Editor: In a comment in today’s Taxes and Child Support post, reader Alan B gives us a breakdown of of his own situation regarding child support and tax issues. Keep in mind while reading the following that Alan actually has legally recognized custody of one out the three children, so his tax burden and support is lower than would be typical in the situation. Nevertheless, his ex-wife receives not only a hefty monthly check (tax free) and a good deal of money toward expenses, but also receives thousands of dollars every year in tax credits, while he is left with less than half of his gross income. Although a high earner, after child support, expenses and taxes, Alan has a working-class disposable income. For many men, it is substantially worse.
All men considering marriage should read these accounts before stepping up the altar, so this comment definitely deserves its own post.
Alan B
if you want exact numbers, here ya go
i live in the NE.
i make just about 100k/yr
i pay medical insurance thru my job for all my kids and myself., invest a HUGE 3k/yr ( thats three thousand a YEAR on a 100 thousand a year salary)
my absolute musts are rent $2350 and commute to work $300. therefore i MUST have 2650 a month to have shelter and method of generating income. *note, im not counting food, cars, boats, girlfriends, gas, electric, soap, etc.
i have 3 children. my EX has custody of 2, and i have 1, all under the age of 18. she is re-married. her husband and her just filed jointly this year and they earned a total $11,980
i JUST got out of court last month, so the numbers are current.
for making 12k/yr and owning 2 of my children (25%) of MY takehome, my EX allows me to pay her $1976 per month AFTER TAXES. Her and her HUSBAND earn approx 6-7k in EIC because they make so little. child support is not claimed anywhere on anyone’s tax returns.., its invisible money.
so lets do HER math.
she (and hubby) earn 12k/yr, thats 1,000 a month. (hubby earns $$ off the books as well., but we wont count that.)
i pay all medical insurance, PLUS 92% (thats my share of the child care bills) of any co-pays or anything my ex wife says i have to pay.
i pay her 2k/mo for a total of 3k/mo AFTER TAXES (she and her husband dont pay taxes, they GET taxes)
thats 36k/yr TAKEHOME, plus the 6k EIC gift that daddy govt gives them.
my ex wife EARNS 42k/yr TAKE HOME PAY and she works a parttime job as does her husband.
My math. i earn just under $9000/mo GROSS (nice right? watch what happes)
without getting too detailed, my paycheck deductions are as follows (rounded) this is a paycheck, so multiply by 2 to get my monthly figures..
TOTAL $4455
-176, -61 -699 -228 -1.30 -988(c.s) -16 -10 -9 -43 -218(401k) -60 -133
all those are subtractions from my check, twice per month.
my final takehome pay is $1812 or $3624/month or $43,504 TAKEHOME per YEAR.
i leave my house at 7am and get home at 9pm (suburban commute)
i have the PRIVILEGE of keeping $43,504/yr for a 70/hr work week and her and her hubby get to pocket $42k/yr for holding part time jobs 2 blocks from home.
keep in mind, this all happens while *I* have custody of one of our three children.
again. recap…
DAD +1 Kid +70hr workweek = 44k/yr takehome pay
Mom +2Kids+New Hubby+40hr workweek(total for both) = 42k/yr takehome pay
BUT, if my kids want to sleep over (if i ever see them, they are teens, they have FRIENDS), i must maintain a 3 bedroom(at the minimum) apt/home, so that they have a place to sleep.
Now this is the kicker.. ready…
I was not “RAILROADED” in court. the judge followed the guidelines to a T, my ex doesnt harass me, the judge wasnt malicious.
This was STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. it was a given. a normal day, no big fuckin deal. Thats the part alot of guys dont get.
You think family court is this big production and you have a chance to defend yourself, or at least say SOMETHING… NOPE.. not a chance. this is just how things are. its not looked at as , “YEA, Lets bend this guy over and take his shit.”
Its merely looked at as, “Hey, its your responsibility, like paying any other bill. get in line, dont complain, you’ll get ur turn to open ur wallet”
So lets re-cap yes.
I make 100k. Without any evil, malicious intent, just me paying my CS debt, i must pay close to $24,000 a year in CASH, AFTER TAXES to my ex.
After all deductions and what not i am in the %18 tax bracket or there-around, which i’ll call $15,000/yr
I work 70 hours, i make 100k
i pay the EX 36k
i pay the govt 15k
i KEEP 49k (thats HALF of my GROSS)
So my point is this…Guys… imagine if i got FUCKED in court. Imagine if the judge was having a bad day, or my ex pulled the rape/abuse/victim card, or i looked like an evil gang-member (or a wall-street tycoon, no diff really). What if i had to pay alimony on top of that?? Imagine if they REALLY STUCK IT TO ME. how bad would it be? 30k/yr 35k ?? That’s the roulette game you play with the courts.
btw, this is not a complaint. This is a breakdown of what my payments are so some can get a real-world idea of the numbers.
i pay my CS, it sucks, but yes, i make enough so that i can survive (cant LIVE on $1000 a month in the NE, but i cant make 100k/yr anywhere else). Guys, what if i was Joe Average and made only $50,000 a year and still lived where i lived? how bad would it be for me and my son then?
My brothers.. NEVER MARRY.. EVER (unless she’s the heiress, and you’re the pauper, then make sure there’s no prenup.. jeez i sound like a woman).
if you must start a family, THINK about it till you’re at LEAST 35, then think about it for 7 more years.
If you dont want to be one of them OLD dads that has no energy for your kids, DONT WORRY, your wife will divorce you looong before that happens. and you will spend all your time working to pay for HER nails, hair, shoes, boobs, lovers… um i mean her kids.. yea..
{ 125 comments… read them below or add one }
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
22 
56
Forwarded this to my son. Every man out there find a young man and force his face into the screen.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
2
There is only one ground which can found a Petition for Divorce and that is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Government in its care and concern for its Citizens now allows unhappy marriages to be ended and in the Prayer (doubtless approved somewhere in Magna Carta) one seeks a Decree Nisi, and Alimony, and A Transfer of Property and Child Support. How can anyone claim that this is not entirely fair and proper?
How, the more philosophically minded of you, may wonder does one demonstrate that a marriage has irretrievably as opposed to only temporarily broken down? Usually by pleading the unreasonable behaviour of the Respondent. You may ask further what the connection between irretrievability and behaviour is. Do not ask. You may also ask exactly what sort of behaviour is unreasonable. The answer is ‘anything’ that the Petitioner deems unreasonable – now that is surely reasonable.
You may also wonder what justification there is for granting custody to the mother. The answer is, the best interests of the children. It is not proper to point out that refusing a divorce and attempting to make the Petitioner fulfill the Vows she made, usually in the sight of God, would be in the better interests of the children. All else follows. Long live Chivalry, and proof that this is a good system is that only today I learn that after paying a mere forty three million pounds to his last unhappy wife Sir Paul McCartney is once again to wed. Let’s drink to the future happy couple.
Like or Dislike:
13 
6
I’m lucky in that I see my child more than the average Washing state visitation schedule allows, (Every Tues, Thurs, plus every other Fri, Sat and Sun) so I have my daughter about 35 – 40% of the time but I had to go to court during the divorce proceedings and spent about $35K to have the extra visitation time. It shouldn’t have to cost tens of thousands of dollars extra just to see your own kid.
I make $50K a year with my tiny manufacturing company. Ex-wife makes $45 K working for a school district. She gets great medical/dental/retirement benefits which are NOT figured into the child support work sheets, while I get NONE of those benefits. I must pay $858 a month and do 100% of the driving back and forth for visitation. (To have the $858 after taxes I must make about $1,200 before taxes and my fuel bill is at least a couple hundred dollars a month.)
As so many other fathers have noted, little of my child support seems to benefit my daughter. Other than paying for my child’s medical insurance, my ex-wife hardly spends a dime on her – doubt if she’s bought more than one pair of shoes for my daughter in the last fifteen years. I end up buying my daughter’s clothing, half of her food, paying for her dance and horse riding lessons, etc. I’m the one who takes her to the doctors, the dentist, sports and band events 90% of the time.
Yet the child support guidelines allow no credit or lowering of child support for being active with his own child, while demanding no accountability from the mother.
My attorney says that the judges won’t even consider changing anything from standard guidelines unless the male has the kids more than 50%, and of course my ex-wife makes sure to keep my visitation time below that level.
Bottom line, she has two houses, enjoys expensive skiing vacations with her new boyfriend, while I raise our child and pay TWICE.
As Alan B. recommends, DO NOT GET MARRIED and DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN until some fairness is restored to the divorce and child support laws.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
72 
0
Give your ex wife money or go to jail.
Land of the free.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
69 
0
This and Keyster’s comment on the previous thread tell about half the story :
“Keyster May 6, 2011 at 07:08
Just go to any apartment complex pool on the weekends and that’s where you’ll see the evidence of how rampant single dads are…..”
After all this the mandatory sexual harassment and diversity sessions you will endure at your corporate job become especially insufferable.
Then they will announce a “census reduction”. The brother-in-law of your supervisor does not get laid off. The husband of the HR lady does not get laid off. The clueless wife of a manager does not get laid off.
You get laid off.
But you will of course, keep those checks coming.
For my story, like Alan, my ex was not too bad about it. If you have a battle over this you are truly screwed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
0
Alright:
True Story : worse case I ever did.
I have the man. He marries a women with three or four young children. Shortly after the wedding ceremony they fall out and she goes off. An hour later she returns; they make up and consumate the marriage. That evening she goes off again, never to return. Her previous husband had no assets and did not work. My man is therefore entirely responsible for the support of this woman and her children. I have no idea how it eventually ended. For all I know he is still paying for her.
The real problem, as I alluded to above, is that Divorce is a rich man’s game being played out by the poor and the ‘middling sort’. Apart from the emotional and social problems, the poor and ‘middling sort’ do not have the money to play this game. The government is in the process of encouraging poverty and social breakdown, whilst pretending otherwise and treating men as indentured slaves, who may never buy their freedom.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
0
It is called exile gents. Live it , love it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
48
Alan B., This article mentions some guys that can help you: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/attorneys_for_vinny_gorgeous_aim_XGKbL6CCfqdXIwDorQPfqMd
In fact, I imagine that if you ask nicely or perhaps pay a little extra, they might even let you have a picture of her body before they lower it into the water in an “Islamic burial.”
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I was devastated when my wife ran off, but I decided that enough was enough; it was me that pushed the divorce through (marriage to divorce was ~ 2.5 years).
Over ten years later, this morning in the shower, it occurred to me what my life would have been like now: mentally unstable wife (no longer attractive), emotional, not very intelligent, mother in law even more so, father in law probably dead by now (overworked for too big a house), kids (taking after mumsy?)
my ex did me the best favour ever when she ran off.
I considered the divorce payment (4 figures, low) as payment for “services” rendered. Even that she blew on trading in a 12 month old car for a new one.
god knows what lies she’s tod since and what the next sucker has been taken for.
DO NOT GET MARRIED – I had a terrible time, and I was a “lucky one”
Wimminz be crazy and amoral
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
0
The link in my comment above doesn’t work. Anyway, its an article from today’s New York Post about some hit-men.
