The Benefits of the Government Forcing Men to Pay Child Support

Deadbeat parents, whether it be mothers or fathers, should be made to pay child support. Having the government enforce that is both good and bad. In my experience, if a custodial parent is receiving any kind of assistance from the state (food stamps or welfare), then the payment that the state receives goes to offset the benefits. For example, if you normally get $300 in welfare and the state receives a $200 payment from the noncustodial parent, you only get $100 and don’t see the money. But if the state doesn’t receive a payment, you get the full $300. How is that right for the child? The only time you actually get the money is if you are getting no assistance from the state. Also, there is no law that says the child support payment must be used for the child. (it is just implied). I have personally seen someone take her child support check and cash it for beer.

The way that many deadbeats get away from paying child support is by finding a job that pays cash under the table. Or by disappearing to somewhere that they can’t be found. Many states now put the deadbeat in jail if they get too far behind in support. I don’t see how that helps. If the person is in jail, the money that they receive in their “welfare” account at the jail should be taken and used for child support.

Speaking from experience, I don’t begrudge anyone having to pay child support. The government should take into account the type of job a person does, and how much they make. I do know that federal law allows for wages of up to 65% (after taxes) to be deducted for child support if the parent is not supporting a second family (even if that is not enough to cover the obligation), and no more than 55% if they are supporting a second family.

Some parents may work in a job where they get paid by the “piece” (i.e roofing), or that depends on the weather. The government tends to figure child support based on a minimum 40 hour workweek (even if the job doesn’t do fulltime) at minimum wage. I know one man who was supposed to pay $30 a week for his daughter, and was raising 2 in diapers. He was a roofer and it was a snowy week so there was very little work to do. He made $35 before deductions and brought home 13 cents. Should his younger children have their needs sacrificed for his older daughter? I don’t think so.

If the government is going to step in and enforce things like child support, then they need to take different things into account. Don’t just lump everyone into one group.

I commend those noncustodial parents out there who willingly pay their obligations.