The real "purpose" and effect of child support is to deter
rich male from being promiscuous. This take rich males out
sex market. Females then have to pick poorer males.

If child support is about responsibility, the one paying
attention to it should be the poor males. If child support
is proportional with the need of the child rather than the
wealth of the men, rich men will become studs.

It's the same reason why polygamy is prohibited in democracy
country. The purpose is to ration females to less desirable
males.

Jim
http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com

MODERATOR:
This has zip point $#^! to do with taxes. I just found it
derranged enough to post on the same evening I posted a
follow-up on how we were put here to care for cats. Plus
I am pro-choice where it counts, e.g., tobacco, gun control,
cohabitation, sexual orientation, etc.

Do not bother responding this thread is closed and the OP
has been warned about follow-ups.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

The original post and this one has been all about how the
second wife has been harmed by the husband's inaction about
resolving the child support. The prior paragraph about being
penalized by "the system", it only kicks in because the
husband has been negligent to point that for the welfare of
the child and to properly relieve an unfair burden on the
mother that the authorities are looking for the proper
support.

My experience in these matters is that it takes a while for
this step to kick in. The original poster needs to get her
husband to go back and resolve this problem, not blame the
"system".

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

BMS wrote:
- quote -

That much is true of ANY type of debt.

- quote -

I take it that this response doesn't recognize the child
from the prior relationship as a child the spouse is just as
responsible for as if he/she were one from the current
relationship.

- quote -

[As long as we're addressing the morality of the situation:]

Who cares? It's CHILD support, not alimony, so technically,
the previous spouse should NOT be benefitting from it in any
way, and if she were, then the proper action is to get the
support lowered by the court.

Of course there's an issue of a detriment since SOMEONE has
to pay for the child's expenses even if the support does not
come in, but since many divorces are hostile, is that really
a consideration of the parent? What he/she should be
concerned about is how his CHILD has fared in the absence of
his/her payment.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"marisolcrabb" <marisolcrabb[at]cox-internet.com> wrote:

- quote -

Simple answer, get your husband to clean up the child
support and the problem goes away. Can't do that then
adjust your withholdings so you owe less in April.

I expected a yes/no answer. Some of you
- quote -

It does, you can't move ahead until it is resolved, given
the tax man is making the grab he let this slip a long way.

Hey, let me forget about my children for a minute.

- quote -

How would you feel if you were the previous wife?

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

marisolcrabb wrote:

- quote -

And IF I had anything to do with it, I would have only one
filing status: "Taxpayer" no separate standard deduction
amounts, and credits could be taken only by one taxpayer,
whether or not husband or wife, or spouse, or whatever.
IOW, individuals would pay their own taxes, and not couples,
heads of households, or .. etc.

Congress took one step in changing standard deduction for
couples to twice the single rates. Still a long way to go,
however.

and while I was at it, get rid of taxes on social security.

Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA in LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

When I made the "Sick of filing Injured Spouse" on 8/7/03.
I didn't expect this to turn into a child support issue. The
question was simple. I expected a yes/no answer. Some of you
were gracious enough to give advice depending on the
situation. Then there were those that didn't even address
the question but instead reprimanded, "Why not just pay the
child support?" My life does not revolve around figuring out
ways to make more money to pay for my husband's back child
support. Hey, let me forget about my children for a minute.
I don't sit around trying to figure out ways to "cheat" (as
one person implicated) when filing taxes. Could we get out
from under this debt, it would be great!! We share
responsibility for all the bills, including his monthly
child support payments. Do I feel penalized by the system?
Definitely.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->