Closing thoughts on the child support assurance debate
In the Cancian and Meyer proposal, the government only pays if the obligated non-resident parent fails to pay, which is why they view child support assurance as “not another benefit for low-income custodial parents.” Since it is a payment from the government and will mostly benefit low-income parents, I can’t agree.I do, however, agree on their starting point: Our current system leaves too many single mothers and their children without sufficient support from the non-resident parent, and we ought to use government policy to address that problem. I support both incentives, such as financial aid from government, and sanctions, like requirements that both parents seek and provide support.
Cancian and Meyer say that the government assurance of support should be contingent on the establishment of an order. That would be worth the increased government assistance in my opinion, if it is combined with a child support cooperation requirement in the SNAP and Medicaid programs.
Over the past 20 years, a combination of incentives and requirements has helped to significantly reduce child poverty (properly measured) in single parent households. Increasing the effectiveness of the child support system along the lines discussed here would lead to further reductions in child poverty, and that makes this debate worth having.
Silahkan Like Dan Share :) Terimakasih
↓↓↓↓↓