LES MISERABLES: SOCIAL SECURITY
by Dale Coberly
LES MISERABLES: SOCIAL SECURITY
Javert And Evil
From a message from the National Consumer Law Center (reference msaunders@nclc.org):
“It’s perfectly fine for a person who failed to pay their child support to end up penniless and living in their car, and to die that way.”
– High Ranking U.S. Treasury Official, in response to a request for help with Treasury’s rules which allow 100% of Social Security benefits to be taken to pay for decades-old child support. February 3, 2012. As the result of the concurrence of two new Treasury rules, elderly and disabled Social Security recipients will soon lose all of their benefits to old child support orders.
• As of March, 2013, all recipients of federal benefits must receive benefits through electronic deposit, either through deposit directly into a bank account, or using the Treasury authorized Direct Express Card. (31 CFR § 208.4.)
· Treasury’s new garnishment rule, intended to protect benefits in bank accounts from garnishment allows child support orders to garnish all of the funds in the accounts. (31 CFR 221.4.)
As a result, 65% of the recipient’s benefits will be withheld pursuant to administrative seizures and paid directly to the child support office. The remaining 35% will be deposited into the beneficiary’s bank account, where it will be seized in full through a bank garnishment.
Most SS recipients who owe child support are old and or disabled. Their children are grown and the child support is owed to the state. The amounts of the orders have ballooned to tens of thousands because of annual 10 or 12% interest rates applied.
· Although blind and elderly, Mr. W. found a legal services lawyer in September 2010 when the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) ordered Treasury to take $217 from his Social Security check (which normally is $775). Five weeks after the legal services lawyer filed papers, the OCSE stopped the garnishment as it was required to do under New York State law. But in January 2011, the OCSE’s computer matched and froze Mr. W. ‘s bank account, depriving him of his entire Social Security payment. Again the legal services lawyer interceded, and after several weeks, the OCSE returned Mr. W. ‘s Social Security. But in July 2011, the OCSE’s computer froze Mr. W. ‘s account again. South Brooklyn Legal Services fought to retrieve his Social Security payment so Mr. W. could pay his rent.
· Mr. R. is sixty two years old, homebound, and lives entirely off of his $780 Social Security payment. In June 2011, the OCSE ordered the U.S. Treasury to garnish 65% of Mr. R. Social Security check for child support arrears owed to his adult children. This reduced his check to $273. Unable to pay his rent or feed himself for an entire month, R. protested to the OCSE. After reviewing evidence in July 2011 showing Mr. R. lived below the poverty line, the OCSE stopped the garnishment as New York law requires. But the OCSE did not reprogram its computers. On August 5, 2011, Mr. Richard’s bank account containing his restored, direct deposit Social Security check was matched and seized by the OCSE’s computer. Although a legal services lawyer sent Mr. R.’s bank records to the OSCE, the account remains restrained. So desperate remains Mr. R. that he went by access-a-ride in his wheelchair to the local OSCE office in person, begging for money for rent. An indifferent bureaucrat told him to come back with an award letter form Social Security and perhaps he would do something. Mr. R. called Social Security and was told he would receive an award letter in seven to ten business days. And because the Social Security Administration could not switch his electronic check to paper until 6 weeks later, his next month’s check sailed electronically into his frozen account where it was also unreachable to him.
I have argued in this space that Social Security is the only way ordinary workers have to save their own money for retirement in a way that is protected from inflation and market losses. People of a Libertarian Persuasion have argued that the money is NOT safe from “the government.” In general that has not been the case… only one person has lost his Social Security money because of “the government,” and he was a deported communist. that is, someone we the people, though our government, are perfectly willing to cheat and cause great harm. I have thought the government would not be able to cheat and harm the entire population of Social Security contributors and recipients.
But “the government” appears to be embarked on a course to give aid and comfort to those who say “you can’t trust the government.”
Well, you can’t. Unless WE have the decency to protect “the least of these” against the evil that can and does appear from time to time in “our government,” we can expect the time will come when we are among that select minority which the government can cheat and harm with impunity because “we the people” don’t give a damn.
