Quote:
Originally posted by AGDee
Umm, when child support is set, it is set for the person's salary at the time. Since he will not make that amount of money for the rest of the baby's life (or even until it is 18), then it will be reduced again (possibly even to 0) when he retires or is injured. This way, the baby will have enough to live a lifestyle similar to his until her 18th birthday. What is wrong with that? At one time, he was paying $8 a month. Was that fair? Of course, because he had little to no income. Now that he has huge income, he has a responsibility to pay a portion of it to his daughter. Wouldn't you want your child to live according to the same standard of living that you are? And ensure that they can college? And make sure they are taken care of for life is something happens to you?
|
The fundamental flaw in this motif is that only the child is entitled to any sort of monetary share of the father's wealth, and the father is only required to care for the CHILD in a manner commensurate with his earnings capability.
The child is, obviously, under the care of the mother, meaning the mother is in control of the cash flow. This leads to a situation where the father may or may not be funding a lifestyle not for the child, but for the mother.
It is child support, not alimony.
Quote:
Originally posted by AGDee
If I won the lottery, I sure wouldn't leave my kids in my lil 3 bedroom ranch and move into a multimillion dollar mansion without them. They would live the lifestyle I do.
What is wrong with that?
|
Yeah seriously, what's wrong with having a child with someone with inflated earnings potential, then reaping the benefit to the tune of . . . $45k/month?
I see no problems with comparisons between children and lottery tickets.