the winnipeg sandbox

Latest topics

» Gord Steeves should run for Mayor
by FlyingRat Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 pm

» To discontinue?
by EdWin Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:26 pm

» Sandbox breakfast get-together, Saturday, January 25, 2014.
by rosencrentz Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:27 pm

» 2013-14 Bisons/CIS Thread
by Hollywood Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:56 pm

» Katz must resign
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:09 pm

» Best Breakfast/Brunch
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

» Manitoba Action Party
by RogerStrong Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:24 pm

» Police Respond to a silent alarm With Guns Drawn
by EdWin Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:10 pm

» Details about Cineplex SuperTicket -- interesting promotion
by MattKel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:08 pm

» Freep locks out non-subscriber commentary
by Deank Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:58 pm

» 7-year sentence for Berlusconi
by FlyingRat Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm

» New Stadium
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:34 pm

» Winnipeg News Android App
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:33 pm

» First Post
by grumpy old man Fri May 24, 2013 2:43 pm

» The New Sals at Pembina and Stafford
by grumpy old man Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:35 pm

» Emma Watson wants to do nude scenes for 50 shades of grey movie
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:39 am

» Museum finally admits it needs to raise more money priovately.
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 am

» And You Thought Your Taxes Are High Now!!!
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 am

» free chocolate sample
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm

» Do you want a gift certificate for A winnipeg restraunt?
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm


You are not connected. Please login or register

Apparently Collecting Child Support and Welfare Should Be Allowed

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

sputnik

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
From the dumb-greedy-people department.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/province-sued-over-child-support-145086105.html

Rolling EyesShocked

Seriously.

This woman is collecting welfare (among a ton of other low income benefits) and says that she should be able to keep her child support payments as well since they are for "the kids".

Now she is suing the province over the matter.

For the record. I want to work and collect welfare since the money I make while working is for my stay-at-home-wife and my son.

Goth_chic

avatar
uber-contributor
uber-contributor
I read this article and almost fell off my chair! The nerve of some people. Maybe she should quit having babies if she can't afford them!


_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

AGEsAces

avatar
moderator
moderator
again...yet another reason that there should be a spay/neuter clause in order to receive welfare benefits.

http://www.photage.ca

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
I agree with her.

I will discuss when I get back from lunch.


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

St Norberter

avatar
major-contributor
major-contributor
I'm with Dean on this one.

Child support calculations have NOTHING to do with the earnings of the parent who has custody of the children, but the earnings of the non-custodial parent.

Do you get less money from your employer if you are a single working parent and you receive child support from a spouse? Nope.


_________________
It's all about the wheelie. Everything else is Bullshit.

http://bgilchrist.wordpress.com/
http://bgilchrist.wordpress.com/

AGEsAces

avatar
moderator
moderator
ok...so I was listening to this story on CBC at lunch...and...

I would tend to agree with what they are suing for.

Apparently, they are not suing for money to go to the mom.
They will be happy to have the money be held in trust for the kids in the future, for either education, or other expenses beyond a certain age.

Their argument is that the child support payments are SUPPOSED to go to the kids, and are not a reflection of income for the mom...that technically it would be income for the kids, and that in normal circumstances...mom would just be the financial manager of that money.

They also expressed the concern that there is no law forcing people to take a wage cut because they are collecting child support from someone...so why should she give up benefits or money due to child support payments coming in.

It was also NOT her idea, it was her attorney's, who suggested the fight, and she decided to back it.

What's not in the article either, is that she was working, and then she went on "mat-leave"...and then her boyfriend took off...
Apparently he was paying child support, and then quit paying...so she went to an attorney on Legal Aid to try and get the money from him.

She also indicates she's going back to work in the summer.

So, in this case...I think she's right...and I agree with the position that the government should not be taking money away from the kids. That if they want to take it, they should be putting it in a trust account for the kids when they get older...or for emergency situations which have to be applied for by the mother.

http://www.photage.ca

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
The "theory" behind the support payments is that they are set at such a level as to attempt to assure the child leads the same life with the one parent as the non custodial parent is living. Taking away money from a welfare plan based strictly on how much a non custodial parent is giving is therefore wrong.

maybe an example will work better here.

mom plus 3 kids gets 1400 per month from welfare ( number made up)

that is 800 basic plus 200 per kid. (again made up)

all 3 kids have different dads.
dad 1 pays $25 per month
dad 2 pays $350 per month
dad 3 pays $75 per month.

so welfare is taken away to the tune of $450 per month, which FORCES dad 2 to support children that are not his since he is paying the majority amount.

What should happen is that $200 per kid amount should be reduced accordingly
ie
kid 1 gets $25 from dad1 and $175 from welfare
kid 2 gets $350 from dad2 and $0 from welfare
kid 3 gets $75 from dad3 and $125 from welfare

granted the money is still shared amongst the entire family but since the net result is more money for the family there is at least an attempt to bring a more equal to what dad2s life is like


understand reasoning?