It’s not Social Security that is at fault here. It is us.
Let it be understood that I am not arguing that folks should not be required to pay their child support. But hitting someone old or disabled with a decades old bill, with accrued interest, that takes everything they have to live on, and saying, “It’s perfectly fine for a person who failed to pay their child support to end up penniless and living in their car, and to die that way,” …is evil.
I don’t know if this is part of an ongoing “conspiracy” to discredit Social Security, or if it is just the random evil that can occur at all times… in government or out of it. But it is evil. And we should stop it.
(Dan here…some formatting changes have been made but not the prose)
We need your help: Please write up a short, concise paragraph describing a client who lives on Social Security, owes back-due child support, and has already suffered, or will suffer, devastating losses from Treasury’s rules allowing 100% of benefits to be seized.) I do not need the client’s name, only yours, and that of your organization.
Thank you. Time is of the essence. Please send summaries directly to me.
Margot Saunders
Margot Saunders
Of Counsel
National Consumer Law Center
The problem Ms. Saunders describes is a new one to me. For one thing, the SS Act permits garnishment of SS benefits for unpaid child support but limits the garnishment to 65% of the benefit amount. To garnish 100% of SS benefits is illegal. It’s hard to believe Treasury implemented this rule without consulting SSA. But, it certainly appears banks are honoring the Treasury rule when states levy child support garnishments.
The main thing you need to know is that garnishments by state Offices of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) for unpaid child support arrearages are often sought solely to repay the state for its share of any public assistance paid by TANF or SNAP to the affected children. In old arrearage cases, no children are being deprived of support when the garnishment takes place. Also, the beneficiary’s inability to pay child support could have been caused by his/her protracted unemployment or disability. Court support orders are often issued without respect to the parent’s ability to pay. So, you have the state going after 100% of an indigent person’s SS benefits, leaving the beneficiary with nothing.
I certainly hope that anyone from SSA who reads this post will pursue this matter with Treasury and the DHHS’s Office of Child Support Enforcement. It seems to me that beneficiaries should be able to offer a pauperage defense in these cases or seek a reduction in the garnished amount based on hardship. If not, there is a complete absence of due process in these regrettable cases.There is much to question if the rule is based on the opinion of the official in Treasury I would not expect any federal official to say, “It’s perfectly fine for a person who failed to pay their child support to end up penniless and living in their car, and to die that way.” NancyO
For one thing, the SS Act permits garnishment of SS benefits for unpaid child support but limits the garnishment to 65% of the benefit amount. To garnish 100% of SS benefits is illegal.
Ok, let’s say for the sake of argument that this is true, and the state is supposed to allow “only” 65%. As Rdan pointed out, that would still leave the man (and most anyone else) unable to pay his rent, much less with enough for food or electricity.
What really struck me is the fact that the bill is so high because of needlessly punitive interest rates imposed by the government (10-12% in a ZIRP environment) for past child support owed to the state (i.e., the children have long since grown up).
Of course if you try to make such a nuanced argument leniency to a social conservative, the reaction will probably be along the lines of: “DEADBEAT –he got what he DESERVED!!” Sort of like how respecting habeas corpus or applying due process to detainess at Guantanamo is, like HELPING TERR’RISTS!!
For one thing, the SS Act permits garnishment of SS benefits for unpaid child support but limits the garnishment to 65% of the benefit amount. To garnish 100% of SS benefits is illegal.
Ok, let’s say for the sake of argument that this is true, and the state is supposed to allow “only” 65%. As Rdan pointed out, that would still leave the man (and most anyone else) unable to pay his rent, much less with enough for food or electricity.
What really struck me is the fact that the bill is so high because of needlessly punitive interest rates imposed by the government (10-12% in a ZIRP environment) for past child support owed to the state (i.e., the children have long since grown up).
Of course if you try to make such a nuanced argument for leniency to a social conservative, the reaction will probably be along the lines of: “DEADBEAT –he got what he DESERVED!!” Sort of like how respecting habeas corpus or applying due process to detainess at Guantanamo is, like HELPING TERR’RISTS!!
