Thanks for the input, I see that side of it as well. What I am ultimately trying to accomplish is to get the correct numbers to plug into the equation. I have offered to pay ALL DE's (y-care, lunches, gymnastics dues, insurance) but I am being told that though the request is fine and dandy, it still isn't enough, based on our current salaries. So, I responded by saying that we need to put numbers into the EPT formula, which they are utilizing the Bradley model and I simply want to ensure that I am not getting 'extra' fees piled on.
One example. Insurance comes out of my paycheck, at a rate of $60 per week. I was told that we could go through a 3rd party and reduce that amount to $119 per week, so they used that in the formula rather than the $260 month that it is currently running. Though I disagree, fine, put it in there. Y-care costs average out to $433 per year, so that is going on the DE line in the formula. Now, they want to add $45 per month to the DE line to cover the average cost of school lunches. Also remember that they also removed the $15 per month increase that I added for State Child Care Tax Credit.
It just seems that the more and more I research, the more numbers I see are up for debate. The 'debate' is what bothers me. Why can the State of KS not come up with specific line items? It does not seem to me that there are so many variables that we cannot account for all. Why do I have to be responsible for a higher dollar figure because the receiving/lower income parent is suggested to be responsible for paying the DE's? Why can't I set up auto-pay accounts with the school for lunches and with the YMCA for before/after school activities to avoid the 13/15/18 percent adjustment?
As mentioned, I do not have a problem covering all DE's, but when the calculator still spits out a number greater than that, because of differing salaries, I need to provide more? I understand that there are varying circumstances and room for debate as to why I should be responsible for even more of an obligation, it baffles me. I have kept track of days/nights of my child in my home vs. the other parent. The child is with me 55%, and the other parent 45%. On days where no school or y-care is offered (holidays, sick, snow day), I have handled 69% and the other parent 31% thus far for this school year. Yet, I need to be responsible for more on the monetary aspect because I make more?
These calculations are to protect the child to ensure that a healthy and financial stable home is provided at both locations, but it also puts a further burden on the higher income parent. Where is the incentive for the lower income parent to work harder and better their career, if they can just wait for a 10% income adjustment on the higher income parents salary? If I want a raise, I go to my boss and show him why I deserve it. If the lower income parent wants one, they simply go to the State and file a motion. It's mind boggling.
In summary, it seems that the State is talking out both sides of their mouth on how to properly handle the numbers. Either allow all gray areas to be accounted for, or take the 25 minutes to come up with a list of line items that are applicable. Seems to me, we are left with dealing with both, causing more confusion and heartache amongst both parents to hash out, at no fault of the child.