Some work surprisingly cheaply, so I’m told.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
As the OP stresses, THIS IS WHEN YOU GET IT GOOD…..
When you get the shit end of a stick and your ex makes false accusations of domestic violence / child abuse / rape against you, count yourself fucking lucky if you walk away with your liberty and an old car to sleep in, oh, and a bunch of debts, oh, and a “was arrested on suspicion of rape” tacked onto your record for any potential future employer to search….
Also, actual marriage is not required, actual cohabitation is not required, you can be living in a separate house, and just shagging the bitch, if she gets pregnant she has you by the fucking balls, and trust me guys, these cunts like to squeeze, just to see that look on your face.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
2
After your next “interview” with an HR lady you will realize that all middle-aged women hate you. You can see the seething venom behind her stiff, professional facade.
You will however, start the slow evolution to recovery.
You will need : 1) a pair of gabardine slacks 2) a copy of “How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35″ by R.Don Steele.
Seriously, I should have taken the handle “Unemployed Elmer” instead of “Uncle Elmer”. But I found the truth about finding work for the older guy. More to come.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
0
@ Opus
I believe that calling us indentured servants is a little dramatic. We are like tenant farmers. According to my son’s history book that makes us better than slaves, but barely, kind of like poor whites in the South after reconstruction. We are given Jim Crow like laws that make us feel better than some so we will not see the depravity of our condition.
Even slaves had families. Men in the west today are less. There is currently no name for what is happening to men in the West.
We work jobs to buy things for women who are never satisfied knowing that her gun is always to our head the bullet being family court and the judge doesn’t judge, feminist guidlines are judge and jury.
The Judge in family court is the executioner who makes sure the sentence is carried out.
Should we fail to be able to work, it’s off to the poor house for us…oh yeah, no more poor houses, so off to prison.
As our women don’t care to and haven’t learned parenting for 3 generations we can’t allow that. So, you do what you have to do for your kids.
Men are like that, that’s why I’m here.
Feminists wear their disdain for children like a badge of honor. It’s disgusting.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
0
I am a 47 year old male, and I don’t have any kids. I got a vasectomy many years ago. I really don’t understand why more men don’t do what I did.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
3
if you must start a family, THINK about it till you’re at LEAST 35, then think about it for 7 more years.
Thank you, Alan. I turn 42 this year, and have never been married…but I probably will never marry anyway. Your story only confirms that I’m not crazy after all. After all of your hard work, all of your effort, in the end the state has “equalized” you to a working class shlub.
Better to stay single and save up for the Philippines in retirement.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
0
“Gendeau
I was devastated when my wife ran off, but I decided that enough was enough; it was me that pushed the divorce through (marriage to divorce was ~ 2.5 years).”
When your wife runs off with another man. The best revenge is to let him keep her.
I actually knew a guy that went through the very same but, him and a mate tracked them down to the house they had been hiding in. Knocked on the door and was answered very sheepishly by the guy and his soon to be ex wife. Now, according to his mate, he lent forward shook the guys hand and said thanks, walked back to the car and took all her remaining shit and dumped it in the front garden. By all accounts, very true.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
0
@ USN my V is done, but shhh…. great way to spot a scam artist.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
I’m in Texas
Recognizing the wealth transferring and wealth-destroying machinery that CS and Alimony really are my parents did the following before I married my first wife and child.
1. Setup a Revocable Living Trust
2. The trust owns all the interest and property of the various businesses “I work for”
3. My employer made me sign a bias, geographical restrictive, long-term non-compete contract with severe penalties
4. In 2010 my employer ONLY paid me $13,570 last year and will pay me $13,710 for 2011 (coincidentally it’s exactly $1k below the federal poverty guideline and has been that way since working for them)
5. While under their employ and “only for me” will they avail its property, cars and “petty cash”
Because the “perks and benefits” made for a very comfortable upper middle class lifestyle, my wife expected those “perks and benefits” to be included during the divorce-theft action she initiated (after needing to find herself and connecting via FB with an ex).
To her complete shock and utter dismay, not only was she not getting access to the “perks and benefits” she’d only get $187 month child support because I made so little money.
I’ve remarried and divorced but have custody of my second son and she used to constantly try to get her CS increased but since I make below the FEDERAL poverty guidelines for a family of two there won’t be an increase and in fact before each court date I have to get on food stamps* to make up for the lost time I spend working on my legal defense that I’m not working as much.
*FYI – you can’t get an increase in your CS or go to jail if you’re receiving food stamps.
She’s gotten the message now and her son is near 18 and her own marriage in the crapper but before her realization she’d make “anonymous” calls to CPS and initiated all kind of action to cause me harm that had zero effect on our lifestyle and quality of life.
Knowing that an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. The “reality on the ground” is the laws and society are stacked against men first – fathers second so live according and fight back. Consult with a competent legal counsel and protect yourself, your children and your labors.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
0
“oddsock”
I don’t _think_ she ran off with someone originally, I think that she just wanted to get the upper hand emotionally (worked GREAT for mummy). I was supposed to beg her back (as a beta) on her terms (I think). I went for option B and mentioned divorce – shock of her life. She then had something of a breakdown, or at least went rather weird for a while. Last I heard she was doing okay (a LONG time ago).
In my defence I had told her way before we were married, “don’t be like your mother, because I am not like your (pussy whipped, down-trodden) father”. I guess she didn’t believe me, or thought she would change me.
Roissy (ten years later) would classify her as an ‘eternal ingenue’. That’s why I belive that all men should understand Game (or at least read Roissy), it is NOT about getting sex, it is about understanding how (most) women work / think / emote. Game means that you will probably never look at women in the same way again, but at least you can understand them more, or at least deal with them. Women are NOT just men with ‘innies’, they are far more strange than that.
“Libor Plus Two ”
Your parents sound horrible – any other jobs going there?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
Paul McCartney is getting married again. Clearly he doesn’t care about himself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13317080
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
One of the best things about having no parasite in my life is that I get to retire. Look at this:
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/retire-at-age-66-or-wait-one-more-year.aspx?ec_id=m1078090
Looks like retirement rules are also set up to benefit women. According to this finiancial analyst it is actually no benefit to continue working past retirement age….wait for it, wait for it….unless your married. Then cupcake can have more to spend on Oliver the Old when you are pushing up daisies.
Way to structure the benefit system ladies.
So when you want to retire and your wife says keep working now you know what she’s thinking.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
Libor Plus Two-
Well played, sir.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
SMH – is he still ‘too much in love’ to worry about a pre-nup?
I see John Cleese (Monty Python) is doing his divorce tour comedy show (he ain’t happy). If he can get so screwed, what hope for the rest of us?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6257906/John-Cleese-divorce-tour-the-first-review.html
(also a review on BBC somewhere)
“I’m here, my friends, because frankly I need the money,” he told a sell-out audience at Oslo’s 1,500 seater Konserthus, on Friday night. “I’ve fallen on hard times. I’m having to pay $20 million to a woman who I believe is the special love child of Bernie Madoff and Heather Mills.”
With his third and latest marriage now like the Norwegian Blue parrot – dead, expired, ceased to be, an ex-marriage – he found himself stung by a Californian court for £12 million. Not only did he have to shell out an £8 million lump sum, followed by £612,000 a year for the next seven years, but he also had to hand Miss Eichelberger his London home, leaving him, as the four Yorkshiremen might have said, with just £10 million to rub together.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
Gendeau
I don’t think you need game to understand women. Just read up anything on Bi polar disorder munchausen syndrome by proxy and narcissistic personality disorder. Its all there in black and white.
The trick is, how to protect yourself. All women have the above characteristics. Ever noticed how no matter what divorced guy you chat with his wife behaved the same way and/or done the same shit as yours/ours/mine? It’s the Borg mentality mate.
As a Buddhist, I have a theory, we have all been married to the same woman but in previous lives lol.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
“Telling men not to marry is not a long term solution whatsoever, and biology won’t permit it.”
AntiPCThought, I suspect you’re more correct on this than you think. The genes of guys such as myself who have the ability to do without are, by implication, being bred out: the next generation are the kids of guys who were less able to resist and to the extent that that inability is heritable, so each subsequent generation of guys will find resisting harder and harder.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
3
You walk into the office of the new prospect. The young admin chick looks approvingly at your gabardines and polished shoes, her boyfriend waiting in the lobby in his cargo pants, t-shirt, and filthy scuffed sneakers.
The “Office Manager” snarls as she hands you a clipboard with a job application form to put you in subservient mode.
“I’m not applying for a job” you tell her.
She is momentarily stunned by your insolence.”We require everyone to fill out an application!” The admin chicks outside her visual range are taking it all in.
“OK, I’ll fill it out and give it to you when I leave” you say pleasantly, convincingly.
The prospect comes out and you have a good discussion. Nothing concrete yet but good salesmanship on your part. You drop some industry insight and intel which he enjoys hearing. Plus a few small goofs you will not make next time. You get the tour. Programmers in carefully appointed cubes are looking non-plussed. You notice but don’t stare at the viet assembly chicks.
When you leave you toss the form in the trash.
In the parking lot you witness a guy who didn’t make the first layoff at your old company getting into the minivan with his angry, obese wife.
A few days later you touch down in Ton San Nhut.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
5
Marriage is worse than prostitution because when it falls apart a man has to pay for a woman he doesn’t want anymore.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
0
“duke
Marriage is worse than prostitution because when it falls apart a man has to pay for a woman he doesn’t want anymore.”
Hence the saying. You dont pay a prostitute to stay, you pay her to leave.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
0
Oddsock
I may have to look into Buddhism as there is a clear ring of truth to your theory that “we have all been married to the same woman but in previous lives”.
I reckon that each time it’ll get harder for her, as each time she’s older (so he will be too); she’s a little less cute (she was), no smarter (oops) and older means that he’s less gullible (than I was – pre Roissy, Spearhead, PMAFT and MRA in general)
I still love the film “As good as it gets”, when Jack Nicholson is asked how he writes his books’ female characters so authentically, he answers (something like) “I write it as a man, then remove reason and responsibility”
He doesn’t mention morality, but perhaps he just thinks that it’s snappier that way…?
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
How does the old joke go? Marriage is like a prison, except your obese cellmate doesn’t want to have sex with you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
0
@Newfoundman
“Glad you didn’t get ripped, Alan.
Just a generic question though – someone has to support those kids, right? What would be a fair way to support them post-divorce? Demonstrate your earning potential and just take possession of all of them?
I’m not being sarcastic here, I just want to know what is fair for men AND what is fair for kids. Once you bring a life into the world, you’re stuck with little John or Jane, for better or worse. And there’s NO escaping that, unlike an already existing marriage.”
—————–
SomeONE doesnt have to support those kids… someTWO have to support them.
One of the reason i wrote that “this isnt a complaint and just a breakdown”, is that i’m not complaining about the concept of childsupport or the payment thereof.
I wanted to give people a real world breakdown of someone who for all intensive purposes is considered “RICH” to 50% of the population of where the $$ goes.
My other point was to simply show that there is zero effort required on the part of the soon to be custodial parent to acquire said funds.
As for what is fair.. well my friend.. fairness like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. but if i had to name some things off the top of my head.