Harm,
This is happening under a Dem Executive. Welcome to Obama’s big government.
Islam will change
Buff
i probably have more contempt of the current administration than you have.. since you just have a cloudy contempt of all things democratic.
But if you think replacing Obama with any R is going to make this better, you are … ah, living in a cloud.
You might at least suspect that what O is doing is discrediting “big government” (Social Security) in order to carry out his mission from the bankers who fund both parties.
Buff and Harm
SS benefits aren’t based on need. The assumption behind the 65% garnishment procedure is that all the defenses to the action had already been made at the time the child support order was made. Well, no, because in many cases there are no possible defenses to child support orders under state law. In FL, the state doesn’t care that you’re unemployed or disabled or have no income other than the SS you receive. But, SSA will negotiate the amount to be deducted and the beneficiary can negotiate lower withholding. It’s the best we can do if the beneficiary isn’t entitled to SSI. SSI cannot be subject to liens or garnishments because it is based on need. So, here’s a case in which the guy who worked for his benefit is dogged by an old debt and the one who didn’t work enough for SS escapes penalty.
Pretty clearly the law needs to change to take reality into account as HARM suggests. However, the worst offenders among states I’m aware of are those with Republican legislatures and governors, like FL. These are the guys who collect very old arrearages and siphon off the last 35% left after the federal garnishment is applied. States like CA permit pauperage and disability defenses for garnishments. As a result, there are few cases like this in that state.
Buff, nobody asked me my opinion of this procedure. But, I think it’s been in place since the 1980’s. That would make it a Republican initiative to begin with. Still, the Dems have shown little interest in changing anything and are also to blame. NancyO
nancyO,
I think its just as bad as you do. If not for the morality of it (which should be enough) but just from the point you can’t squeeze anymore water from the rock.
You do notice that this comes about by the requirement for everyone receiveing SSI checks to have a bank account. Why can’t they just cut a check like they used to? Once again we see implementation of regulations that were not very well thought through.
I’ve read that there are somewhere on the order of 50,000 people (almost all male) sitting in jail for failure to pay child support (they get thrown in for contempt of court). This is an huge problem and the poor SS recipiants just another victim. Do you expect this to get fixed with the comment from the “High Ranking U.S. Treasury Official”?
And don’t forget student loans fit into this as well….they will garnish SS also to repay them (with interest).
coberly – And all I really thought was they didn’t want to pay back the trust fund! Obama & company make Bush Jr’s feeble attempt at SS reform look like amatuer hour…
Islam will change
buff
i agree that O’s attempt to kill SS is much more sophisticated than Bush’s. and I agree with the rest of your answer to Nancy.
I do think that “it’s the damn democrats” as well as “it’s the damn republicans” are exactly the way the damn bankers want you to think.
please not “bankers” is a sort of shorthand for “whoever is doing this.” IT might be reptile beings from outer space for all i know.
i am hoping Dan will publish a pdf i ran across that is a little more rational than i am about explaining the Error of Our Times.
Buff and Coberly–It is better not to get me going on the subject of the resurrection of debtors’ prisons in this country. The number of ways there are to squeeze money out of people who are already in hock to the payday lenders, the guy down on the corner who lent them $5 bucks, maybe a bill collector on the phone, is truly appalling. Meanwhile, we simply can’t afford to raise the minimum wage–why think how the job creators would suffer! First thing you know, people could afford enough food for their famililes and maybe to avoid loans with exhorbitant interest. No way we can afford the piddly little amount of money it would cost to keep people from starving and rotting in jail. Oh. There I go being a bleeding heart liberal again. Oh, yeah. Caught me. Guilty, guilty, guilty. NancyO
Nancy, you…
here I go being a Stalinist.
I have tried to help some of those people. They really need a grownup in their lives. I will grant you all that about low wages and no jobs, and sickness and bad divorces
but it is also the case that when they “could have” had enough money for at least gentle poverty, the spend it foolishly, or get swindled..
The thing I like about SS is that it forces people to save at least a little of their own money for some of the forseeable eventualities.
