Renny
addict
Reged: 09/24/11
Posts: 479
|
|
The link is censored. But yes, I follow you. Broadly speaking, I think the income shares model and calculators used in most states underestimate what it costs to raise children. And modification litigation can be very expensive against a wealthy parent determined not o pay his share. You can expect a counterclim for change of ustody, with Depositions, forensic accountants, gals, psychologists -- years and tens of thoisands down the drain.
|
Econ_Dad
recently joined
Reged: 10/11/11
Posts: 6
|
|
"..years and tens of thousands of dollars down the drain."
Exactly. Which is why developing default support calculations in line with economic reality are important. That said, it is possible that you and I may disagree on the use and interpretation of equivalency scales and, perhaps, even BLS expenditure data. If you're interested in the censored link and raw numbers for one particular income shares state, try "child service policies" in a search engine.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Income shares is a joke in my state. Here's an example:
Parant A Has the children 45% of the time, makes $24,000/year
Parent B Has the children 55% of the time, makes $240,000/year.
Parent A pays parent B $312/month.
If you increase Parent B's income to $1.2M/year and leave parent A at $24K, parent A still pays $72/month.
How this even be called income shares?
This figures are straight from the MN official online CS calculator.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"In many states, the distortions result in either dedicated minority-time (but significant time) ncps credited with numbers like $3 a day"
According to the formula, what is the cost to the cp per day and per child?
|
Econ_Dad
recently joined
Reged: 10/11/11
Posts: 6
|
|
Hi, Sherron,
Here's an MI example from that advanced calculator:
2 parents with total net income of $10,000 per month (imagine roughly two tenured teachers in MI for a benchmark).
2 children.
75 NCP overnights (assumed for half weekends/vacations/holidays)
Monthly total base amount of $2332 before child care or medical.
CP credit: $2292.72 per month, or an average of $94.87 each of 290 days before child care and medical are added.
NCP's parental time offset: $39.66 reduction in support payments regardless of relative incomes, or an offset credit of $6.35 each of 75 weekends/holidays/vacations.
In my opinion, whether you consider a given support payment too low or too high, it's important to know not only the amount of the monthly "check," but also the financial/economic implications behind that amount. I'd love to share the link with you so you can run your own examples, but apparently my hands are tied.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
In the example where the ncp is credited with "like $3 a day" for an overnight, how much does the cp get for their overnights?
"In my opinion, whether you consider a given support payment too low or too high, it's important to know not only the amount of the monthly "check," but also the financial/economic implications behind that amount."
Why... it doesn't change anything, does it?
Making statements that the ncp is only credited with $3 a day for their overnights are quite dramatic, but pretty useless without knowing how much the cp receives for theirs.
Regardless, neither MI state law nor ovenights apply in my case, so it's really just a hypothetical discussion for me.
|
Econ_Dad
recently joined
Reged: 10/11/11
Posts: 6
|
|
"Why... it doesn't change anything does it?"
In an individual case possibly not. But in my opinion no meaningful policy discussions (or for that matter, legislative or legal decisions) can be made if parents, policy makers and family court professionals do not understand the ideas behind their own state formulas. Saying "the support amount is $1,000" a month has little meaning if no one knows that means that the calculation is founded on the notion than CP is spending, say, $100 a day on base childrearing costs or that an NCP spends only $6. That is only one economic distortion, and there are numerous others depending on the mix of days and incomes. On the opposite end of the spectrum, other distortions are the reason parents often complicate custody matters by accusing each other of "gaming time for money."
"...pretty useless without saying what the CP receives for theirs."
I think I answered this already.
"....it's really just a hypothetical discussion for me."
Which state?
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"But in my opinion no meaningful policy discussions (or for that matter, legislative or legal decisions) can be made if parents, policy makers and family court professionals do not understand the ideas behind their own state formulas."
Then I shall respectfully bow out of this meaningful policy discussion... I hope the OP has found the answers she was looking for.
|
MrsB
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/10
Posts: 6355
|
|
[quote]"parental time offset"
Translation? The EXTRA money you get to pay because the court says you can't see your kid/kids equally. [/quote]
Or because you choose not to see them.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
