Current Events > Reasonable amount of child support a month

(+) Yeah! (+)

is $400-$500

Depends on cost of living and how much the paying parent makes.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

is $400-$500

This seems spoken by someone who has never had to take care of themselves, let alone a child

if that's what you can afford, I think it's okay, depending on the circumstances, but there should be a cap for the wealthy, IMO.

like, I don't think a kid needs more than $5k a month.

it's child support, not "I'll pay for everything the kid" needs. you have your own income too.

A_Good_Boy posted...

and how much the paying parent makes.

The cost of providing for a child doesnt go up when their parent gets a raise.

parents make okay income. Both can spend $500 each a month to provide for kid :)

It should stay as a percentage up to a certain point. For someone low income, paying $400-500 a month would be debilitating.

and the mother has a new boyfriend who also has a job so it's like the child gets a $1,500 allowance a month.

If paying $500 a month for a kid is too much then wear condoms or sue for partial/full custody.

I feel like child support shouldn't be a blanket number. Whatever the primary parent spends specifically on the child for the child should be itemized and the non primary parent should pay half.

shockthemonkey posted...

So youre just saying this to start an argument and not basing it on anything other than your desire to start an argument?

I'm literally just quoting google. average child support paid a month is around $400-$500

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

I'm literally just quoting google.

But why you're doing it is to start an argument.

I say it should just be 50% of all costs of raising however many children belong to whichever two people have them together. Itemize it like an insurance claim or something, with lawyer mediation if necessary.

boxoto posted...

if that's what you can afford, I think it's okay, depending on the circumstances, but there should be a cap for the wealthy, IMO.

like, I don't think a kid needs more than $5k a month.

Most Americans don't even make 5k a month, so mandating a 5k a month child support is insane.

Child support should be a reasonable amount that doesn't just dictate a style of living someone just wants. Like, the person receiving the check should still be required to go get a job. Also the amount shouldn't be some ridiculous amount clearly the person paying can't actually afford.

it depends on so many factors lol you can't just come up with a number and apply it to everyone

MorbidFaithless posted...

I feel like child support shouldn't be a blanket number. Whatever the primary parent spends specifically on the child for the child should be itemized and the non primary parent should pay half.

I can get behind this.

But with the contingency that the items go through a review as well. The child needs to actually require what that money is being spent on. That money shouldn't be going to things that child doesn't actually need, and just an excuse for the person getting the check to splurge.

t5yvxc posted...

I can get behind this.

But with the contingency that the items go through a review as well. The child needs to actually require what that money is being spent on. That money shouldn't be going to things that child doesn't actually need, and just an excuse for the person getting the check to splurge.

Need receipts, and clear reasons to back the receipts.

Absolutely.

Daycare alone is like 1200-2000 a month easily.

emblem-man posted...

Daycare alone is like 1200-2000 a month easily.

In what universe.

BurmesePenguin posted...

In what universe.

Lol it's $800 at the cheapest where I live. That poster is accurate.

BurmesePenguin posted...

In what universe.

unfortunately, it's like that a lot of places in the US.

that's why we have so many unofficial daycares, which might not totally be legal.

The amount necessary to maintain equitable quality of life for the child(ren) between the two households.

BurmesePenguin posted...

In what universe.

1k is the national average. Now imagine living in marin county.

emblem-man posted...

Daycare alone is like 1200-2000 a month easily.

Like clear stipulations are needed.

All parents don't actually need daycare.
Of the people that need daycare, you don't absolutely have to choose a daycare that clearly is over budget. Not all daycares go for 1200. So if a cheaper more affordable option exists, there needs to be stipulations on just wanting the unaffordable one.

Then there's the stipulation on if daycare is a need, and not a want. If the child is being put in daycare so the parent can go to a job, ok. But just because, no.

BurmesePenguin posted...

In what universe.

We live in a very cheap cost of living area, and $1200 is normal for full time. Maybe even on the lower end.

hell, I got a quote for part time care(3 days a week) and it was still $1200 lol

t5yvxc posted...

Like clear stipulations are needed.

