If people stopped "working" the system, perhaps the people who honestly need a boost (be it welfare, food stamps, WIC, unemployment, disability, whatever) wouldn't get screwed.
As someone who manages a county child support office, who has worked in the child support system for 17 years and who often deals first hand with payers who have a similar philosphy, I have to disagree with you.
First of all, I think that parent's who use their child support for "shopping trips while the kids wear the same clothes for years" is a significant minority. If a child has a roof over their head, the electric bill is paid, and the child is fed and clothed they are being financially supported. How can kids possibly wear the same clothes for years? They outgrow them. I know; I have a 14 year old who I have purchased 4 pairs of tennis shoes so far this year, because he has outgrown each pair.
Most child support awards don't begin to cover the cost of raising children, and they shouldn't since it's the responsibility of both parents to support their children. It is the parent's combined contribution that is supposed to meet the child's needs. Parents who earn, or have the potential to earn, more money pay more in support than parents who earn less. The average amount of child support collected and sent to families in the state of MN was $2404 in SFY 2006. The national collection average in FFY 2005 was $1450 per case. I don't know a lot of custodial parents getting rich on that kind of money.
Secondly, instituting a system where child support money needs to be accounted for would lead to the worst form of government intrusion and it would cost a mint (not that this program doesn't already cost taxpayers a bundle) It would create huge backlogs for the courts, and force judicial officers to spend their time looking at checkbooks and receipts, and to make decisions on how parents should spend money on their child. "Let's see Ms. Smith, I note that you purchased Doritos during your shopping trip on October 1st. Are you aware that the government views Doritos as a non essential?" No thanks! There have been noncustodial parent groups in our state who have been trying for years, unsuccessfully, to push this philosphy into legislation in my state. The proposals haven't gone anywhere because the whole concept is a ridiculous slippery slope.
There is reason we have the concepts of "physical" and "legal" custody in this country, and those terms actually mean something. They determine who gets to make decisions on behalf of their child in a situation where the parents don't live together.
Gimme a break....
My mom worked her entire life, and worked awfully hard,making VERY good money as a CFO, until she became LEGALLY BLIND at age 50 from diabetes and began rec'vg SS payments, a couple years after that. The process is long and tedious and ate through any savings she had in the mean time, as well as racking up her credit card bills just to survive day to day until it FINALLY was approved.
Youre telling me, when she SAVED up money a little each month in order to go on a WDW trip with us, she was in the wrong? Its her money - she paid into it for 30 some-odd years!
I will never understand this 'holier than thou' attitude when it comes to Disney. Its not just for the rich and well-to-do. If my mom wanted to spend her whopping $1100/month on ice-cream, let her - its HER MONEY! SHE paid into it. Certainly a heckuva lot more then she was getting in return.
She passed away, due to diabetes complications in January of 2006 - so thankfully, for those of you so concerned, she wont be using YOUR money to fund her Disney trips.![]()
I completely agree! I had an ex-boyfriend who's mom was on the system for 25 years, when I knew here which was about 7 years ago, and I can assure you that she is still doing it. You want to hear about the horror stories? Well, she got pregnant with my ex, went on welfare, and continued to have 5 more kids. There was no reason why this woman couldn't work, other than the fact that she didn't want to. She was a perfectly healthy woman, her excuse was because of her kids. Ok, well that's what they make babysitters for. She had 7 brothers and sister, and both her parents and her kids grandparents were alive, so either set of grandparents would have watched them. She was also with both sets of fathers and they would deal drugs on the side. She was getting income, just not legally. She would lie about the fathers names on the birth certificates so they couldn't take them for childsupport. She is currently living with her 3rd boyfriend and had 2 more kids by him and is doing the same thing. The woman is now in her early 50's and still living off the system.
Do you know what would help the system? When a woman or teenager finds out she is pregnant, and lets just say the baby's father isn't around, or the mother won't give him up for childsupport because they are in fact living together, then they should tell them, yes, we will help you, we will give you money, wic, foodstamps and child care and if they are still of school age, they need to get their diploma or GED, or if they are out of school, do job training and placment, which they are all currently doing, BUT, they need to tell them that if they get pregnant again, that is the end of all the assitance. Accidents happen, teenagers do get pregnant, women are living with someone or dating someone and they find out they are pregnant and the fathers are scared, or can't deal and leave them or some go to jail for other crimes, then yes, help them. BUt there is no reason why women are sitting around having 3,4,5 or more kids and we just keep paying for them and welfare keeps giving them money. It is not like these people have an incurable diseas and can't work, they have made the conscience decision to go out, and have sex and not use protection time and time again and keep having babies. It is not right. I don't understand why the system won't do it this way, they are breeding laziness, and unfortunately, there are people out there who do find themselves in a bind, or sick or hurt and can't get welfare because they don't have kids.
Ok, now that I have gone completely off topic, I too don't know how the government would be able to tell how the money is being used whether for vacations or what not. The best thing would be is that at the end of the year, people on welfare have to show what they did with their money. I also think this should be done with people receive child support, don't get me started on that one. Also, honestly, if someone on welfare can afford to go on a vacation, then believe me they are taking advantage of the system and have some other means of income. the amount of welfare they give out does not cover all living expenses, clothes, transportation money and food. If they are going away, there is something wrong here.