Economist Rebuts NH Child Support Guidelines

	posted by Scott on 10:04 PM June 15th, 2004
	Economist R. Mark Rogers of Economic Consulting wrote a concise and insightful rebuttal of the NH Child Support Guidelines in PDF format. Not only are the guidelines full of inconsistencies and unfair burdens (mostly to the disadvantage of the non-custodial parent), but it turns out that the current NH guidelines do not even use the sliding percentage of income scale that the NH DHHS recommended, but instead are based on a fixed percentage of income with no cap. At only 11 pages, this document is a quick read and I hope will it inspire others to investigate child support guidelines in other states and form rebuttal strategies.

<  The New Face of Wealth Wears Lipstick | Useful DV Stats in California  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

it's got to go (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 09:11 PM June 16th, 2004 EST (#1) The whole sex tax/child support system has got to go. Why should the amount of money a mother receives for booting the father out of the child's life depend on how much money the father earns? Do children of a poor father need less "support" than children of a rich father? Children, men, and women who need support should get means tested welfare payments. The parent who wants custody of the child should be presumed to be able to support it without any contribution from the other parent. Government enforcement of an unjust, sexist, and stupid private welfare system (so-called "child support") has got to go.

Re:it's got to go (Score:1) by BreaK on 11:29 AM June 17th, 2004 EST (#2) (User #1474 Info) Crystal clear!!. I should add that if the goverment want people to have more children than they are alrready having, they should pay them, not steal their salaries. Like they do in Norway for example, make people pay to have children, absurd. In the west al benefits of having children have been socialized bur not the costs, as a result the fertility rate has dropped, and to make having children even more "attractive" they add the misery tax, (child support), puff!!. Some times i think politicians must be mentaly retarded, child support i just a way to allow some people to have custody of their children without having to support them, and to allow them to profit from other people labor without having to do nothing in return. In one word Pathetic!!. Yes you are right is absurd to waste time and energies about how much time one is willing to serve in prision for a crime one has not commit. As absurd as to bargain how much money one is going to pay for having your children removed from ones life, just zero, none.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]