How should child support be calculated.

[fredtoast]

I have a long post I want to make about this subject, but I don't have the time right now. Sio give me your suggestions about what sort of formula should be used and I will explain mine later tonight.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

I have a long post I want to make about this subject, but I don't have the time right now. Sio give me your suggestions about what sort of formula should be used and I will explain mine later tonight.

Depending on the age of the child(ren) and the financial ability of the one paying it, between 15% and 25% of the paycheck?

I don't know, I'm not divorced (yet) and the thing with whom I live makes $25K more than I.

[Steeler Eater]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Depending on the age of the child(ren) and the financial ability of the one paying it, between 15% and 25% of the paycheck?

I don't know, I'm not divorced (yet) and the thing with whom I live makes $25K more than I.

Sounds like you're on your way.

[HarleyDog]

It should never be calculated to where the guy cant afford to live - but it is.

Guardians should always be required to show the money was spent on the children - but their not.

Therefore, divorce should be illegal and the two parents should be obligated by law to finish what you started and raise the kids together. Then once they are raised? Then divorce and you don't have to worry about it. Ok, that one was far fetched, but makes some sense if you don't add adultery, abuse, etc.

Its hard to say because actually everyone's financial means and needs are different. But at the end of the day, it should be fair. A guy shouldn't have to pick up his kids in a car that's barely safe to be on the road, while the mom drives a new Ferrari. Yet, in many cases it seems to work that way.

[SunsetBengal]

Being a child support payer, I know how it is calculated in the state of my case.

They look at the total income of both parents, then use a mysterious percentage of that total number to come up with a "total need". Once that total need is defined, then the amount of that need to be paid by the non custodial parent is calculated by weighted average of the combined incomes. I.E. if the combined income of the two parents is $200K, they may say the total need is $40K. If the father makes 60% of that 200K, and is the payer, he would likely be forced to pay $24K in child support.

Does that sound about right to you, counselor?

[BengaliJack]

There is definately a need for some sort of formula across the board. Way too many guys dodge child support and the ones that do pay often get hammered into bankruptcy. 20% of your salary would be a fair IMO for 1 child with an additional 10% per child there after. With guys not working, they need to be tacked at a 25k per year salary <adjusted do to inflation of course> to be counted in the rears. After a limit of say 10k and no payments have been made then its automatic jail time. This might even cut down on some of these guys who want to knock up women irrisponsably, and force them into actually holding down a job.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by SunsetBengal

Being a child support payer, I know how it is calculated in the state of my case.

They look at the total income of both parents, then use a mysterious percentage of that total number to come up with a "total need". Once that total need is defined, then the amount of that need to be paid by the non custodial parent is calculated by weighted average of the combined incomes. I.E. if the combined income of the two parents is $200K, they may say the total need is $40K. If the father makes 60% of that 200K, and is the payer, he would likely be forced to pay $24K in child support.

Does that sound about right to you, counselor?

This sounds right to me. It just needs to be adjusted based on how much time each parent has the kids. If one parent has the kids more time then they should be entitled to a higher percentage of the toal amount.

[Benton]

I dunno about a formula, but I think it should largely be based on time.

I've known several people who had equal time, or in some cases the majority, but had to pay child support, sometimes lots of it. All of them were guys, but that's probly not a huge surprise. One guy I knew had his daughter full time after she turned 15 (court said it was ok because of her age) but he still had to pay child support, which was about 60% of his income.

I got fairly lucky. When my wife and I divorced, I got the kids the majority of the time (which I wanted) but there's no child support by either of us.

[Slappy from New Haven]

Originally Posted by SunsetBengal

Being a child support payer, I know how it is calculated in the state of my case.

They look at the total income of both parents, then use a mysterious percentage of that total number to come up with a "total need". Once that total need is defined, then the amount of that need to be paid by the non custodial parent is calculated by weighted average of the combined incomes. I.E. if the combined income of the two parents is $200K, they may say the total need is $40K. If the father makes 60% of that 200K, and is the payer, he would likely be forced to pay $24K in child support.

Does that sound about right to you, counselor?

i paid NC support for 13 years, NC courts sook. Best feeling in the world is writing out that last check

[Slappy from New Haven]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

This sounds right to me. It just needs to be adjusted based on how much time each parent has the kids. If one parent has the kids more time then they should be entitled to a higher percentage of the toal amount.

The issue i have with CS is the amount is based on lifestyle with no regards to financial stability of the lifestyle. Great, you make 200,000 but are swimming in debt.
i always thought there should be a base line of sustainability and then add a cost index per county to adjust for the cost of living.

All I know is I paid a bartload and it bough a house and car for the ex but she put no money away for her to get a car or college fund, etc.

[Interceptor]

What if both parents are working but the divorce was caused by the mother's infidelity. Yet somehow she gained custody. Would the father still have to pay such a steep price?

[SunsetBengal]

Originally Posted by BengaliJack

There is definately a need for some sort of formula across the board. Way too many guys dodge child support and the ones that do pay often get hammered into bankruptcy. 20% of your salary would be a fair IMO for 1 child with an additional 10% per child there after. With guys not working, they need to be tacked at a 25k per year salary <adjusted do to inflation of course> to be counted in the rears. After a limit of say 10k and no payments have been made then its automatic jail time. This might even cut down on some of these guys who want to knock up women irrisponsably, and force them into actually holding down a job.

