Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Driver parking in marked handicapped spot
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Superteeth2478" data-source="post: 3969237" data-attributes="member: 73024"><p>And while we're on the topic of child support, that system is bull<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2 :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" /> too. It's obviously bull<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2 :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" /> when it's calculated as a percentage of your income. It's nonsense that a father who makes, say, $250,000 a year while the mother makes little or nothing should have to give a flat percentage of their income, say 17%, to support a child. It sure as hell doesn't cost $42,500 a year to raise a child. That can support an entire family in a low cost of living state. At that point the excess just becomes spousal support.</p><p></p><p>At this point I'll just go really off topic and stand on a soapbox and argue about how it's illogical bull<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2 :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" /> that women can choose not to terminate a pregnancy (which I agree is absolutely "her body, her right"), but also demand child support payments from a father who didn't necessarily want to be father (I know about the argument of "then keep it in your pants", but that applies to both parties anyways. If the mother can't support a child without a father's input, then they should keep it out of their pants). That would be perfectly logical, only if a father DID have some say in whether or not a mother terminated her pregnancy, because the baby IS part of the father's body as well, in the sense that he contributed genetic material to create the child.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Superteeth2478, post: 3969237, member: 73024"] And while we're on the topic of child support, that system is bull:censored: too. It's obviously bull:censored: when it's calculated as a percentage of your income. It's nonsense that a father who makes, say, $250,000 a year while the mother makes little or nothing should have to give a flat percentage of their income, say 17%, to support a child. It sure as hell doesn't cost $42,500 a year to raise a child. That can support an entire family in a low cost of living state. At that point the excess just becomes spousal support. At this point I'll just go really off topic and stand on a soapbox and argue about how it's illogical bull:censored: that women can choose not to terminate a pregnancy (which I agree is absolutely "her body, her right"), but also demand child support payments from a father who didn't necessarily want to be father (I know about the argument of "then keep it in your pants", but that applies to both parties anyways. If the mother can't support a child without a father's input, then they should keep it out of their pants). That would be perfectly logical, only if a father DID have some say in whether or not a mother terminated her pregnancy, because the baby IS part of the father's body as well, in the sense that he contributed genetic material to create the child. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Driver parking in marked handicapped spot
Top