haiku said:
I am only going to say this once. Child support is set up so that children who no longer live in the home of the higher wage earner can have some of the benefits of having a high wage earner parent in thier OWN home.
I have to disagree with this one Haiku.
My husbands ex is the higher wage earner, and she has sole physical custody of the children. They already have the benefit of the higher wage earner bring in the home with them.
What about when the children already live in the home of the higher wage earner to begin with? How does that fit into the theory I quoted above from you?
Honestly, the child support issue doesn't concern me personally. My ex and I have split custody of our 3 children. I'm the CP to one, he's the CP to 2. He doesn't pay me CS, and I don't pay him CS. We're responsible for taking care of the child(ren) in our respective homes. We're each responsible for obtaining health care for the child(ren) in our respective homes. We're each responsible 50/50 for things like uncovered medical, extracurricular activites, etc. but neither of us actually pays money to the other parent every month as or for child support.
I think the problem with CS is that the guidelines paint everyone, and every situation with the same brush. Every situation is different, and what's fair to one isn't always fair to ALL. As an example, 20% of a $3,000 a month wage earner's income has a lot less impact than 20% of a $1,200 a month wage earner's income. It's the same
percentage, yes... but look at the difference. The $3,000 a month wage earner would pay $600 a month in child support and leave them with $2,400 to live on, but the $1,200 a month wage earner would pay $240 a month, and leave them only $960 a month to live on. See the big difference there? 20% may seem like a "fair" amount when you look at it on paper, but in the real world that 20% could be putting someone who doesn't make much to start with even deeper into the poverty bracket.
Go out and get a job that makes more than $1,200 a month? Sure thing... YOU find one for them that pays more. I doubt very seriously that the MAJORITY (not ALL, just the majority) of people only making $1,200 a month wouldn't just LOVE to make more than that... but the jobs just aren't out there. Some don't have the benefit of having a college eduation that would allow them to earn more. Some don't have the benefit of being in a job field where their pay goes up substantially over the years. Some don't have the benefit of finding a job that pays the same as the one where they were laid off due to budget cuts or "lack of work". It's not easy to be making $20 an hour at a job you've been at for a few years, get laid off, then go right into another job making that same $20 an hour. That doesn't happen in the real world. In the real world, you get laid off that $20 an hour job, and take another job (even if it's in the same exact line of work) and the starting wage at a different company isn't going to be what you were making before. You had seniority at the other job, you had years in with the other company... now you're starting out at the "low man on the totem pole" wage all over again.
Again, each situation is different. What may be a drop in the CS bucket to someone making a lot of money, can be the difference between going without food, or electricity, or something else to someone that make a lot less. Each case should be looked at individually, not painted with the same broad brush simply because that's what it supposedly takes to raise a child.