Those who want to make it all welfare want to break the relation between earning and saving and having it when you need it. Those who want to “privatize” it, want to ensure a steady supply of people ready to be swindled.
Nancy:
Don’t pay back your student loan and the Gov can garnish your SS benefits also. My son ran into this and he has “no” income.
Coberly–What I’m talking about is forgoing collections on long unpaid child support if there are no minor children currently in need of the absent parent’s payments. I’m not suggesting anything except concentrating on the collection of currently due child support, instead of going after old arrearages. That way SS would serve the purpose for which it was intended instead of pumping up state revenues at the expense of people already living at the poverty level. NancyO
Nancy
I hope you don’t think I disagree with you in any way.
It seems kind of stupid to me to give people “welfare” because they are too poor to live without it, and then take it away to give to the “state” for whom such tiny amounts of money are more often lost behind the couch than strictly accounted for in a way that means anything to real people.
and please don’t bite me about “welfare”, i know SS is not welfare. I was using the word as a figure of speech.
Because SSI is need based and often awarded to supplement those who have earned insufficient SS credits, could these people be eligible for SSI if their SS is being garnished?
I realize this solution is merely taking with one hand to only give with the other, but when one is dealing with the government, often one needs to be a little more ‘creative’.
Nancy,
The problem with your solution is that it falls into the category of having the government make “judgement calls”. IME, they typically try to avoid these kinds of things if possible, preferring having cut and dried policies that employees can follow. At least, that has been my experience.
coberly,
I rarely disagree with you on SS issues, but I think you are wrong here. I think this is an example of folks on the left pushing a good concept too far, exactly a mirror image of folks on the right pushing some good concepts too far which is a topic often tackled on this blog.
There are rights, and there are responsibilities. A person who fails to step up to their responsibilities, or engages in behaviors that are harmful to others and cost other people and the state money should be required to pay that back before getting more benefits from the state. Yes, in many cases, a person who behaves responsibly is unable to pay child support. But there are an awful lot of people having children they cannot afford and will not be able to afford under any circumstances. They are harming their own offspring, and harming the state by forcing the state to pick up the tab.
This is no different from any other externality issue. If people aren’t forced to pay for the externalities they impose, expect to see more damage imposed on others.
Mike
First, read Les Miserables to help you understand what we are talking about here.
This is not an SS issue, though I fear it will be used by the Libertarians to “prove” that SS can’t be relied on.
This is an issue about evil done in our names. There is a decency beyond which one does not collect bad debts.
Lucy
Thanks for trying to be creative. I don’t know if SSI or other “help” would be available.
But please note the attitude of the “high official”: “it’s okay if they have to live in their cars and die there.”
It would be a little dangerous to minimize the evil of this by imagining there is an easy solution for the people affected by it.
“This is an issue about evil done in our names. There is a decency beyond which one does not collect bad debts.”
Do these people, the indentured debtors, have any recourse through the courts. Given the length of time past one might think that there were some kind of statute of limits on such a debt. The issue will be whether or not the debt is legitimate from the first happening. Can the original award of support be challenged? Was there legitimate reason for nonpayment of the original award? Etc. Thorny issue, no doubt, but I think each case must be seen in its own unique context. If one owes the money and is, and has always been, unwilling to pay some action seems appropriate. On the other hand, why is the collection of the debt so long in coming? That’s the idea behind statute of limitation. If the state had a legitimate debt claim, why is the collection so long in coming?
LL–Judgement calls are what you get the big bucks for. Really–a GS-11 in SSA pays claims worth hundreds of thousands of dollars the beneficiaries over their lifetimes. This kind of issue is simple compared to many involved in a typical DIB claim. It only takes two questions to decide what to do in these cases. Does the bene have minor children to whom s/he should be paying child support–Yes or No? If no, don’t collect the old arrearage. If yes, you ask if the reduction in benefits would cause a hardship on the wage earner–Yes or No? If the beneficiary is able to pay the old child support, fine. If not, you collect a reduced amount or you don’t collect anything. This isn’t rocket science.
