And they are damn important whether you think they are or not. Fatherless children have the worst stats of all, look it up. All you need to know. Maybe one day we will get our own men's rights forum. This isn't 1950.
Men pay more in child support than women do. I did some research about this, and I found some evidence for that claim. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/08/22/the-bias-against-u-s-fathers-in-custody-and-child-support/
and this shows discrimination does it , tell me in your 'research' did you find any where the man is given custody and STILL had to pay child support. Child support pertains to both sexes equally depending on which has custody . .there is no discrimination.
Did you ask yourself the question why men pay more than women, or did you just read the article and decide there isn't a reason. Child support payments are based on the ability to pay AND the earnings of the person who pays, women generally earn less than men .. hence when a man gains custody the chances are he will receive less child support simply because the woman earns less .. this is also why there is no flat payment for all people, some cannot afford to pay anything . .child support is based upon the ability to pay and earnings. I'll try to make it a little easier for you to understand. Let us assume that child support is 10% of earnings. A man who earns $30,000 per year will pay child support at a figure of $3,000 per year should the woman win custody, now the woman earns $20,000 per year, so if the man were to gain custody she would still pay 10% which would equate to $2,000 dollars per year. It is not discrimination just simple maths.
lol, so you have just proven the point I was making, women generally earn less that men (18% less according to your link)
Alimony itself is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It's nothing more than redistribution. Partners should keep a rough track of how much they're earning, and only have to split their assets along these lines, unless they agree otherwise. [hr][/hr] As for men being discriminated against - everyone has double standards when it comes to what's acceptable. 25 year old girl sleeps with a 16 year old guy and everyone gives him the thumbs up, reverse it and he'll be lucky to escape with a mob lynching. That said, I don't think men have it as hard as women, discrimination wise.
Agreed, the problem only ever seems to arise when one partner refuses to pay, or the other gets greedy.
Sonja B. Starr University of Michigan Law School August 29, 2012 University of Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper, No. 12-018 Abstract: This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. Prior studies have reported much smaller sentence gaps because they have ignored the role of charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding in producing sentences. Most studies control for endogenous severity measures that result from these earlier discretionary processes and use samples that have been winnowed by them. I avoid these problems by using a linked dataset tracing cases from arrest through sentencing. Using decomposition methods, I show that most sentence disparity arises from decisions at the earlier stages, and use the rich data to investigate causal theories for these gender gaps.
It is a terrible thing for a child to have no father. Do you feel there are rights, laws, anything that can be legislated that is going to make this less a problem? - - - Updated - - - Do you feel that redistribution is always a bad thing?
You feel that taxes should be voluntary? wont work. as for consent, there are the elected representatives. If americans want to elect a govt that collects no taxes, then, elect one.
"Work" = meeting a goal I do not share. So long as interaction is voluntary I'm satisfied, regardless of the consequences. Evidently we have different concepts of consent. I am not concerned with the collective social contract, I find it antithetical to voluntary consent. Consent can only occur on an individual basis, since the individual is the indivisible unit. If a form of consent is available to the government, it's available to all. It's not possible to justify the state's monopoly over the use of force without justifying a whole lot of criminal behavior, because the state is in essence a criminal organization with good intentions. It's the hegemon in a specific area - the state is not in power because everyone cast their little vote, it's in power because it's the most powerful entity in our area. You might argue that its existence is desirable, but it's no more noble than that of Somalian pirates.
You were saying how consent is found in electing a new leader - I was explaining why I don't think this is a valid form of consent.
So each should decide for himself what tax if any he should pay, and to what purpose it should be put?
You could put it that way. I have no desire to cage people for not paying obligations they never consented to in the first place. The state is based around collective consent. I don't see that as adequate.
I think it might be nice if some day your ideals could be implemented. I suppose Eskimos lived that way up till recently, no taxes, no government, I read that in the old days the Inuit in Greenland would if they had to, gather with in the company of someone they could no longer tolerate, and they'd take turns singing their ridicule. That meant he was banished, a death sentence.
I'm not really concerned with that. I'm not really that interested in politics as in outcomes - I have a very individual-centric set of values. I can only affect my own actions, so that's all I'm really bothered with.
