Is it justfied or necessary for someone to ask for an excessive amount of money for child support because they have a kid with a rich person?

I’ve wondered the same thing. I can see asking the father to pay for things like schooling and body guards but $46,000 seems excessive. But then I could never attach myself to some gabillionaire simply to have a child and then squeeze them for every cent.

He’s a B…Billionaire. He should learn to have a pre-nup before having sex.

It’s excessive, IMO. But support usually works on a sliding scale.

The reasoning is that the person should be able to give the child a lifestyle that is somewhat comparable to his. To a billionaire, who probably makes several hundred thousand a month, that’s a drop in the bucket, probably to little.

It’s not justified just because he has money. But if the father loves the kid he’ll give her more than enough so she can take care of her.

No harm in asking.

As a property manager, I work for millionares, (No billionares here) and one small apartment buiding, if paid off can net them over $30,000 per month. Shouldn’t their child be a small fraction of their portfolio? A Billionare has hundreds of these kinds of investments.

@Blackberry: “This is excessive, right?”

I think it’s obscene that there are people in this country that can pay $46k/mo for child support. That said, Dad either decided he didn’t need to wear a condom, or decided not to stick around after the birth of his child. Either way, that was his contract. In my opinion, he ethically agreed to this before this child was born. Pay up.

@tom_g Yeah, you’re right.

I don’t get the whole sliding scale thing for child support. It’s not like how much it costs to raise a child is affected by how much that child’s father makes. I get that if the dad is poor, he can’t pay as much as would be ideal, but it seems like there should be a maximum cut off that is well below the range of 46K.

So if let’s say, Donald Trump fathered an “illegitimate” child, that child is therefore less desired and gets less than Trumps other kids?

@bobbinhood: “I don’t get the whole sliding scale thing for child support.”

If you knock someone up, you must be responsible enough to support the child as though you were raising them. It’s really easy not to knock someone up if you are afraid you are of such weak moral character that you would be unable to be responsible if you did. Just don’t do it.

The definition of excessive is not written in stone. There are many child rearing expenses that rich people have that are unknown to us normal people. When they pay $150 for a pair of boutique/designer shoes every couple of weeks for their child, and upwards of $1,000 a week for the children’s clothes, plus a day time nanny, a night time nanny, and a travel companion, it begins to add up. When they fly from the Hampton’s to New York for a week-ender, they take an entire suite in an upscale hotel, for their entourage, which includes the children’s needs.

Their birthday party ( or several celebrations depending on the guests) can run into the tens of thousands. for every expense you and I have for our children, add at least two zeros, or maybe three, and you will have the price that a rich person will pay for the same thing.

That is more than obsessive it is also outrageous. That is being kind. Sliding scale my redacted. It is nothing short of a whole sale shake down, only thing missing is some gumbas of the woman working the souls of his feet over with a belt sander or dipping his feet in battery acid.

But if the father loves the kid he’ll give her more than enough so she can take care of her. He has no clue that she will spend the money totally on the child, She can say the little nipper is accustomed to wearing $120 Air Jordan, but after she get the cash there is nothing holding her to actually buy them. She can go to Payless shoes and get some $18 cheapie shoe, and pocket the rest in a slush fund for a new necklace or LV clutch purse.

I like my dad’s theory. (Before anyone assumes, my parents are married and my dad isn’t in any type of situation that would obligate him to ever pay child support.)

There should be a flat rate for child support. Period. It only costs so much to raise a child, and if you can’t afford to pay that, then that is when the scale should slide. Beyond that… why should it be up to the courts or the government to decide whether or not you are obligated to spoil your child? It shouldn’t. End of story.
If an obligor is a decent parent who wants to spend more on their children than what a child support order mandates, awesome. If not? The kid grows up seeing their parents’ true colors.

@ANef_is_Enuf: “The kid grows up seeing their parents’ true colors.”

I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s good enough. I’m not sure what the laws say, but I can’t see how the flat rate addresses the fact that you’ve created a human being. If I were to father a child and raise the child and it would cost x dollars per year, then I would expect x dollars per year to be the cost if the father leaves (plus other support if the father ditches the mom, etc). That x value may be different depending on many factors. Say you live in Wellesley, MA and your child goes to private school. If you leave, the cost of continuing this lifestyle for your kid is clearly many times more than someone living in a small apartment rental in Boston, with the kid going to public school.

Here is where your father would say that we shouldn’t be olbligated to spoil the child. So, the father decides to leave. The kid in Wellesley should now be forced to rent an apartment in Boston and go to public school? I don’t care what people think of the spoiled lifestyle of private school and fancy towns – the father can’t just ditch the family and expect to save money in the process.

Huge disclaimer is probably appropriate here: My father ditched me, my sister, and my mother when I was 12 because he met a young blond. We went from middle class to lower-middle overnight. He was obligated to provide some minor money and I did see his “true colors”, but that wasn’t enough. My sister and I have struggled in so many ways because of the economics of a single-parent household and his minimum support. Being able to say, “you’re a selfish asshole, Dad” doesn’t make up for it. Him having had to pay his fucking share would have made up for it.

We have too many humans on this planet. If you decide to bring one into this world, you are morally obligated to live for this child. My obligation to my children is not just because I love them. I created them. They are my responsibility to raise in the best way (emotionally, financially) possible.

@tom_g child support is handled on a federal, state, and county level. I don’t see why it couldn’t be adjusted to suit cost of living.
Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that there are plenty of kids and single parents that struggle because the other parent doesn’t pull their weight. It’s a shame, and that isn’t part of the issue that should be ignored.
However, $46,000 a month is not what it costs to raise a child.
Let’s suppose I make $300,000 a year (I don’t, btw, though it would be pretty awesome.) I’m not obligated to spend excessively on myself or my child. That doesn’t mean that I don’t live for them, it means that I choose not to spoil them.
There are too many good dads that are overlooked who get screwed royally by the system. Something has to change. I’ve said a bit more on the topic, but I sent it to you in PM.

@ANef_is_Enuf – I get your point, and you are probably right. I don’t have a good solution, and I suppose it’s possible that there are some people out there that paid the “right” amount. I know way too many deadbeats, so my perspective is probably skewed.

@tom_g I think the system is what is skewed. There are far too many extreme outcomes in either direction to even begin to describe the current system as functional. It’s sad, no matter how you look at it.

@tom_g As near as I can tell, there’s nothing wrong with having a lot of money.

@Nullo: “As near as I can tell” == “In my opinion”, right? Plus, I’m not sure that this was the focus of this thread. My opinion that large income inequality brings up moral issues is probably for another thread, and I probably could have left out the “I think it’s obscene that there are people in this country that can pay $46k/mo for child support.”

@tom_g Not really my opinion. I work with a fairly standardized moral code. It specifies the love of money (that is, greed) as being the “root of all evil,” but nothing about the evils of being rich. Some of the most prominent adherents had quite a bit of dough. The takeaway is that it’s okay to be rich as long as you’re just with it.
And yes, it’s a bit off-topic, but not so far that the mods will kill it.