Budget Based Child Support

[frustratedwithex]

Has anyone calculated child support based on budgets instead of the child support tables?

[dinkyface]

No, but if you go down that path, remember 'hidden' stuff like increased housing and transportation costs
- house with extra bedroom and maybe a yard means 10-20% increase in utilities, property tax, home insurance, mortgage/rent (that's an extra 2.5-5K yearly)
- bigger car means 10-20% increase in lease/depreciation, gas, insurance, maintenance (that's an extra 1-2K yearly)

This puts a base of 300 to 600/mo on CS for BOTH parents (assuming both involved)

[frustratedwithex]

Thank you for that.

It's the ex that has asked for this. I havn't agreed or ruled it out. Just want to make sure I am fully aware of how it might be calculated.

The kids are 50/50 and currently we are using offset based on incomes.

[billm]

Who makes more income?

I would not like budget based - too tied together.

[Rioe]

I agree, and everybody budgets differently, so one parent might be very frugal and get hosed by a big-spending other spouse.

Offset by income is the way to go.

[dinkyface]

Sounds there will be a lot of details to work out in a scheme like this. Are you able to communicate well enough to ensure that you agree on all the nuts and bolts?

And, when income changes, the budget will need to change.

But wait ... the CS tables already adjust for income.

I can understand that even with the offset method, you will need to work out who pays for the next winter jacket, or whether those skis are a shared expense, etc, etc. Is this the type of problem that you are trying to solve?

[frustratedwithex]

The thing is, the bottom line total of both our budgets is about even. Neither one of us is more frugal or spending more then the other.

As with some payers, he has issue with the amount and accountability.

When he looks at my budget, he sees expenditures that he doesn't like. He gets hung up on categories and descriptions. What I see, is we spend about the same, we just categorize it differently.

He sees I spent money on a vacation, I see he spent money on a golf membership. And by the way, the vacation was a fraction of the cost of his golf membership. I don't care what he calls it, or what he spends his money on, our bottom line total is the same.

This is why I haven't agreed. I see this as a way for him to pick apart my spending as unnecessary and justify his own as absolutely necessary. I did this for too many years.

We are in mediation and I am willing to work with him on the amount, but he sees any amount as unreasonable and punitive for him and totally unnecessary for me.

We have discussed not using both of our line 150's and I have agreed for over a year now, to use basically what ever income he has offered to use. I have agreed to lower his and increase mine. Each time I agree, he comes back with a different argument as to why he wants it to be different, why that particular number won't work for him.

The on-going cost of this is killing me. For me, the number 1 rule was to be careful what I am fighting for. The cost to fight should not exceed the cost of the outcome. Don't spend thousands of dollars to gain hundreds of dollars. It has exceeded this and I don't see an end. I am very frustrated!