View Single Post
  #9  
Old 05-31-2011, 11:07 AM
canadamama canadamama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

OK so the problem here is the magic 40% then, because there are LOTS of parents who a)refuse to pay a thing over CS, saying, "Ask your other parent - that's why I send him/her money every month" and b) don't actually spend even CLOSE to 40% with their kids, like my ex, who doesn't even live in this COUNTRY. It's all on me - nobody is paying twice in this scenario, and so yes, in my case, it IS only supporting SOL at my house.

After separation, there isn't enough to go around for everyone to have the SOL they had before - that's reality. If there is going to be hardship, it shouldn't be borne by the kids. Period.

The numbers I saw in that report (I can't call it a study) do not look to me like they are horribly unfair. You are focusing on how the recipient's income is increasing by 132%... but if that is reframed as the household income of the children's primary residence, and it can be achieved by the payor reducing their own income by 23%, how is that so unreasonable??

These are numbers straight off of this chart that is supposed to be so damning... and they don't seem so crazy to me at all.
Reply With Quote