I frequently read and hear anecdotes about non-custodial parents (usually fathers) being ordered to pay outrageously high child support – amounts that are impossible for anyone with an ordinary income to afford. No doubt some of these anecdotes are exaggerated, but I’m convinced that some are not. Unaffordable child support payments don’t benefit anyone – not even the children – and should not be imposed. Furthermore, some measures to help non-custodial parents pay child support – such as a tax deduction of some sort – would be reasonable.
However, some men’s rights activists (MRAs) use rhetoric which suggests that child support payments are often or typically outrageously high, or that child support has made single motherhood a profitable situation for women. Neither claim is true.
According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report (pdf link), the median child support payment in the U.S. is $280 a month. The average child support payment is a little higher – $350 a month. That’s a noticeable amount – similar in scope to payments on a new car – but it’s hardly the crushing, slavery-like burden some MRAs seem to describe child support as.
Although the Census Bureau report doesn’t provide detailed income breakdowns, what information it has indicates that child support amounts are sensitive to income. For instance, among fathers who are below the poverty line, the median child support payment is $125 a month, compared to a median of $300 a month for those above the poverty line.
So despite the terrible anecdotes that we hear (and if you think about it, it’s those who are mistreated by the system who are going to talk about their experiences the most often), the evidence shows that typical child support payments are not ridiculously high. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about those outliers who are being ordered to pay unaffordable amounts of child support; however, I think the weight of the evidence suggests that while the system may need some tweaking, on the whole it’s not broken.
* * *
So the typical child support payment is $280 a month – put another way, half of custodial parents who receive child support get $280 a month or less. How does that compare to the costs of raising a child?
Again, the federal government compiles some good statistics on this (pdf link). For a single parent with an income of about $17,500, raising a single child for 17 years will cost about $10,125 a year, or $840 a month.
Of course, a single parent who earns $17,500 a year is pretty poor. What about single parents who aren’t poor? For better-off single parents – those earning an average of $65,000 a year – raising a single child for 17 years will cost almost $21,600 a year, or a little over $1,800 a month.
All told, the typical child support payment in the USA covers much less than half the expense of raising a child. Custodial parents – usually mothers – are taking on not only the majority of the work involved in childrearing, and the majority of the opportunity costs – they’re taking on the majority of the cash expenses, as well.
Therefore, I’d support a two-tiered reform to child support. Child support payments should be made more sensitive to individual situations, so that noncustodial parents are not saddled with irrational and impossible-to-pay child support orders, as has happened in some outlier cases. At the same time, typical child support payments are simply too low, compared to the cost of raising a child; therefore, most non-custodial parents should have their child support obligations increased. (This will also have the side benefit of reducing unwed motherhood.)
NOTE FOR COMMENTS: Please don’t post about how you have an income of $500 a month and the judge ordered you to pay $2000 a month in child support to your ungrateful lazy ex-spouse who spends all the child support money on dresses she can wear to the track and she earns more than you do anyway and the judge won’t even reply to your motions. Unless I know both you and your ex-spouse, and can verify for myself that she’d tell me the same version of events that you’re telling me, I don’t think anecdotal evidence of that sort is more useful than the federal data.
Related posts:
I won’t divorce work. Period, full stop. So I suppose what I say here has to be thus qualified.
For me, life is too short to deal with the BS. I have enough work to keep me busy and flush with people who have real problems for which they are willing to pay. As an att0rney your mileage may differ.
Ampersand
Yes, housing will vary city to city. However, I lived in San Diego for years as a single parent of 2 kids receiving no child support and was still able to care for my kids. I did a lot of research and found great apartments for way cheaper then the average for the area. Now, I did have a roommate (family) and my mom helped me a lot with watching my kids to bring down my cost of childcare ( from $1,000 a month to $600 a month.) You also have to remember though, in cities where the cost of living is lower the rates of pay are going to be lower as well. A $600 rent here would be a $1000 rent in San Diego.
CS doesn’t force the NCP to work multiple jobs to stay alive. Not one of the 8 employees with CS orders at my place of employment works multiple jobs. All of them are alive.
Now you’re just making shit up. I have no idea how much the CP’s income is and neither do you. The rest of your comment is similarly made up of your imagination. Rave on, Dude. I’m done responding to your wild fantasies.
Standards for “genius” sure have gotten lax.
