Yet another example of why government assistance does not work :RANT:

[10-Ring]

Sorry yall I have to vent a little bit.

There is someone very close to me. She is a single mother, has a full time job, owns her own home, is a really good parent and is trying very hard to make ends meet without any help. She also does volunteer work nearly every week in addition to her busy schedule. Her daughters father is unemployed and has been for the last 5 months. He refuses to pay child support or get a job. He has been hand delivered numerous job applications to places that are hiring and refuses to even fill them out. So my friend applied for assistance with a government program called Families First. Families First will go after dead beat dads and will provide money for childcare. Currently her daughter's father watches her while she works when she can not afford childcare. If she were unemployed she could draw more money than she is making by working full time but she has too much pride to do that and I'm proud of her for that.

Just doesn't seem right to me that what we have here is a young lady who is trying her best, even trying to raise money for her daughter to go to college, and is penalized for that by the government. All the while someone who does not attempt to provide for their child's future, or for that matter their present needs gets free money every month.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I understand your vent. The guy needs the crap beat out and some sense beat in him.

[10-Ring]

I understand your vent. The guy needs the crap beat out and some sense beat in him.

It has crossed my mind to go to his house and whoop up on him every Friday afternoon until he gets a job. I'm just not going to stoop down to that level.

[TripleDigitRide]

The entire system is bass ackwards. I've had full custody of my daughter for the last several years, and I've just about given up on trying to get child support. She was ordered to pay $330/month. Until a few months ago, she paid a total of roughly $20. For the last few months she's been paying about $10-$15 a week. She's about $20,000 behind, yet the courts can't seem understand why I'm so upset.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Jonnin]

so, you are mad at the dad who, by extrapolation, can earn more money sitting on his can than by getting a crummy job? If I could get paid more for sitting at home, I probably would. Who would not, its logical to accept the best payment you can get, whatever the source. Double so if your work load is decreased while your income is increased: it would be idiotic to pass that up.

The system is broken, yes. But I cannot blame someone for logically taking the best paying situation they can get. Fix the system, make the job more attractive than the handout, how hard can that be?

Morality and right/wrong do not enter into it. Start throwing those around, and it comes back to the absolute wrongness of government taking money from anyone to give it to someone else --- that is the job of charity, not government, and once that enters the discussion, morality is already thrown in the trash: it is stealing, a sort of legal robin hood setup.

[peejman]

I agree that the system is very broken. Deadbeat parents are given far to much leeway. But if he's providing childcare, then isn't that effectively bartering his monetary obligation?

[10-Ring]

so, you are mad at the dad who, by extrapolation, can earn more money sitting on his can than by getting a crummy job? If I could get paid more for sitting at home, I probably would. Who would not, its logical to accept the best payment you can get, whatever the source. Double so if your work load is decreased while your income is increased: it would be idiotic to pass that up.

No I'm upset with the dad because he contributes zero dollars for the care of his child. He isn't on any kind of government assistance as he is too lazy to fill out the forms. If he was on assistance he could then at least contribute some money towards his daughter's care, but he has zero income and will not attempt to be employed. I doubt that he would qualify for much assistance anyhow as he is an able bodied 23 year old male, who's only disability is laziness. Sad part is he is a skilled tradesman so he has the potential to make good money. At one time I was in the same field and I was bringing home $5,000 a month.

I agree that the system is very broken. Deadbeat parents are given far to much leeway. But if he's providing childcare, then isn't that effectively bartering his monetary obligation?

Raising a child in a broken family should theoretically be halves on each parent, childcare, food, clothes, medical, etc. The only contribution he makes to her care is keeping her when he feels like it, that is when he isn't hanging out with his friends or has something better to do. As Tripledigitride stated the state just won't go after these deadbeats. Even when a mother receives child support it usually isn't enough to cover half of the child's needs but it helps a lot more than nothing at all. It has come to the point where she is not receiving quality care when he keeps her. He does not have a car or a phone which concerns me if she has a medical emergency. Additionally the house that he lives in is infested with fleas. She also behaves poorly after she has stayed with her dad, there is just no structure or discipline there. To answer your question though, if he were providing adequate care and was at least trying to provide something monetarily I think that she would take that into consideration. At this point she has decided that the care that he provides is inadequate and I agree with her on that. Therefore she has asked me to help pay for her daycare, which I told her that I would. It is really heartbreaking to see someone disregard their own child that way.

