Is it time for federal garnishing of wages for unmarried men?

[Rock_Happy]

Married taxpayers are busy paying for 18 years of health, education, and welfare of their own kids (22 years if parents pay for college), but the govt forces married taxpayers to also pay for 18 years of health, education, and welfare of for unmarried men’s kids. How is that social justice? Weak men who mostly want sex should not force the responsibility onto taxpayers when they refuse to marry and take financial responsibility for their kids. A federal garnshing of wages would help solve the injustice. The number of kids born to unmarried mothers has risen from 10% a few decades ago to 50% today. If it was a samll percent, then it would be bearable, but it’s not. Why should one half of the population be forced to take a financial responsibility for both halves?

It would sure cut down on many problems. Some people are intentionally circumventing and cheating the system.

I agree that all fathers should support their kids. I think that the current system was designed to protect the children, and not as much thought was given as to how to finance it as is being given now with all the fiscal and tax issues that we are dealing with.

 

[StarFireKK]

I doubt that the problem can be solved until women begin having sex only with responsible men who are also their husbands.

How about when men begin having sex only with responsible women who are also their wives?

Takes two to tango…don’t rely on women to be the social conscience, as I recall the Church teaches it is the MAN who is the head of the house.

 

[JimG]

How about when men begin having sex only with responsible women who are also their wives?

Takes two to tango…don’t rely on women to be the social conscience, as I recall the Church teaches it is the MAN who is the head of the house.

Yes, it takes two to tango. But it only takes one to say no.

 

[StarFireKK]

Yes, it takes two to tango. But it only takes one to say no.

With all due respect, that is not always true.

 

[JimG]

With all due respect, that is not always true.

If sex is consensual, it only takes one to say no (of either gender). If sex is forced–i.e., rape, then the ‘no’ may be ineffective.

But I’m presuming that our epidemic of out of wedlock births is not generally due to rape, although I haven’t seen any stats.

 

[asia53]

Yes, there are some who deliberately choose to deprive their child of a father. That’s an injustice to their children.

Yes, however, there are two sides to the coin. Some women deprive their children of their fathers for the childrens safety-----fathers who are drug addicts, alcoholics, pedophiles, abusers, etc

 

[JimG]

Yes, however, there are two sides to the coin. Some women deprive their children of their fathers for the childrens safety-----fathers who are drug addicts, alcoholics, pedophiles, abusers, etc

I agree that is so, and in those cases the children must be protected. It’s also true that both women and men should becareful when choosing a spouse, since they are also choosing the fathers or mothers of their children.

 

[asia53]

I agree that is so, and in those cases the children must be protected. It’s also true that both women and men should becareful when choosing a spouse, since they are also choosing the fathers or mothers of their children.

Absolutely!

 

[Rence]

Yes, there are some who deliberately choose to deprive their child of a father. That’s an injustice to their children.

With the numbers of children out of broken families, I personally don’t think it matters. In some cases, having a single parent household is more justice for children. Beating a dead horse trying to bring up children in a 2-parent family household that is nothing more than a war zone isn’t healthy for children either.

 

[JimG]

With the numbers of children out of broken families, I personally don’t think it matters. In some cases, having a single parent household is more justice for children. Beating a dead horse trying to bring up children in a 2-parent family household that is nothing more than a war zone isn’t healthy for children either.

I think that the Church’s position has been that children have the right to be conceived in love by a mother and a father. That’s one reason why sexual sin such as adultery and fornication are not only an injustice to spouses, including future spouses, but to children who are thereby deprived of a mom and a dad.

You are correct that the number of children born into broken families is tragic. The solution is to restore the sanctity of the family and the sanctity of marital relations. For some time now, both men and women have given priority to their own feelings over their responsibilities to their children. In other words, if it feels good, do it, even if my children suffer for it.

The same considerations apply to choice of spouses. Why marry someone who is going to be an absent or angry or alcoholic or druggy parent?

 

[ManOnFire]

I doubt that the problem can be solved until women begin having sex only with responsible men who are also their husbands.

