I do not do divorce cases, but know plenty who do and have filled out the forms for some people from time to time. In California, this is determined by a formula. The formula is then put into a program called “Disso-Master” and it spits out results.People with high income history will have to pay a lot more. Minimum wage workers have to pay too, and it will be absolutely crushing in the amount.
If a parent earns 2 million a year but chooses to live like they only make 50k a year, to my knowledge no judge can step in and force them to buy more expensive things. Warren Buffet lives in the same house he lived in when he earned far less money. No judge can come in and say ‘you are required to buy your kids luxury automobiles and around the world cruises’ just because you have the means to do so.
As long as a parent is providing enough support so that a family has medical care, adequate food and adequate shelter the state cannot step in (I do not think). If you make 2 million a year but live in a house that cost $90,000 and you clip coupons, the state can’t force you to buy a porsche for your wife and kids just because you can afford it.
So why is divorce any different? The fact that you ‘can’ afford something doesn’t mean you ‘should’. If I am married and make 5 million a year, and choose not to buy a ferrari for my child for their 16th birthday or take my family on weekend getaways to Paris, I cannot get in trouble for that. CPS will not be called on me. But if I get divorced I am going to end up paying 100k or more a month in child support and alimony.
The reason I didn’t answer your question is because your question is based on misreading my OP.
I didn’t say there shouldn’t be a sliding scale. An unemployed person should not have to pay the same as a person who makes 40k a year. I said the sliding scale should be capped, maybe $5000 a month per person (so with a wife and 2 kids, capped at $15,000 a month).
But with things like social security or unemployment insurance there is a sliding scale, but also a cap on your benefit. You can make up to $X a week or $X a month, but that is it. I think there should be a similar law in alimony and child support (unless extenuating circumstances exist, ie a child or spouse has an expensive chronic condition, or the kids are in college, etc).
If the state can’t force you to provide opulent luxury for your wife and kids when you are married, why do they get to do that when you are divorced?
You didn’t answer my question. Do you think there should be any difference at all in support levels based on income, or should there be a flat rate?
It should be like unemployment insurance or social security, it should be based on a sliding scale with a cap on benefits.
A person who makes 10k a year shouldn’t pay what someone who makes 80k a year pays. But there should be a cap on what you do have to pay otherwise the state is mandating opulence just because a person can afford opulence.
A cap of $5000 a month in benefits per person sounded reasonable to me.
Ok. Why should there be some sort of sliding scale? Why not a flat rate?
Because a flat rate wouldn’t work. A person can’t sustain themselves and someone else w/o a sliding scale. A person who is unemployed cannot afford what someone who makes 40k a year can afford. The 40k person can’t afford what the person who makes 200k a year can afford.
But If you make many millions a year you cannot be required to live the lifestyle of a millionaire. The fact that you can afford luxury autos, giant houses, weekend trips, 7 star hotels, etc doesn’t mean you are forced to provide them to your spouse or children.
As long as your family has adequate health care, food, shelter, etc. that is all you must provide.
Rich people spend more on their children than other people. Whether or not they are married to the children’s other parent is utterly irrelevant - as the saying goes, you divorce the parent, not the kid. If you put a cap on divorced parents, you might as well put a cap on married parents.
Right; nobody will interfere with how you deal with your family, for the most part. Is that because marriage and family is something really profound and important, so much so that we build all kinds of special legal protections and rights around those bonds?
If you are wealthy and married you aren’t mandated by the law to provide an opulent, luxurious lifestyle to your spouse and kids. When you get divorced you are if you are wealthy.
If you are married and make 5 million a year you can’t get in trouble for not spending 20k a month on each kid. As long as your kids have health care, a place to live, good food, an education, etc. that is all the state can mandate you provide.
Are you aware of any cases where the children of divorced parents live a more opulent lifestyle than when their parents were married? The idea is that the children should live a lifestyle commensurate (thank you Jimmy Chitwood) with the one they had while their parents were married. I don’t see why you have a problem with this idea.
I guess my problem is that one is voluntary and the other is mandated with threats of legal consequences. Choosing to spend 20k a month on your child when you are married is not the same as being forced to do so when you are divorced.
If you make a million a year, your unemployment insurance will likely be capped at around $400 a week, same as it would be if you made 90k a year.
Yeah, those parents need all the help they can get.
Why is the millionaire a different case than the guy making $80k? Why should the guy making $80K pay more than the guy making $40K? If the guy making $80K a year was still married, no one could stop him from saving 50% of his income and having the family live like the $40K guy.
You recognize that when you hear about these exceptional support awards that these are not families that have high incomes but live like Warren Buffet in modest 2 bedroom houses, right?
When support awards are so high, and yes, beyond the state mandated formula, it’s because the expenses and spending of the family are analyzed and their lifestyle is taken into consideration.
I agree it’s not the same. I just don’t see any reason to be concerned about it. Everyone knows, regardless of income, that they will have to support any children they have. They’re aware that the amount of support they’re required to provide will be based on how much they make. I see no reason to put a cap on it and you’ve not provided any compelling reason for me to think about changing the way we determine the amount of support either a spouse or a child receives.
The theory is that if your relationship with your baby-mamma or baby-daddy doesn’t work out, that should have a minimal impact on the kid’s life.
Why? Why not? What is the disadvantage? That it makes it more difficult for people walk away completely from their child?
If you bring a child on to this planet, you owe that child something. One of those things is not turning their life upside down because your love life has changed. Ideally, that would mean that you still kiss their booboos, take pictures of them before they go to prom, take care of them when they are sick, drive them to school and be an active part of their life.
But that is unfortunately unenforceable. Nobody can force someone to parent their child. But they can make sure that the kid’s college fund doesn’t suddenly dry up because mom decided she’d rather spend that travelling to Thailand to “find herself” by banging yoga instructors, or that little Annie with childhood leukemia doesn’t suddenly lose her health insurance because Dad got knocked up one of the nurses and would rather spend money on his new family than his old one.
It’s not a perfect system, but its better than the alternatives.
(and if anyone wants to say that custody laws aren’t fair, I’ll be right along with you. But somehow these threads always start with “I don’t want to pay for my kid” and not “I want custody of my kid”.)
I’m starting to think Prop8 was an act of compassion rather than bigotry. Jeez.
Another good reason for child support based on income is so the child will be living in comparable circumstances in both homes, and so that custody/visitation decisions will not be based on the unequal living arrangements. It would not be right for the child to be spending part of his time living in a crappy little apartment in a dodgy neighborhood and part of his time living in a fully equipped mansion with a nice view of the Hollywood Hills. Nor would it be right for a parent with a much higher income to tell an older child that, well no, Parent A might not be able to afford braces/hockey equipment/cheerleading camp/whatever, but me? Parent B? Just tell the judge you want to live with me full time and you got it!
It’s a pretty good bet that the Milans were living in a very high end house in one of the most expensive parts of the country.
Yes, but as long as parents remain married, then there’s nothing legally stopping them from yanking that college fund or deciding to cancel that expensive insurance policy. If we are comfortable decrying that a certain percentage of parental income should be directly spent on a child’s welfare, why not garnish that percentage from the income of everyone claiming a minor dependent on their taxes, and put it into a special account only eligable to spent on child care expenses? Sure, it’s a bit of bueracratic overhead, and it would utterly devastate the finances of any low-income families with multiple children, but if we’re declaring child support payments to be a good thing instead of a poorly-fitting patch on a hoped-to-be-rare scenario, then there shouldn’t be anything wrong with applying it to everyone, right?