<p>^^^ </p>
<p>Agree.
But that is why it is a flawed system.
It is based on the assumption that the lifestyle is directly correlated to the amount of money people earn.</p>
<p>I know people who try to live like kings on low salaries (over spend, build up credit card debt, etc). Keeping up with that level of support in a case of a divorce makes no sense. Also I know people who live modestly on large incomes (see the book “The Millionaire Next Door”) since (a) they are saving for a long, high quality retirement (b) give a lot of money to charities (c) are not particularly flashy spenders. Secondly, a family, especially in Silicon Valley, may live modestly for many years since they are working for a lot of equity in a start-up. There can be a huge swing in the income from a family with no corresponding change to the actual lifestyle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that that is the goal, but it really makes no sense. The issue should be what is the proper level of support based on reasonable needs. Because you were given $1k/week clothing budget as a child, doesn’t mean you are still entitled to them. Just because a parent gets a new job, promotion, finally has his company go public and makes a lot of money, does not mean that a child “deserves” to share in that upside.</p>