Why Isn't Child Support Based Upon A Flat Rate?

The reason that child support payments are not based on flat rate schedules which actually bear some resemblance to expenses that could reasonably be associated with the rearing of a child is because child support payments are not, in fact, intended to be used for the rearing of children. Rather, child support payments are intended to be used to transfer assets from a man to a woman.

This is also why courts have no interest in tracking the use of child support payments by a woman. The courts do not care what the money is used for, only that the assets are transferred from the man to the woman. We know that courts are capable of monitoring money - given the eagle eye that they demonstrate in tracking the income of a man who owes child support and given the scrupulous attention paid to men's incomes prior to the signing of an equitable distribution prior to divorce. Since courts are capable of closely supervising men's income they demonstrate that they are equally capable of supervising the outflow of cash from a woman's account. That courts show no interest in doing so indicates that they really do not care about children.

The truth is that child support payments are intended to keep the ex-wife or ex-lover in a comfortable lifestyle and function as a disincentive to marriage so that the swelling ranks of bitter, lonely feminists continues to grow. But as an excuse, "a man has a responsibility to support his children" sounds politically a lot more viable than does "a man has a responsibility to support the wife who committed adultery against him and then sued him for everything he had."

Child support is abusive and should be completely abolished. It encourages the violation of the marriage contract by women (which women demonstrate they are quite capable of violating, given that far more than two-thirds of all divorces and separations are initiated by women) and it ignores that men's commitment to rear children is based upon that contract of marriage. In other words, men never have agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children minus the emotional, intellectual, and physical contact that is necessary for parenting and they have never agreed to be a financial source for the rearing of children without a wife/mother to assist them.

If women are just as capable as men (as feminists say that they are) then let them bear the full burden of rearing children when they file for divorce. Let the law say that whoever has the BENEFIT of full custody of the children also has the RESPONSIBILITY to actually provide for them.

Of course, feminism is not about responsibility, so expect such a theory to be viciously opposed.

Such a law would also have the added consequence of functioning as a disincentive for the ridiculous surge in divorce that is ripping Western civilization apart at the seams. Women, and feminists particularly, need to grow up and recognize that they do have a responsibility to their husbands, to their children, and to society. And if they choose to reject that legal responsibility entered into freely and without compulsion at the marriage altar, then let them bear the burden all alone.

The Child Support Industry

Take a woman who can't afford a child and society calls her a victim or a hero and will grant her an abortion - or an endless supply of welfare checks. Find a man who can't afford a child and society calls him a deadbeat dad and tosses him into jail. At least that is the perspective of Kathleen Parker in Save The Males (Random House, 2008). She writes:

It's hard to cough up the dough [for child support] when your broke, harder still if you're behind bars.... Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2005 that 70 per cent of child support debt is owed by men who owe $10,000 a year or less or who have no earnings at all....

The child support industry has been a windfall for states and for middle-class divorcing women. Economist Robert McNeely and legal scholar Cynthia McNeely go so far as to suggest that... governmental policies [on child support] have led to destruction of the family "by creating financial incentives to divorce [and further incentives resulting in] the prevention of families by creating financial incentives not to marry upon conceiving a child."

Penalizing errant fathers has become the only form of chivalry modern woman will tolerate, but it is chivalry, based on the idea that Uncle Sam must come to the rescue of the nation's distressed damsels. The real result of the child support industry, however, has been the creation of a system that grants bureaucrats unprecedented access to private records and control over the lives of people, most of whom have committed no offense. As investigative reporter Robert O'Harrow Jr. wrote in The Washington Post, commenting on the expansion of federal child support initiatives, "Never before have federal officials had the legal authority and technological ability to... keep tabs on Americans accused of nothing."