Tirithh wrote:
How much it costs to repair any given vehicle is not proportional to how much you earn, so of course that won't be a factor in how much you have (or your insurance has) to pay. But how much you spend on a child is. You might come up with some hypothetical situation where a person earns a few hundred thousand USD a year and doesn't spend more on their kid than a person earning 40 thousand, but that is hardly the rule.
Almalieque previously wrote:
The problem isn't that "rich people spend more money on their kids than poor kids". The problem is assuming the amount of money the rich people spend on their kids. So the fallacy is, since rich people spend more money on their kids than poor people, than the differential amount spent on kids will be equal to the difference in the parental income.
Smash wrote:
No, it's exactly like that, precisely, and has been in common law since about 1520. Actually they do, all the time. Damages are frequently predicated on ability to pay, hence the common legal expression "you can't get blood from a stone".
There's a difference between the inability to pay a damage vs simply not paying the damage. I've acknowledged this from the beginning. The fact that you're now addressing this only confirms your inaccuracy.
Almalieque previously wrote:
I'm not against the law in concept. My proposition is to transition from a flat rate/percentage of income to the average cost of living when the payer reaches a certain level of income.
Smash wrote:
Look I'm sorry you had some sort of broken personal epiphany and decided that centuries of jurisprudence are "wrong" somehow. They aren't. Given the two options of either: You misunderstanding how the law works, OR: Everyone else in the world, including people who have dedicated their lives to the study of family law have been perpetually wrong forever...you continue to choose the second one? Why? What do you possibly gain?
Almalieque previously wrote:
You saying that doesn't make it true. Given the fact that every state calculates child support differently not only contradicts your claim but supports the notion of ridiculing how certain states calculate child support. There is nothing wrong with Texans criticizing how Floridians calculate child support. Just because it's the law doesn't remove ridicule. Furthermore, you act as if there are no laws that are absurd or need changing. So, I guess we live in a world where laws are only added, because every law created is constitutional, sane and unbiased.Smiley: rolleyes You are literally arguing "because it's law, it makes sense". I guess you really don't support SSM in the states that don't support it...
Smash wrote:
No one here is going to say "gee your ideas have merit and are thoughtful and insightful" when they are actually the worthless drivel you've been spewing in this thread. Wrong forum for that. They aren't interesting ideas. They're akin to "the Earth is pear shaped, right so" then 100 posts of people explaining that the Earth isn't pear shaped. That's all this discussion has been. People explaining to you, as if you were a small child, how you are wrong, and you missing the point.
You should move on. I am moving on.
Let us go then, you and I, with the rest of the forum for us to spy, like a patient etherized upon a table.
It's time for all the works and days of hands that lifted and dropped these questions on our plates to be done.
To the other threads we will go, and talk of Gubernatorial braggadocio.
Or you can stay here, I don't really give a ****.
Drivel? Your last counter was not only something that I agreed to from the beginning, but it does not in any way counter the point that I'm making. You obviously have no point and have just concluded to what you always do when you're trapped in the corner....result in insults.
Paying for child support is not the same as paying for a scratched car. You can pretend that I'm the only one who doesn't believe that, but you would be in denial.