Pay me 5 grand a month and i'll go to the park with your kid and play baseball. Sounds pretty fun actually.
If it costs $50k/month to do all these things for a kid... shouldn't his share be $25k? Doesn't she have a role in paying for it too?
You are missing the point of my post. What do you consider the NEEDS of the child? Food, shelter, education, health care and clothing I presume. How much does that cost to provide that? Lets say in Houston for a middle class family that might be $2,000 a month. Now in Indonesia I could provide that for less than $100 a month. The kid might not get the best education or health care (heck he's not going to get that in Houston) so why not then argue that for less than a $100 a month the NEEDS can be provided. The problem is that is that the NEEDS are defined relatively. Living in the NYC the cost of living is at least twice that of Houston plus the mortgage and insurance that a supermodel pays on her Mid Manhattan place are probably several several times what a middle class person in Houston pays. Then factor in that the supermodel is traveling constantly and for the child to be brought up actually needs a nanny to look after her, a chaufer to drive her to school and etc., and a cook to make sure she is fed and the cost to meet the NEEDS start rising exponentially based upon the relative difference in lifestyle. I'm willing to agree with you that such a lifestyle seems completely excessive but then again someone living in Indonesia probably thinks that our middle class American lifestyles are excessive. I mean do we really need to buy new school clothes each year when we can just patch the old clothes? This is an issue of the inequality of wealth really than it is about needs of a child. Depending on where you stand socio economically the NEEDS will likely seem very different.
Let me ask you another question RR, but anyone else is free to answer. Do you think that if you have a kid that kid should be raised in a lifestyle somewhat similar to your own?
The $46K in this case is a BARGAIN for a BILLIONAIRE. Matt Leinart's ex wanted him to pay $30K from his ex, to which he "only" is ordered to pay $15K. And he'll make nowhere near a billion dollars. I'm surely no expert on this. I believe thats what joint custody is supposed to be about. Shared time with both parents and lessened expense for the father. But then women WANT the FULL custody, because they get back more MONEY. Thats the part thats unsettling for me. The women gets to decide how much the situation is irreparable, even if the father himself is NOT neglecting his fatherly duties.
I think they should. Not having children in your custody or not having them while within a marriage shouldnt mean you love and support them less. I think its wrong in PRINCIPLE that the woman can use the child as leverage for the biggest return and make the father pay what amounts to a monthly visitation fee. Even though plenty guys are bad examples, does that mean they should ALL be treated as deadbeats before proven innocent?