LL, I am familiar with SSA operations because I worked in SSA in its field operation for 32 years. Used to run a medium-sized office in CA. As judgement calls go, this one is small potatoes. But, if Treasury lets the states collect the last 35%, we have a conflict in statutes here. I can’t remember if SSI increases to make up the lost difference. I’m checking on that now. SSI can’t be garnished, so I suspect that for those who are concurrently entitled to SS and SSI benefits, there would be no harm done. But, I don’t know so am checking. But, that leaves the many “just barely ineligibles” whose SS benefits only have to exceed the SSI limit by one dollar to eliminate SSI. One way or another, someone whose income from SS is less than $10 K a year and has no savings is in no position to get by on zero income. NancyO
“This is an issue about evil done in our names. There is a decency beyond which one does not collect bad debts.”
I will concede the second line may be true, but then you are left with two options:
a. means test
b. let some really bad people get away with some really bad behavior, encouraging more of the same
Now you don’t favor means testing, and I sure as heck don’t favor option b, whether its by a wealthy scofflaw or a poor scofflaw. So what is the option?
NO,
I bet you and I are on the same page with debtor’s prisoon. I may even be more toward the looney left position on this!
BUt hey maybe we can get organ selling legalized? Or go Germany’s rout were not accepting a position as a prostitute will get you thrown off the unemployment benefits!
Islam will change
Jack,
First, the poor have a very difficult time hiring lawyers. Even pro-bono firms are limted as is legal aid (plus how many people even know about them or if they are available in eastern Kentucky…).
Secondly, for Fed debts there is no statue of limitations and a lot of times the collection starts once the Feds know its collectable and have the means to collect. Once people start getting SS payments the Feds know there is something to collect and where its is. Band they start collecting (BTW this will be a huge issue in a few decades over Federal loans to students).
I bet a lot of states have no statue of limitations either. The opening of electronic deposit of SS checks alerts all teh debtors where the money will go (by Bank reporting requirements). I bet garnishment is done by computers with no human intervention.
That’s why this suddenly pops on the radar. I bet there are other issues beyond back taxes and child support that will come out shortly too.
And debtor’s prison is already here.
Islam will change
Mike–There was a period not too many years ago when Deadbeat Dads were up there with Cadillac-driving Welfare Queens in the popular fiction surrounding welfare reform. The law in most (if not all) states now requires mothers applying for AFDC (now TANF) to identify absent fathers if the mother and father were never married. So, here we have the Deadbeat Dad or Mom at the end of the road, when they essentially are at the mercy of the employees of public agencies to survive.
Where do they come from? Well, our various wars, very poor families, communities with no money for public education, and so on. In the old days before computers, many parents who owed child support could avoid paying because they couldn’t be found. Now, computer matches like the one described in Ms. Saunders’ message make it much harder to disappear. Similarly, court ordered DNA tests produce reliable proof of paternity. The result is more court orders for child support and better enforcement of these orders. That’s what the OCSE does–provide data and other support for state enforcement agencies through computer matches for “deadbeat” parents. Not a bad idea by itself. But, like everything else, it’s how you administer the law that determines the outcome.
Middle or upper-income people can hire lawyers to get them through the legal process of divorce, property settlements, and child custody decisions. Poor people can’t. Unmarried parents depend on state OCSE agencies to help them get support orders. The theory is that absent parents served with notices of support hearings have had their fair share of due process. They may be unemployed or disabled and unable to pay even small amounts of support. Doesn’t matter–a nominal amount of child support is routinely set.
To change anything in the order the absent parent has to go back to court preferrably with a lawyer. You can represent yourself but people who do are generally wasting their time. Even then the court’s previous action is unlikely to be changed. And that is why the state OCSE seeks to enforce very old orders in which the only income involved is some sort of eventual govt benefit. These debts are perpetual as are debts owed the federal government (see Summerhill vs. US Supreme Court decision on federal debts.) So, all that tedious bureaucratese adds up to a debt trap from which many cannot escape. And, people who owe child support are routinely thrown in jail for civil or criminal contempt when they don’t pay the support they owe.
