24 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerYes. Because some people already abandon their responsibilities, and then the children suffer the consequences. Government should always be there to ensure children have access to top education and health care regardless of the situation of their parents.
so you think people should procreate and then be able to abandon their responsibility? Child support payments reflect the legal and moral obligation parents have for raising their children, absence from the home does not relieve them of that obligation.
Alimony provides an unfair advantage to leechers who happened to have been married to a rich man. What about the single women who were never married and have children to raise on their own?
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI completely agree that the government should ensure education and health care, but only if it is necessary to do so. A parent can not simply be allowed to walk away from his responsibilities because there is a safety net in place for the children, first option should always be that the parents pay for the upbringing and only if that is not possible must the government step in.
Yes. Because some people already abandon their responsibilities, and then the children suffer the consequences. Government should always be there to ensure children have access to top education and health care regardless of the situation of their parents.
Alimony provides an unfair advantage to leechers who happened to have been married to a rich man. What about the single women who were never married and have children to raise on their own?
I also must agree with Telerion's argument, you seem to completely forget about the sacrifice a man/woman can make for the career of the other, and the damage that can do to his/her own ability to earn money if the marriage ends. I'm not saying that system, as it is now, is any good at estimating this damage and basing alimony on that, but I am saying that alimony, if calculated correctly, is the best way to compensate for that damage if the marriage should end.
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, by this statement it is evident that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
The money is not necessary, and often makes it so that women continue to stay at home when they should be working and contributing to society.
women who stay home are the bedrock of the family, it contributes to society in many ways.
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by BartsWell, it's either one or the other. If you think that parents have a responsibility to make sure their children have a shot at a good future, then it logically follows that government doesn't necessarily step in. If the government always steps in, then the children of irresponsible parents still have a chance to become an engineer or doctor.
I completely agree that the government should ensure education and health care, but only if it is necessary to do so. A parent can not simply be allowed to walk away from his responsibilities because there is a safety net in place for the children, first option should always be that the parents pay for the upbringing and only if that is not possible must the g ...[text shortened]... alculated correctly, is the best way to compensate for that damage if the marriage should end.
People sometimes make poor choices, and not all marriages work out. Why should a man or woman who happened to have picked a rich spouse have an unfair advantage over those who have not?
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraGovernment should always be there to ensure children have access to top education and health care regardless of the situation of their parents.
Yes. Because some people already abandon their responsibilities, and then the children suffer the consequences. Government should always be there to ensure children have access to top education and health care regardless of the situation of their parents.
Alimony provides an unfair advantage to leechers who happened to have been married to a rich man. What about the single women who were never married and have children to raise on their own?
Govt-run top education and/or healthcare is a contradiction in terms.
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimoNo it's not, but even then it does not have to be run, only funded.
[b]Government should always be there to ensure children have access to top education and health care regardless of the situation of their parents.
Govt-run top education and/or healthcare is a contradiction in terms.[/b]
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorramaybe the single women should not have given the milk away for free, and made the "rich guy" pay for the whole cow🙄
Yes. Because some people already abandon their responsibilities, and then the children suffer the consequences. Government should always be there to ensure children have access to top education and health care regardless of the situation of their parents.
Alimony provides an unfair advantage to leechers who happened to have been married to a rich man. What about the single women who were never married and have children to raise on their own?
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude
How long has it been since you contributed something of substance to these forums? Please do us a favor and exercise your brain just a little before spamming.
Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
....
25 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI acknowledge that that is a downside of the system. The rest of the objections I've heard in this thread have been little more than failures to grasp the concepts of intangible investment, opportunity cost, and contracts so I think your point is well-timed. IMO this effect is important. It reduces the effective wage for the alimony recipient making work less attractive to them.
The money is not necessary, and often makes it so that women continue to stay at home when they should be working and contributing to society.
I doubt we're going to come up with a scheme that does not distort incentives in some undesirable way. After all, even eliminating alimony all together distorts a households home labor/market labor decision. Since one partner cannot commit to compensating the other for doing the home production, neither will be as willing to stay home.
What we need is to find an "optimal mechanism", as it is called in theory to mitigate these negative incentives, understanding that we don't live in "first best" world. Quite simply divorces have a destructive side in terms of production.
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionalimony in lieu of child support is a win for the payee, it is tax deductable, whereas child support is not.
I acknowledge that that is a downside of the system. The rest of the objections I've heard in this thread have been little more than failures to grasp the concepts of intangible investment, opportunity cost, and contracts so I think your point is well-timed. IMO this effect is important. It reduces the effective wage for the alimony recipient making work ...[text shortened]... first best" world. Quite simply divorces have a destructive side in terms of production.
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by duecerThat's interesting. I wasn't aware of that tax arrangement. I should say that I'm not making any normative statement about how transfers from one party to the other should be structured. Certainly, if only for the kids' sake, both parents should be responsible for supporting them. I think the more difficult questions is how much should a spouse be compensated for lost potential market earnings due to home production and for his/her investment in the other partners career, keeping in mind the labor discouraging effect of alimony on the both parties. I'm not sure what the right answer (in a positive sense) is to this question. Maybe I'll peruse some literature on the subject today.
alimony in lieu of child support is a win for the payee, it is tax deductable, whereas child support is not.