1. probably the BIGGEST is accounting.
quite simply. there must be a twice a year accounting of the the child’s TRUE needs and support requirements. in that accounting, the CP(mother) needs to show how she supports herself, her children from each marriage, and if there are any other people living in the house and their financial arrangements. kinda like what we do for the IRS.
With this accounting, support can slide up and down. Your kid is taking dancing lessons? put it in the budget and split the costs. Lessons are over for the year? budget it out. Common sense wins. if the “couple” is making 25k/yr, its probably obvious that the kid NEVER would have gotten dancing lessons (by me, dance costs $180 a month)
2. You mentioned something about demonstrating your earning potential and taking them all.
You DO realize that the current state of ALL family court proceedings that involve $$ is about always about demonstrating your LACK of earning potential so you can TAKE EVERYTHING, not just the kids.
So perhaps, YES, the person that EARNS the most $$ (legally) should probably get preference in physical custody of the children.
This may perhaps give the lower wage earner some incentive & time to go get some training, education, career experience, or marry someone with more cash than they have.
The children will be with someone that is WORKING full time or at least a higher earner, the $$$ that would have been paid in child support can go to a QUALIFIED, VETTED, Child Care Agent. (read social worker). Kinda like an au pair. The children get a sense of a good work ethic seeing *dad* going off to work or making his millions by being an entrepreneur. Kids might even wind up doing better in school, since they get an example of a positive work ethic and NOT playing the victim role for everything.
If you want to complain that the kids will never see their custodial parent(dad), because he(she) is always working… well.. hows about all them STRONG SINGLE PARENTS(moms) doing it on their own, raising 4 kids from 6 daddies, AND a full time job, and she thinks she looks glamorous while getting it all done and having it all. If they are allowed to never be around, then why not dad?
As it is now, i will estimate (fact again!)MOST kids in broken homes RARELY get to see the NCP*dad* so whats the difference?? mom dad, male female, all sexes are equal, yes? so who cares if junior sees mom or dad, or either or? psst.. parents are supposed to care.
3. The govt has all sorts of rules of what poverty is, how much a family needs to live, etc. So if a family of 4 is supposed to be able to survive on $25k/yr in any state, why does any child warrant anything more a couple of hundred bucks a month from ONE PARTY?
i know, diapers, formula, cell phones, parties, they ALL cost more than $300 a month, but why is that the responsibility of just ONE parent? if i am paying $300 a month for 1 child, should not the custodial parent be paying exactly the same? Why the sliding scale?
Let me pose a hypothetical (and this whole post is off the top of my head.. i write like i pee, in streams.. i dont think about it, it just comes out)
What if family court usually “rewarded” the person with the greater earnings potential the children, what would be the incentive for someone to have many children that they couldn’t afford?
How many middle class “baby mommas” do you think we would see out there? i’m going to estimate (fact again!) that there would be exactly 79% less!
Imagine that, a 79% drop in fatherless children simply by making the support guidelines EQUITABLE. you heard that fact here first people! 79% go tell oprah to quote it!
There is no easy solution. but as long as the people making the rules (govt) can be bought (lobbying/votes) things can never be fair.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
0
“Libor Plus Two-
Well played, sir.”
Motion seconded. I’d be very interested to hear more about the ins and outs of how you managed this, Libor Plus Two. I can see that given the “only for me” stipulation of the contract the Court might not be able to award those specific benefits to your ex, but I’m surprised they didn’t consider them as benefits in kind and thus part of your overall income.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
@ Alan
Nicely said. This would be a start. But good luck…the Union of the Feminist Imperialist Nation of America will shreik and wilt at the mere mention of accoutablity.
I didn’t miss my attention that you and your lousy non-working parasite and her current mate are now making nearly identicle income that you are.
Do you think this is by accident. I know you don’t.
This is back door socialism. The direct result of Tyranny of the Majority. It is a very sharply slooped slide to out right dictatorship. This is what the fem’s want. For me, frankly Scarlet, I stopped giving a damn a long time ago.
I will finish our my work when I’m 55, at that time my son will be in college and off to travel for me.
Let my classmates in HS daughters, who are taking all the spots from boys in college, pay my retirement while I lounge with hotties on the beach in some tropical foreign spot. I have been planning it for years.
When you get a lemon, make lemonade. Men are very creative. That’s why middle aged women hate us…lol.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
Alan B
I think that you’ll find that if the funding for single mothers dried up, there would be a damn sight fewer single mothers.
oops pregnancies without automatic support? I’m sure that more care would be taken by women.
divorce settlements that didn’t provide a lifestyle for single mums? oh, look how much more responsible and committed wives are.
Big Brother aka guvmint is offering great terms for single moms, can you really not see a link?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
Sorry Alan B – too late, too much alcofrol
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
No matter how bad this is, there are things you can do.
If you are not taking a few hours to post flyers in high-visibility locations, you are not doing your duty to inform other men, and have no right to say ‘I wish someone told me this beforehand.’
Here is a way to get high impact from flyers :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2011/01/the-time-has-arrived.html
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
He never learns lol
Music legend Paul McCartney has reportedly asked girlfriend Nancy Shevell to be his wife.
The former Beatle popped the question to his partner of four years, who is a Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member, according to People.
“Nancy and Paul are getting married,” a source told the celebrity magazine.
“They have the right chemistry. They’re both cool, chilled out and optimistic.”
Businesswoman Shevell, 51, who has an apartment on the upper East Side, started dating the 68-year-old in 2007.
They were first spotted hanging out together in the Hamptons, where they both have homes, and have since become a permanent fixture in each other’s lives.
On Monday, the pair attended a gala at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
This will be McCartney’s third marriage and Shevell’s second.
He first tied the knot in 1969 with Linda McCartney, who died of breast cancer in 1998.
His second marriage to Heather Mills ended after six years in a bitter, messy divorce in 2008.
Shevell divorced her lawyer husband Bruce Blakeman in 2009.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
If you are not taking a few hours to post flyers in high-visibility locations, you are not doing your duty to inform other men, and have no right to say ‘I wish someone told me this beforehand.’
You know, a guy could probably get 10 times the traction simply spending 2 minutes spamming porno forums with a link.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
So it appears that if she inherits her dads entire business Nancy Shevell’s net worth would be about 500 mill dollars:
http://www.nemf.com/companyHistory.html
Not too shabby Paul, at least a better choice than last time.
So how does a divorced 50 something grandma wannabe move up?
That’s right, marry Paul McCarney, net worth, 1.5 billion:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/11/paul_mccartney_gets_everyones.html
I know it’s tacky to say but wtf, any takers on the divorce settlement? The one legged one got 50 mill, IMO he’s about to lose 1 billion dollars of his childrens money for post menopausal p@ssy.
I suppose the kids will be alright. If it goes down he’ll be wishing it were Yesterday alright.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
30
@Newfoundman
“What would be a fair way to support them post-divorce? Demonstrate your earning potential and just take possession of all of them?
I’m not being sarcastic here, I just want to know what is fair for men AND what is fair for kids. ”
To begin with the “best interest factors” need to go, replaced by legislation mandating equal parenting time, unless it can be proven (not just allegations) that one parent is unfit. This alone would radically reduce child support payments, eliminating incentive on the woman’s part for initiating divorce, and maximizing time the child spends with each parent.
Of course this means less money flowing through the state coffers and thus diminished federal matching funds. Legislators won’t go for that. It would also mean a reduction in litigation and attorney fees. State Bar Associations won’t go for that. Finally, it would mean diminished power for women over their abusive, controlling, patriarchal ex-husbands – and that women would actually have to support themselves. NOW definitely won’t go for that.
A bit more radical would be to end no-fault divorce for couples with children under 18. Most Americans won’t go for that.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
It’s always Hypergamy (except when it’s Eat Pray Love i.e. Holiday Romance).
John Cleese married a woman who when he met her was living in a Council Flat. The Next Lady McCartney is only worth five hundred million. Both moved up or are moving up. I propose rather than a marriage strike, that men refuse to marry any woman who is not say three times better off. Watch the Ladies squeal!
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
OT. Guys? Come join in the fun!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M5u6ES7BBo
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Gendeau May 6, 2011 at 12:58
“DO NOT GET MARRIED I had a terrible time, and I was a “lucky one”
Wimminz be crazy and amoral”
Gendereau. The point most people miss with me is that I was esctatic when my then wife took one of the ‘divorce options’. It meant that I was ‘off the hook’ to pay for her fat arse for the remainder of her life. She was so horrible in that phone call that there was no way I could love her into the future. I was just short of 44. I am at my MAXIMUM earning capacity and will be until I die most likely. I was astonished my wife was so stupid as to choose a divorce option over ‘be honest, confess your sins, make remedy, make oath never to do this shit again’. The stupidity of the woman was beyond belief. Sure. I was REAL upset about my former children. But dis-owning them also eliminated the problem of needing to deal with them or be responsible for them. That was a very hard experience. This is why I say to young men. Don’t bother with children. They are NOT worth the effort. I had 4 of them and I can categorically state children are not worth the effort.
This is what a woman who is stupid beyond all belief looks like. Link below. Yes. They are crazy and amoral. And not until women have formed courts and given every man that one of their number has committed a crime against a decent remedy can they be called anything else.
I wrote this today. It’s worth the click. It is my open letter to women in general.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/80/threadid/347/scope/posts/Default.aspx
This is what an amoral lying criminal looks like.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/3/postid/268/scope/posts/Default.aspx#268
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
As was said in response to an earlier article, it seems like a lot of guys have only eaten a third of the red pill.
I see guys saying we need to fix family court or even abolish it. I see one guy asking what would be fair…
How about there’s not enough fixing to fix the fucked up mess of Western Civilisation. And, while we’re at it, fuck fairness.
Our way of doing things in the Americas and Europe need to change. Drastically.
Because if they don’t we’ll just get more of the same old shit.
Do you think that signing some petition is gonna fix these kind of problems?
How about voting for the next politician who claims he’s going your way?
The first third of that little red pill is pretty bitter, isn’t it? Just wait ’til you taste the rest.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
SingleDad May 6, 2011 at 14:15
Retirement? The biggest scam of the lot is the ‘old aged pension’. Income taxes are voluntary. If you did not pay income taxes would you ‘retire’ at 65 onto a meagre pension?
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Sean May 6, 2011 at 16:53
The first third of that little red pill is pretty bitter, isn’t it? Just wait ’til you taste the rest.
At last…a man who knows WTF is going on. Nice to see!
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Sean
Hear hear. Well said.
No matter what we do we are fecked either way. This is why I do not go along with views or attempts suggested by so many well meaning guys to try and ” fix” things. Even if we did manage to change a few things in our favour, we would still have the shitty end of the stick. I compare it to arguing for improved prison conditions. The manginas women and the useful feminist idiots do not and never will give a flying feck about men or boys. Men need to learn to be just as selfish and forget the white knight BS we have been programmed with.
A major reset is what is needed and I believe it is on it’s way regardless.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
OT but hysterical. I just put the coment below here. Cmon guys…let’s do a little bit of ‘education’ where lots of young men read.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbzmw3d11Pg
“Would Judas describe our western women? After all they have claimed ‘equality’ for 40 years but these are still the facts.