All parents don't actually need daycare.
Of the people that need daycare, you don't absolutely have to choose a daycare that clearly is over budget. Not all daycares go for 1200. So if a cheaper more affordable option exists, there needs to be stipulations on just wanting the unaffordable one.

Then there's the stipulation on if daycare is a need, and not a want. If the child is being put in daycare so the parent can go to a job, ok. But just because, no.

parents dont pay $1200 a month for shits and giggles lol

t5yvxc posted...

I can get behind this.

But with the contingency that the items go through a review as well. The child needs to actually require what that money is being spent on. That money shouldn't be going to things that child doesn't actually need, and just an excuse for the person getting the check to splurge.

Need receipts, and clear reasons to back the receipts.

I don't get this stuff. Why is the parent receiving aid and the child suggested to be under such strict scrutiny but not the parent that's providing child support? If receipts for the kid need to be itemized then why not the father's? Prove you can't provide more, show every receipt you spend and we can have a discussion on whether you need all that liquor, weed, fast food, and video games.

Just don't have kids.
No child support needed.
Do your part to stop overpopulation.

A_Good_Boy posted...

I don't get this stuff. Why is the parent receiving aid and the child suggested to be under such strict scrutiny but not the parent that's providing child support? If receipts for the kid need to be itemized then why not the father's? Prove you can't provide more, show every receipt you spend and we can have a discussion on whether you need all that liquor, weed, fast food, and video games.

Why does someone have to be a deadbeat dad? I thought the hypothetical was about paying for child support. Which is what we propose... If you want to take someone's money (who is fine to part with it!) the least you can do is be fair about it. Hold onto the receipts, add them up at the end of the month, then the non primary parent does a Venmo or whatever.

A_Good_Boy posted...

I don't get this stuff. Why is the parent receiving aid and the child suggested to be under such strict scrutiny but not the parent that's providing child support? If receipts for the kid need to be itemized then why not the father's? Prove you can't provide more, show every receipt you spend and we can have a discussion on whether you need all that liquor, weed, fast food, and video games.

So much to unpack in one post.

Why do you assume it's only men paying child support?

Also did you look up a bad buzzword bingo for the last sentence? Liquor, weed, fast food and video games?

The last sentence honestly is where I got most of my laughs. You do know woman use that stuff too right? Or do you happen to think woman are angels who don't touch that stuff?

t5yvxc posted...

Like clear stipulations are needed.

All parents don't actually need daycare.
Of the people that need daycare, you don't absolutely have to choose a daycare that clearly is over budget. Not all daycares go for 1200. So if a cheaper more affordable option exists, there needs to be stipulations on just wanting the unaffordable one.

Then there's the stipulation on if daycare is a need, and not a want. If the child is being put in daycare so the parent can go to a job, ok. But just because, no.

100% Agreed. I'd also add that the government should verify that the custodial parent is actually paying the amount they claim, for child care. My ex tried to claim that she was paying $1,200 a month for child care, but she was actually paying $0 for it. Because of that lie, my projected child support payments were nearly triple what I actually pay now.

MorbidFaithless posted...

Why does someone have to be a deadbeat dad? I thought the hypothetical was about paying for child support. Which is what we propose... If you want to take someone's money (who is fine to part with it!) the least you can do is be fair about it. Hold onto the receipts, add them up at the end of the month, then the non primary parent does a Venmo or whatever.

I think the issue is you view the issue as "taking someone's money" when in actuality what's being asked is that one party provide for their child. It's a framing issue that does nothing but highlight how a group of people view the responsibility that comes inherent in creating a child.

And the post I was responding to was the one suggesting that the parent with custody in this hypothetical should have their purchases strictly scrutinized. It doesn't make any sense for the parent that's taking the majority of the burden in providing care and raising a child should be the one that has to then also face strict scrutiny from the other parent on where the money is going. That other parent would know where the money was going if they actually took the time to be involved in the life of the child, but since they don't give enough of a shit to actually do that they feel like they're entitled to purchases of the other parent? That's absurd! If anything it should be the other way around. Since that other parent isn't the one dropping off and picking the kid up from school, taking the kid to the doctor, having their work schedule disrupted due to resolving externalities with their kid, then that other parent should be the one forced to provide receipts and explain why they can't do more for their kid. They should take responsibility for themselves, not demand it from the other parent and their child that's caught up in their bullshit.