Once men know they will be forced to pay for their own kids, you’ll probably see a substantial number store sperm at the bank and get then get vasectomies.

 

[ryecroft]

I think that the Church’s position has been that children have the right to be conceived in love by a mother and a father. That’s one reason why sexual sin such as adultery and fornication are not only an injustice to spouses, including future spouses, but to children who are thereby deprived of a mom and a dad.

You are correct that the number of children born into broken families is tragic. The solution is to restore the sanctity of the family and the sanctity of marital relations. For some time now, both men and women have given priority to their own feelings over their responsibilities to their children. In other words, if it feels good, do it, even if my children suffer for it.

The same considerations apply to choice of spouses. Why marry someone who is going to be an absent or angry or alcoholic or druggy parent?

I’m not in a situation like you describe- I have a wonderful husband - but do you really think those people that have husbands who are druggies or alcoholics for the majority of them, do you really think they know this will happen - you don’t go into a marriage thinking “gee I hope my husband becomes an alcoholic…”

Also, some of the sentiments on here, although I know are mostly put out there by Catholics (since this is a Catholic forum) some of the sentiments make me wonder if some of you wouldn’t rather see some of these children aborted than come from a single parents home. At least these women that are getting pregnant and have the child are not aborting the child. It almost sounds (like some) think that single parent homes are not fit places – I don’t agree - what’s the alternative - abortion or forcing a single mother to give her child to a married couple? That’s extreme and IMHO wrong.

And for the person that noted that the MAN is the head of the household, remember you first have to have a house hold, and when I mentioned this comment to my husband - he just kind of laughed - I think the view that the man is the head of the house hold and “in charge” of decisions is a bit antiquated. My husband and I have never had a situation where both of us disagreed so much that either of us even though “I’m the head of the household, so my end decision is the one that will win out if there’s a disagreement…”

God Bless
Rye

 

[JimG]

I’m not in a situation like you describe- I have a wonderful husband - but do you really think those people that have husbands who are druggies or alcoholics for the majority of them, do you really think they know this will happen - you don’t go into a marriage thinking “gee I hope my husband becomes an alcoholic…”

Also, some of the sentiments on here, although I know are mostly put out there by Catholics (since this is a Catholic forum) some of the sentiments make me wonder if some of you wouldn’t rather see some of these children aborted than come from a single parents home. At least these women that are getting pregnant and have the child are not aborting the child. It almost sounds (like some) think that single parent homes are not fit places – I don’t agree - what’s the alternative - abortion or forcing a single mother to give her child to a married couple? That’s extreme and IMHO wrong.

And for the person that noted that the MAN is the head of the household, remember you first have to have a house hold, and when I mentioned this comment to my husband - he just kind of laughed - I think the view that the man is the head of the house hold and “in charge” of decisions is a bit antiquated. My husband and I have never had a situation where both of us disagreed so much that either of us even though “I’m the head of the household, so my end decision is the one that will win out if there’s a disagreement…”

God Bless
Rye

You are right; there are many heroic women who have raised and are raising children on their own. Killing their children is not and should never be an alternative. These moms deserve praise for their sacrifice and dedication.

Still, I think the best place to raise children is in a home with a mom and a dad. I suppose there are many reasons for the increase in households with only one parent, usually mom: increased sexual activity outside of marriage, which is enabled by the wider use of artificial birth control (which fails), the increased indoctrination of young people that there’s no need to wait for marriage, and the increased denigration of marriage itself by substituting cohabitation.

I don’t know how many spouses really change once they get married, but I suspect that problems which become apparent after marriage were often already apparent before marriage, though perhaps ignored in the hopes that it would all work out.

Both men and women owe it to their future children to make better decisions about sex and about marriage partners.

 

[someguy14]

Perhaps the men wanted to be with the woman and their child and the woman refused.

There are many cases and points of view.

 

[JimG]

Perhaps the men wanted to be with the woman and their child and the woman refused.

There are many cases and points of view.

