gotsnowgotslush
skates like Eck
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Posts
- 25,720
A large majority of child support debt is owed by men who make less than $10,000 a year.
Updated November 24, 2015
When people have orders that they can't comply with, it doesn't motivate them to work and pay. It does the opposite," says Turetsky of the Office of Child Support Enforcement.
She says too many men quit jobs, turn down promotions or go underground when courts set child support orders too high. One problem, she says, is that when there's no evidence of income, many jurisdictions "impute" it, often basing payments on a full-time minimum wage job.
"I'm going to call it magical thinking," Turetsky says. "You could call it the income we think you should have. But the bottom line is that it is income that does not exist."
The child support system was set up four decades ago, and Turetsky says it seems stuck there — as if a man with no college can still walk into a factory tomorrow and pull down middle-class wages. In fact, a large majority of child support debt is owed by men who make less than $10,000 a year.
We're asking that [women and children] become dependent on men who are just as poor as they are," says Jacquelyn Boggess of the Center for Family Policy and Practice.
When parents face incarceration for nonpayment, it can burden entire families. Boggess has seen men's mothers, even their ex-girlfriends or wives, step in to pay to keep a father out of jail. And child support debt never goes away, even if you declare bankruptcy or when the children grow up.
"We found that there are 20- and 30-year-old children who are paying their father's child support debt, so their father can keep whatever small income they may have," she says.
Issues-
TANF waivers, immigration, Obamacare, and child-support policy
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
"This legislation is necessary to reaffirm Congress’ role in legislating social welfare policy as the administration has once again overstepped the Constitution and circumvented the critical role of the legislative branch with the issuance of an overreaching proposed rule.
Last year the administration issued a proposed rule that, if made final in its current form, would make it easier for non-custodial parents to evade paying child support—a move that could potentially force some American families to go on welfare.
Deadbeat parents, not hardworking taxpayers, should be held accountable for their financial responsibilities. Our bill will prevent the administration from going forward with a unilateral approach that bypasses the Congress yet again and undermines this key feature of welfare policy.”
Orrin Hatch does not seem to be concerned that health care that is affordable-
"...it is ironic that the preface to the Burr-Hatch-Upton plan indicts Obamacare for sending ‘out-of-pocket costs skyrocketing.’ In fact, out-of-pocket spending has fallen since enactment of Obamacare—from 12.1 percent of total spending in 2009, the year before Obamacare was enacted to 11.6 percent 2013, the last year for which data are available. The Burr-Hatch-Upton plan would create the very problem for which it falsely blames Obamacare. In fact, the Burr-Hatch-Upton plan would also eliminate the very important annual limit on annual out-of-pocket expenses that Obamacare provides.
And there is a deeper lesson. One should not be fooled by slogans and generalities. One has to examine details in order to know whether a plan is or is not a basis for negotiation. Make no mistake—details of Obamacare do need fixing-- but those repairs involve filling holes in coverage, not making more holes. It requires making benefits more generous, not less. The Burr-Hatch-Upton plan proposes to move in the wrong direction. Such a plan cannot serve as a basis for negotiation.
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/45635...ead-broke-the-why-behind-unpaid-child-support
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/heal...macare-gop-burr-hatch-upton-alternative-aaron
According to the report, 40 percent of children living in group homes don't have a diagnosis that warrants such a placement. The report suggests that children are often sent to the homes because there is nowhere else for them to go.
President Obama's 2016 budget proposal aims to address that need. There is a $78 million dollar line item in it that would go toward specialized training for foster parents who agree to care for mentally ill children.
Orin Hatch has proposed a simple solution to longstanding problems in group homes: begin shutting them down.
Orin Hatch does not care if these children have no place to go-
"Here's how I look at it: No one would support allowing states to use federal taxpayer dollars to buy cigarettes for foster youth," said Hatch in his statement on the hearing. "In my view, continuing to use these scarce taxpayer dollars to fund long-term placements in group homes is ultimately just as destructive."
Kari Sisson, executive director for the American Association of Children's Residential Centers, told ProPublica that Australia closed its residential programs in the 1990s because foster care was cheaper. In time, she said, foster parents got overwhelmed and quit. Many youngsters ended up homeless or in jail. And Australia had to reopen the homes with more intensive therapeutic services in the mid-2000s.
"The conversation is fair, but it's not informed," she said. "I worry that they are making decisions that will seriously affect children who need therapeutic residential treatment. I've been a foster parent for many years and there are a lot of kids in the system that can't live in my house, because it's not safe for us and it's not safe for the community. They need a lot more intensive care than a foster parent can offer. It's very challenging."