War dead 98% men
Workplace dead 93% men
Incarcerated 90% men
Homeless 90% men
Alimony payers 99% men
Child support payers 99% men.
Who would be stupid enough to get married nowadays?”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
@Alan B – thanks for laying out the financial impact with exact numbers. Even if one young man wakes up, it is worth it, but sometimes I wonder. Youth may be wasted on the young but intelligence sure isn’t. (Sorry guys – old fart spewing here.
) I know one young guy who decided to get married because he wanted a child. So who does he pick? A divorcee with a few kids – who did not get and did not want custody. What an idiot! That’s who you want as the mother of your child?!?!?! Of course, she turned out to be a shrew-bitch after the wedding was sealed. What a dope.
The following steps would solve these problems. Of course, they ain’t happening, but, as Sean indicated, voting, signing petitions, etc. won’t change anything either. Societal decline and collapse will be the only catalyst for change.
1. Abolish no-fault divorce.
2. Father gets default custody unless fault established with the father, in which case mother gets custody WITH strict accounting of how the child support is benefiting the child.
3. Default no alimony for the wife unless fault established with the husband.
4. Where a job can be done by both men and women:
* Married men by default get first place preference for job opening.
* Single men get second place preference.
* Women get last place preference.
There’s more , but that’s a start. Don’t worry. Although politicians won’t enact this now, as things collapse, we’ll be going back to this by default, whether the politicians do something or not.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
I’m currently harboring a fugitive from justice. Let me explain.
I rent a place I own dirt cheap to a friend of a friend in need. He has no job or bank account, barely subsisting from “under the table” work and a small disability check.
Several years ago he married a woman with a severely disabled child. Not long after, she lost her job and the health insurance benefits along with it. This guy decided to “man-up”, do the right thing and legally adopt the disabled child, so it would be covered under his health insurance.
Not long after he’s hurt on the job and can no longer work. Wife files for divorce AND child support to the tune of $1200 a month, AND GETS IT. His disability check is $1500 a month leaving him with $300 to live on. He had no choice but to flee and run from the law. He moves around alot as she is persistent in chasing him down.
Horror stories?
I got got plenty.
The stories of fathers won’t be on DatelineNBC or 20/20. Nobody knows it’s as bad as it is out there, but based on just my family and friends, it is.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
0
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) May 6, 2011 at 17:28
“OT but hysterical.”
PAN – you are one very optimistic man. I don’t think your comment will wake up any young men who listen to that crappy, pathetic creature. Maybe hitting them on the head with a hammer would work – just maybe.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Carnivore May 6, 2011 at 17:33
In the book is a ‘marriage agreement’. This agreement waives the ‘guvment’ as a party and institutes an ‘Arbitration Panel’ to dissolve marriage in the event of a dispute the couple can not resolve. All terms and conditions are placed into the agreement before marriage. The Arbitration Panel has sole authority to dispnse proceeds of the marriage according to the marriage agreement should the parties not be able to agree.
All that is needed is both parties to sign this common law marriage agreement that is superior to anything a ‘guvment’ can produce.
Personally? I think no man should marry. It’s a mugs game. I can say that from the other side of an 18 year marriage having raised 4 children. A man would have to be brain dead to marry in the oppressive western world now.
Women wanted liberation? Give it to them.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
Carnivore May 6, 2011 at 17:43
PAN….you are one very optimistic man. Maybe hitting them on the head with a hammer would work….just maybe.
I am optimistic of young men. One young man I met here has gone on to ‘wake up’ 18 more in just a year. I’ve now had about 40 or 50 young men write to me directly to thank me for sharing the story of how badly I was done over in divorce (5% vs 95%) and to thank me for putting the evidence out there that is not refutable. Of course it is only the later ones that have seen the evidence. I have had one young man call off an engagement after spending a month emailing with him and pointing out some of the facts of life about his fiancee.
I was in an ‘american bar’ here in germany on Tuesday night watching Real play Barca. The young man next to us turned out to be 25 and keen on ‘finding the right woman’. I spent a good half hour beating into him how there were NO right women any more. I gave him my name. My web site. And told him to ‘look it up for himself’. He flatly refused to believe 5% vs 95%. I told him to his face “Son, you and I just watched a football game in a bar. I do not know you. I will likely never see you again. You think I am spending my time telling you what a scam marriage is for MY benefit? I could just drink with my mate and get drunk and ignore you. I am telling you this for YOUR benefit. I am doing you a favour. Now? If you don’t listen? Who’s problem is that?”
I will tell every young men who comes near me in these bars and places similar that marriage is a complete lie. A complete scam. And I will tell him about 5% vs 95% and how (virtually) ALL WESTERN WOMEN support that outcome.
I can assure you Carnivore. I am making an impact. All that needs to happen is for 1,000 more men to do the same. Then 10,000. Then 100,000. Then 1M. if men would stop being so apathetic they would make a real difference.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
“A major reset is what is needed and I believe it is on it’s way regardless.”
I agree with that, old chap.
We have to take all necessary precautions to avoid damages as much as possible. When things will get sour, women will desperately try to hang on to anything that floats: they will drown their hosts just to stay alive.
The collapse is not going to make women better, be warned.
They will be in survival mode, too.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
Sean:”How about voting for the next politician who claims he’s going your way?”
Men should quit voting altogether.
The two parties would be about evenly split. The first party that wins men’s votes wins the elections. What will they do to acquire power?
Ans: They will cater to men’s desires, like they did to win women’s votes.
Men can utilize the same weapons women use.
If men quit voting altogether, then they represent a huge voting pool, a huge untapped energy.
It’s easier said that done, but that’s where power resides. And that’s exactly where women acquired all their power from.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
@Rebel
“When things will get sour, women will desperately try to hang on to anything that floats: they will drown their hosts just to stay alive.
The collapse is not going to make women better, be warned. ”
I’m surprised, Rebel – do you really think so? My guess would be that once the government do-nothing/produce-nothing jobs fold and women are thrown out in the street, they will suddenly forget all about feminism and will be more than willing to please a man if he can help her survive. I’m thinking of all those strong, independent, go-grrlll, feminist women who immediately hid behind the men for protection in the New Orleans superdome after Katrina.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
“How about saying something worth hearing, like ABOLISH FAMILY COURT? Simple messages like that would go a long way in waking the sheep up…what men do NOT need is family courts telling them what to do when their marriages break down. It’s fascist and is not needed in any sane society.”
The problem is not the existence of family courts, or their equivalent, but the content of the law that supposedly governs them, and, even more so, the actual practice of those courts. Despite what many say, marriage is in fact a human-made institution. It does not flow from God. From a Western, Christian perspective, marriage was not even made a “sacrament” until the Counter Reformation. Most couples, that is to say those without landed property, did not marry throughout the greater part of the Christian era. Early Christianity was much, much more slanted towards an otherwordly, celibacy promoting, all sexuality is bad POV than it was towards promoting marriage and procreation. And marriage as a legal institution existed long before Christianity even appeared.
Marriage is about societal approval of sexual relations, providing a means by which fathers know who their kids are, thereby inducing them to help contribute to their upbringing, and about property and inheritance rights. Marriage is a legal state. Marriage is a contract, a contractual partnership. As with any contractual partnership, when one party to it wishes its dissolution, and the parties can’t agree on how to divide the debts, assets, etc., it is very much the proper role of the law, through the courts, to provide for equitable terms of dissolution. There is nothing remotesly “fascist” or insane about this.
The parties created a legal partnership, and, in almost all of the Western world, did so knowing that there is such a thing as divorce. Whatever any Church or other religous body might say about it, whatever rules that Church or other body has regarding marriage, divorce, remarriage, and so on, the legal part of it, the part that actually matters when it comes to money, child custody, and so on, is the same.
Men, no more than women, don’t have some sort of unilateral right to determine exclusively the terms of the breakup of that partnership. Are the rules now, and their application, completely screwed up and one sided? Of course they are. But that means the rules and their application need to be reformed, not junked. What would you put in their place anyway? From what you write, it sounds like you favor simply letting the man make the determination. That’s not how things work in our society, at any level. No party to a contract is given the exclusive right to determine its terms, with the other party allowed no recourse to court. As it is, yes, women are almost given that right, under our current laws and their enforcement. But that is the very reason why men are rejecting marriage. Under what you envisage, it would be women who would be rejecting marriage. What woman would marry knowing that any time her husband could divorce her and set the terms for the divorce completely at his own discretion and caprice?
“Telling men not to marry is not a long term solution whatsoever, and biology won’t permit it.”
I agree it is not a long term solution. But it was never intended to be one. The idea is for men to eschew marriage until women acquiesce in making it a more equitable deal. To “strike” from marriage until the rules governing it, and divorce, and the application of those rules, is made fair to men. Like most strikes, the goal is not to end the institution in quesiton, but to make it better for the side doing the striking.
As for “biology,” you are simply wrong. Biology compels men to seek sex, not marriage. If anything, marriage is a check on biology, on what is “natural.” Again, marriage is a human made institution, a product of human culture. A man need not be married to satisfy the urge to have sex. I don’t think I need here enumerate all of the other potential sources of sex besides having it with the Mrs. for you to get the point.
“Men need women and visa versa.”
Yes, they do, and, all things being equal, marriage has proven to be the best way, in the long run, to meet these needs of both sexes. The problem is that marriage has become a disaster for men. And it appears that the only way to change that is for men to refuse to marry.
You say:
“How many guys say ‘don’t marry’? Lots. In fact, it’s getting old. There’s nothing revolutionary in this article, and nothing that hasn’t already been stated tenfold already. ”
But I think it bears repeating. The word is getting out. The rate of marraige, in country after country throughout the Western world, is dropping to all time lows. Men, even young men, are getting the message. But there are powerful forces working against this. Almost all sources of info in our society are controlled by either the feminists or the trad-cons. And all of them, including now most of the feminists, are attempting to browbeat, shame, coerce, wheedle, etc, young men into marriage. As do many family members of such men, some of whom (perhaps because they are unaware of what marriage has become) are even well intentioned. That’s why the “meme” has to be drummed in, over and over. You may have heard it a ten, or a thousand, times already. But not all young men have.
I, personally, would rather have articles like this one, that deliniate, down to the last detail and account for every last dollar, how marriage and divorce is a disaster for men, than off topic rants on other subjects. The marriage/divorce/child custody cluster of issues is at the heart of the MRA agenda. Surveys of MRAs show that these issues are the ones they view as the most important. The destruction of what has been called “marriage 2.0″ and its replacement with something better for men, is, and should be, either our number one objective or close to it.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
This is why child support MUST be changed to be based on costs of raising the child and not this bullshit transfer of wealth garbage. Do that and watch divorce rates plummet when women stop getting the golden parachute for simply being bored or whatever.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
I will never, never get married. But if I was in the situation some of you are in, I would be going to jail for homicide, possibly multiple counts. I simply will not allow myself to be enslaved, abused, and fleeced, nor will I allow my children to be raised by a horrible witch to be miscreants.
