I, too, was raised in a rural setting. My money management began during WW2. I got $0.25 per week allowance and whatever else I cound earn. I walked 1.5 miles (one way), once per week to cut one and sometimes 2 lawns with a push, reel mower. That was work. I also hjelped my mother hang paper. Those old farm houses with a heating stove in the living room generated several papering jobs each year. My next gig for 2 years was driving a tractor for a farmer who had access to more land than he could handle alone. Adding me to the plowing team about doubled the acreage that could be prepared for planting. I got $4.00 per day, noon meal, and transportation to and from the job. (I did not have a car, nor wasn't old enough to own one.) I worked long hours, but it was one of the better paying jobs I had for a youth. For a couple of years while in highschool, I worked 3 hours after school at a full service filling station and closed the station at night. I also worked an 8 hr Saturday at the same station. Besides selling gasoline and oil, we did oil changes, lubrication, tire changes and repair, changed thermostats, radiator flush and refills, car washes, and minor tune-ups. We'd clean out, wash, and service a couple of school buses each Saturday. That was a lot of area to wash. It was a dirty job and was cold in winter. After that job, I worked at grocery store as a carry out and stock boy. My feet were tired by the end of the day and that was my last odd job before leaving home for college. I had one other odd job. The highschool principal hired mt to run a push mop over the basketball floor before the game on game nights, and to sweep the trash out of the bleachers. On those nights, I did not go home after school since home was 10 miles away. As soon as everyone cleared out after school, I began cleaning the gym. After cleaning, I'd grab a bite at the local eatry and be back for the game. I got in free because I also played in the school band at games. It was a hard scrable life, but in some ways, it was better for the youth than today. Even during hard times, there was work for a kid if he was honest, trustworthy, and willing to work. The pay was low, but other prices were not high. Labor laws and liability was not a big factor. At the begining of my work career, comic books sold for 10 cents in 1943 and rose to 25 cents by 1953. I sold gasoline at 22 cents per gallon and that rose to 25 cents per gallon by 1954. New cars were priced roughly at $1 per pound. You could buy a new Ford 5 passenger sedan with stick shift for less than $2500. Buicks and Oldsmobiles weighed more and sold for $3000 or more.

Here is the posters previous post... "We have been on the market for about 30 days. The last week we have had three showings and all of them good. The last one resulted in an offer. The other two lookers (both came back a second time) were promising but one family decided to buy in the school district where they were renting and the other couple hadn't put their house on the market yet and wanted to wait until they did before making an offer (can't imagine why they came back a second time, if that's the case). BUT, it was an insult. The buyers had previously looked at 25 houses and "liked ours the best". Yeah, right. We're listed at $429,000, a price that we feel is right in line with what has been selling around us. No foreclosures in our area. We are in a very desirable subdivision. The view from all of our rooms is fantastic (lake and mountains). Well, the buyers came in at $375,000. No house, with our amenities and view and our size, has sold for less than $425,000. We figured that they are going around making low-ball offers and so far haven't found anyone that desparate. Well, we counted with $414,000 and told our agent that that was the lowest, we weren't going to waste time negotiating with someone who wasn't in obvious good faith. Sure enough, our agent called this morning and said they wouldn't consider it. They are going to low-ball another house in our subdivision (the buyer's agent is in her office) without a view. That house is listed at $399,000. Views are very important in this area. I'll bet the buyers offer $350,000, if that. I know which house it is. I sure hope the sellers refuse to be insulted, also. By selling for less than their house is worth, they bring down the value of the rest of the houses in the subdivision. We were so relieved as we were going to do whatever we could to get out of selling to these particular buyers if they met our counter offer. Things like refusing to pay for any problems encountered, etc. So, now it's back to finding a good buyer." So, it seems as though there IS more to the story. Chances are those were good buyers and were only testing the waters. So, let's see... your lazy, overpaid mega agent found you a good buyer in less than one month, in the worst housing economy in decades, and you have the nerve to come on here and slamming not only her, but all agents?! The reason why your agent did not respond to you when you questioned her integrity is because we, as agents, hate to work for people like yourself. Good luck selling in a few months when prices will be even lower, and interest rates even higher. Your saying that if those buyers would have accepted your counter, then you would have tried everything to get out of the deal, really shows us all that you are a waaaay too unrealistic know - it - all. BTW... when is the last time you worked 75 hours a week on end, only hoping to get paid?

I can see all sides on this very thorny issue, actually. And I agree with forms' summation: "All that being said, there is no formula that is fair to everyone in every situation." I guess I'm most inclined to agree with the following statements: -Kathline: "If its not proportional, then you can have the situation of one sibling living in a nice house with dad and the other one in a ratty slum with mom...or any variation thereof." And: "Support money is for the children, not for the ex spouse." -Sieryn: "why should Dad in that situation be responsible for Mom's standard of living?...she shouldn't be able to stiff her kids..." -Ima: "the kids have the right to benefit from both parent's standard of living. If dad has a higher income, even if they share custody, the child should get something to bring his/her standard of living up a little." I think the crucial thing to remember here ---which seems to get most often forgotten--- is that CS is for the KIDS. Remembering this *not only* means that the CP has an obligation to make responsible choices and not squander their kids' money... but it ALSO means that the NCP with a larger income shouldn't be a cheap-a$$. The way it SHOULD be is that the NCP with more money says to him/herself: "I am doing well materially, far better than the parent my child lives with. There are very few things more important to spend money on than making sure one's own child has a happy life... It is still my child, even though I am no longer married to his/her other parent and my kid doesn't happen to live with me in my new house. I WANT my child to benefit from the fact that I do well, not to spoil him/her but to be able to give him/her what s/he needs to have a full happy life with as many options as possible. I WANT to be able to help ensure that my kid's living situation is as good as I would make it if s/he lived with me in my house." But I guess the sad part is that this awareness of parental responsibility (and just plain loving care) somehow gets forgotten. The mentality too often becomes "out of house, out of mind", or that somehow the child is LESS their child because of the divorce with the child's parent. So, hence, "less obligation" in their mind, which is why legally-mandated CS exists in the first place! Sometimes, too, there are greedy CP's who spend all the CS on themselves. This is how it so often happens that there are deadbeats (custodial AND non-custodial!) who skip out on CS (or squander it all) and rationalize to themselves why they should go cheap on their own kid, or do the bare minimum for the kid that's demanded of them by law. After all, "The kid's OTHER PARENT isn't helping the kid... why should I?" Meanwhile, there's the kid, in the middle, being denied all sorts of things as retaliation to the other parent. Both parents see the other as not giving the kid enough, so they feel like giving even less, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the kid IS being cheated!!! Clearly we can't always trust parents to do right by their kids, to be unselfish and responsible, so we do need a system. But the problem seems to be mostly with THIS SYSTEM as it currently stands. Was it Organicmaria who recently said that in some countries the CS-like fund is set up to ONLY be accessible by the children? I can see where the realities of that would be hard to implement (i.e. a 4-year old shopping for his/her own groceries), BUT I basically agree with the intention of making sure it's going to the kids. If there was some, more practical, way of having more tight control of exactly where the money's going, I think many more NCP's with more money would feel more comfortable sharing the wealth. (Not to let them off the hook from doing so, regardless of the system!) The saddest thing is when these NCP's are so loathing of the idea of CP getting thier grubby mitts too much on it that they'd rather see their own child go without. The system REALLY needs to address this problem b/c it's frankly disgusting and heart-breaking.

Oh yes, TOS. My youngest DNephew's LDs are still 'non-specified.' I had him (and the middle brother, oldest is autistic and was at a fine montessori elem school) at a wonderful Christian school where he was in tiny classes and did very well for K. His mom pulled both he and his brother out, put them in separate schools - middle in private, him in public but not the same as the oldest. So the three boys were in three different schools. It was an odd move, but she wanted to exert her control, I guess. Anyway, the rational was that the youngest needed the public school system's ESE classes. The truth: ESE wasn't even available for his grade (entering first), the class he was in didn't have a permanent teacher (she was ill, they had a multitude of subs who must have thought - he's having a bad day), and later, in the ESE program, the teacher just didn't care. The tutor I took him to weekly knew her from teaching in the past and offered to call her to see how we could help him more, etc. The tutor was appalled the next week. She said, "I talked to Tina (teacher) and she just isn't the same, caring individual I remembered. She kept going off on how sweet and handsome he is, but I couldn't get anywhere else. When I pressed she said that she's been doing this too long and now realizes she just can't help everyone!" We were so upset. Today, he's going to be a So. in H.S. I think my newly turned 7 y.o. reads better - honestly. It's sad, but true. They've pushed him through, year after year, and it's just pitiful. This "no student is left behind" may sound good, but is it? Are they all passed regardless? Is anyone really trying to help these kids at all or are they just biding their time til retirement? On our monthly spreadsheet DH just gave me at the couselor's advice, that tuition bill is huge for our boys. But, after seeing what I've seen w/ my DNephews, I guess it's one thing we can't afford to do w/o. Where are you if you don't mind? D