You're a little bit late to the game, BengaliJack. In some states, if a person falls just a month or two behind their court ordered amount, their hauled into court on a monthly basis to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court. I have known guys here in NC to get put in jail for being behind as little as a few hundred dollars. Many states will suspend drivers license, any professional licenses. It's not like courts aren't following up on that sort of thing.

[crispy]

Originally Posted by Interceptor

What if both parents are working but the divorce was caused by the mother's infidelity. Yet somehow she gained custody. Would the father still have to pay such a steep price?

yes, something you will figure out is in most cases the guy is the villan

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by Interceptor

What if both parents are working but the divorce was caused by the mother's infidelity. Yet somehow she gained custody. Would the father still have to pay such a steep price?

That is irrelevent to the needs of the child and should/would only affect the marital assets, not the wellfare of the children.

Now the infidelity might be used to decide upon the best HOME for the child, but again that has nothing to do with the amount of child support.

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

I have a long post I want to make about this subject, but I don't have the time right now. Sio give me your suggestions about what sort of formula should be used and I will explain mine later tonight.

Fred, as continued from our discussion on PnR i have no problem doing it based on both parents income.

My only complaint was people who may be wealthy are paying like 50k a month and im sorry that is far too much and it doesnt take anywhere near that amount to support a child,,,there should be a cut off point no matter how much the parents make.

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by HarleyDog

It should never be calculated to where the guy cant afford to live - but it is.

Guardians should always be required to show the money was spent on the children - but their not.

Therefore, divorce should be illegal and the two parents should be obligated by law to finish what you started and raise the kids together. Then once they are raised? Then divorce and you don't have to worry about it. Ok, that one was far fetched, but makes some sense if you don't add adultery, abuse, etc.

Its hard to say because actually everyone's financial means and needs are different. But at the end of the day, it should be fair. A guy shouldn't have to pick up his kids in a car that's barely safe to be on the road, while the mom drives a new Ferrari. Yet, in many cases it seems to work that way.

right on harley. i went through that once too,,,based off my 8 dollar an hour job and my wifes 17 dollar an hour job (this was like 4 years ago) they came up with me paying almost 300 a month for one child, while i think thats not too much to ask but when one is only making 8 bucks an hour thats a large chunk of money out of that petty arse paycheck,,,how am i to pay that, then afford my rent/car payment/car insurance/cell phone bill/groceries/utilities/gas in car, ect ect.....???

Of all things my wife actually suggested something that i think was brilliant,,instead of the woman just getting a check,,she should get some kind of card or something that ONLY allows her to buy certain things with said support money (i cant believe a woman actually suggested this LOL ) but like food, or pay utility bills with it ,things of that nature,,she cannot make her car payment or buy ciggs and alcohol with it,,or use it to go out clubbing ect....

[D.Boon]

I hope I never have to find out...sympathy to anyone that has had to go through a divorce that involved kids. That's got to be devastating.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by Steeler Eater

Sounds like you're on your way.

Just a feeling I have.

[SteelCitySouth]

I think the amount of support provided to the primary care giver should be equal to the amount of dou*** you are.

In Charlie Sheen's case I thing $50,000 per month is way to low.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Dabo614

she cannot make her car payment .

So then you would pay half of the mileage for everytime the children ride in her car?

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Dabo614

they came up with me paying almost 300 a month for one child, while i think thats not too much to ask but when one is only making 8 bucks an hour thats a large chunk of money out of that petty arse paycheck,,,how am i to pay that, then afford my rent/car payment/car insurance/cell phone bill/groceries/utilities/gas in car, ect ect.

People who can not afford $300 dollars a month to support a child should not have children.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

I think the amount of support provided to the primary care giver should be equal to the amount of dou*** you are.

In Charlie Sheen's case I thing $50,000 per month is way to low.

What if the primary caregiver is the biggest *itch in the United States? What percentage does the secondary caregiver have to pay then?

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

What if the primary caregiver is the biggest *itch in the United States? What percentage does the secondary caregiver have to pay then?

It would reduce the Douc**'s liability to the primary care giver and increase the amount the ***ch woudl be responsible for.

Lets please remember to be fair. Sometimes the ***ch is the dou*** and the dou*** is the ***ch.

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

So then you would pay half of the mileage for everytime the children ride in her car?

??? That wasnt me that said that fred, did you read the whole post? My wife is the one who said thats how it should be,,,that the woman gets a card with the CS money on it and it only allows her to pay for certain things that way to make sure she doesnt abuse it,,,do you not agree with that?

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

People who can not afford $300 dollars a month to support a child should not have children.

Fred not thats its any of your business,,,but i havent always made 8 bucks an hour,,,and both my kids were not planned however we did not abort and stuck it out and both my children are doing just fine. That was just an instance where we had split up for a couple months and at the time that is what i was making,,,pardon me if i dont make 80-100k a year like you.

My wife and i combined make 50k a year,,,we are doing just fine,,bills are caught up,,,house is being paid for,,kids are healthy and have plenty of toys to play with,,,both vehichles are paid off.