I’m not trying to be harsh or judgemental. I am honestly amazed at some of the garbage men are willing to deal with because of their children.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
0
Avenger,
According to your comment Paul McCartney began dating Nancy Shevell in 2007. At the end is this,
“Shevell divorced her lawyer husband Bruce Blakeman in 2009.”
Why did her then- lawyer husband let her cuckold hin for 2 years?
BTW. Trying to look Shewell’s bio the computer locked and had to be restarted.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Can’t of been that smart if he got married.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I honestly do not know if there has ever been a social system in the history of the world that has rewarded stupidity, immorality, lack of planning and punished personal responsibility to the extent that ours does and still manages to survive. It is honestly hard to believe that the whole system has not collapsed yet.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Nummm
With respect. Taking the approach you suggest is fine, until you actually have kids yourself. It is in mans programming to be a whipping boy and emotional/financial punch bag. This is exactly how we are tricked into chivalry white knighting and general doormats by women and manginas in power. Fear Obligation and Quilt FOG. The main tools used by emotional blackmailers ( women ) They are so effective we ( men ) can even self programme and activated by a couple of well chosen words into cannon fodder/doormat mode. Remember, women are master manipulators, never underestimate her skill or the depth of mans programming. Or sociatal pressure.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
Rebel . Carnivore
We live in interesting times. The trouble is, because we are in the middle of it the change seems to be happening at a snails pace. However, change is certainly happening all around us.
I believe womens behaviour will change according to the circumstances she is faced with. Infact, only a minor thing but I have already noticed quite a few of the older single women manage to hide the perma frost look for quite a while longer than they used to. Many women are already beginning to realize that a lot of men no longer want or need them. Therefore they are having to make, albeit a slight effort, to change. They know there are fewer and fewer men willing to settle down with them. Feck, a lot of them are lucky to get a date and even then they are usually pumped and dumped pretty quickly.
Therefore, I believe womens behaviour will change in accordance with the severity of any collapse. How severe it will be is anyones guess? It could be just a gradual slow paced return to basic living standards or it could be a Nuke disaster? Who knows ? But as sure as night and day, women will adapt and adjust in accordance with what is best for her. We only need look back over history.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
@single dad
Should we fail to be able to work, it’s off to the poor house for us…oh yeah, no more poor houses, so off to prison.
Even if the man becomes disabled and all he has to live on is SS disability? How do they handle that case? Does the minor child then get benefits under the father’s benefits? But perhaps not the former wife if she’s remarried or maybe not at all anyway.
Judging from some of the examples given here where men who are working have to live on practically nothing it would be a better life living on tax free benefits (and a lot more benefits that you would qualify for like almost free rent, utilities and a lot of other free stuff) and the kid’s support would probably be paid in the form of SS to her.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Avenger
The situation you describe is exactly what already happens in the UK. It is a slight variation on what is called ” the benefit trap”. E.g. Lets suppose your an unskilled working guy with 3 kids and a wife. The best you can hope for is a minimum wage job and even those are getting harder to find. Therefore, many decide it is better to stay unemployed and collect jobseekers allowance and/or Social Security AKA Income support. The governments have tried to sweeten the so called advantages of such a guy accepting a minimum wage job by topping it up with whats called Family Tax Credits. But, the top and bottom of it all is that many decide they are better off not working a mind numbing job 40 0r 50 hours a week only to be £50 a week better off than claiming unemployment benefit.
Regarding your original point. Many men that get shafted for child support and can bearly survive while working simply decide to become unemployed which in turn almost reduces the CS to nil. Once they put asside all the pride and Fear Obligation and Guilt heaped onto them they do a simple cost benefit analysis, e.g. If they are going to be poor they may as well just claim benefits and not have to work. Human nature I suppose.
Further, I have known men take on second jobs and work lots of overtime only for the CSA to take whatever extra they have earned in increased Child Support. In effect, the child support system in the UK totally destroys a mans will to work. Perhaps back 20 years or so men would easily be shamed into working himself into an early grave. It would seem the worm has turned?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
“I am a 47 year old male, and I don’t have any kids. I got a vasectomy many years ago. I really don’t understand why more men don’t do what I did.”
Why do young men sign up for military service to “fight for our freedom” in Iraq or Afganistan? They volunteer for the pronounced risk of losing life or limb. Why?
Because men are noble and honorable, if not a little reckless in their youth. But beyond that they cling to the hope above hope, that THEY won’t be one of the unlucky ones. That they’ll be one of the ones that somehow manages to escape unharmed in the face of odds stacked against them.
And that’s also why young men still commit to young women. They’re brave and noble individuals and they have hope…that it won’t happen to them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
Keyster
“And that’s also why young men still commit to young women. They’re brave and noble individuals and they have hope…that it won’t happen to them.”
Sadly much the same thinking as “not all hand grenades and landmines detonate”.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
A quick anectdote.
I went with my dad after the divorce. Mom wouldn’t have me spoiling her new sugar daddy.
Three months after the divorce she hit up CSA and effectively forced me to get a job at 14. I had to eat you know. I called her and asked how it was possible she also recieving child support for me since I lived with dad.
Her response???? When you are hungry you can come live with me and I’ll feed you since your dad cannot afford it. It didn’t work. I found a job and have been working ever since. that was 16 years ago.
Now I hit her up for money and give it to my dad, even though he doesn’t need it. It is his after all.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
@PAN
Wait, “former” children? Former biological children, or steps? Are they adults now and refuse to side with you, or what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
39
@ ruddtyturnstone. “From what you write, it sounds like you favor simply letting the man make the determination. That’s not how things work in our society, at any level. No party to a contract is given the exclusive right to determine its terms, with the other party allowed no recourse to court. As it is, yes, women are almost given that right, under our current laws and their enforcement. But that is the very reason why men are rejecting marriage. Under what you envisage, it would be women who would be rejecting marriage. What woman would marry knowing that any time her husband could divorce her and set the terms for the divorce completely at his own discretion and caprice?”
No, ruddtyturnstone, you didn’t understand my post at all. Are you dense? I simply said that there is no need for FC whatsoever. That means men nor women get special treatment: because the system would have been abolished.
What man in his right mind wants (or respects) some over-inflated egomanic judge dictating when and where a father gets to see his own kids or how much money he has to pay to his ex? Too much brainwashing has occured to rely on the ‘judgement’ of the FC. Alminony, child support,.. it’s all a sham. Men get screwed yet they beg judges to give them an extra hour of access a week. That’s just pathetic. The whole system should collapse. I’d love to see a libertarian government or anarchy even.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
60
In conclusion: irrationality, hypocrisy, double standards and self-serving bullshit and extremism abound around here. Nonetheless, in the cases where your grievances are legitimate, I do hope that society and the law will continue to progress to true fairness and justice and equality for all…but not toward oppression for women, which you’d like as well.
—————————–
Excuse me Melissa, many of our grievances are legitimate but they will not be addressed because they represent above all else white male “privilege”. It is very similar to liberals apologizing for the the most outrageous behavior in african-americans that they would never tolerate in whites because of liberal guilt. You have used up the credit line of chivalry and you wont like it when it is gone. Whether you like it or not, most of the things you take for granted are a result of men. As far as the notion that we need to get back to “equality”, well honey things just do not work like that. As the feminist lingo goes “the personal is the political”. There will be no reconciliation, apologies or explanations when we are a strong enough force we will get our way one way or another. We will not be kicked, beaten and mocked and then go back to playing nice.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
2
@(Me)lissa
Many men have said that the Spearhead is too bitter for their tastes, but a woman coming on here saying the same thing simply stokes the fires. 10/10 for baiting.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
The main problem with the CS regime is that people are generally unaware how it really works. They assume it works one way, but really don’t understand the disparate impact of how it actually works. In effect, it is an additional tax, full stop, on the father which is paid to the mother on a tax-free basis. It really doesn’t matter how much you make, the tax rate is basically the same, the way the statutory formulas/guidelines generally work. People think it’s based on “income share”, because that’s how the statute is worded, and that’s how it was peddled when the CS rules were changed, but as you’ll see below, it’s really a flat tax on the father’s income regardless of income share.
Here are some examples, just to clarify. Let’s assume a child support calculator that is 15% of pre-tax income for one child.
Example One
=========
H income = 100k
W income = 100k
Total household income = 200k
Total support amount is 15% of 200k, which is 30k. H’s share of total income is 50%, so H pays ex-W 15k, or 15% of his pre-tax income.
Let’s look at what happens when we change the income levels.
Example Two
=========
H income = 100k
W income = 50k
Total household income = 150k
Total support amount is 15% of 150k, which is 22,500. H’s share of income is 66.67%, so H pays ex-W 66.67% of 22,500, which is …. 15k, or 15% of his pre-tax income.
Ok. What happens when ex-W earns a lot more than H?
Example Three
H income = 50k
W income = 100k
Total household income = 150k
Total support amount is 15% of 150k, which is 22,500. H’s share of income is 33.34%, so H pays ex-W 33.34% of 22,500, which is 7500. 7500 is, you guessed it, 15% of H’s pre-tax income.
The way it works is that the father pays a flat rate of his income to the mother no matter what. The actual amount of dollars that flow depends on income share, which means that a guy in example three pays less actual dollars, but the dollars that he does pay are the same % of his pre-tax income as the guys earning twice as much in examples one and two. It’s the same percentage of income no matter what. It’s a flat tax, plain and simple, which is then paid to Mom on a tax-free basis.
CS payments are invisible from the tax perspective, which, in effect, means that the tax impact is terribly disproportionate. Dad doesn’t get any deduction for CS payments. They’re treated as if they were rent or gasoline (except they are not variable — you can’t reduce the cost as you can with rent or gasoline by moving or driving less). And Mom receives them tax free — these payments are not reported on her tax return and are generally invisible. And, as the original post points out, they are made with after-tax dollars, so the actual “effect on income” is much, much higher than 15% — i.e., it’s much more than 15% of the take-home pay of Dad. If Dad in example one has take home pay of, say 60k, 15k of that goes to CS, which is 25% of his take-home pay being transferred to his ex-wife on a tax-free basis to her on an ongoing basis. And, again, that doesn’t even take into account the health care premiums, the college savings account requirements, the life insurance premiums, and so on, that one is required to maintain in the typical decree. At the end of the day, this is a huge, huge wealth transfer from men to women, and it takes place on a completely unreported basis because, again, these payments don’t count for tax purposes, so they are not figured in Mom’s income. Flatly put, it’s a big, big scam, but if you complain about it, you’re instantly denigrated as a deadbeat supporting jackass who hates women and children. It’s a system that has been well designed by feminists to enslave men to their ex-wives, in practice.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
0
Anti PCThought:
No, I’m not dense. You want “anarchy” or a “libertarian” system. With no laws and no courts to enforce them. Great. Good for you. Personally, I don’t think those are realistic, or even desirable, outcomes. And you still haven’t said what you propose to take the place of Family Court, or any courts, for that matter. What happens when one or both parties to a marriage want a divorce? If there is no law and no court, is it just a question of whichever party can loot the property and run off with the kids first? Or maybe a question of who has the fastest or biggest gun? Might makes right? But, then again, the whole thing is preposeterous anyway, because without courts, or something like them, without law, or binding custom that is everything but law in name, marriage itself would be meaningless. Again, marriage is a legal state, it’s a contract. Without a framework of law, contracts and notions of reciprocal rights and obligations are impossible.
