Hey Billm - help me out wouldya?
To clarify: (I know the #'s aren't right but.....)
Scenario: Both parents have 50/50 "shared" custody.
Parent 1 makes $100,000/yr
Parent 2 makes $50,000/yr
For "shared" CS payments, does each parent determine "their" guideline amount, and Parent 1 pay the difference? For example....
Parent 1 supposed to pay $1000
Parent 2 supposed to pay $500
So therefore Parent 1 pays Parent 2 $500 and that's it?
Yes that is correct - that is called the set off method.
This method as I mentioned assumes that it costs exactly twice as much to raise a child, or in other words that the parents should spend exactly twice as much as when the child is living in just one house. I don't agree with this and it is a disadvantage to the person who make more money.
Here is the math to show that. Using your scenario, the guidelines say that given parent 1's income, they should spend $1000 on child raising (by giving it to the parent that has the child all the time).
Given parent 2's income, they should spend $500 on child raising (by giving it to the parent that has the child all the time).
So that is the case for a single house hold, parent 1 should spend $1000 and parent 2 should spend $500. Which ever one actually raises the child, it is assumed they spend that much, and they receive the other parents support, so the total to raise the child in one house is $1500.
Okay, so now for the set off method and equal physical custody...
Again with the same income/cs numbers. If it costs the same to raise the child in two houses as it does one, then the total still is $1500 ($750 for each house), and parent 1, who is supposed to spend $1000, gives parent 2 $250, and uses the remaining $750 to raise the child. Parent 2 receives $250 and spends their own $500 totalling $750 to raise the child. Great it works, assuming it costs the same for two houses, which of course it does not.
BUT for the set off method parent 1 gives parent 2 DOUBLE the amount ($500 instead of $250), which means that the set off method says it costs DOUBLE to raise kids in two houses because the only way that the set off method is fair (ie preserves the relative amounts each parent should pay : parent 1 twice as much as parent 2 in our case) is if it costs double to raise them in two houses.
So to prove this, lets look at examples of what it costs to see what is 'fair'...
Lets say it does cost double, $1500 for each house. So parent 1 gives $500 to parent 2, and also spends $1500 in their own house so total cost to parent 1 is $2000. Parent 2 receives $500, and spends another $1000 in their own house so total cost to parent 2 = $1000, so parent 1 pays twice as much for raising the kid as does parent 2, which is what the tables say.
BUT now lets assume that it does not cost double, lets assume that it costs 50% more when you do it in two houses instead of one = $1500 * 1.5 = $2250, or $1125/house. Parent 1 pays $500 to parent 2 and spends $1125 in their own house so total cost to parent 1 is $1625. Parent 2 receives $500 and spends $625 in their own house so total cost to parent 2 is $625. Parent 2's cost IS LESS than half of what poor parent 1 pays, yet the CS tables say that parent 2 should spend half as much as parent 1, which means parent 1 is taking on a greater percentage of the burden!
So the only way the set off method is fair to the greater income earner is if it costs twice as much to raise kids in two homes as compared to one, which of course is not true, so the greater income earner is paying more than their fair share.
I think all my numbers and logic is correct so if anyone can disprove or agree that would be great...
