Originally Posted by M48scout
Originally Posted by Deerslyer86

Originally Posted by jbc
Originally Posted by Deerslyer86

[quote=TexasHuntress]Oh, good grief!

If the guy making $10/hour paying child support for one child with an ex-wife who does not work is going to pay the same percent of his income as the guy making $40/hour paying child support for one child with an ex-wife who does not work.

Why is that unfair?

And, no, I do not receive child support. I married a man who has paid child support, though, and never fussed about it because it was the right thing to do (even though we felt like it was, many times, misappropriated).
it's very unfair. Like I said their should be cap on CS. My kid is no better nor does his raising cost more than the man child who's father makes $10 an hour. If a woman is gonna bitch about how CS isn't enough then she should let the father raise him and I'm sure the man won't ask for a dime.


Surely you don't think tiger woods (for example) should owe the same as a $10/hr guy? Do you?
yes I do when it comes to CS. Why should he have to pay more than the man making $10 an hour


Dude what are you talking about. I don't doubt the courts are biased toward women. But i think the idea is to "make the kids whole best as possible". Rich people spend more on their kids. Poor people spend less. The idea is to keep the money the kids are receiving the same amount of money had their parents not divorced. So, if you and the missus did not get divorced, presumably you would have steadily increased the amount you spent on your kids through the years as your income increased. Thus, the courts are trying to replicate this increased benefit to the kids as you steadily improve your lot in life.
[/quote]

Exactly.