Basically, you are talking like an enraged teenager. The system is unfair (which it is), so let’s destroy it. Without even a modicum of understanding of how the system works, or why it is necessary, nor any notion of what you want to replace it with. Rage can be righteous. But it can’t be the end all, be all. If you want to smash the system, you should at least have some idea of what you want in its stead. A tantrum is not a proposal.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
@ ruddyturnstone. “No, I’m not dense. You want “anarchy” or a “libertarian” system. With no laws and no courts to enforce them. Great. Good for you. Personally, I don’t think those are realistic, or even desirable, outcomes. And you still haven’t said what you propose to take the place of Family Court, or any courts, for that matter. What happens when one or both parties to a marriage want a divorce? ”
It’s like this: man and woman get married. They can divorce, sure, but this is simply a matter of formality and where the government has no say on who gets custody, who pays what to whom or who lives where etc.
It’s called living your life with limited government interference. It’s called freedom. Founding Fathers anyone? Guess you haven’t heard of them Ruddy, they actually did a lot of good preserving some of our basic rights but sadly their values are being weeded out by mainstream socialism/fascism.
Without institions like FC, I think you’d find the divorce rate decline considerably. It would also make people take marriage much more seriously and at least 50% of feminazism’s power would be rendered obsolete.
I hope (but doubt) you even understand any of what I’ve just written. Which is appalling in itself.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
You express admiration for patriarchal societies that rigidly oppress women. I wonder if you also envy their poverty, disease, corruption, ignorance, underdevelopment, and deprivation. Every society that doesn’t have rights for women is also backward and primitive in every other way.
———————————
Parts of the rust belt (detroit, buffalo, gary IN) are at least as poor and hopeless as any third world nation. Every society that has encouraged matriliny will be overtaken eventually by people who dont encourage it. Europe is pre-islamic. In order for your vagina to get wet at the thought of evading personal responsibility through the federal government, people actually have to produce things of value. Who knew?
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
“You don’t need women and don’t want them in your life…yet refuse to be gay. PLEASE embrace homosexuality. “
I thought homosexuality was genetic? It’s not a choice is it? Maybe that’s how you lesbians think but that type of thinking isn’t going to apply to many men.
“And it would be lovely if you could simply transfer your new gay community(not to be confused with the gay community that doesn’t hate women) to a new planet.”
Men built everything on this planet. Women like YOU are the ones who should fuck off to your own planet, preferably with technology designed and built by women. Remember you women are the ones that don’t like the civilisations men built. Women like you are nothing but parasites. You leave.
Women had no right to demand that countries built and maintained by men be turned into anti-men societies. If women want to live in feminist countries they should go build them from scratch. If women had the guile, intelligence and abilities to do that then there would already be feminist civilisations and they would have existed for thousands of years. The fact that there are no feminist societies, and never have been, shows that women are in capable of such things and are nothing but a burden on men.
Feminism has turned what was once a manageable burden for men with some payback from women, into an unmanageable burden for men with no payback from women.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
“It’s like this: man and woman get married. They can divorce, sure, but this is simply a matter of formality and where the government has no say on who gets custody, who pays what to whom or who lives where etc. ”
Still not answering my question, anti PC. If the “government” has “no say” on what happens, and the parties disagree, what happens then? Who decides on custody, on the disposition of property, and so on? Again, think of any contractual partnership, like a law or medical practice. If the partners decide to split up, but can’t agree on who gets what, what happens next? A free for all? Just saying, “it’s a formality” means nothing. It doesn’t answer the question.
“It’s called living your life with limited government interference. It’s called freedom. Founding Fathers anyone? Guess you haven’t heard of them Ruddy, they actually did a lot of good preserving some of our basic rights but sadly their values are being weeded out by mainstream socialism/fascism.”
Quite familiar with them, actually. And they were all about ordered liberty. Not anarchy. The Founding Fathers were all about the rule of law. They set up a Federal court system. And they preserved a State court system which had full jurisdiction over family law. Oh, and by the way, the whole purpose of the Constitution was to create a Federal government that was actuallymuch stronger, actually much less “limited,” than that which had preceded it under the Articles of Confederation. You are not only arrogant, but an ignoramus besides. Why don’t you study some constitutional law and history, instead of repeating sound bites your heard on Fox News? You are tossing around terms like fascism and socialism that you either don’t know the meaning of, or are deliberately misusing. Courts, the rule of law, etc, are the hallmarks of a classical liberal polity. Which is exactly what the Founding Fathers subscribed to and established.
“Without institions like FC, I think you’d find the divorce rate decline considerably. It would also make people take marriage much more seriously and at least 50% of feminazism’s power would be rendered obsolete.”
Again, rhetoric but no answers. What is to take the place of Family Court? How are the assets and debts to be distibuted in case of divorce? And who will enforce the reciprical rights and responsibilities of marriage (or any contract for that matter) in the first place, unless the courts and government do it? How “serious” would marriage be if one could simply walk away from it at any time, with no courts, and no government to enforce it?
“I hope (but doubt) you even understand any of what I’ve just written. Which is appalling in itself.”
I understand your rage quite well. The rest of what you write is either flat out wrong, as in your Glenn Beck like caricature of the Founding Fathers, or mere wishful thinking, as in your non sequitors as to what would happen if courts were to be abolished.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
@Ruddyturnstone. “ Still not answering my question, anti PC. If the “government” has “no say” on what happens, and the parties disagree, what happens then? Who decides on custody, on the disposition of property, and so on? Again, think of any contractual partnership, like a law or medical practice. If the partners decide to split up, but can’t agree on who gets what, what happens next? A free for all? Just saying, “it’s a formality” means nothing. It doesn’t answer the question.
Matters of the family are just that: family matters. Next you’ll be calling for a contract between siblings over who gets the bigger room in the new house! lol.
A marriage is different than a business deal. Marriage is simply the union of two parties who agree to live together, look after one another, be loyal etc. If the marriage breaks down, it is up to the ex husband and ex wife to decide who gets what and who lives where. They would just have to learn to comprimise, you know, like adults. If they have difficulty doing this? That’s their problem. Not anyone elses, and certainly not the governments. The government should have absolutely no say in the matter. Period.
By the way, I am FULLY aware that the FC, alimony, child support etc is here to stay. I am also fully aware that ALL BIG GOVERNMENT policies are here to stay. Government keeps growing, that won’t change, ever. Too many thick idiots (like yourself) don’t care about personal liberty/responsibility and rely TOO MUCH on the fascist state we have now.
I was reading on another website where people protested against family courts back in the 90s, and they were calling for them to be abolished. They were pretty much ignored because too many sheep are too caught up in the system to bother to reform it.
I am also under no illusion that sensible forms of government (like what Ron Paul advocated, but was largely IGNORED by the mainstream) will never take place. It’s nice to dream of a time when a libertarian government would be formed (or anarchy wouldn’t be so bad either), but because of decades of political indoctrination, a herd-like mentality among society and an unwillingness to step away from the ‘Big Government’ way of thinking, it is never going to happen.
What will happen?
Orwell’s 1984 will happen. The fascist state in America and in fact the world will only get worse. We are all doomed (like I already said) and it certainly feels like sitting on the Titanic waiting for it to sink. Most people are dumb assholes and that’s why we’re all in this mess. So much for freedom.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
@Me(lissa) — I note with interest that you have no serious comment on the subject of this article: the way the custody/child support laws are so grossly unfair to men.
Remaining silent is, I suppose, better than trying to justify something which is unjustifiable.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
Newfoundman May 7, 2011 at 08:02
@PAN “Wait, “former” children? Former biological children, or steps? Are they adults now and refuse to side with you, or what?”
I have covered this before but it bears repeating. Two step children whom I raised to the best of my abilities. And two that were allegedly mine but since I was denied the requested paternity test I have no proof they are biologically mine.
Regardless I dis-owned them all and refer to them as ‘my former children’. I am no longer a father. I am a former-father. I deconstructed my father, husband, provider, hard working, beta, mangina, loser identity and created instead my globalman identity which evolved into an alpha. As a ‘globalman’ I have no allegiances to any save those I choose to enter into. I most certainly do not have children. Women wanted my ex to ‘own’ HER children? That’s fine with me.
“How about saying something worth hearing, like ABOLISH FAMILY COURT?”
Why abolish something you can ignore. Why abolish McDonalds when you can eat at burger king if you want? I have proven no man in the former british empire can have adjudication services of these private corporations forced on them. While ever you are looking to SOMEONE ELSE to DO SOMETHING you are a slave. Ask yourself what YOU are prepared to DO.
oddsock May 7, 2011 at 01:23
“Infact, only a minor thing but I have already noticed quite a few of the older single women manage to hide the perma frost look for quite a while longer than they used to. Many women are already beginning to realize that a lot of men no longer want or need them. Therefore they are having to make, albeit a slight effort, to change.”
You should see it here. Indeed on other member here wrote to me that when he was in Berlin he had NEVER seen in his life women being so nice to men in the street and in the shops/restaurants etc. He was like “the women here are pleasant and talkative and seem to genuinely making an effort to please the men they are with”. I pointed out to him that sure they are, because marriage is totally dead here. The waitress at my favourite restaurant is late 30s and a real hottie. Yet she is dating a beta loser about 55. My hairdresser is early 40s and still does tri-athlons. She is VERY well kept. She could easily whip my arse around any physically demanding exercise. She is also very attractive, very well read, well travelled. Yet she is also dating a 50+ beta loser. The alphas are simply not marrying in vast numbers. That’s just how it is.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
AntiPCThought May 7, 2011 at 13:10
“Most people are dumb assholes and that’s why we’re all in this mess. So much for freedom.”
Correct. This is my point exactly. Unless a man is willing to TAKE ACTION to claim, exercise and defend his rights? He does not have any.
Most men here don’t even know where their rights come from. They think ‘rights’ are something gifted by the state as the UN claims.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
oddsock wrote ‘But, the top and bottom of it all is that many decide they are better off not working a mind numbing job 40 0r 50 hours a week only to be £50 a week ‘
But that wouldn’t be true in the example I gave where the man was paying CS. And I was using the example of SS or SSI disability benefits. Someone in that category would be a lot poorer by working and would have to be in the upper ranges of income to even equal the benefits (and there are a lot of benefits aside from the actual tax free cash evey month) A worker has to pay taxes, has costs just getting to work like transportation,food, clothes etc and would still have to pay the child support and work 40 hrs a week.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Avenger
Yes, I agree with you. Thats why I said it was like a variation of the example I gave. E.g. It would be of more benefit, financially and otherwise for a man that is being shafted for CS to be claiming as many benefits as he can as opposed to working 40 hours + and being poor into the bargain.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Women in our society have it so easy. They are basically paid to stay home and have kids, either by the father or with a stipend from the government. Only men have to work for a living and worry about where their money is coming from. I wonder what would happen if women in this country were actually held acountable for their actions and were not compensated by the government for screwing up right and left. I doubt they would be able to adapt since they are so dependent on the government to give them a living while they do whatever they want.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
peter why dont you move to the cayman islands with a eastern european wife?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“If the marriage breaks down, it is up to the ex husband and ex wife to decide who gets what and who lives where. They would just have to learn to comprimise, you know, like adults. If they have difficulty doing this? That’s their problem. Not anyone elses, and certainly not the governments. The government should have absolutely no say in the matter. Period.”