For those of you who can not follow the conversation (jake) your “made up numbers” were actually your “made up numbers” from your post directly above mine. So lets break it down elementary school style.
sue and jack, they are married, both of them make minimum wage, hold on let me tell you what that is well here is a link to the minimum wage variances throughout the United states http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm .
ok so sue and jack both work 40 hours a week, at a quickly estimated wage of lets say $7.50. Quick math sais… 300.00 a week per person before taxes. Ok so. Sue and jack both contribute equally to the marriage and their child, as most couples do, but then for some reason sue and jack split up. Sue is still working her 40 hours a week making 300 dollars as is jack. But here comes the third party intervention, so jack, because sue has a child, is told he needs to pay 71.10 in child support payments, in addition he must furnish the child with insurance, to which if he can not afford he will be supplied with at a cost of an aditional 10 dollars per week, so lets say 81.00. then to top it all off an aditional 90 dollars it taken out of his check for state, federal, local taxes. So Jake buddy, lets look at the math, 300 – 81-90 is… 129.00 per week, now this is Jake’s new life, he went from living in a 2 income home to being kicked out on the street, and automaticly making less than 1/2 what he made before the seperation. Now (Jake) lets look at miss sue, sue still works her 40 hours a week and makes 300.00 per check the state, and federal taxes ~roughly 90.00
but then she gets 71.00 of that back. So sue makes 281.00 a week. But wait it gets better for sue, Now sue can claim her children on taxes and get child tax credits and so on and so on. Jake can not. Just figured i would through that into the equasion as well. But here’s the kicker, Jake goes to get state assistance because now, he is living off of ~129.00 a week, where as Sue is making 281.00 working the same amount of time at the exact same wage, Jake is denied because he makes too much money, why, because Jake’s child support is not a vallid expence. So (Jack) that is your Unbiased, and completely fair idea of a support obligation. I ask you, does it seem that this situation can possibly result in a negitave lifestyle for Jake. It certainly does not hurt Sue in any way, There are no negitaves in her situation, she got a raise payed for by her ex, best part she doesn’t have to pay taxes on it, she gets to keep the kids. And now Sue knows she has Jake’s number, because, no matter what Jake does, say jake goes and gets a raise to 10.00 an hour. he now makes 400.00 a week, 120 of that goes to state and local taxes, running total 380.00, 94.8 of that now goes to sue, running total 285.20. Back to sue, sue still works minimum wage, why? (because this is the way it is 90 percent of the time, and it proves my point so nicely) she still works 40 hours a week 300.00 – 90.00 for taxes running total 210.00 plus Jack’s contribution of 94.8. sue’s total income 310.00, sue is now making over 300 dollars a week at mimimum wage people, and jake at 40 hours a week 10.00 an hour is not breaking 300 dollars a week. There people, there is your system at work, no wonder people skip out on CS payments, No wonder divorced fathers suicide rates have skyrocketted… think about it.
I’ll share with you a true story about me, truth is, when I DIVORCED my ex back 7 or so years ago, i was depressed. And yes, the child support was killing me, I’ll tell you why, first, find a place to live where you don’t have to pay, “first, last and security”. I was completely doomed from the start, but i did it, I found a place where i could live, still didn’t help the fact that my ex filed the restraining order on me and i couldn’t see my kids. And yes my ex played the games. Like calling me on the phone and having my son say that he wanted to see me, shit like that brings grown people to tear. To have your own son tell you he wants to see you but you know you can’t because if you do you will be arrested. It was baiting, and the cop tried to help, but when you go into court and try to tell a judge and get the responce, I don’t want to hear it, it gets very discouraging. Running completely out of money, i had to leave, But i PAID MY CHILD SUPPORT, i paid it at the loss of my electricity, my food, my car, and eventually my place to stay, BUT MY KIDS MOM GOT PAID EVERY WEEK. I watched my stuff get shut off and taken one thing at a time, untill it was all gone, but i was still alive right! To what end, I am no good to my son if i am living on the streets, which is what was happening. I was the sole provider for my family before the seperation, and the sole provider after the seperation, and the courts made sure of it. So i left, and went home to live with family 800 miles away. Still can’t see my kids… But i learned something, Lie to the courts, Lie like a fucking dog, and don’t stop, Don’t ever ever tell them exactly how much you make. So that’s what i did, I went to work working 4 jobs, I unloaded for walmart at night, cooked for friendly’s in the evening, did landscaping work during the day, and joined the military and drilled on the weekends. And I paid my ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT which was only equal to my walmart salary, but who cares anymore, the state didn’t care that i lost my home, my electricity, my car, they didn’t care that i had to go 800 miles from my kids to survive, so why should i care that they only know of one of my 4 jobs, To make sure that they never found out I would quit or get myself fired before the year was up, that way they couldn’t garnish, But i still PAID ALL OF MY ORDERED CS , Yes i lied to the courts, I lied my ass off, why, to f*ing survive, to have some sort of life. Why the military, easy, it was my back up plan, If my lying to the courts didn’t work and i continued getting screwed, i would just deploy and get myself killed, It was an easy choice, because death was better than living on the streets. Luckily it never came to that, and i kinda excelled in that field. I deployed to afganistan, Never told the State about that one, like i was going to try to pay more CS right I was already getting less than someone half my rank. Screw that, so i Lied a lot during this, but I lied to stay alive, and have an equal chance as my ex that was just collecting money from me. And still to this day, I pay all my ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT but maybe it is or maybe it isn’t what i actually make, And you know what, I feel fine about it, want to know why, fact of the matter is that it’s been 7 years, 7 years since i have had any contact with my kids, not of my own fault, because that is what my ex wanted, and she got everything she wanted. And the truth is, I don’t know those kids, I don’t love those kids, I feel nothing for them. I blame them and my ex wife equally, and they deserve nothing. period. Just saying. And if you don’t like my attitude, tough, i have a new family, a new baby that lives with me that i take care of, a loving wife, that understands how i can feel the way i do, regardless of what everyone says, i consider my situation to be an eighteen year debt, not Child support, those children are not my kids, and will never be, but I WILL PAY FOR THEM OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.
Cal, I’ve stepped out of this conversation, and I’ve done so almost entirely because reading your posts is such a chore. Your spelling, your grammar … even your ability to divide your posts into roughly on-topic paragraphs … all make it very difficult to sift through your posts for your point, if, indeed, there is one.
I try to avoid grammar/spelling/English competence snark because it’s so cheap, but there’s a reason that so many previous posters have complained about this. Your particular posting style, combined with the length and frequency of your posts, makes it very difficult to have a conversation with you. If you want to keep having this discussion, please fix this.
—Myca
I find that, when a person gives another person something to argue, I.E. grammar and spelling, in addition to a problem that is particularly harder to argue against, people with weak arguments tend to argue about the grammar and spelling issue. My point has been made multiple times throughout this blog, each and every time I have made tremendously good valid points that people disagreed with they chose to argue my spelling and grammar, as to discredit me because I chose not to put my post into Microsoft word and spell check it. Because truth is, it only takes me one second to do so, whether or not I do is completely up to me, and what points I want to bring across. Myca, look back at how many posts people completely neglected the facts in the blog but decided to attempt to discredit me by using the fact that I didn’t spell check my work. Many, including you have done so. As a matter of fact, simply posting such a comment as yours has done nothing but validated my point as you have no argument to counter mine, save my grammar. Thanks for playing but you lose.
Cal, if you’d like to have a discussion of the issues, please format your posts so as to make that possible.
If you don’t want to have a discussion of the issues, of course, carry on. It’s unreasonable to expect everyone to translate your ravings into coherence before they’re able to respond.
—Myca
Ok let’s see how mad this makes people.
I chose not to spell check my work. I chose not to spell check my work on purpose. I did not spell check my work because it was the easy way out for the other side. I make a good point, the other side counters with problems with my spelling or grammar. That is the point I have been making since the beginning, I can be the smartest person in the world, but you don’t listen, because I chose not to spell check my work. Does anyone see the irony here? My points are not valid because I didn’t spell check? (Hmmm. interesting.) On that note, In the future you may want to actually listen to what a person has to say, not how they say it, or whether or not they spell check it. Because you people spent so much time trying to discredit me because I chose not to spell check my work, you in the process validated every claim I had. The truth about this situation is there is no right answer. The court system made a series of rules based off of “couple1″ situation and assumed that “couple1′s” situation would be the same as “couple2′s”. The system is not made to take each “couples” situation as it comes, because it would just take too much time. So, a calculation made based off of one situation was produced and is currently used. This, unfortunately, has a negative effect on some “couples” and not so much on other “couples”. The answer to this problem is to take every case as its own case, but this will not happen, mostly because it costs too much money to do so.
So, in conclusion, yes, sometimes child support is too high; yes, sometimes child support is too low. It all depends on who you are, where in the world you are, and how much you make. I still stand by my opinion that child support should be set one time and never modified what so ever after that time. I believe it would help the situation more than adjusting the calculators either way.
