Mothers should not be required to pay child support to the father if he breaks up (or divorces) with her because he is not stuck taking care of the child and can allow the mother to take care of the child or if she is a unsafe caretaker or unwilling to be a caretaker he is still not stuck taking care of the child and can put the child up for adoption. If he refuses to put the child for adoption and also refuses to allow the mother to take care of her own child then he should be required to pay. Mothers should not be required to pay child support for a child they are not allowed to take care of. Mothers should not be required to pay any child support for a child they are forbidden to see part of the time in the case of split custody
Fathers should not be required to pay child support to the mother if she breaks up (or divorces) with him because she is not stuck taking care of the child and can allow the father to take care of the child or if he is a unsafe caretaker or unwilling to be a caretaker she is still not stuck taking care of the child and can put the child up for adoption. If she refuses to put the child for adoption and also refuses to allow the father to take care of his own child then she should be required to pay. Fathers should not be required to pay child support for a child they are not allowed to take care of. Fathers should not be required to pay any child support for a child they are forbidden to see part of the time in the case of split custody.
The government should not tax people to pay for taking care of children they are not allowed to take care of. Single mothers and single fathers and adoptive parents should not get paid for choosing to be a parent through the taxation of people who are not allowed to take care of that child.
The person or people who take care of a child influence the child's thinking and worldview and behavior and only people who are responsible enough to plan how to economically (providing food, housing, etc. not necessarily money) support a child without taxing other people should be granted the privelege of taking care of a child.
Even if this sometimes means both biological parents lose access to funds and neither can take care of their own child economically after a break up or divorce and a third party adopts their children instead this is still an improvement over coerced child support payments, because it means more responsible people will raise the child in most cases, resulting in a child that makes better life decisions in most cases.
People should not pay taxes to send other people's children to public schools or daycare centers. Responsible parents would have the time to home school if they are not required to work extra hours to pay for taxes to send other people's children to public schools. Both parents working is not a valid excuse for public schools because at least one of two parents could choose not to be employed while the other one is working and still have enough resources to support the family if the parents were not collectively coerced to work extra hours through taxation to send other people's children to public school.
Although both biological parents might plan a means to be economically sufficient to support a child as a team, unforeseen circumstances such as being fired from a job for refusal to obey unethical orders of an employer may occur. It is better therefore not to put ones primary means of economic sufficiency on an employer so that an employer can not threaten to take away your means to support your children if you do not follow unethical orders. It is better to grow your own food and have your own means to produce clean fresh water. In agricultural societies having more children usually meant more people that could help grow food. None the less sometimes unforeseen factors occur even in agricultural societies where in spite of responsible economic planning of a couple before deciding to become biological parents disasters such as bad wrather, earthquakes or fire (not caused by negligence) may occur causing local famines or local crop damage and insufficient food and or drinkable water. In such cases people may voluntarily provide charity or donations if they believe the people were responsible parents this is completely different than forcing other people to pay for child support. Occassionally asking for donations to take care of your family in a time of unexpected need is very different than to plan to live off coerced child support payments as a regular and ongoing thing for the entire duration of the time you take care of your biological children. In other cases a malicious third party may deliberately do actions that cause economic harm to biological parents such as burning their crops, in such cases it maybe reasonable to require them to pay for economic damage but this is not the same as requiring to pay for child support because they are not paying for the fact that other people had children but paying for the fact that they maliciously destroyed someone else's food supply.
If an adoptive or biological family is abusive a child should have a right not to be adopted by them anymore there are other people that can adopt them. Nobody should be coerced to adopt other people's children but plenty of people are willing to adopt other people's children.
I am not here saying people should refuse to receive government subsidies to get extra resources to take care of children. I am saying giving people subsidies to take care of children should not be used as an excuse to validate the moral legitamacy of coerced taxation or coerced childcare payments. In cases where refusing to receive funds given by government agencies does not return the money to the taxpayers who were taxed with the excuse of raising money to pay for those funds the act of choosing to receive such funds on a individual (not policy) basis does not coerce people to pay for child support. However if someone directly forces a ex spouse (who they initiated divorce against) to pay child support where as they could choose not to bill the ex spouse for child support this is a completely different matter. If the ex spouse was divorced for malicious non defensive domestic violence and the violence was real the ex spouse should be in jail not out of jail employed and paying child support.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2021
https://grammarhow.com/peoples-or-peoples/
http://web.archive.org/web/20210118194052/https://grammarhow.com/peoples-or-peoples/
No comments:
Post a Comment