Cass321
New
Reged: 01/04/08
Posts: 1
|
|
[quote]PROBLEM
The support standard is seventeen percent (17%) of the NCP’s income. This standard suggests that each parent is contributing seventeen percent (17%) of their income or thirty four percent (34%) of their combined household income. My wife and I have two children in our house and one that I pay child support for and we still don’t pay thirty four percent of our income on children.
[/quote]
I'm getting frustrated trying to understand your math. Try this with some simple numbers to make it easy. Say parent A makes $10 and pays 20 percent($2)of his income for child support. Parent B also makes $10 and pays 20 percent($2)of her income for child support. The $4 they pay together is not 40 percent of their combined income of $20. It is 20 percent.
|
Fruztr8ed
New
Reged: 12/31/07
Posts: 11
|
|
Where do you live Jada? Laguna Beach? The numbers are the numbers. It doesn't cost $100,000 a year to raise a child but I suppose people like you won't be happy unless your life is completely paid for by others.
|
1227
Gold
Reged: 09/12/07
Posts: 195
|
|
I agree with your logic NCP should pay for half the cost of raising a child not the 100%, not the lack of interest of CP not to work. I also believe child support was not intended to make anyone rich. It's intension was to provide for a childs needs. Lastly I think it is very important that children within this situation should get equal to what a child in a 2 parent home should or does have ie many kids in single parent homes end up in lots of xtra activities maybe to keep visitation limited maybe to get more $$$ from NCP maybe for babysitting, not sure but really if the child had been in the original home the child would not be in an activity daily. Honestly if a child is in that many activities something will have to give and it will likely be the relationship with other parent as well as their performance in school. Same for schooling if a child would have gone to private school as a wed family then that should be the case but not just to get more $$$$. I think the biggest thing is look out for the children do not let your hate for the other parent get to you and let you lose sight of what you really should be after a normal life for your child.
|
overwhelmed
Platinum
Reged: 10/13/06
Posts: 1186
|
|
I think I agree with your preliminary proposal except it doesn't say anything about the amount of time each parent takes care of the child. For example, an 80/20 split with 50/50 costs would be just as unfair to the CP as the current system is for NCPs. And sometimes 50/50 parenting time isn't possible.
Also, the estimated cost of raising our two children was WAY below the actual cost. I live in a shared income state and our CS is 70/30 (me 30%) of the estimated cost. However, I did a spreadsheet with actual cost of what I spend with having the kids 90% of the time (mostly due to their dad's work schedule and his decision to move away) as opposed to 50% or less and I found that I, the CP, cover about 70% and the NCP covers about 30% even though his income is much higher than mine.
I have no problem at all with being held accountable for where the CS goes but I think that's a can of worms my ex doesn't want to open because it might mean an increase in his CS.
I'm not trying to argue or anything. Just throwing out some things you might not have considered.
|
Jada
Platinum
Reged: 06/02/07
Posts: 3331
|
|
[quote]Where do you live Jada? Laguna Beach? The numbers are the numbers. It doesn't cost $100,000 a year to raise a child but I suppose people like you won't be happy unless your life is completely paid for by others. [/quote]
Like I said before, parents who make $500,000 a year are going to spend more on raising a child than a parent who makes $40,000 a year.
No, I don't live in CA at all. But I do live in a high cost of living state. BTW, I make more at my job than my ex pays in child support. My ex is paying his share of the support for the kids.
Which will go down when they don't need childcare anymore.
|
Samsung
Platinum
Reged: 06/14/07
Posts: 2118
|
|
With your spreadsheet, are you going by actual cash outlay, or figuring a percentage for rent, utilities, etc.?
|
overwhelmed
Platinum
Reged: 10/13/06
Posts: 1186
|
|
Since I would definitely not live in this house if I didn't have the kids I used the cost of an apartment where I would likely choose ($350 mo less than my house payment). I used 10% of electricity and water for each child (which is probably not enough on electricity because I wouldn't be heating/cooling this big house) I also had to use a percentage on groceries and I again used 10% (which is probably not enough since 1 is a teenage boy).
The rest was actual cost. I didn't assign them any cost on things I would have with or without them (cable, internet, etc.)
I also didn't include incidentals like field trips, haircuts, increased gas for my car for being a taxi service, school projects, class ring, yearbooks, upkeep on this house, etc.
I'm NOT complaining about what it costs to raise my kids. I just did the spreadsheet in case their dad ever asked for an accounting. It's on my work computer and I don't remember exactly how much the difference was but I do know that the court estimate was too low.
And before you say anything about moving to a cheaper house, I would love to do that but this is the only home my kids have ever known and it was important to them to remain here for now, especially since my son is in the 11th grade. A 3BR appartment would run about the same in rent in this area so we would have to move to another county to see any difference in rent/mortgage, which would not be in his best interest to uproot him in the last two years of high school.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
