Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid
I am refering to payors who FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES.
When payors follow the guidelines faithfully, simple math (see first post) exposes that even middle income payors will become impoverished and struggle to support themselves and their children when visiting.
|
Understood.
I was really referring more to subsequent posts that seem a little one sided as well as having just come from reading some other threads that definately seem more like rants than true information sharing. Left me shaking my head and wondering why we can't all just get along.
Re your math, you make some good points and I have to admit I'd never thought of it that way. In my case my husband is just paying for one child so the amount is high given his higher income, but affordable. On the incoming side it's just one as well. At the $50K income level it's $462 which lines up pretty well with the $200K to raise a child to 18 number. It's when you get into multiple children that the amount seems to escalate more than what the actual costs likely do. I.e. families economize by sharing bedrooms if appropriate, handing down clothes, adjusting amount spent on extra curriculars. I've always just assumed that the guideline was based on something real. Do we know how they came up with these #s? Also, I was surprised to see the amounts revised up presumably for inflation. That doesn't make sense to me as the wage would also increase with inflation so CS would increase that way, not by revision of the tables. btw, I didn't ask my ex to increase CS when the tables changed, but I've read some case law that implies that I really don't have the right to offer him a 'break' because I'm bargaining with my childs money, not mine.