This is the equivalent of sticking your finger in your ear and saying “la, la, la, I can’t hear you.” How does the “government” stay out of it, when two people claim the same bank account, and the bank turns to it and says “you tell us who should get this money?” How does the government stay out of it when two people, who are at loggerheads, disagree on where their children should go to school? Or when one of them hires a contractor to make changes on their house, and the other one meets them at the door and tells them to get lost? Under your theory, no one would ever need a court, because people should just “act like adults” and learn to compromise. That’s all fine and good as a description of the ideal, and many divorcing couples
(and other parties with disputes) do, in fact, folllow this route. But not all do. Sometimes one or both sides are unreasonable, and compromise is impossible. And that’s where the court has to step in. Otherwise, you have what I described, in which the fastest looter wins, or the side with the most might. Just pretending this is or not the case, and merely exhorting people to grow up is no answer.
And yes, marriage is not only a “business deal.” But it is a legal contract, and one that does have financial repurcussions if it goes south. Furthermore, precisely because more is at stake than simply money, like emotions, hurt feelings, and children, it is actually less likely that the parties can resolve the issues themselves.
The rest of your post is just rhetoric, so I won’t even bother responding to it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
peter why dont you move to the cayman islands with a eastern european wife?
This is a route that more men ought to explore. One of the advantages these tax-havens advertise is protection from divorce. I am not talking about doing anything illegal either. Generally in countries like the Caymans or the Turks & Caicos Islands, you can obtain residency by being free from a criminal record and purchasing a modestly priced piece of real estate. In the TCI, for example, you have to buy a $250,000 piece of real-estate on the main island, or a $125,000 piece of real-estate on one of the lesser populated islands. (North Caicos for example, which is only a 20 minute ferry ride from the main island of Provo, and is not over-run by tourists). You can get about the same bang for your buck on real-estate there as you can in much of North America.
You also have to be able to prove to them that you can provide for yourself. So, if you have a mobile type of job, off of the internet, or with other such things – as more and more people are obtaining, it starts to make perfectly good sense. There is no income tax, no property tax, no inheritance tax, and they will not simply hand over money to another government on demand. In fact, it is illegal in these countries to divulge bank information in the first place. It costs about $2,500-$3,000 to start up pre-made holding company there which includes a numbered bank account, and it is around $250-$300/month to maintain such an account. There is a one-time 5% stamp tax when you purchase real-estate, and there are a few taxes on hotel rooms, and I believe on restaurant food of around 8% – trying to soak the tourists.
For the rest, the government makes its money based upon tarriffs – they are quite steep – around 33% – so everything you buy there costs about 33% more than here, but keep in mind there is no income taxes. The tariffs are consumption based. So, if your living expenses are around $3,000/month here, they should be around $4,000/month there. But, if you do the math. A person earning $4,000/month here pays around 30% in tax, leaving him with a net of $2,800, and usually living paycheck to paycheck. The consumption-tax can really take off in a guy’s benefit if you can break over the thresh-hold and start earning more money than you spend. If you increase your income to $5,000/month there, your living expenses stay constant, however, if you increase your income here, your tax rate also rises, to around 35% or more, taking $1650 off your paycheck and leaving you with $3,350 net, minus your $3,000 in monthly expenses, leaving you only marginally ahead of where you were before – whereas in one of these tax havens, with your living expenses fixed at $4,000, if you increase your income to $5,000/month, a full $1,000 stays with you. Of course, the more you earn, the better off you become – because controlling your direct expenses is a lot easier than fighting against a progressive tax rate.
If you are married there, tough shit for the wifey if she wants to leave you. She cannot ruin you financially upon divorce – the banks will not hand over any money out of your account, lol, nor will they hand over to a court how much assets are held in your accounts and/or holding company. You will be in direct control – if you think she should get $500/month in child support or $1500/month in child support, or nothing at all, it is completely up to you.
I once investigated divorce rates in these places. While the amount of divorces from marriages that take place there might seem high, that is because of people that are tourists using it as a wedding-vacation destination. Among the native population, however, divorce rates are extremely low – I wonder why?
There are a lot of advantages to men in these places – especially for the young game-savvy man who plays his cards right, uses predatory western females only for sport sex during his 20′s and 30′s, builds his wealth, and perhaps moves to such a place in his forties when he has a decent nest-egg and wishes to try his hand at having a family. Even if you want to move to a less expensive country, if I were to expat, I would be making a stop-over in the Caymans to plunk my money into an account there, before moving on to South America or Asia or whatever other expat destination. They will send your bank statements to you in unmarked brown envelopes to any post addresses in the world. As well, they will provide you with debit cards and credit cards, which can be used worldwide, so accessing your funds is not difficult, even from another country.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
oddsok-let me explain in a bit more detail. There are probably many females who receive “disability” like SSI and many States kick in a supplement which makes it like the benefits from SS disability (which is hard to get and besides many females haven’t paid in enough to be fully insured) The sort of disabilities I’m talking about are mostly “mental” disabilities which are the best because you can’t do any sort of work (even a person in a wheechair can do some jobs). Females have disabilities like “chronic fatigue syndrome” “agoraphobia” “depression” or she may even claim she was abused as a kid and now can’t work etc etc So now she gets her cheque every month, maybe a $1k but being “disabled” get her to the top of the subsidy lists like sec. 8 where she may pay perhaps a max of $300 on housing; then may get food money; free everything in medical, dental,drugs, glasses etc etc ; almost all utilities paid for; free phone and that includes cell phones which is why you see homeless people with them; and things like free passes for the train, bus and even taxi if she says she has to go to the doctor lol And that’s not even counting local services for the “disabled” and the Salvation Army that gives some money away. And of course these females may work a little for cash that no one knows about. It would be like giving someone $500 a month to spend on themselves but never having to pay for any of the normal things. And btw, old people get this stuff too if they qualify but today the old are the best off and this idea that the old are the poorest really comes from a 100 yrs ago. They all vote and are always demanding more. So who’s paying for all this? The working men! I’m not familiar with things like alimony or CS but I believe the female doesn’t have to report this as income so females do very well.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
You also have to be able to prove to them that you can provide for yourself. So, if you have a mobile type of job, off of the internet, or with other such things – as more and more people are obtaining, it starts to make perfectly good sense.
—————————–
What kind of skills would you suggest?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Sounds like me life for the last 17 years. He must be in WA. They use a table and F everything else. My kid ran away and I was still paying her and her loser BF.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
What kind of skills would you suggest?
I know two people who’ve lived there on temporary permits – one was a girl who worked in the hospitality industry, as a waitress/barmaid, and the other was a guy who worked as a scuba diving instructor/tour guide.
That is the problem with these places – their two biggest industries are banking, and tourism. Not much else. I’ve noted that virtually all of the real estate agents are expats from the USA or Canada, though, and I’ve seen that many of the hotels/villa rentals are also managed by North American expats.
One thing to keep in mind with these tax-havens as well is they are “transferable” to other tax havens. So, places like Panama and Belize also have tax-haven status – although they might not be as secure as the Caymans or the TCI, as their economies are poorer and their governments are less stable. (Although, Belize is quite stable – and English speaking – but not overly prosperous). What you can do, if you want security of your assets, is leave your funds in the Caymans, and use your numbered holding company to buy property in other tax-havens. This is all perfectly legal.
I researched Belize a few years back, and the cost of living there is dramatically less. You can buy a really decent home there for around $50,000 to $75,000. A pint of beer in the pub will cost you around $1.50 etc. You could easily get by in Belize on $1,000 to $1,500 a month. Belize does not charge you income tax so long as you are not competing with any local business. So, if you had a website or mail-order company, or were an author, or some other kind of thing that sold its products outside of Belize, you would be able to be tax free. However, if you started up and ice-cream stand, you would have to pay tax on your profits. Keep in mind that you can keep your assets in the Cayman Islands for 100% security, and live in Belize, and you are breaking zero laws – everything is above board and secure. Many people are starting up internet mail-order companies based in Belize for this reason.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Ruddy, you paint a strange picture of what a society would be like if the government had little to do with marriage. Lot of theory, but no reality.
I live in Mexico. I am told half the coupes in my small village live in Free Union. People from the US think shacking-up, but here it is viewed as private marriage, which is what marriage was, until certain religions decreed only they could marry and un-marry couples, then the government decreed, no, only the government could marry and un-marry couples.
If the man feels like wandering off, he does, and that is that. If he feels like paying child support, he does. If he does not feel like paying child support, he wanders off even further.
According to you imaginary society, there would be chaos.
My wife’s aunt lived in Free Union for 70 years, and they died within 72 hours of each other. That didn’t sound very chaotic to me.
When women don’t have men like you demanding slavery for men, which is what you are talking, no matter how you try to twist things around, it’s amazing how well they make their marriages work. Without government control. There is far more marital stability in that village than in most First World nations.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
I know two people who’ve lived there on temporary permits – one was a girl who worked in the hospitality industry, as a waitress/barmaid, and the other was a guy who worked as a scuba diving instructor/tour guide.
—————————-
I used to tend bar and I currently sell things to businesses over the phone and I have had many sales jobs. I was thinking about getting into securities and eventually options trading. If you are hired there for a temporary work position does the government restrict you from working another job in the caymans or tci as a sideline?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@ epoche*,
I can’t answer that for you. Although, I have discovered that through a holding company there, you can trade stocks and commodities on the global markets, just as you can in North America. Btw – I erred when I typed a pre-made holding company costs $2500 to $3000 to buy. It costs between $4,000 to $5,000. Sorry for the slip up. It is basically a “business” by number, that also holds a numbered bank account. They have them pre-made for convenience, so I assume if you spent some time there, you could probably manage to put one together for cheaper if you were willing to jump through the hoops.
The two people I knew who went there, btw, were allowed 5 year work permits.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
“If the man feels like wandering off, he does, and that is that. If he feels like paying child support, he does. If he does not feel like paying child support, he wanders off even further.”
What kind of “marriage” is that? Have kids, and then just wander off if you feel like it. Don’t take the kids with you and support them, don’t give your “wife” money to support them. Don’t support them at all. Sounds like a great system. What does the wife then do? Maybe she just “wanders off” too?
Certainly, in some third world countries, custom takes the place of law, and informal councils, or elders, or some such body, of some kind, takes the place of courts. So what you describe doesn’t happen very often. But our society doesn’t have those things.
And of course, even in our society, couples can live together, for years, even for decades, without marriage. And, in many jurisdictions, no reciprical rights and obligations are thereby incurred. And that’s fine too.
But we were talking about marriage. Marriage is not “slavery” for men, even now, because it is a voluntary status. No man has to get married. And because marriage has become such a bad deal for men, men should shun it.
