View Single Post
  #6  
Old January 30th 04, 11:40 AM
Mel Gamble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob

Yeah, the website mentions Policy Studies...

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
I recently posted that oregun's new guidelines had upped the tables so
that, even with the new "parenting time credit", dads with standard
access would see no decrease in their support...I was wrong. I finally
got a chance to play with a few numbers and found that under the new
guidelines, and in a situation looking only at support (no childcare or
insurance) and with 1 joint child and the mother having 4 non-joint
children, with both parents making $3K/month and dad having 20% of the
yearly overnights, the father's support obligation will actually be $20
LESS using the new calculator than under the old guidelines/calculator
and $80 less than with no parenting credit using the new calculator.


The Policy Studies Inc. CS guidelines the state uses were developed in 1986.
During the 1991 review Oregon started to deviate from the "suggested"
guidelines. PSI took the state to task in their 2002 report for three
things: 1.) the state starting to deviate from the "economic estimates" for
raising children in 1991, 2.) the state not fully implementing their
recommendation in 1994, and 3.) the state ignoring PSI's attempts to being
the guidelines back "into range" in 1998.

The state caved in during the 2002 review and did a bunch of "make up"
adjustments to the CS guidelines to fully implement the PSI CS guideline
recommendations. (This means PSI is running CS in Oregon, not the
bureaucracy.) So it is not surprising, even with a 20% parenting plan, a
parent would pay more CS at the same income level than they were required to
pay without a parenting plan under the old schedule.

Of course, what this all means is the CS guideline amounts are created with
smoke and mirrors economic estimates.


Hell, they're not even oregun estimates - they say right there in black
and grey that the economic data is national so there is no basis for
adjustment for interstate cases.... Don't the Federal guidelines say
something about the results being relevant for the particular area???
Seems like the cost of housing in certain areas (CA, Seattle, etc.)
would overly-inflate the results for most of oregun.



The states' line of reasoning is the
previous guidleines were too LOW, because they didn't include the full PSI
recommendations, and simultaneously too HIGH, because they were based on an
erroneous assumption they included visitation time credits. Pretty slick,
huh? Too low and too high at the same time!


Means they're gonna get you coming AND going....I'm still applying salve
to the spot where they slipped that 43% increase in..... As I wrote to
one of our local talk-show hosts, did you notice that the picture on the
front of the voters pamphlet for measure 30 is obviously a picture of a
couple of state employees (King K's Royal Guard???) on horseback about
to trample an innocent citizen? To my way of thinking, they couldn't
have picked a more Fruedian (sp?) print : )

Mel Gamble