Should be roughly half your income. It's to support the child's lifestyle and wellbeing, not some minimum tax for giving up a kid.
Most states are 50/50 custody, but the few stragglers need to catch up.

t5yvxc posted...

Like clear stipulations are needed.

All parents don't actually need daycare.
Of the people that need daycare, you don't absolutely have to choose a daycare that clearly is over budget. Not all daycares go for 1200. So if a cheaper more affordable option exists, there needs to be stipulations on just wanting the unaffordable one.

Then there's the stipulation on if daycare is a need, and not a want. If the child is being put in daycare so the parent can go to a job, ok. But just because, no.

In most large cities, daycare does cost that much. I'm not exaggerating the numbers. Hell, I'm probably low balling it for those who live in high cost of living cities. $1200 is NOT a high end daycare cost.

And of course no daycare is needed if one of the parent is stay at home. but if that's the case, then that necessitates even MORE child support as now the parent needs money for basic living expenses. So I'm not sure how your point fits into this topic.

What a shitty troll topic.

Master_Bass posted...

What a shitty troll topic.

TC's main schtick/gimmick is being a gaslighter so I'm surprised CE just keeps biting.

Hell, let's say the daycare is 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, so 40 hours. And some states have limits where you need a worker for every 4 kids.

So $300 a week for childcare is paying $7.50 an hour. Even with 4 kids, that's only $30 an hour for full-time care of 4 kids at a time. Not even including all the other costs of running a daycare

emblem-man posted...

Hell, let's say the daycare is 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, so 40 hours. And some states have limits where you need a worker for every 4 kids.

So $300 a week for childcare is paying $7.50 an hour. Even with 4 kids, that's only $30 an hour for full-time care of 4 kids at a time. Not even including all the other costs of running a daycare

https://www.care.com/c/how-much-does-child-care-cost/

Not sure how representative or accurate this is, but it's expensive af to have a kid. TC's $500 a month doesn't even cover childcare in a bunch of states. Include clothing and food and toys and that goes even higher.

emblem-man posted...

And of course no daycare is needed if one of the parent is stay at home. but if that's the case, then that necessitates even MORE child support as now the parent needs money for basic living expenses. So I'm not sure how your point fits into this topic.

It most definitely does not stipulate you need more.

First of all unless there is a legitimate reasons going on, the parent needs to get off their ass and get a job. Having a child is not a suffice reason alone for not working.

Also there's way too many assumptions being slapped on to this daycare angle.

Like we can't just slap blanket prices on shit which is the real issue with this topic as a whole. We can't assume everyone actually needs daycare and doesn't have someone else to take care of the baby, you know, for free. We can't slap blanket costs to daycare even if one does pay. We can't slap blanket years and dollar amounts to how long to pay that figure.

That's just one angle we are tackling here. There are a bunch of conditions that absolutely does not apply to all parents.

There needs to be a cap. But like 10 % of your income but no more then 4k.

NatsuSama posted...

It most definitely does not stipulate you need more.

First of all unless there is a legitimate reasons going on, the parent needs to get off their ass and get a job. Having a child is not a suffice reason alone for not working.

Also there's way too many assumptions being slapped on to this daycare angle.

Like we can't just slap blanket prices on shit which is the real issue with this topic as a whole.

You can't leave babies alone and you also can't take them to work with you. How do you propose someone gets a job without having some sort of childcare?

A subway coupon and some paper clips

Obviously the figure depends, but I think whoever is receiving the money needs to provide evidence of receipt + bills, and it needs to be fair and reasonable.

A_Good_Boy posted...

You can't leave babies alone and you also can't take them to work with you. How do you propose someone gets a job without having some sort of childcare?

You are literally a fine example of my point on making wild assumption based on preconceived notions that doesn't apply to everyone.

Like you do realize the options you so conveniently provided, that there's others, right? People who have mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, grandparents, even friends who watch their kids for the grand total price of free. It's a concept and luxury some people do actually have.

So your blanket dollar amounts and conditions do not apply to all.