Apparently Collecting Child Support and Welfare Should Be Allowed

From the dumb-greedy-people department.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/province-sued-over-child-support-145086105.html



Seriously.

This woman is collecting welfare (among a ton of other low income benefits) and says that she should be able to keep her child support payments as well since they are for "the kids".

Now she is suing the province over the matter.

For the record. I want to work and collect welfare since the money I make while working is for my stay-at-home-wife and my son.

I read this article and almost fell off my chair! The nerve of some people. Maybe she should quit having babies if she can't afford them!

again...yet another reason that there should be a spay/neuter clause in order to receive welfare benefits.

I agree with her.

I will discuss when I get back from lunch.

I'm with Dean on this one.

Child support calculations have NOTHING to do with the earnings of the parent who has custody of the children, but the earnings of the non-custodial parent.

Do you get less money from your employer if you are a single working parent and you receive child support from a spouse? Nope.

ok...so I was listening to this story on CBC at lunch...and...

I would tend to agree with what they are suing for.

Apparently, they are not suing for money to go to the mom.
They will be happy to have the money be held in trust for the kids in the future, for either education, or other expenses beyond a certain age.

Their argument is that the child support payments are SUPPOSED to go to the kids, and are not a reflection of income for the mom...that technically it would be income for the kids, and that in normal circumstances...mom would just be the financial manager of that money.

They also expressed the concern that there is no law forcing people to take a wage cut because they are collecting child support from someone...so why should she give up benefits or money due to child support payments coming in.

It was also NOT her idea, it was her attorney's, who suggested the fight, and she decided to back it.

What's not in the article either, is that she was working, and then she went on "mat-leave"...and then her boyfriend took off...
Apparently he was paying child support, and then quit paying...so she went to an attorney on Legal Aid to try and get the money from him.

She also indicates she's going back to work in the summer.

So, in this case...I think she's right...and I agree with the position that the government should not be taking money away from the kids. That if they want to take it, they should be putting it in a trust account for the kids when they get older...or for emergency situations which have to be applied for by the mother.

The "theory" behind the support payments is that they are set at such a level as to attempt to assure the child leads the same life with the one parent as the non custodial parent is living. Taking away money from a welfare plan based strictly on how much a non custodial parent is giving is therefore wrong.

maybe an example will work better here.

mom plus 3 kids gets 1400 per month from welfare ( number made up)

that is 800 basic plus 200 per kid. (again made up)

all 3 kids have different dads.
dad 1 pays $25 per month
dad 2 pays $350 per month
dad 3 pays $75 per month.

so welfare is taken away to the tune of $450 per month, which FORCES dad 2 to support children that are not his since he is paying the majority amount.

What should happen is that $200 per kid amount should be reduced accordingly
ie
kid 1 gets $25 from dad1 and $175 from welfare
kid 2 gets $350 from dad2 and $0 from welfare
kid 3 gets $75 from dad3 and $125 from welfare

granted the money is still shared amongst the entire family but since the net result is more money for the family there is at least an attempt to bring a more equal to what dad2s life is like


understand reasoning?

although...despite my earlier agreement with this plan...i still think there should be a contraceptive portion to collecting welfare.

I dont agree the money should go into trust tho

also.. did you know that child support agreements dont end at 18 anymore?

That "theory" should not apply to someone collecting welfare.

Also, it is crap to tell me that the child support payments are like some form of allowance or trust fund for the kids. Its not like living with two parents in my family netted me a healthy 5 digit trust fund by the time I turned 18.

Child support puts food on the table and clothes on their back, which ironically enough is what welfare is supposed to do.

She should not be able to double dip.

If she wants to put the child support money into a trust fund, she should go get herself off welfare.

To me this is no different than being unable to collect EI if you got a severance package from the job you were laid off from.

Legally the severance money belongs to you, but that doesn't mean you should be able to collect EI at the same time because both serve the same purpose.

Welfare is an emergency source of loot that should only be available to certain people in extreme cases.

All revenue sources should be considered when calculating how much money people should receive while on welfare.

While my position might seem cold-hearted, welfare should not be a bonanza when the parent is already receiving an income to help support her children.

She should get her child support and that amount should be deducted from her welfare cheques. And I hope she stops breeding cause she obviously cannot afford the 3 she has.

I want to know:
1. Why her boyfriend stopped making payments?
2. Why the government does not go after him to continue making payments?
Can't they make him take a paternity test?

So I have figured out that the 3 forum members who talked about contaception, all are card carrying Conservatives or Republicans if they are USA citizens!

DeanK are you paying the $25 or the $275?

She is very pretty, and I think she should be paid extra for that reason, as well as her kids are beautiful.

Grumpy- cann't you get the mean spirited cheapskates to change their outlook?

DeanK are you paying the $25 or the $175?
no

Cheapskate! lol



What is the cost of a gross of condomes? Why wouldnt welfare automatically hand these out to single mom's with written instructions?

Wish people would stop having children they can't afford to have. If you are scrapping by without any kids, then logic says not to have children. This woman has three... Circumstances occur where the state provides assistance to those who need assistance. That's fine, but there has to be some common sense here. These are young children, they look to be a couple years apart.

I agree that child support payments aren't income, however when you are on the poggie the money you get is fixed. If she wasn't on welfare would she claim that as income on her income tax?

Stonekiller wrote:I agree that child support payments aren't income, however when you are on the poggie the money you get is fixed. If she wasn't on welfare would she claim that as income on her income tax?

From a tax perspective they ARE income.

The receiver pays tax on them and the payer gets a write off.

Chronic welfare abusers know that every child they pop out results in more welfare loot and opens up ever-better welfare benefits such as a bigger and better abode.

sputnik wrote:

Stonekiller wrote:I agree that child support payments aren't income, however when you are on the poggie the money you get is fixed. If she wasn't on welfare would she claim that as income on her income tax?

From a tax perspective they ARE income.

The receiver pays tax on them and the payer gets a write off.

Actually NO, not since 1996.

The payer gets no write off
The payee does not have to declare it as income and gets to claim the kids.

grumpy old man wrote:Chronic welfare abusers know that every child they pop out results in more welfare loot and opens up ever-better welfare benefits such as a bigger and better abode.

The number of children the taxpayers should be frozen at whatever the number they have is when they go on welfare. IE: I think she has 3. Thats all the taxpayers should pay for.
If she has more, too bad.

And why isn't the government going after the father to pay child support?
(Or is he on welfare now too?)

umm this case is about the fact that He IS/was paying child support, and the government wants to take it for her to be on welfare.

My understanding is if the father is known welfare will go after him. I imagine there are always multiple fathers, unknown fathers, dead-beat and marginalized fathers...

Like getting blood from a stone, but go after them anyway.