Yes, that’s also a possibility. And sometimes a woman may actually desire to have a child without having a man involved in her life. But that’s just unfair to the child. Both parties ought to think of the best interest of their children rather than treating them as commodities or personal possessions.

 

[Alice86]

I’m not sure I understand this thread. Unmarried fathers are, indeed, required by the various states to support children born to them, and an interstate compact allows one state to pursue and garnish a father in another state. The federal government allows those agencies to access the tax records of non-paying fathers so the can find the father and nail his wages or even prosecute him for criminal non-support.

But of course if an unwed father skips out and works for cash somewhere, that’s pretty hard to track down. It’s hard to track him down as well.

Thank you for clearing that up for many folks. In our state, and nationwide, employers are required to submit info on new hires specifically to ensure that their wages are garnished if they are responsible for child support.

 

[ManOnFire]

Don’t get me wrong, I actually think it’s a great idea - but I fear that if it was put into service, you would have a lot more women saying it was “rape” and you would have a lot more fathers pushing the pregnant women to have an abortion. I hate that our tax monies goes for some of the things described here, but I just don’t know how to fix it - it seems like each solution comes with its own extra complications/problems

God Bless
Rye

A claim of rape would need to have a hospital/police report. The point is social justice. The unmarried parent rate has gone from 10% to 50% and not stopping. Single mothers are paid more based on the number of kids. Where does it end? It’s only a matter of time before the system collapses under the weight. It’s no wonder that the Obama administration is such a staunch supporter of taxpayer funded abortion. They see it as a more just and cheaper solution.

It’s not right for married fathers to pay for their own kids, then pay for somebody else’s, while he’s off entertaining himself somewhere. The ideal solution is for people to reduce casual sex. If it’s too much of a temptation in the liberal media, then stop watching liberal media. No one is forcing us to feed the addiction.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The one point I would agree, is that we need to stop letting women keep the name of the father of their child secret.

It’s a society that has twisted morals and is just plain selfish. Ever since we decided that a child should not bear the stigma of being born to an unwed mother, we, for some reason, also started treating unwed mothers as “heroes.” That in turn has forced single fathers out of the family picture. Unfortunately, too many men are only too happy to oblige.

I have a Take No Prisoners attitude when it comes to outing fathers. I also strongly believe that women absolutely have The Power to turn that all around, but they, also, are enablers: (1) They’re providing uncommitted, irresponsible, unaccountable sex, which suits young, randy men just fine; (2) They cooperate with the whole anonymity thing; when they get pregnant, suddenly it’s their problem alone. Really? There are millions of Marys of Nazreth walking around the modern world, all with children conceived by The Holy Spirit? Hmm. Who knew?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, that’s also a possibility. And sometimes a woman may actually desire to have a child without having a man involved in her life. But that’s just unfair to the child. Both parties ought to think of the best interest of their children rather than treating them as commodities or personal possessions.

another

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

:angel1:Thank you for this very interesting and important topic that affects so many children.

On a closely related issue, I believe many states now have written into law that it is a federal offense to cross the border into another state in order to avoid court-designated child support in the state where one’s child (and/or the other parent) lives. In other words, years ago, deadbeat dads (or moms, to be fair here,) would cross the state line to avoid paying, thus making it harder for judges to enforce the court -ordered support.

Children suffer terribly when parents don’t step up to the plate, ways that affect the child for many years, such as malnutrition, social behavior, moral education, psychological health, and spiritual growth. Poverty and neglect of the youngest in society is heartbreaking. I’m glad you brought up a topic about parental responsibility.

As to tax issues, I’ll read the opinions here and join in the discussion on that. I do wish that somehow our country and others around the world could find a way so that children did not have to suffer for their parent’s dis-regard. As followers of Christ, we Catholics have a special concern for anyone suffering, and it is especially heartbreaking whenever children are in distress of any kind. We, and all people of good faith, can do more to alleviate suffering.

Kathryn Ann.
:harp::grouphug:
::knight1::flowers: