Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Bill,
    
    This is absurd.  Punish the masses for what the few have done. 
    I agree to have wages attached when there has been trouble with
    payment, but to do it to the law abiding average joe is insane.
    
    Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    I'm sure you know by now that I'm a F.A.I.R. proponent so I may
    be bias when I say "If it wasn't for F.A.I.R. personally being involved
    in this as well as the thousands of FAIR-grams sent to the senators
    who were in agreement with the orginal amendment" us current child
    support providers might just be having our wages garnished!

    I for one.  paid my $15 to have them sent.  I wonder how many other
    DEC folks did as well?
    
    Bill

    
    	Bill,
    	One item you didn't point out in .0 was that the amount
    	that would have been garnished from your wages would NOT
    	be the amount your children would be getting through this
    	bill. The bill as originally written would have a fixed rate
    	that the children(based on number of children) would get.
    	The amount garnished would have been much higher, which
    	would have been used to support the overhead to keep track
    	of such a program. The end result would have been that ALL
    	children of divorce would be on welfare, being paid through
    	the state and your garnished wages to support the system
    	plus pay the support granted to the children. With this aspect
    	of the bill it really shows just how ludicrous it originally
    	was.
    
    	G_B

    
    Re.-1  Gee.  I wasn't aware of that.  So; does that mean the poor
    folks getting divorsed after Jan 1 1994 will have a child support
    agreement ordered by the courts of their respective state and than
    a percentage will be added on to it?
    
    Incredible.  All children of divorse become wards of the state and
    the tax paying father's get taxed on top of their support payments.
    
    I wonder?   How will they deal with the self employed?  And how
    will they deal with those same fathers, like those today, that just
    drop out of society and not work for wages?  You know; the ones
    that abandoned their children from the beginning and just float
    around doing odd jobs.  And the mother's and children are on welfare.
    
    Do you think that maybe part of that percentage that goes to
    administering this system will eventually wind up as a payment?
    
    Hmmmmm.
    
    Bill

    And what about all of those delinquent women who drop out of society
    and don't make THEIR support payments?  Let's be fair and not assume
    that only men are either paying or not paying.
    
    Ed..
    

   "Dead-beat women" should be made to pay support just like
    dead-beat men....peaps the reason that ththe issue is not
    a subject of discussion is that for a wide variety of reasons
    they are a smaller segment of society and have thus escaped
    notice.
    
    Bonnie

    
    I, for one, wasn't excluding women from the non-paying support ranks
    with my note.  The simple fact is the majority population of
    non-custodial parents paying child support are men and therefore,
    statistically speaking only, a larger majority of men will be
    delinquent.
    
    If we also make the assumption that the majority of people who pay
    child support, starting after 1994, are wage earners.  People who
    recieve a regular paycheck with deductions, etc. etc.  It will be
    interesting to see if the system treats equally those men AND women
    required to pay support.
    
    I personally don't beleive the modifications in this bill were intended
    to address the in-equality of this issue.  But to make it easier,
    and more reliable for custodial parents to be assured of recieving
    a regular support payment.  By making this statement is is no way
    an endorsement on my part.  [sound like a auto commercial?]
    
    Bill

    
    For some of us wage garnishments are a reality now. The State of
    Ohio passed a law in Dec.1986 that all future support orders will
    be collected throught the Bureau of Child Support with a 2% poundage
    placed on the amount of support. In addition the Supreme Court of
    the State of Ohio pass child support guidelines based on gross wages,
    including any passive income. The tables that are in the guidelines
    caused many support orders to increase 100% and in some cases up
    to 300%. The guidelines are not law passed by Ohio's law makers
    but they might as well be because many of the judges follow them
    to the letter. Granted, many child support orders in the passed were
    too low but the pendulum has swung too far the other way and has
    caused great hardship for alot of non-custodial parents and their
    second families. A equal amount of attention should be given to
    visitation.
    

    That 2% tax on top of the payments, sound like an unfair an
    unconstitutional tax to me.
    
    Mike

    
    Re: .8   Is the Ohio law "Mandatory" or "Court Ordered".  In
    otherwords;  if the couple splitting up agreed not to garnish would
    the courts be obliged to follow the garnishment anyway?
    
    

    
    >.10  Yes!! There is no other choice except in a self-employed
    situation. I know many non-custodial parents would rather pay direct
    to save the 2% but they have no choice. The 2% is suppose to support
    the bureaucrtic system of collection and enforcement but it isn't
    enough and the Bureau of Child Support must be subsidized by local
    county funds. 
    
    
    

    1.  Has anyone tested any of this in Supreme Court (state or US)
    2.  Any statistical data as to the impact (e.g., men dropping out
    of jobs or changing jobs frequently).