You have got to see this to believe it

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 8:59?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

oups.com... On Mar 16,
6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote:
If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to
anybody who values their

privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126



my responses are as pueblonative

And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway.
Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world
will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3
kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately.
What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All
the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom
and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of
transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to
maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living
expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each
kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann
say that.

The CS guideline income shares model are typically based on what are
referred to as the Betson Estimates using the Rothbarth Methodology. The
2006 Betson Estimates for child rearing as a proportion of household
expenditures a

1 child - 25%
2 children - 37%
3 children - 44%

The problem with the CS system is the NCP fathers pay their share of these
child rearing estimates and the CP mothers have no obligation to provide
their share. The CP mothers are screwing their own children by not
providing what the guidelines "assume" they will need to spend to rear
their
children. The children suffer and the fathers get blamed for the children
not having enough money to provide for all their needs.

Elementary my dear Watson

=========

Not the first time I've been accused of stating the obvious. :-)