Edited August 16, 2012 by 10-Ring

[RichardR]

No offense 10ring but I would suggest not getting involved in domestic situations as described above unless you know all of the facts, my experiences have shown me that these sorts of things are not quite as "cut & dried" as they appear on the surface and that 3rd parties who get involved are often done so under false pretenses.

My oldest daughter and my grandchildern from her are a prime example, unfortunately after a bit of investigation on my part, the "story" was a bit different than what I was being told, granted I love my daughter and my grandchildren but before you jump on one side or another make sure that you have all of the facts before doing so, sometimes emotions get the best of all of us.....

[Jonnin]

that almost sounds intentional .... no job intentionally to avoid the payments, bitter over the court results maybe? Seems fishy --- I know my share of lazy people but zero income is not sustainable, something going on there. That or no reported/legal income?....

Edited August 17, 2012 by Jonnin

[Mister L]

[LagerHead]

so, you are mad at the dad who, by extrapolation, can earn more money sitting on his can than by getting a crummy job? If I could get paid more for sitting at home, I probably would. Who would not, its logical to accept the best payment you can get, whatever the source. Double so if your work load is decreased while your income is increased: it would be idiotic to pass that up. The system is broken, yes. But I cannot blame someone for logically taking the best paying situation they can get. Fix the system, make the job more attractive than the handout, how hard can that be? Morality and right/wrong do not enter into it. Start throwing those around, and it comes back to the absolute wrongness of government taking money from anyone to give it to someone else --- that is the job of charity, not government, and once that enters the discussion, morality is already thrown in the trash: it is stealing, a sort of legal robin hood setup.

I would not, for one. And here's why: That paltry amount that you get for sitting on your ass is nothing. And you will never get a better job if all you do is sponge off the government. You have to be moving to move up. If one is satisfied living in poverty or near it, they can sit on their ass and do nothing. If however you actually want to provide a better life for your family you MUST be in the workforce. Nobody gets promoted from sponge to manager, at least not in the private sector.

[Jonnin]

the point was, if you are sitting in or near poverty, would you take a pay cut to get off your backside in hopes that 5 years from now you might beat the handout level after a couple of "promotions"? You might be willing to do that, but many people would not. Throw in the person just scraping to get by, 2 kids and single parent, starts that job and gets a pay cut on top of now needing to pay daycare... that job still looking attractive? Also, some promotions are bad --- say the person gets in as a waiter, does great, gets promoted.... loses the tips, so the actual pay increase and promotion = actual net loss of income. That happened to me the last year I was a bag boy (thankfully just a for fun job as a kid) .... forced to promotion, I lost $10 an hour in tips to gain $2 an hour in wages, doh. I quit not long after.

Basically, lot of things broken at the bottom of the barrel --- some folks, try as they might, just never get any traction, and give up. Its actually set up this way, to keep people in poverty, which encourages voting a certain way.....

[10-Ring]

No offense 10ring but I would suggest not getting involved in domestic situations as described above unless you know all of the facts, my experiences have shown me that these sorts of things are not quite as "cut & dried" as they appear on the surface and that 3rd parties who get involved are often done so under false pretenses.

My oldest daughter and my grandchildern from her are a prime example, unfortunately after a bit of investigation on my part, the "story" was a bit different than what I was being told, granted I love my daughter and my grandchildren but before you jump on one side or another make sure that you have all of the facts before doing so, sometimes emotions get the best of all of us.....

I know the situation very well, don't want to go into a lot of detail as it is a private matter but I trust this girl 100%.

that almost sounds intentional .... no job intentionally to avoid the payments, bitter over the court results maybe? Seems fishy --- I know my share of lazy people but zero income is not sustainable, something going on there. That or no reported/legal income?....

Somewhat, he is still obligated to make child support payments. The amount that he owes is still building even though he is not paying on it. Hopefully the court will eventually do something about it but they don't seem to be in much of a hurry. I don't want to speculate too much but I have my suspicions about some illegitimate income that he may have but I have zero proof. He lives with a family member who he mooches off of and since he has no car he has very little overhead. His current girlfriend also works multiple jobs which he reaps the benefits of. I'm learning all that I can about how child support works, evidently in TN the child support is garnished right out of the paycheck by the state and the state then sends the money to the other parent.