribute to the upkeep of the child is a >thief Pat Winstanley You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <akul...@flash.net>
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
John Fereira wrote: Speaking of liars... > In article <si5J3.1562$yg.23...@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>, bobbyj...@home.com (Bob Baker) wrote: > >Sex should not be a 'lottery' where the woman can 'lie, cheat, and/or > Fortunately, in my experience it rarely is. If that's what you're > John Fereira Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer ICQ # 3056642 A: The wise man is mocked by fools. B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort. C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of D: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: Xmjeb...@primenet.com (Mark Jebens)
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) wrote on 30 Sep 1999 01:04:37 GMT:
Calif. has a taper, but it does not start coming into effect until the parent's combined net is about $80K per annum. -- Mark Jebens Xmjeb...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply) You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.support.divorce, alt.child-support, soc.singles, uk.gov.agency.csa
From: bobbyj...@home.com (Bob Baker)
Date: 1999/10/01
Subject: Re: Re alimony
In article <37f39b3...@news1.vip.uk.com>, "John Ward" <john.w...@iclweb.com> wrote: It was implied by her agreeing with my point about the CP not receiving >Bob Baker wrote in message <_9LI3.1003$yg.16...@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>... >[snip] >>If the woman is to receive no benefit from the CS >>amount (which Marg agreed to) then the amount of money >>received in CS should be based stricktly on the amount to >>support the child, not to raise the CP's standard of living. >[snip] >Whether or not Marg said that (I can't find it in news:uk.gov.agency.csa on benefit from the CS award. >A standard definition of "the amount to support the child" isn't about to My suggestion was twofold: >appear just because it would be convenient for you to have one. There are >lots of such definitions proposed by different pressure groups, agencies, >countries, ... And even given a definition, establishing what the amount >should then be is just as hard. >(Some people in the UK say it should be based on social security benefit 1. For couples having a familial relationship, instead of social workers This may not be perfect, but it would use the actual amounts that the 2. For couples with no familial relationship, the amount should be based Again, not perfect, but does not give any *direct* benefit to the CP at >And the idea of a carer receiving no benefit is nonsense. A child needs In the case of a divorced or otherwise separated couple, this is true. The >care. Paying for care is part of "the amount to support the child". Part of >the cost all services goes to support the deliverer of the service. If the >person delivering that caring service happens to be the mother, then the >amount is BOTH for the needs of the child & the needs during that time of >the mother. Money CAN BE, and in these circumstances IS, for 2 purposes >simultaneously. >Since it is common for governments to say they want the child to benefit child should be supported at the level and lifestyle that they had before the separation. However, with couples that did not have a familial relationship, one person should not be able to have *direct* benefit because the other happens to have wealth. We all know that indirect benefits will come with any CS award but what B. Baker ..We've taken care of everything, Look around this world we've made, 2112 You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||