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

AGEsAces

avatar
moderator
moderator
although...despite my earlier agreement with this plan...i still think there should be a contraceptive portion to collecting welfare.

http://www.photage.ca

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
I dont agree the money should go into trust tho

also.. did you know that child support agreements dont end at 18 anymore?


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

sputnik

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
That "theory" should not apply to someone collecting welfare.

Also, it is crap to tell me that the child support payments are like some form of allowance or trust fund for the kids. Its not like living with two parents in my family netted me a healthy 5 digit trust fund by the time I turned 18.

Child support puts food on the table and clothes on their back, which ironically enough is what welfare is supposed to do.

She should not be able to double dip.

If she wants to put the child support money into a trust fund, she should go get herself off welfare.

sputnik

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
To me this is no different than being unable to collect EI if you got a severance package from the job you were laid off from.

Legally the severance money belongs to you, but that doesn't mean you should be able to collect EI at the same time because both serve the same purpose.

grumpy old man

avatar
administrator
administrator
Welfare is an emergency source of loot that should only be available to certain people in extreme cases.

All revenue sources should be considered when calculating how much money people should receive while on welfare.

While my position might seem cold-hearted, welfare should not be a bonanza when the parent is already receiving an income to help support her children.


_________________
Yes, I really am that Grumpy...

It's their, they're and there; in Canada it's colour, cheque, rumour and zed...

Goth_chic

avatar
uber-contributor
uber-contributor
She should get her child support and that amount should be deducted from her welfare cheques. And I hope she stops breeding cause she obviously cannot afford the 3 she has.


_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Outsider

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
I want to know:
1. Why her boyfriend stopped making payments?
2. Why the government does not go after him to continue making payments?
Can't they make him take a paternity test?

rosencrentz

avatar
uber-contributor
uber-contributor
So I have figured out that the 3 forum members who talked about contaception, all are card carrying Conservatives or Republicans if they are USA citizens!

DeanK are you paying the $25 or the $275?

She is very pretty, and I think she should be paid extra for that reason, as well as her kids are beautiful.

Grumpy- cann't you get the mean spirited cheapskates to change their outlook?



Last edited by rosencrentz on Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total


_________________
They cut my back open ! Help!
http://www.elansofas.com

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
DeanK are you paying the $25 or the $175?
no


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

rosencrentz

avatar
uber-contributor
uber-contributor
Cheapskate! lol



What is the cost of a gross of condomes? Why wouldnt welfare automatically hand these out to single mom's with written instructions?


_________________
They cut my back open ! Help!
http://www.elansofas.com

Stonekiller

avatar
contributor
contributor
Wish people would stop having children they can't afford to have. If you are scrapping by without any kids, then logic says not to have children. This woman has three... Circumstances occur where the state provides assistance to those who need assistance. That's fine, but there has to be some common sense here. These are young children, they look to be a couple years apart.

I agree that child support payments aren't income, however when you are on the poggie the money you get is fixed. If she wasn't on welfare would she claim that as income on her income tax?

sputnik

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
Stonekiller wrote:I agree that child support payments aren't income, however when you are on the poggie the money you get is fixed. If she wasn't on welfare would she claim that as income on her income tax?

From a tax perspective they ARE income.

The receiver pays tax on them and the payer gets a write off.

grumpy old man

avatar
administrator
administrator
Chronic welfare abusers know that every child they pop out results in more welfare loot and opens up ever-better welfare benefits such as a bigger and better abode.


_________________
Yes, I really am that Grumpy...

It's their, they're and there; in Canada it's colour, cheque, rumour and zed...

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
sputnik wrote:
Stonekiller wrote:I agree that child support payments aren't income, however when you are on the poggie the money you get is fixed. If she wasn't on welfare would she claim that as income on her income tax?

From a tax perspective they ARE income.

The receiver pays tax on them and the payer gets a write off.

Actually NO, not since 1996.

The payer gets no write off
The payee does not have to declare it as income and gets to claim the kids.


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

Outsider

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
grumpy old man wrote:Chronic welfare abusers know that every child they pop out results in more welfare loot and opens up ever-better welfare benefits such as a bigger and better abode.
The number of children the taxpayers should be frozen at whatever the number they have is when they go on welfare. IE: I think she has 3. Thats all the taxpayers should pay for.
If she has more, too bad.

Outsider

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
And why isn't the government going after the father to pay child support?
(Or is he on welfare now too?)

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
umm this case is about the fact that He IS/was paying child support, and the government wants to take it for her to be on welfare.


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

grumpy old man

avatar
administrator
administrator
My understanding is if the father is known welfare will go after him. I imagine there are always multiple fathers, unknown fathers, dead-beat and marginalized fathers...

Like getting blood from a stone, but go after them anyway.


_________________
Yes, I really am that Grumpy...

It's their, they're and there; in Canada it's colour, cheque, rumour and zed...

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum