Imagine something like this happening: Your son or daughter walks up to you and says, “We ran out of cereal, are you going to buy some more?” You respond, “Sorry, but I have already spent the 17 percent of my monthly income that is set aside for you. You are just going to have to go without food until next month.”
That scenario is just as preposterous as going four or maybe five years without a pay raise, but both scenarios are common when dealing with child support.
Anyone who has raised a child or two or three or even more, probably agrees with me that if there were a cap on the amount of income spent on a child, it would be nice. Sure, kids make nice tax deductions, but even that does not cover the costs associated with raising a child.
A co-worker and I recently had a heated discussion about this when he complained that his “ex” was “going after him” for more support. In his case, he lived in a cheap two-bedroom apartment in an urban neighborhood with a roommate. He is by far the best-dressed person I know; even his solid white T-shirts have designer labels. He proudly boasted how he had manipulated the system by working under the table for years but eventually he had to find a job with benefits that were “on the books,” and so the mother of his children now could garnish his wages.
The point I made to him was simple: 17 percent of your income is getting off easy, and since the state can take up to five years before it makes a cost of living adjustment on the child support, you are getting off easier and easier each year. That was not to mention the fact that it would be virtually impossible for him to raise a kid in a bad neighborhood in a small apartment with a roommate.
I think my co-worker is all too typical of many non-custodial parents. Maybe they cannot conceive of how expensive it is to raise children after they have lost touch with them, or how painful it is when you cannot afford something for your child like a school trip or an iPod — which is not a necessity but certainly not an extravagance either. The fact is, kids cost money and most parents put their kids’ needs first whether they receive child support or not.
Moreover, back to the “cost of living adjustment.” If there ever was an example of inefficiency, it is the way child support is calculated. The state will make a “cost of living adjustment” once the cost of living has increased by 10 percent. In some cases, that can be up to four or five years. If child support is calculated at 17 percent of income for one child, why doesn’t the state base it on the previous year’s income? If the non-custodial parent works, they have to file a tax return, so the state already has the income figures. I realize there are some exceptions to that rule, but it would work in the vast majority of support cases and certainly is better than the way it is done now. If the state used the same formula to give raises to their employees, there would be a full-scale revolt.
Finally, to all you people who whine about how much child support you have to pay; don’t complain when your kid doesn’t send you a birthday card or an invitation to their wedding. They probably just did not want to spend the money on it.
Thom Jennings lives in Albion. For comments, write to holly.toal@journal-register.com. The Real Deal from Orleans County is now available as an audio podcast on iTunes.