Sisson was not called to testify.
http://www.propublica.org/article/c...caling-down-group-homes-for-troubled-children
Updated November 24, 2015
When people have orders that they can't comply with, it doesn't motivate them to work and pay. It does the opposite," says Turetsky of the Office of Child Support Enforcement.
She says too many men quit jobs, turn down promotions or go underground when courts set child support orders too high. One problem, she says, is that when there's no evidence of income, many jurisdictions "impute" it, often basing payments on a full-time minimum wage job.
"I'm going to call it magical thinking," Turetsky says. "You could call it the income we think you should have. But the bottom line is that it is income that does not exist."
The child support system was set up four decades ago, and Turetsky says it seems stuck there — as if a man with no college can still walk into a factory tomorrow and pull down middle-class wages. In fact, a large majority of child support debt is owed by men who make less than $10,000 a year.
We're asking that [women and children] become dependent on men who are just as poor as they are," says Jacquelyn Boggess of the Center for Family Policy and Practice.
When parents face incarceration for nonpayment, it can burden entire families. Boggess has seen men's mothers, even their ex-girlfriends or wives, step in to pay to keep a father out of jail. And child support debt never goes away, even if you declare bankruptcy or when the children grow up.
"We found that there are 20- and 30-year-old children who are paying their father's child support debt, so their father can keep whatever small income they may have," she says.
Issues-
TANF waivers, immigration, Obamacare, and child-support policy
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
"This legislation is necessary to reaffirm Congress’ role in legislating social welfare policy as the administration has once again overstepped the Constitution and circumvented the critical role of the legislative branch with the issuance of an overreaching proposed rule.
Last year the administration issued a proposed rule that, if made final in its current form, would make it easier for non-custodial parents to evade paying child support—a move that could potentially force some American families to go on welfare.
Deadbeat parents, not hardworking taxpayers, should be held accountable for their financial responsibilities. Our bill will prevent the administration from going forward with a unilateral approach that bypasses the Congress yet again and undermines this key feature of welfare policy.”
Orrin Hatch does not seem to be concerned that health care that is affordable-
"...it is ironic that the preface to the Burr-Hatch-Upton plan indicts Obamacare for sending ‘out-of-pocket costs skyrocketing.’ In fact, out-of-pocket spending has fallen since enactment of Obamacare—from 12.1 percent of total spending in 2009, the year before Obamacare was enacted to 11.6 percent 2013, the last year for which data are available. The Burr-Hatch-Upton plan would create the very problem for which it falsely blames Obamacare. In fact, the Burr-Hatch-Upton plan would also eliminate the very important annual limit on annual out-of-pocket expenses that Obamacare provides.
And there is a deeper lesson. One should not be fooled by slogans and generalities. One has to examine details in order to know whether a plan is or is not a basis for negotiation. Make no mistake—details of Obamacare do need fixing-- but those repairs involve filling holes in coverage, not making more holes. It requires making benefits more generous, not less. The Burr-Hatch-Upton plan proposes to move in the wrong direction. Such a plan cannot serve as a basis for negotiation.
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/45635...ead-broke-the-why-behind-unpaid-child-support
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/heal...macare-gop-burr-hatch-upton-alternative-aaron
According to the report, 40 percent of children living in group homes don't have a diagnosis that warrants such a placement. The report suggests that children are often sent to the homes because there is nowhere else for them to go.
President Obama's 2016 budget proposal aims to address that need. There is a $78 million dollar line item in it that would go toward specialized training for foster parents who agree to care for mentally ill children.
Orin Hatch has proposed a simple solution to longstanding problems in group homes: begin shutting them down.
Orin Hatch does not care if these children have no place to go-
"Here's how I look at it: No one would support allowing states to use federal taxpayer dollars to buy cigarettes for foster youth," said Hatch in his statement on the hearing. "In my view, continuing to use these scarce taxpayer dollars to fund long-term placements in group homes is ultimately just as destructive."
Kari Sisson, executive director for the American Association of Children's Residential Centers, told ProPublica that Australia closed its residential programs in the 1990s because foster care was cheaper. In time, she said, foster parents got overwhelmed and quit. Many youngsters ended up homeless or in jail. And Australia had to reopen the homes with more intensive therapeutic services in the mid-2000s.
"The conversation is fair, but it's not informed," she said. "I worry that they are making decisions that will seriously affect children who need therapeutic residential treatment. I've been a foster parent for many years and there are a lot of kids in the system that can't live in my house, because it's not safe for us and it's not safe for the community. They need a lot more intensive care than a foster parent can offer. It's very challenging."
Sisson was not called to testify.
http://www.propublica.org/article/c...caling-down-group-homes-for-troubled-children