In the meanwhile, we should work to change it. To make it fair for men and women. Simply calling for “government” to “get out of it” won’t work. Because marriage is a legal status. It’s a contract. And without law and courts, there is no realistic way, in our society, to enforce that contract.
You too, are just avoiding the questions…what does the government do when the bank asks it which of the two formerly married but now divorced persons should have the contents of an account they both claim? What does the government do when one parent runs off with the kids, and won’t let the other one see them? What does the government do when one party runs off, and the other party needs to sell the house to make ends meet, but can’t because title is in both their names?
I don’t live in a third world country. Here, we have property and laws. You’re right, in a way, in that folks living a basically third world lifestyle even in my country don’t need to bother with marriage and divorce. They own nothing, so there is nothing to divide. They have little or no income, so there is no point in tyring to make either of them pay child support, because the government is actually supporting the kids.
But for middle class and up people living in a moderen, law based society, and who don’t want to simply “wander off” and leave their kids in the lurch, it makes no sense whatsoever to insist that the government just “get out of the way.” There are financial and child custody issues that have to be decided, and it won’t do to just assume that “people will work it out.” If they could work it out, they would do so, and the divorce would be a routine, rubber stamping an agreement, operation for the court. Many such divorces do follow this route, and, believe me, the Family Court is quite happy with that and would like more of them. But many are not, because one or both of the parties are unreasonable, or simply have different notions of what is just.
And courts made these determinations long before the feminists took them over. Nineteenth century courts routinely awarded custody to the father. And they were not usually over generous when it came to property setttlments for women either.
So, the problem is not the existence of courts per se, the problem is what the courts do. The problem is that the law, and, even more so, its enforcement, is stacked against men. That’s where the comparison to “slavery” comes in, because the courts are not fair. Not because they exist at all.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Ruddy: what does the government do when the bank asks it which of the two formerly married but now divorced persons should have the contents of an account they both claim? What does the government do when one parent runs off with the kids, and won’t let the other one see them? What does the government do when one party runs off, and the other party needs to sell the house to make ends meet, but can’t because title is in both their names?
Ruddy’s answer to everything is government, government and more government. Where does common sense come into play?
Jeb noted earlier that in the countries where women can’t screw men over financially, the divorce rate is (not surprisingly) low. Using the government to settle family disputes is not needed. Only a gutless wonder who thinks the government should step in over every single matter would think otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
In the meanwhile, we should work to change it. To make it fair for men and women. Simply calling for “government” to “get out of it” won’t work. Because marriage is a legal status. It’s a contract. And without law and courts, there is no realistic way, in our society, to enforce that contract.
My goodness, you are long winded!
The only solution is to make the children of marriage to be the property of men, and to allow women who don’t want to have children within marriage to breed however they would like. They will learn their lessons accordingly.
That is the only solution.
Women can get knocked up underneath the bleachers at a frickin’ ball game.
But when a man chooses to marry, it must be explicitly clear that the children born of the marriage belong to him.
This is how it has been since the dawn of times… because it works!
All other solutions are mental masturbation (including shared parenting!), and only empower the state at the expense of men.
Women can have their children outside of marriage, as they have always had the right to do.
But whatever children are born into a marriage, belong to the husband. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
Wake up, MRM!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
Lara,
I know that your mental capacity is fairly limited so I’ll spell it out.
Dad was paying child support to my mother for me while he had full custody of me. The money that would have fed me went to her by order of the court. Mother starved me to punish him, and she laughed about it.
When you start deliberately starving your son send him my way. I’ll teach him to survive and hate you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
Excellent article, also wanted to post this article:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/teen_pregnancy_prevention_and_stigma.html
more of the same stuff, especially with how men have it so easy when it comes to parental matters, there’s one commenter who was particularily nauseaus with her comment “men face no stigma”, tried to comment but for some reason nothing’s working >:/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@someguy-well then who settles financial matters? The bank manager is not a cop and if the wife just decides to clean out joint accounts he can’t stop her unless there is some court order or law preventing her from doing this. It’s not having laws that are bad it’s the fact that divorces are held in special courts that don’t operate like a normal civil court and it’s all skewered against men. If you want to sue for divorce it should be in a regular court and you must prove breach of contract where witnesses can be called and decisions can be appealed if there are grounds for appeal. And you should be able to write any marriage contract and the terms and divorces should always be fault (breach of contract) unless both parties agree to divorce and settle on terms.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Dad was paying child support to my mother for me while he had full custody of me. The money that would have fed me went to her by order of the court. Mother starved me to punish him, and she laughed about it.
Did you tell your father this? He should have filed a criminal complaint against her for child abuse.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Jeb noted earlier that in the countries where women can’t screw men over financially, the divorce rate is (not surprisingly) low. Using the government to settle family disputes is not needed. Only a gutless wonder who thinks the government should step in over every single matter would think otherwise.
——————————————
women have always had options, maybe they were bad but they were probably not any worse than low-status men who are always looked at as being nothing but cannon fodder by society. No matter what the social system, there are always people who abuse it – but the bedrock reality is that men have the same right to participate in family life and reproduction as women. Dont kid yourself, women need men’s money one way or another far more than men need women. To think otherwise is nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@Jeb May 7, 2011 at 20:56
“But when a man chooses to marry, it must be explicitly clear that the children born of the marriage belong to him.
This is how it has been since the dawn of times… because it works! ”
Yup. Have been saying that for a long time as well. A very clear explanation of the marriage contract and why today’s marriage contract is a fraud located here: http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/02/questionators-should-women-have-right.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Feminism and women were used for a more sinister plan gentlemen. The Elite needed to weaken men in order to make them easier to control (enslave).How better to do this than to destroy his most prized possesion…his home,his family, take away his money,have work more hours,be less a threat to the elite who control.Man is less of a htreat this way. And women being HERD animals, always seeking approval will follow. Gentlemen wake up. Our government is being controled by Elitists .Their goal is Population Control…
Thisis my firs ttime writting on the spearhead,have always enjoyed the excellent articles presented and all of your comments and I look forward to more. Our voices will be heard…
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Feminism and women were used for a more sinister plan gentlemen. The Elite needed to weaken men in order to make them easier to control (enslave).How better to do this than to destroy his most prized possesion…his home,his family, take away his money, more work less pay, in order to be less of a threat to the elite who control. Women being HERD animals, who always seek approval will follow, because in the end it is all about her survival and her being able to reproduce. Gentlemen wake up. Our government is being controled by Elitists .Their goal is Population Control…
This is my first time writting on the spearhead, I have always enjoyed the excellent articles presented and all of your comments and I look forward to more. Our voices will be heard…
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Did you tell your father this? He should have filed a criminal complaint against her for child abuse.
No he told me this. As in your mom is getting child support for four children I can’t feed you. So I went to work. I told mom to petition the court so I could eat. Now you know why I think there is no hope for reform ever.
I never abandon my dad, and as soon as my brother turned 13 he came on over, and then my youngest sister did the same. My other sister was shipped off to boarding school.
So remember girls of my generation. We started learning how to hate women from our mothers.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Oh and to clear up any misconceptions, My father was pulling in 60 gs in 1994 when this all was happening.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
As a white collar professional.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Last spam.
Mom was living in and still does live in Brentwood TN. Check out the neighborhood. I chose to live in a ghetto rather than that, and so did her four children. Because unlike mother, our father loved us.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
loves us. He just retired. I bought him a beer.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Brilliant post Pricey! This sounds like me. Ridiculously accurate. It’s too late for those who’ve already done it. But to those that haven’t – NEVER MARRY – EVER.
@Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c)
“This is why I say to young men. Don’t bother with children. They are NOT worth the effort. ”
You dickhead – once you have em it’s too late. See this is what I don’t get about you. Sometimes I have the utmost respect but when you say shit like this??? Is this what your father says about you? I have 3 children. Even if I found out that they were not biologically mine I have taken care of them all of their lives, they rely on me, they are little people who can’t take care of themselves, and no matter how little I get to see them when I am with them I can see how much they need me and hopefully they always will, just as I always needed and respected my father before he passed.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
17
The mother of my child, whom I never married, collects social assistance (welfare) and lied to the authorities, claiming she didn’t know who the father of the child was,, and promptly moved in with another fella when my child was all of 7 months old. I haven’t given her any money….yet. I’ll be interested to see what happens here, as she is not too willing to admit to them that she lied I’d imagine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chevy,
He was talking to men who do not already have children.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Oh, and she still refuses to legally acknowledge me as the father my name isn’t even on the birth certificate. No proof anywhere that I am the father. I used to get upset about this, but now I realise she actually did me a favour, as f*cked up as it all it. My country is pretty screwed up – do you know it is next to impossible for me to be added as the father on the birth certificate? I basically gave up.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Naturally women are evil. It’s how they are built. The reason why God made woman. I think He had one interesting sense of humour. He also removed common sense and one third of intellect from women.
Single mothers are not good for children. They have a tendency to fuck the minds of children. Ergo the cycle of screwing up lives of upcoming generations.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
OT:
but look at what happens to fathers that DONT pay child support.
———————————
A dispute over orange juice led to a New Hampshire prison beatdown that severely injured an inmate, authorities said.
The beating began early Monday when one inmate became enraged that another received more orange juice with his breakfast.
By the time guards at the Strafford County jail broke up the fight, Stephen Mercier had suffered a skull fracture, a shattered orbital bone and bleeding on the brain.
“\[He\] was injured severely enough that he had to be taken by ambulance to \[a local hospital\],” Capt. Joseph DiGregorio of the Strafford County Sheriff’s office told the Foster’s Daily Democrat.
Mercier, 44, had been jailed on a child support warrant and is expected to recover, officials said.
Police said no charges had been filed yet, but they had identified a suspect. Investigators were continuing to interview the 50 inmates who were in the prison cafeteria at the time of the assault.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/10/2011-05-10_new_hampshire_inmate_has_skull_smashed_in_fight_over_orange_juice.html#ixzz1LxzruBti
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
jim crow is directing traffic in the whitehouse . It,s just slavery . We all buy into it then , We live with it. Its time to take 2nd amadment rights out of the box.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I am sorry for this, all of this. I am a woman, and clearly not welcome in this discussion, but perhaps I can give some sympathy and insight as well.
I am a STEP mother, I have no children of my own and I shall keep it that way. Even worse than being the man that is screwed in this situation, is being that same mans next wife. I was a fool to marry a man with children, because with children comes the ex, and all of the money going out of the household, and all of the pain and heartache that comes when two adults who no longer long each other or get along share children. It has been a crazy ride for me these last 6 years I have been with my husband, just seeing how having children with someone who is not your ex can be so all around, life changing, dramatically horrible.
I asked my husband a few weeks ago if it was worth it? I know that he loves being a father, and that is all he wanted in life, but when I asked him if it was all worth it, he honestly answered “No. Not with someone you don’t love. Nothing is worse than having to pay absorbent amounts of money to NEVER SEE YOUR CHILDREN. To never have any say with how they are raised, or what they are exposed to.”
Such a shame and this is why I am against children. I have never seen any good come out of it, never, and I do not say that lightly as I am one of seven siblings, and a step mother to two.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 1 trackback }