But, wait! There’s more! Want to hear about how unpaid traffic fines land you in the same cell with the evil deadbeat dads? Sorry to go on so long, but that’s why the law should be changed to permit the agencies to use reasonable discretion in carrying out the law. You are quite right to say each case must be seen “in its own individual context.” But, nooooooooo–the system don’t work that way. NancyO
Mike
I don’t favor means testing as a way of running, or replacing, Social Security. I see nothing wrong with means testing as a way of deciding whether or not to collect a debt owed to the state.
Personally, I have written off bad debts owed to me, I would always do so in the case of poverty. But I also do so in the spirit of “it’s not worth it.” I am hardly the only person I know who does this, some perfectly rational businessmen.
Along with Les Mis, you might refer to The Merchant of Venice, the Old Testament on limitations to loan collection and security. And I suppose “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Though I don’t believe that was specifically about money, it certainly includes money.
We still think we have a democracy in this country. So breaking someone’s knees because he didn’t pay his gambling debt, in the name of “law and order” and “not encouraging more of the same” puts us and our government in the same class as other organized crime.
Maybe we don’t really want to go there.
any pity I had for deadbeat dads died when I became a new step-father.
Let them starve to death and then rot in hell. That IS what they deserve.
Right, Buff. It’s not hard to get sucked up in this morass. A lot of people who were formerly middle-class are finding themselves threatened by unemployment with few resources to carry them through a long period of joblessness. Unemployment is one of those things that can get you divorced in a hurry. QED. NancyO
While we’re making reading recommendations, do read the last chapter in Tupper Saussy’s book ‘Rulers of Evil’. It’s about who’s really in charge here in this world and with who’s blessing.
I’ve met more than my fair share of reproductive narcissists who were not interested in their kids beyond the cuddly stage. Who could not do right by their fatherhood commission when there was a harlot nearby wanting to be raised above her station. What has to happen to them to wake them up and repent? Too late?
Do unto others…….. maybe the set-up is to see how many of those kids come forth now to show some forgiveness and mercy toward their genetic sire (can’t call them “father”) in his old age, penury and distress. That should be interesting.
It certainly doesn’t sound right or humane, but I don’t look at things the same since reading that book.
Jody , at least
btomdarga
has his own experience to go on. but neither of you seem to understand the point of “forgiveness” and, if i understand the theology, the one who is in danger of rotting in hell is the one who can’t forgive.
then there is the small matter of being the willing victim of propaganda… say, a book,
or even of generalizing one’s own experience to make judgments about people and situations one has no knowledge of whatsoever save that they resemble or can be made to resemble something that happened to us once, or we read in a book.
as a first pass, what i think i would do is
exempt SS, unemployment, welfare… and all “poverty” payments from garnishment.
in the case of SS which is not technically a poverty payment, those who receive SS, which they paid for, in excess of their “need,” will have other assets which can be attached if that seems just and equitable.
i understand the nazis thought it was simple justice to send the widow a bill for the bullet used to execute her husband. we want to be a little careful with our ideas about “justice.”
bto–I am not arguing on behalf of people who can and should pay child support. I used to process these cases in my office and referred the majority of them for maximum collection. I am pointing to a problem in administering existing law. Family law is based on equitable considerations, not just the narrow letter of the law. I am coming down on the side of equity and good conscience in handling collection of unpaid support. This is not a matter of pity or compassion as much as it is a question of how the govt should do its work. Going after people who can’t defend themselves fails of the standard of good govt. NancyO
NO,
And what’s worse is the divorce decree usually sets child support and aliimony (if applicable) based on what the guy made during his last job. A job he may nop longer ever be able to get again and may never see that level of income again. They can’t pay. And end up in prison for not being able to pay child support which may be greater than their entire paycheck!
Dropping class can be devastating to a marraige. I’ve seen only a few marraiges survive a big drop in the family income.
Islam will chnage
coberly,
That was the Chinese Communist who routinely did that. When it comes to mass murder the Nazi’s are rank amatuers to the leftest communists…
Islam will change
buff
still maybe not the sort of people we want to emulate.
