Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eroswebmaster
LOL I made your point?..show me where I said they should pay more?
Jeez dude...my point has been ALL ALONG that if a court orders you to pay 15-30% that's less than what you would be paying if the kid lilved with you...for most people that's a fact.
|
Even if you're right doesn't matter. If a father was living with the child he be paying for ONE household not 2. In a pefect world the non custodial parents make $100K a year or more and are able to fully support themselves and their kids. I'm dealing with realities. A kid getting $350 is better off than getting ZERO $ because dad got fired because he didn't have reliable transportation.
Quote:
My brother in law is required to pay $350 a month...has been for years now.
That does not cover the costs associated with raising two girls, never has.
If they lived with him those costs would be considerably more...YOU CANNOT DENY THAT.
|
It seemed to me that at the start of the thread the issue was the fact he paid ZERO. Then it turned into men are eveil deadbeats. Paying NOTHING when you are supoposed to pay something and feeling that what a non custodial parent is required to pay is not enough are 2 completely different issues. Choose which one you want to discuss.
Quote:
Can't you look at your own expenses and figure this shit out?
You trying to tell me that if your kid was living with your ex *let's say she's 100% okay* and all you were required to pay is $350-$500 a month that would be more than if the kid lived with you?
|
If my ex paid me $350 a month I would not bitch.
Once again if my ex had my kid I'd have him every weekend and 10 weeks in the summer, nothing less. Doing the math, that would mean he was in my custody 42% of the time. None of that 42% would she be required to give me a dime and somehow I'd still have to give her child support in the summer even though he's in MY custody. Is that even logical?