The Student Room Group

MRAs rejoice Halle Berry ordered to pay 16,000 a month in child support

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by Fireking
End the man tax. I am not a slave for a bunch of classless single mothers and their chav offspring.


ah yes, because that is exactly where the majority of tax goes to :rolleyes:
I assume this is a step forward towards equality not just for women but for men as well - of course the MRAs should be happy, how wouldn't they be?
Original post by Shiroyuki
MRAs have small penises. :lol:


and by that logic, feminists have tiny breasts/bums

Original post by WitnessMO
Just shows feminism is now benefiting both men and women. Ofcourse Halle Berry should pay for her child to live in the comfort that reflect's her mother's wealth.


feminism is the women's rights movement; that's why it's called "fem"inism. so really this isn't about feminism at all, just legal equality. feminism is usually about legal inequality favouring women after all.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by vickidc18
Cause she's rich.


If it's joint custody, neither parent should be paying child support to the other. The only way that should happen is if one parent isn't involved, or has very limited custody. If it's joint, then neither should pay because that's ****ing ridiculous.
I'm not getting the part where she has to pay even though it's joint custody, but regardless that amount of money isn't too onerous for her to pay out for a child she cares about and whose life she's actively involved in. It'd be weird to resent paying out money for her daughter.
Why is it so high?

Since when does raising a child cost 16,000 a month (i assume you mean $, so ÂŁ9,500)?
Original post by vickidc18
66,000 women in the u.k are paying CS to their exes so women don't always win custody of the children it is likely the primary carer will win custody ( the one who makes food, cleans,bathes takes them to school) which is in the majority of cases the mother.


While there's over 400,000 single fathers.... this means most women will not pay child support
Original post by DanB1991
While there's over 400,000 single fathers.... this means most women will not pay child support


They may not be paying child support but most will still be paying for their child. Most child support is not enough to raise a child on - the other parent must contribute financially as well. It just doesn't seem like such a big deal to people because it's money you spend in day-to-day life, like housing, heating, food, clothes, days out etc.
Original post by ArtGoblin
They may not be paying child support but most will still be paying for their child. Most child support is not enough to raise a child on - the other parent must contribute financially as well. It just doesn't seem like such a big deal to people because it's money you spend in day-to-day life, like housing, heating, food, clothes, days out etc.


doubt feminist would use that excuse when it's the other way around
Original post by DanB1991
doubt feminist would use that excuse when it's the other way around


I have already supported Halle Berry paying $16,000 a month child benefit. What more do you want?
Original post by ArtGoblin
I have already supported Halle Berry paying $16,000 a month child benefit. What more do you want?


a rich minority hardly help the averaged joe in the street :P
Original post by DanB1991
a rich minority hardly help the averaged joe in the street :P


I have already talked about the "average joe on the street". The parent that lives with the chile already pays a significant amount towards the child's needs unless they are unable to. Child maintenance only seems like a huge burden because it is paid as a monthly sum - if they lived with the child they would be paying a similar amount anyway.
Original post by ArtGoblin
I have already talked about the "average joe on the street". The parent that lives with the chile already pays a significant amount towards the child's needs unless they are unable to. Child maintenance only seems like a huge burden because it is paid as a monthly sum - if they lived with the child they would be paying a similar amount anyway.


The main problem is father who have roughly 50-50 contact while a child will still be paying child support as if the mother has full custody.
Original post by DanB1991
The main problem is father who have roughly 50-50 contact while a child will still be paying child support as if the mother has full custody.


If they have 50-50 contact, it is known as shared residence rather than sole residence (term for 'full custody'). You cannot have 50-50 contact with the child if one parent has sole residence. The higher earning partner may still have to pay child support even if they spend equal time with the child because it is unfair that people with different such different incomes should contribute equally. If one partner earns ÂŁ15,000 and the other ÂŁ30,000, it is fair that the one with more money should cover more of the costs. Although it isn't about paying money to his/her ex - it is about limiting the suffering of the children as far as possible from their parent's separation.
Original post by ArtGoblin
If they have 50-50 contact, it is known as shared residence rather than sole residence (term for 'full custody'). You cannot have 50-50 contact with the child if one parent has sole residence. The higher earning partner may still have to pay child support even if they spend equal time with the child because it is unfair that people with different such different incomes should contribute equally. If one partner earns ÂŁ15,000 and the other ÂŁ30,000, it is fair that the one with more money should cover more of the costs. Although it isn't about paying money to his/her ex - it is about limiting the suffering of the children as far as possible from their parent's separation.


Child support is not about redistributing wealth, it's about caring for a child.

If one parent cannot afford the full cost's of childcare then it's slightly different. Even then it's a dodgy issue. You could argue if one parent cannot afford to look after a child that the child should live with the other parent until they have their finances sorted out.
Reply 35
Original post by lucaf
ah yes, because that is exactly where the majority of tax goes to :rolleyes:



That's where the majority of benefits goes. A bunch of worthless women breeding the future criminals of the nation.
Reply 36
Original post by DanB1991
Child support is not about redistributing wealth, it's about caring for a child.

If one parent cannot afford the full cost's of childcare then it's slightly different. Even then it's a dodgy issue. You could argue if one parent cannot afford to look after a child that the child should live with the other parent until they have their finances sorted out.



It's about getting some trashy woman that new pair of ''cute'' heels. There needs to be some measures so that child support gets spent on children and not in local fashion stores
Reply 37
Original post by Fireking
That's where the majority of benefits goes. A bunch of worthless women breeding the future criminals of the nation.


got any evidence of that? because everything I have seen show that the biggest proportion of benefits goes to pensioners or income support for people actually in work.

Quick Reply

Latest