[quote]The problem with the system now is the percentage assigned to ncp's is not reflective of the actual cost of raising a child allowing the cp to escape their obligation to provide for the child. To illustrate this assertion I will use guidelines from two states, WI (17% of ncp's income) and NY (21% of ncp's income). Consider the CES example above as base for determining the actual cost of raising a child on a yearly basis:
*Age of child 15 to 17 years
17% of $41,700 is $7,089 > CES Cost $8,000 17% of $70,200 is $11,934 > CES Cost $10,900 17% of $100,000 is $17,000 > CES Cost $15,810
Best case scenerio in an order where the ncp is mandated to pay 17% of his/her income results in the ncp covering over 88% of the child's actual care. As the income increases so does the percentage of care provided. I do not even need to show the numbers at 21%.
Funny thing about numbers, they can not be disputed. The evidence clearly shows that the system is completely unfair to ncps. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the amount a household spends on the child is in the range of 17% or 8.5% per parent if the incomes are equal. [/quote]
Yes, you are right. It doesn't even begin to cover the cost of raising a child. The cp is the one making up the difference.
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: A proposed solution to a diffucult problem
Edit
Reply
Quote
