I didn’t read any of the posts but Prof’s new av is nice.
<--------------smiling.
For the third time today.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
<--------------smiling.
For the third time today.[/quote]
Let me wipe that smile away by telling you, man to man… you look nice in that avatar.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I’m not going to bother with the how much support in needed question because I have no idea how they come up with there numbers or what is required and all that.
[/quote]
There’s usually 2 parts to it up here. The one part is the “table amount”, which is supposed to address differences in the standard of living, and is the part that I consider to be more trouble than it’s worth. The second part is to do with the proportional sharing of additional costs, which is not unreasonable in my opinion. It’s slightly flawed in that it presumes that disposable income grows in a linear fasion as wealth increases (it grows exponentially), it’s yet another source for conflict if parents don’t agree on what is required / reasonable (i.e. I spend 750 dollars a month on a baby sitter during times when they could be with me), and it fails to take circumstances into acount, but overall it’s hard to complain about.
If you’re interested in some information about where the tables come from, this made for some good reading, as it was published in the Canadian Journal of Law and Socity (Vol. 17, n. 1, pp. 139-162) entitled What Were They Thinking? The Development of Child Support Guidelines in Canada. by Paul Millar and Anne H. Gauthier of the University of Calgary.
http://www.fact.on.ca/fin_supp/whatwerethey.pdf
Really quite informative, and not in a woman bashing way.
Also, X looks good, but I think we can all agree, we’d rather see DebraD. No offence big guy, but her gluteal development has you beat.