From: ken@smsc.sony.com (Ken Beck)
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp, San Jose, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 16:39:17 GMT


> In article <1992Apr8.153114.9259@ohmeda.com>, paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
> says:
>>Well, Steve, what about what is fair to the child?  If the combined incomes
>>of both parents is say, $100K/annum, but the NCP makes most of this, say
>>$80K, should the child not share in this wealth?  Of course, I haven't
>>addressed the issues of voluntary impoverishment, and a host of other
>>issues, for those readers who have been keeping up.
>

Suppose you have a household with $100k, with the $80k to $20k split you
suggest.  The parent making $80k wants the children.  (Assuming both parents
are normal, healthy folks that love the children, one could certainly argue
that the parent earning 4x the others income is better able to provide a good
environment for the children.) If this parent gets custody, the children
benefit from this higher income.  In fact, even without child support, that is
taking $0 from NCP, the children are living in a household with 80% of the
original households income.

Now suppose this person doesn't get the children, because, say, they're male.
The only way I can think of for the children to benefit from the higher wage
earners income is to take a lot of money away from NCP and give it to CP.
Okay.  How much do you take.  $12,000 a year sounds like a lot of money.
Well, that only gets the children to 32k.  Well, how about $25,000.  Sorry,
still only to 45k.  The bottom line is you would simply have to take just
about all of it.  So, now NCP has an *much* improved life-style which *may*
indirectly benefit the children.  Of course, there is never any accounting for
this money, so NCP may choose to use it to buy clothes or a sports car or
whatever.  You could call this the "have-a-baby, get-a-porsche" plan 1/2 :-)

I personally don't think it's fair.  I agree that children of divorce should
get a reasonable amount of child support.  An amount that is tied to how much
it actually costs to raise the children. Boosting lifestyle just isn't
reasonable and doesn't work.  The $100k a year household disappeared with the
divorce.  Nothing you do, short of reconciliation, can bring it back.  If the
life-style is that important, give the children to the higher wage earner.  If
it really is that important, it should be weighed in along with the sex of the
parent when deciding custody.  (I was going to say things about loving
environment, etc., but realistically it come down to sex of the parent.)

hea@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
>This is precisely the logic that has resulted in thousands of our
>children being raised in poverty - which means, not necessarily
>in this order - 1) a drain on the welfare system and the taxpayers
>2) children who don't benefit from available educational resources
>and consequently will never be as productive as they might have
>been and 3) children who are faced with such hopelessness that they
>turn to drugs and crime.

There is a big difference between providing sufficient support to avoid these
problems and handing over the fruits higher wages earners income.  I also have
to wonder how many children of "wealthy" fathers, I mean, NCP's, face these
problems.  Those who are earning a good income are just too easy to find, which
is fine.  It would be good if all were so easy to locate.

One final parting shot.  Both parents are responsible for the well-being of
the children.  Granted, it could be real hard if one is a dead-beat and
doesn't own up, but why does that insure poverty and welfare?  CP is by
definition helpless and unable to earn a living?  An adult?  I find it a very
sexist attitude to assume that if NCP (generally male) doesn't pay, then CP
(generally female) goes on welfare.  There is a presumption here that women
are incapable of taking care of themselves financially.

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:678 alt.child-support:1139