what a concept......... (reply to all)

"frazil" wrote
That was not my point at all. The equal chance for
an equal outcome does not guarantee that the result
will actually be an equal outcome. How each parents
manages their resources, and where they place their
priorities, is up to them. Outcome is never guaranteed.
The kids do have a reasonable expectation of relatively
similar living conditions and educational and
recreational opportunities with both parents.

I think the key word here is "their" resources. Your proposal
blurs that distinction. It seems under your proposal, and
please correct me if I'm wrong, that your 50/50 division of
resources would rob parents of the consequences of their
individual choices made prior to their marriage. IOW, if
a made choices in my life before I got married that results
in my earning $75,000 per year and I have a child with
someone that makes $25,000 per year, why should I have
to give them $25,000 per year. Even the CS formula
guidelines aren't that draconian.

It is somewhat blurry because the entire situation has been blurred by the
parental breakup to begin with. BECAUSE the two had kids together, they
are, and will always be, a family, at least to some minimal degree. That
may be not be a pleasant thoght to some. I know I certainly woudl prefer to
never see my ex again, but reality is that we are forever inextriciably tied
together because we had kids together.

Strictly enforced, I do know that my idea would not be fair to high wage
earners, but making a provision for that would be in order. Or, maybe
instead of 50/50, a standard level for a decent living be established, and I
don't mean merely the government's "poverty line". For example let's say a
*decent* living in a particular area or state would be $30,000/yr. One
person makes $75,000/yr and the other makes $25,000/yr. The person who
makes more would pay the other $5,000/yr to get them up to a *decent* income
level. In extreme low-income situations no money should change hands.

I see it as enhancing the consequences of their actions, but that is a
subjective opinion and I can see how one would see it the other way.

Also, I don't think the kids have any expectations. Society,
may have expectations of relatively similar living conditions
and educational and recreational opportunities, but I don't
think the kids do. But assuming they do, how does your
system achieve that, considering that many middle income
NCPs end up with a lower standard of living than middle
income CPs under current guidelines that demand much
less than the 50/50 split you advocate.

Consciously, kids don't, but they do notice differences between homes and
even their homes and their friend's homes. In an ideal world we can say
government and society has no business in how kids are raised, but putting
the genie back in the bottle is virtually impossible.

My concept does nothing to guarantee equal standards of living. Again,
outcome cannot be guaranteed or legislated. That's not the point.
Opportunity is the point.

I think the far better approach is to honestly determine how
much it costs to raise a child, and base any CS obligation
on that cost and the NCPs ability to pay.

Technically, I agree with you 100%. "Cost" only should be split. But, how
much does it "cost"? Ask 100,000 people and get 100,000 different answers.
In an effort to be as fair as possible, I think you'd still end up with an
average. Also, how do you judge "ability to pay"?

In my own experience, granted this is just my experience,
in the first 5 years post-divorce and paying CS, my standard
of living was significantly below that of my ex, the CP. And I
payed the guideline amount which is significantly less than
what your 50/50 system would require of me.

I would suspect that there's more to the story. Possibly your ex re-married
someone with a good income? Did the guidline amounts leave you with less
than her? Were you saddled with the majority of the bills to pay off while
she got to start over?

I agree with your goal of trying to minimize the disparity of
living conditions between CP and NCP, but your system
would result in greater disparity than the current system
which typically only demands about 17 percent of income
from the NCP.

That is my goal. Just floating ideas to try and achieve it.