View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:01 AM
Doctor Martins Doctor Martins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 84
Doctor Martins is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
The main problem with no child support for a 50-50 arrangement is that the houses end up very unequal if the parents' incomes have quite the disparity. When the kids are teens and can choose where they live, they're going to pick the house where they have their own bedroom instead of sharing, and eat better food and have better toys. And why should kids suffer disproportionately at one house simply because the other parent has a much greater income?

And it's very hard to make the 50-50 shared extraordinary expenses work out equally, too. You'll end up with one parent who is greedier and/or poorer, who winds up manipulating things so that the other parent pays more.

I've always thought a more sliding scale for money based on access would reduce a lot of conflict, instead of there being a huge jump at 40/60.

But there will always be people who fight for majority access for many evil reasons that aren't at all financial. The mom who believes the children are an extension of her or a possession, the dad who wants to take the kids away from mom to punish her for ending the marriage, etc.

I do agree that making 50-50 a well-known default that everybody has internalized long before marriage is a good idea. It puts the burden of proof on the person who wants majority time to justify it, instead of it being case-by-case huge drawn out fights every time.
Interesting take. Let me give you a counter position. It's really impossible to make things fair or equal. No two parents are equal on any dimension and the idea that equalizing the financial aspect would be fair does not take into account that all other aspects can not be equalized. For example, lets say one parent has more income because they work more hours while the other parent spends more time playing with the kids and being the fun parent. The child may very well want to be with the fun parent who has time for them rather than the one who is working all the time. Another example would be that one parent may be more strict than the other, and so the child wants to be with the more permissive parent. Do we want equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? If you want equality of opportunity than both parents can chose how to spend their time, be it with the child, be it earning money, be it taking them on more trips, be it playing games with the child. Equality of outcome is trying to normalize a situation artificially so that both parents are equal. And that simply is impossible.

My dad made more money but traveled all of the time when I was younger so id have chosen my mom at that stage. Later i needed a father figure and he was more the cool parent who I got to travel with and that brought me into new levels of development.

Unless you can find a way to equalize all aspects of parents, which is impossible, equalizing one aspect is going to create an artificial reality that does not allow people to make life choices.

Government has a tough time running itself, now we are going to allow it into every family relationship and have it dictate what is fair and equal? Its going to micromanage the individual finances? What if one parent earns more because he/she insured more school debt in the process?

And how about the unintended consequences of this where maybe if we didnt have this intrusion then people would make the choice of more responsible partners to mate with? And what does this teach children? Im sorry little Johnny, you spent your free time delivering papers and making money but your brother Alan sat around playing video games and having fun so we decided to take half from Johnny's piggy bank and give it to Alan? Because its unfair Johnny gets to buy more candy than Alan. We wanted to equalize it.
Reply With Quote