My thinking went in the same direction, that is, I would prefer no garnishments whatsoever of SS payments or any other government program payments that are meant to keep people out of poverty. When SS payments put some deadbeat on the radar, the deadbeat’s other sources of income and wealth, if any, are fair game. Garnishing SS benefits may be the easiest path but it’s the wrong path.
Buff–Right you are. Get disabled and what do you get? D.I.V.O.R.C.E.D. In FL, the state uses a formula to determine child support that assumes everyone earns $48K a year (according to my lawyer friends.) Well, suppose you earn minimum wage. You sure don’t earn $48K a year and the resulting overstated amount insures you will always be behind in your support payments. Fair? Nope, but legal? You bet.
This business of punishing poor people for being poor actually extracts quite a bit of money from the “deadbeats.” It is in the states’ interest to design punitive family law systems which are intended to maximize revenues at the expense of litigants. Lets hear it for the Tenth Amendment and States’ Rights, y’all. NancyO
Right you are, PJR. I don’t think that SS, VA and UI payments should be taxed either. First you pay them because they’re unemployed, retired or disabled, then you tax them on the payments you send them. Not a lot of logic in that thinking. NancyO
I’m reading lots of interesting arguments of the fine points here, but precious little about what concerned citizens can do to stop this travesty. I am not dismissing the harm that not paying child support did to their now grown offspring. Yet, the persons being discussed are holding on by their fingernails and probably have been their whole lives.
Denying income, however meager, to old and disabled SS recipents is wrong. What can concerned persons do to halt this practice before it destroys more lives?
Link 777
answer that question and you will make the world safe for democracy again.
you might write national comsumer law center, m. saunders, and see if they have anything to suggest.
there is an email address at the top of this thread.
or write your congressman, or talk to your friends and neighbors. if nothing else you will begin to see what we are up against.
btw
i was a child of a divorced mother back in the days when divorce was rare. there were no child support payments. i can’t say it harmed me. though there are those here who might disagree.
it probably did make my mother’s life a lot harder.
Coberly,
I also had a rotten father who refused to pay child support. That hurt my siblings and I on many levels: financially, emotionally and socially. Yet, I still feel that this course of action by the states is just another way to squeeze the poor, the sick and the ignorant.
A better course of action: investment in high quality education so low income youth feel there is some alternative to popping those zippers and making children they can’t afford to raise.
Link777–There are absent parents who can’t pay child support or neglectful parents who live with their families and are unable/unwilling to help support them. We’ve discussed reasons that can happen here. Some people are at fault and some are not. One way or another it doesn’t make sense to starve old people to death or pitch them out on the street for old sins and misdemeanors.
This is a problem only Congress can solve. Today, we can use social media to advertize this problem to everyone this blog, Twitter and Facebook. But, we can also support Ms. Saunders by emailing the Congress people who are most concerned with the cases she cites and holler and scream bloody murder about these cases and what the Congress can do about it. I think that’s a good idea and will join you and others in doing so. Thank you for your concern. Lets follow through with Ms. Saunders and offer whatever assistance we can. Thank you for caring. I know Ms. Saunders will thank you too. NancyO
Link
I agree with you. but life is never easy. even that high quality education can become a hiding place for sadists who prey, emotionally, on vulnerable children.
Link777–There are absent parents who can’t pay child support or neglectful parents who live with their families and are unable/unwilling to help support them. We’ve discussed reasons that can happen here. Some people are at fault and some are not. One way or another it doesn’t make sense to starve old people to death or pitch them out on the street for old sins and misdemeanors.
This is a problem only Congress can solve. Today, we can use social media to advertize this problem to everyone this blog, Twitter and Facebook. But, we can also support Ms. Saunders by emailing the Congress people who are most concerned with the cases she cites and holler and scream bloody murder about these cases and what the Congress can do about it. I think that’s a good idea and will join you and others in doing so. Thank you for your concern. Lets follow through with Ms. Saunders and offer whatever assistance we can. Thank you for caring. I know Ms. Saunders will thank you too. NancyO
and though this is not the place to go into it… many of those children are never going to become lawyers or scientists or even happy cubicle workers.
i had just come out of a pretty sadistic situation in high school when i met, in another high school, a lady who understood that making farmers , or mechanics, or even happy farm laborers was part of a “high quality education.”