And I still maintain that you do not actually want this.
What you want is for there to be a number of accommodations in place in the even that the non-custodial parent’s income drops, either through accident or through choice, but no provisions in place for if the non-custodial parent’s income goes up. I maintain that that’s unfair.
You also want the custodial parent to bear the full cost of the child’s support at the non-custodial parent’s whim, with no penalties or interest for the non-custodial parent. I maintain that that’s unfair.
Incidentally, your spellchecking isn’t the main or only issue, though it is an issue. The issue is the general incomprehensibility and run-on-nature of your posts, which your spelling is part of. It’s like having someone run into the room and begin shouting their arguments at the top of their lungs stream-of-consciousness style. Whether they have good arguments or not is beside the point.
And, when someone says, “Hey, speak more quietly, pause for air, and make more sense if you want people to engage with you,” no, that doesn’t validate any of their points. That’s some shit that needs to get straightened out before you engage their points. That’s basic conversational etiquette.
—Myca
Now on to the points that I have made throughout this blog
Child support is not the issue. The combination of child support in addition to a gross wage tax is excessive.
Given two individuals that both work the same amount of time at the same exact rate, the difference in income between the NCP and the CP is double, in favor of the CP. This is fine, considering the NCP makes a lot of money. However, if the NCP is making minimum wage or close to it, it has devastating effects.
Child support could be taxed but it is not because of the state would not benefit.
NCP’s should be allowed to claim their dependent children on tax returns (if they pay). The children “depend” on the NCP’s payment.
Child support should be set one time after the dissolution of the relationship; it should never be re-adjusted up or down. This not only eliminates the possibility of laziness on either part, it also gives hope to NCP’s everywhere that they can simply, make more money to survive. The possibility of making more money is the way that those minimum wage or closer earners that struggle can move up in society. This also creates a final severance between the separated couple, eliminating further court dates. As well as, closes a lot of open loop holes that are used to peoples advantage in child support cases.
Not to beat a dead horse, but that’s all I have said this whole conversation. Frankly speaking, no one has countered that with any good defense. Therefore it still stands as a viable option.
Sorry about that myca, didn’t realize you had posted. My claim to your response:
“And I still maintain that you do not actually want this.
What you want is for there to be a number of accommodations in place in the event that the non-custodial parent’s income drops, either through accident or through choice, but no provisions in place for if the non-custodial parent’s income goes up. I maintain that that’s unfair.”
In most cases, people will not do anything that will jeopardize the life of their child. Now maintaining my original claim that, CS should be set only one time and never modified, if a man, (barring some very rare occasions) loses a job, he is still capable of making a wage that of or close to the wage of the job lost. This is the same rule as currently used. That being said, to obtain a job, and return to making CS payments should not take too long. That individual should not be punished, if he or she can show without a doubt that they trying.
Furthermore, by using the system where CS is not modified, I believe fewer NCP’s would run from their support obligation. I believe this because the solution to their financial problems would be simple, work more, or get a better job. Take for instance my situation, where I spoke of working 4 jobs but only telling the state about one of them, or even about joining the military. One cannot argue with the fact that those were genuinely good moves on the part of an NCP. Question then is should the NCP now be obligated to pay more because he needs to work more? I say no. The fact that the CP under current guidelines is entitled more money based off of the NCP’s current financial situation at any given moment, is discouraging to an NCP, and again in some cases where the NCP makes little money it is devastating, inevitable causing the NCP to run from his or her responsibilities.
The fact is that, no one should have to lie in court to stay alive, or to obtain, or maintain life, liberty, or property. This is the problem with CS.
I find that when a person is trying to convince me of something, but unnecessarily offloads effort onto me, he tends to be a self-important windbag.
Writing conventions exist because they make it easier for people to follow you. If you choose to flout them, you kneecap your own stated goal of convincing people that you are right.
So if I understand you, your goal is to convince Myca of your position. He is not convinced, and has offered advice on how to convince him. You have told him that he is wrong not to be convinced in the first place. He remains unconvinced. And thus, you win and he loses.
Is that a fair summation of your position? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Maybe writing clearly has addled my brain.
Grace
[Edited to gender Myca correctly; I erred in referring to him as "she".]
