Should there be a mandatory maximum on child support payments? Is there some upper limit at which we, as a society say, aw hell to da naw! That's way too much for one guy to pay each month to one woman whom he happened to sleep with without a condom?
Why is it that we applaud the average woman takin' her allegedly triflin' baby daddy to court to collect that $250 a month to help pay the daycare bill. (and why are daycare prices so off da chain...can we get some regulation of that industry) But when the tables are turned and the man is a mega millionaire there is suddenly an outpouring of pity and support for the poor sap who now has to pay $29000 a month to his baby mama (or mamas if he gets around like that).
Jermaine Dupri has an interesting take on the situation.
"Someone in my position has to take care of his child and his baby mama. It's a point of honor that you set them up in a house, pay the bills, and give the mother of your child a monthly check so she can stay home and look after your baby. You've got the money so there's no excuse. In this industry, if you don't look after your baby AND your baby mama, you're an asshole. It's a code that makes guys like me a target."
-Young, Rich & Dangerous, The Making of a Music Mogul (2006)
Basically if dude is making that much money, ain't no reason his child and baby mama should want for nothing much less have to haul his ass to court like this guy, or this guy (just to name a few). I think JD has a point. If you got it like that, don't you want your kids (and the person takin' care of your kids 24/7) to have it like that?
Yet, the argument always circles back to vilify the woman (notice how this also seems to happen in other situations i.e. rape--why was she over to his house at 3am?; kidnapping--why she out in the street so late by herself?; Video vixen/stripper--why she think shaking that ass/swinging on a pole is a legitimate way to pay for school?) but back to jump offs...the thought is that this chick is getting rich off her ass just cause she laid down with (insert famous Black artist/athlete/celebrity here). How dare she! She should be made to work. She shouldn't get to shop all day, blah blah.
Sounds like a bit of hateration in that kool-aid ya'll dranking. Yea yea you all can say now, as you hustle your independent woman self to work each morning, that you wouldn't be able to just sit around all day, you'd have a job or something... gurl stop!
You'd take that 28k a month and keep it movin. You might not literally sit on your ass all damn day but you damn sure wouldn't be working your current 9 to 5 (at least not on a everyday 9 to 5, 6 or 7 o'clock basis). You might dabble here and there in your current profession, do some charity work, etc. but you'd focus on raising your child into a productive adult.
Now, granted there are some jump offs who take their life of leisure to a whole nother level.
Like this chick Willie Gary hooked up with. I mean, come on. Don't go spending the cheese willy nilly like you ain't got no sense. But even in that situation can we really advocate for a mandatory maximum given the facts? His dumb ass initially voluntarily agreed to pay that much (prolly to keep her ass quiet). And according to a quote over at sandrarose.com, the amount he pays per month as a percentage of his yearly income (a whooping $13 million per year) equals out to a guy making $130,000 a year paying only $280 per month.
Marinate on that shit. Puts it in perspective, doesn't it? Not to mention that his ass has yet to see his son and daughter since birth.
With the amount of money that these guys have, why shouldn't they pay (or be forced to pay) these women a percentage to take care of their children. They laid down with these jump offs, with no trojans or magnums on the nightstand, with no thoughts to the consequences of what that phat piece of ass would cost them in real-life dollars nine months later. So now you wanna cry, "This is ridiculous, I need a mandatory maximum please Mr. Judge suh." Naw shawty, it don't work like that. And with all that bread you laying down for that chain, that car, that mansion, that white party in the hamptons, are you really hurtin for it? You feedin' cousin pookie nem, your "personal assistant/bodyguard," and his whole family, why not feed your flesh and blood and the woman who gave birth to junior/juniorette?
But that's just my opinion...what's your thoughts on a mandatory maximum for child support?
"She supposed to spend it on that baby but we see she don’t
Ask ask Paul McCartney the lawyers gettin sloppy
Slaughter slaughter of them pockets, had to tie her to a rocket
Send her into outer space, I know he wish he could
Cause he payin 20K a day, that beesch is eatin' good
Like an infant on a double D, beesch is getting plump
Cause he miscalculated the next to the last pump"
--Big Boi, International Player's Anthem
3 comments:
Sometimes listening to my people hurts my heart. Like listening to Jermaine… "It's a point of honor that you set them up in a house, pay the bills, and give the mother of your child a monthly check so she can stay home and look after your baby." For real? How about fighting to stay married, or get married, and take care of your family as the point of honor…
Most of what you have said makes sense; however, the lines “are you really hurtin for it? You feedin' cousin pookie nem, your "personal assistant/bodyguard," and his whole family, why not feed your flesh and blood and the woman who gave birth to junior/juniorette?” got me thinking. At the end of the day the conversation should be about assuming (financial) responsibility for one’s children. I think most will agree that the conversation, as you point out, is about how much one can get over; however, the fact remains that while percentage splits in salary may be comparable one arguably does not need $30,000 to ensure that his or her children eat. What I take issue with is the fact that in the end the message isn’t “take care of your children” its take care of your children, your babies momma, her new boyfriend(s), they’re cousins and everyone else who is sure to be in the entourage…that is wholly problematic but such is the world we live in, right?
you make good points and i am by no means advocating that these women should be treating their children as a lucky lotto ticket, to be milked for all their worth. men should take care of their kids. period. however it appears to be harder and harder for those with tons of money to comply with court ordered child support, maybe because they feel that the award is simply too much.
and yes, this may be the case in most situations. no woman really needs that much money to care for a child each month. but again, I put the responsibility for these situations back on these men. if you lay down with money hungry gold diggers, you WILL wake up with them beesches all in your pockets.... you can't blame any one else but yourself for that.
I had a long drawn out response but I can't remember now. All I'll say is...(and I'm sure it's a lot more difficult than this but)...
$2.99 (for a pack of hats) vs $28,000. (for child support).
Seems like a no brainer to me.
Post a Comment