But the child needs food. It's an unavoidable, everyday need for everyone. The cash provided would be spent on food in the end so why can't they just be given food? Quit complicating it.
You can barter for almost anything. Taxes, cash, but that's ONE thing...you can barter for virtually everything else, or go without. I know people who pull their own teeth and take horse antibiotics. I know people who barter with doctors. Doctors are people too. They need work done or other stuff. They're down to trade.
But what if they have a different need thing at the time? Why can't you understand that? What you are describing is not proper parenting. They might need something else right then and there and the food isn't going to help them but the cash is... get it?
You ALWAYS need food every day. There's no substitute for food. There's substitutes for everything else, there's ways to get other things without cash if it's an emergency. The money that the custodian saves on NOT having to buy food would then go for "other needs". What aren't you understanding about that?
No, I'm saying that if a person can supply food better than they can supply cash, why can't they be allowed to supply that food?
Everyone needs to eat every day. If you had $50 and no food, you'd go buy food with your money. You wouldn't save your $50 and starve. You're trying to say that money is more valuable than food and I'm saying it isn't. Money is either less valuable or equally valuable as food. Prove this to be untrue.
I'm saying $50 because it's an average lower income support payment. In many states the minimum is around $8-$12 a month.
It seems like your mom should've known that he was only worth $50 a month before having kids with him. Not being rude, just saying. Facts.
I'm talking about the same scenarios in my post. People who have DEMONSTRATED a certain lifestyle, that it's unreasonable and unfair to expect differently from them based on their proven adherence to specific lifestyles.
Yeah but if you have your food provided then that's one major thing you don't have to worry about. If I give you $50, you could waste it on anything and then be hungry the next day.
What if we replaced food with home?
If I had a second home and allowed my ex-partner and child to live there for free, are you telling me that wouldn't be acceptable in lieu of cash? That it wouldn't be as or more valuable than any meager cash payment I could muster? I'd have to give you less cash than it would cost to pay for a home every month yet giving you the place to live is less valuable than a little bit of cash just because you can't spend it on whatever you want?
IIN to think Child Support Is Unfair!
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
But the child needs food. It's an unavoidable, everyday need for everyone. The cash provided would be spent on food in the end so why can't they just be given food? Quit complicating it.
You can barter for almost anything. Taxes, cash, but that's ONE thing...you can barter for virtually everything else, or go without. I know people who pull their own teeth and take horse antibiotics. I know people who barter with doctors. Doctors are people too. They need work done or other stuff. They're down to trade.
--
anti-hero
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But what if they have a different need thing at the time? Why can't you understand that? What you are describing is not proper parenting. They might need something else right then and there and the food isn't going to help them but the cash is... get it?
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You ALWAYS need food every day. There's no substitute for food. There's substitutes for everything else, there's ways to get other things without cash if it's an emergency. The money that the custodian saves on NOT having to buy food would then go for "other needs". What aren't you understanding about that?
--
anti-hero
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
So it is totally on the other parent to handle such things? How is that fair? What the fuck do you think 50 a month is gonna do anyway?
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, I'm saying that if a person can supply food better than they can supply cash, why can't they be allowed to supply that food?
Everyone needs to eat every day. If you had $50 and no food, you'd go buy food with your money. You wouldn't save your $50 and starve. You're trying to say that money is more valuable than food and I'm saying it isn't. Money is either less valuable or equally valuable as food. Prove this to be untrue.
I'm saying $50 because it's an average lower income support payment. In many states the minimum is around $8-$12 a month.
--
charli.m
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
anti-hero
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
...Dad?
Seriously. My dad was a cunt who tried to get away with paying $50 a month for two kids. You can't pay for shit with that.
I really hope you don't have children if this is your attitude.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
It seems like your mom should've known that he was only worth $50 a month before having kids with him. Not being rude, just saying. Facts.
I'm talking about the same scenarios in my post. People who have DEMONSTRATED a certain lifestyle, that it's unreasonable and unfair to expect differently from them based on their proven adherence to specific lifestyles.
I am saying that money is far more flexible than food.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Yeah but if you have your food provided then that's one major thing you don't have to worry about. If I give you $50, you could waste it on anything and then be hungry the next day.
What if we replaced food with home?
If I had a second home and allowed my ex-partner and child to live there for free, are you telling me that wouldn't be acceptable in lieu of cash? That it wouldn't be as or more valuable than any meager cash payment I could muster? I'd have to give you less cash than it would cost to pay for a home every month yet giving you the place to live is less valuable than a little bit of cash just because you can't spend it on whatever you want?