5 ms·

The standardizing of support payments that a lot of these countries (and it looks like some US states) do seems like a fair way to reduce the potential exploita

The standardizing of support payments that a lot of these countries (and it looks like some US states) do seems like a fair way to reduce the potential exploitability too. The price of raising a child isn't tied to income, so why should the payer's income matter beyond reducing payments (ideally with the state stepping in like the Danish system) for those who can't make the normal amount?

closeparen 5y ago
The idea is that the wife and children should not experience any decline in their standard of living as a result of the divorce. They are entitled to live the way they would have lived had the marriage continued; if the husband is rich then that includes owning a nice house in an expensive city, luxury cars, private schools, etc. If the system’s goal were merely to ensure that they land on their feet, it would look very different.
- Talanes 5y ago
  Well, that's the idea behind alimony, which is sometimes mixed in with child support. But child support is mostly rooted in the idea that raising a child requires more support than a single individual can provide. If it were just about continuation of lifestyle, my mother wouldn't have been entitled to anything as my parents were never together.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The idea is that the wife and children should not experience any decline in their standard of living as a result of the divorce. Specifically, in the case of child support, the idea is that the children should not (the idea that the spouse should not tends to be factored in to alimony.) e.g., to quote the California law on child support: “Children should share in the standard of living of both parents.” Family Code § 4053(f)
- Thorrez 5y ago
  That seems like an impossible goal. If there are 2 houses instead of 1, it's going to require getting cheaper houses, smaller yards, etc. Both parties' standard of living will go down.
  - moduspol 5y ago
    Not necessarily. It could result in one house and yard staying the same, and the other one being a one bedroom apartment across town with almost no furniture. In this case, only one party's standard of living goes down.
    - Thorrez 5y ago
      The money for the apartment needs to come from somewhere.
      - moduspol 5y ago
        Sorry--I was making a joke. The implication being that in a middle class divorce (at least in the US), it's pretty common that the standard of living for the mother and children is maintained when it comes to house size, yard, etc. because she ends up keeping it. The stereotype is that he ends up in the crappy apartment and writing the big alimony checks and child support payments. It's glossing over a bit to not acknowledge that one's standard of living is taking a much bigger hit than the other. It's also not the case that 100% of income in a marriage contributes to standard of living (or equally between spouses), so there absolutely are cases where an ex-wife with sufficient alimony and child support could end up with a nicer house, car, etc. than when she was married. This dichotomy is what drives a lot of the angst that comes up when dealing with these legal processes. > Both parties' standard of living will go down. This isn't quite true is all I'm saying. The higher earner's standard of living almost certainly will go down. The other spouse's standard of living may or may not.
        novok 5y ago
        It also implies the other spouse (usually father), shouldn't be an equal active co-parent and have autonomy over where the money for the child goes, and it goes only to the other parent. Maybe in a few decades we will recognize that you should incentivize both parents to be active in the child's life.
        Thorrez 5y ago

closeparen 5y ago

The idea is that the wife and children should not experience any decline in their standard of living as a result of the divorce. They are entitled to live the way they would have lived had the marriage continued; if the husband is rich then that includes owning a nice house in an expensive city, luxury cars, private schools, etc. If the system’s goal were merely to ensure that they land on their feet, it would look very different.

Talanes 5y ago
Well, that's the idea behind alimony, which is sometimes mixed in with child support. But child support is mostly rooted in the idea that raising a child requires more support than a single individual can provide. If it were just about continuation of lifestyle, my mother wouldn't have been entitled to anything as my parents were never together.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The idea is that the wife and children should not experience any decline in their standard of living as a result of the divorce. Specifically, in the case of child support, the idea is that the children should not (the idea that the spouse should not tends to be factored in to alimony.) e.g., to quote the California law on child support: “Children should share in the standard of living of both parents.” Family Code § 4053(f)
Thorrez 5y ago
That seems like an impossible goal. If there are 2 houses instead of 1, it's going to require getting cheaper houses, smaller yards, etc. Both parties' standard of living will go down.
- moduspol 5y ago
  Not necessarily. It could result in one house and yard staying the same, and the other one being a one bedroom apartment across town with almost no furniture. In this case, only one party's standard of living goes down.
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    The money for the apartment needs to come from somewhere.
    - moduspol 5y ago
      Sorry--I was making a joke. The implication being that in a middle class divorce (at least in the US), it's pretty common that the standard of living for the mother and children is maintained when it comes to house size, yard, etc. because she ends up keeping it. The stereotype is that he ends up in the crappy apartment and writing the big alimony checks and child support payments. It's glossing over a bit to not acknowledge that one's standard of living is taking a much bigger hit than the other. It's also not the case that 100% of income in a marriage contributes to standard of living (or equally between spouses), so there absolutely are cases where an ex-wife with sufficient alimony and child support could end up with a nicer house, car, etc. than when she was married. This dichotomy is what drives a lot of the angst that comes up when dealing with these legal processes. > Both parties' standard of living will go down. This isn't quite true is all I'm saying. The higher earner's standard of living almost certainly will go down. The other spouse's standard of living may or may not.
      - novok 5y ago
        It also implies the other spouse (usually father), shouldn't be an equal active co-parent and have autonomy over where the money for the child goes, and it goes only to the other parent. Maybe in a few decades we will recognize that you should incentivize both parents to be active in the child's life.
      - Thorrez 5y ago