Grace, as I have explained multiple times in this blog, it’s not spelling or grammar that counts, it is the ideas, motives, and notions there in. That being said, if you intend on bashing me for my motives, or notions, be my guest but it will just discredit you. Now, back on subject, I have countered myca’s argument with a valid counter claim, if you have information to contribute, or simply don’t like my stance, say so or butt out. Thanks for playing.
So, to be clear, Cal, you’re backing off of your previous claim that an NCP who decides to go to school should have their responsibility to pay child support lessened or deferred?
Is that right?
—Myca
Ah. No. Not your blog.
Grace is a regular commenter and occasional poster here, she writes clearly and concisely, and makes insightful points. She’s welcome to post wherever she likes, and it’s not up to you to ask her to ‘butt out.’
—Myca
PS. Incidentally, I don’t mind being called ‘she,’ but I’m a he.
Grace and Myca,
I know we’ve all wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and hoped against hope that he isn’t a troll, but I think it’s clear that he is. How else to interpret
Ideas and motives count but you are discredited if you address motives or ideas? It’s kind of the Mad Hatter method of approximating debate, I guess. Entertaining and fascinating as part of a story, not quite so entertaining and not at all effective in conversation. Combine his Mad Hatterism with his disdain for grammar, spelling and coherence and his non-stop self-aggrandizement and you’ve got, if not a troll, somebody who’s just wasting our time.
I, for one, would like him to stop wasting my time. Preferably in a way that does not keep me from reading anything in this thread ever again.
Myca:
Thanks for setting me straight, Myca. I’ll do my best to internalize that. I’ve edited my post for accuracy.
Jake Squid:
Sorry, Jake. Sometimes when I’m feeling energetic it’s fun to dance a bit with the lightweight bag, but I was forgetting that it also wasted the time of others.
Grace
And I think that’s game over. Thanks for playing, Cal; you galvanized some other folks into writing really terrific comments, and I appreciate that. But I’m afraid that your time here at “Alas” has come to an end. Best of luck in all your future endeavors.
Pingback: Man's right to choose - Page 8 - Christian Forums
Cal…..how could you blame your kids and take your hatred for your “ex” out upon them?
I don’t understand, these are kids we are talking about, what BS thier mother has bestowed upon them, is not your kid’s fault. You need a different outlook, maybe not now, but when they are of age attempt to have some type of communication with them. There are always two-sides to every situation, but I can’t believe your new wife understands how you fell…..she must be a real work of art….she will probably throw the book at you in a few years….Karma’s going to be there, peeking over your shoulder waiting for the right time to come out……I only stumbled onto this page because, I, myself am trying to figure out what to do about CS……my husband and I have been seperated for almost 3 years, I have not taken him for CS yet, I felt as though I would give him time to get on his feet, he did start sending me money 3 months ago on his own, but now he hasn’t sent anything in more than 5 weeks, but he acts as if he has sent me CS for years….I don’t want to do the whole court thingie, just thought I could get some advice on here on how to handle this situation…..
So here is my situation. My numbers are all accurate. When my ex wife and I split and divorced in 2008 we agreed to a fair child support of $150/wk. and I keep her on my insurance along with my son. My son stays with me 3 days and two nights a week, and when I have time from work I take hime more. The agreed upon child support was based on my income of $55,000 and hers of $30,000. We thought this was a fair amount and the court agreed. Now my ex wife has chosen to quit her job and go to school. I make substantially more money now and she thinks I should pay $420/wk. I put my income in the MA child support worksheet and the amount comes to $430/wk. My dilemma is that at that amount the house I am trying to purchase, which is modest at $259,000, is no longer in my reach. Saving for retirement is impossible. What I don’t get is that if I make more money why should I have to pay her more. If what I was paying was enough all this time why does my ability to work hard and long to make a better life for myself force me to improve her life. My sone never goes without, never have I ever denied hime anything. I pay for all his activities and clothes. I take him everywhere. At those numbers I will be forced to tell my fiance that our dream of buying a home and getting married cannot be achieved because my ex wife has chosen to be a slouch and not work. To add insult to injury she lives with her parents and her boyfriend who is unemployed and has been for over 2 years. What do I do? Doing the math Im better off working a 40 hour a week job at $55,000 than I am working 65 hours a week to make $125,000. Between the taxes and child support my net take home will be about the same with much less hours and stress. I really can’t understand how $430 a week is child support and not alimony. Im at my wits end, all the time and work I put into my career to own a home and better my life is going to go to her. I wont be able to retire, or have a savings. I guess Im just so disgusted I dont know what to do