Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree with your overall point. Sure, in a perfect world parents are in good physical and mental health. I can buy that. However, there is a pretty big leap involved in forcing one parent to pay for the good health of the other. When you factor in the fact that the prevailing child support guidelines are ridiculously high, now you are talking about something worse- you are now in the area of one parent being forced to pay for the good health of the other while at the same time not being able to pay for their own good health. That defeats the purpose of what you are talking about.
Huh? I never said that child support should be set so high that the non-custodial parent can't afford health care. Merely that a custodial parent using some of the CS they are already getting to pay for health care is reasonable and legitimate...
Huh? I never said that child support should be set so high that the non-custodial parent can't afford health care. Merely that a custodial parent using some of the CS they are already getting to pay for health care is reasonable and legitimate...
Why is that legitimate, though? Why is one parent required to pay for their own health care AND the health care of the other parent? That is flat out not fair.
Why is that legitimate, though? Why is one parent required to pay for their own health care AND the health care of the other parent? That is flat out not fair.
Depends on income of each parent. The point of child support is not to be "fair" in the sense that each parent pays for their costs and one half of the child(ren). Rather, the point of child support is to try to emulate the financial circumstances that would come to pass if they were living together as a family.
Depends on income of each parent. The point of child support is not to be "fair" in the sense that each parent pays for their costs and one half of the child(ren). Rather, the point of child support is to try to emulate the financial circumstances that would come to pass if they were living together as a family.
I'm not sure your definition of what child support is or what it covers is accurate. Each state has varying laws that govern what the support should be for. Texas for instance has a cap of 8550.00 per month and while that is a lot of jack it certainly wouldn't provide the same lifestyle for Bill Gates' son post divorce as having both parents in the same hh
Edit: the 8550 is the monthly resources cap which after rereading might be the cap on what they consider income at a max of 40% 3420.00 in child support
I'm not sure your definition of what child support is or what it covers is accurate. Each state has varying laws that govern what the support should be for. Texas for instance has a cap of 8550.00 per month and while that is a lot of jack it certainly wouldn't provide the same lifestyle for Bill Gates' son post divorce as having both parents in the same hh
Edit: the 8550 is the monthly resources cap which after rereading might be the cap on what they consider income at a max of 40% 3420.00 in child support
Sure, but in non-extreme cases the goal is to approximate a single-HH situation in most states. May not be perfect and may not approximate that in very extreme cases, but so what? The point still stands.
Sure, but in non-extreme cases the goal is to approximate a single-HH situation in most states. May not be perfect and may not approximate that in very extreme cases, but so what? The point still stands.
What extreme case are you talking about? If my max support is 20% with a cap a month that's more than likely not going to duplicate the same living arrangement or lifestyle as if both parents were living together. Your assumption of what child support is simply is off. With one child 20% of the fathers income isn't going to duplicate the same life as if the father is at home
If my max support is 20% with a cap a month that's more than likely not going to duplicate the same living arrangement or lifestyle as if both parents were living together. Your assumption of what child support is simply is off. With one child 20% of the fathers income isn't going to duplicate the same life as if the father is at home
Is that 20% of gross? It does seem low, but keep in mind, the custodial parent is supposed to spend some of their income on themselves, an appropriate amount on half of the child(ren), and use the CS for the other half of the child(ren) only. Of course it doesn't quite work that way, but the idea is that 20%, while probably too low to simulate a single HH, is not as far off as you might think, if you account for taxes and for the fact that it's only the child(ren)'s expenses that need to be adjusted, and the custodial parent is supposed to have a lifestyle identical to a parent in a two-parent household with both incomes equal to the custodial parent's. That is, it's not supposed to allow the custodial parent to benefit as if it were a single HH, only the kids. So the CS only covers half of the kids' "share" of the HH expenses, plus an amount sufficient to adjust the children's living conditions (not the parent's).
Is that 20% of gross? It does seem low, but keep in mind, the custodial parent is supposed to spend some of their income on themselves, an appropriate amount on half of the child(ren), and use the CS for the other half of the child(ren) only. Of course it doesn't quite work that way, but the idea is that 20%, while probably too low to simulate a single HH, is not as far off as you might think, if you account for taxes and for the fact that it's only the child(ren)'s expenses that need to be adjusted, and the custodial parent is supposed to have a lifestyle identical to a parent in a two-parent household with both incomes equal to the custodial parent's. That is, it's not supposed to allow the custodial parent to benefit as if it were a single HH, only the kids. So the CS only covers half of the kids' "share" of the HH expenses, plus an amount sufficient to adjust the children's living conditions (not the parent's).
Bill gates or a noncustodial parent making just into the 6 figures or Higher
It is a percentage of gross and it is low if you are trying to use your own definition of what child support is. It would be a rather odd scenario of the custodial parent led a lower lifestyle than the child living with them
Depends on income of each parent. The point of child support is not to be "fair" in the sense that each parent pays for their costs and one half of the child(ren). Rather, the point of child support is to try to emulate the financial circumstances that would come to pass if they were living together as a family.
This is a truly weak justification for enriching one parent at the expense of the other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
