| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 397.1 | could be good, but probably not. | CSC32::R_MCBRIDE | Rockies Horror Show... | Tue Dec 05 1989 18:13 | 1 |
| no...but think of all the stamps it will save.
|
| 397.2 | free money, under the table | DEC25::BERRY | Back to the Future... | Wed Dec 06 1989 01:14 | 5 |
| Won't bother those that drift, changing jobs from time to time, or
those that hold no jobs. But it will affect those that pay on a
monthly basis. Don't think so? Figure it out.... both ways.
Dwight
|
| 397.3 | sheees! just what we all need! | FSTVAX::BEAN | DAMN! The TORPEDO! Full speed ahead! | Wed Dec 06 1989 07:58 | 22 |
| as it is right now, Digital requires a court order specifically stating
how much to withhold and where to send it.
frankly, I think it is a bummer idea. my divorce decree spells out the
exact payment and the conditions under which children "grow out" of
child support (when they stop receiving it).
if you have DEC do the withholding, it will require you obtaining a
court order each time your payments go down (or up, for that matter).
much easier to do it direct.
i was divorced in San Antonio, Texas, and now live in MA. I send my
payments to the Child Support Registry there, they record the payment,
and forward it (same day) to my ex-wife. there is absolutely no way
she can contest whether the payment was made.
it's just a safety net for me, and for her.
i think the govt. outta stay out of it!
tony
|
| 397.4 | | PEKING::NASHD | Whatever happened to Capt. Beaky? | Fri Dec 15 1989 08:31 | 4 |
| Over in this neck of the wood( England); I missed one payment to
my ex and she registered it in a Magistrates Court. Now I have to
pay them which is good and bad, cos if things go wrong I answer
to them. My ex doesn't have to do a damn thing.
|
| 397.5 | doesn't matter | DEC25::BERRY | Back to the Future... | Mon Dec 18 1989 13:30 | 5 |
| Failing to pay support even once is a "no-no." You owed her the money.
If you were late, that's one thing. If you were not going to make it
up, or pay it at all, then you have no gripe.
-dwight
|
| 397.6 | -=more than payment tracking ... | WOODRO::EARLY | Bob Early CSS/NSG Dtn 264-6252 | Wed Jan 03 1990 13:25 | 38 |
| re: .0
The new law has merits both ways.
Its purpose has little to do with the "honest" supporters. It does provide
one of Lifes little harassments, in that now every payment gets recorded.
The Government now also has a "permanent and legal" record of how much
Alimony gets paid (by SS#) and to whom !! (Goes to IRS). I believe
there is at least ONE expouse who did not declare any of the Alimony
payments as Income !!
Also, since the SS# and Payment records are now joined together,
anywhere the "John" goes the Gov't can track and either seize wages, or
pay with the "John"s accumulated SS Benefits, Tax Returns, or any other
funds held or paid by the Gov't.
There is an implied reduction of participator fraud. Each
Welfare/Medicaid/ADP/ etc can provide info when a spouse CLAIMS they are
not receiving Alimony/Support money.
It also provides another level of Government Intervention and
Supervision over its "free" members; increases the possibility of more
Gov't employees getting kickbacks and bribes from "spouses who owe", and
of course, another tier of Gov't employees. Just what we need. More
Gov't employees !!!
You can be sure of one thing. If some givernment agency shows all the
positive images of goodness about this plan, you can be sure its going
to :
- Cost all of us more than it will save
- Provide an irreversible government agency
- Improve corruption in the existing agencies
[-end-]
|
| 397.7 | is it or isn't it? | SQLRUS::FISHER | Pat Pending | Wed Jan 03 1990 15:01 | 4 |
| .0 asked if anyone else has heard of this. Has anyone?
.6 presumes that it is a fact but does not say so, is it?
ed
|