You got it, Run. In fact, that’s what we are discussing later in this thread. We need to make our case to Congress. Only they can set this right. NancyO
An earlier commenter asked if SSI would pick up the difference if one’s SS benefit is garnished. The answer is no. I checked with my friend who is an expert in SSI payment provisions. So, if SSA takes 65% of your benefits and the state takes the rest, SSA has no remedy for your situation. NancyO
The best available data indicates that 50,000 persons are in jail or prison on any given day for child support arrears. Also, “child support” is a misnomer. Men in the U.S. currently have no reproductive rights. For men, child support obligations can be nothing more than legally forced, unplanned financial parenthood. Lack of male sexual freedom in the U.S. today is a grotesque context for impoverishing and imprisoning men.
Thanks, Nancy for the suggestion. I will contact my congressional rep. To be honest, I don’t think they really listen to ordinary citizens anymore…but I will try.
Douglas, I see things differently. I agree that jailing persons for child support arrears is counterproductive and cruel; after all how can you pay for anything if you aren’t working? An arrest record (even lacking a conviction) makes you almost unemployable in this country, thanks to laws and executive orders passed during the Clinton Administration.
I disagree that men in the US or any other country lack “sexual freedom”. I think too many men lack sexual restraint or any sense of responsiblity. The time to think of consequences is before that zipper goes down…not nine months later.
Douglas
I don’t know the numbers, but it seems to me unlikely that men would go to jail if they could pay the money. So what we have is the law making a bad situation worse.
Unfortunately it is impossible to talk rationally about this subject.
this subject: the bad ways men and women treat each other.
i am disabled after social securiy took care of my kids half there lifes very well and my ex was satified texas desided to garnish my wages 300 dollars a month after they were grown a huge chunk out of my check witch caused a burden for my other family members be cause i could not survive on what i was geting with medical proplems to extra cost it was hell for years. now i paid them off in november and its now march and there still garnishing my wages yes i call regulary and they still havent got it right ive gone without food when the state owes me 300 dollars each month it cost more to sue than its worth states need to stay out of social security funds
Child support is female racket with govement support. Man owe nothing to woman or children, today isn’t 50’s, man owe only to himself and his friends.
Child support is visible sign of gynocracy and female entitlement of woman on man resources.
Woman is only organic fleshlight, bad porno and money leechers.
Alimony must be abolished as slavery.
my husband is 65 years old and just this year began receiving ss. he was receiving ssdi since 2005. he really is physically disabled and has been.
he gets 612.00 for ss and 78.00 ssdi.
we were recently informed that ny childsupport will be taking 55 to 65% of his ss. the ss office said they will only take 50%.
this is for arrears and we have no official court order with a judges name on it. in the 35 years we have been together we have never had one. and we weren’t hiding.
i can’t seem to figure out how to get this modified ,with missing info ,quickly enough, before we fall homeless. his income is our main source. we have no resources.
i am also concerned that the remaining 50% that goes into our bank will also be frozen,,,,after reading comments on this site.
can anyone help?
Hey, these old deadbeats need to pay their child support! Where were you all when the custodial parent(s) had no health insurance, little food, struggled to get to work/school/further training while keep the child(ren) in a decent school, had little to buy clothing, and in many cases(like mine) had to move soooo many times because the earnings often did not keep up with the cost of living!!! I am owed $29, 336.00 from an educated dog of a male who refused to pay for his child. WE suffered and struggled for sooo long and now we are to feel sorry for a piece of work who stated to his child that he did not care if he ate or not? You are just do not understand these doggish, irresponsible, creature who now seek the grace they did not extend to their own seed. Let the deadbeat in my case figure it out, or go prostitute himself(as he once told me to do) if he needs income. I want the child support he owes; at least I can help my son pay off his student loans.