Read Roger's post previous to mine & follow his link or you're not talking about the same thing I am. It looked to me as though the proposed VA statute addressed your complaint, where the cost of living in the non-custodial parent's home was taken off of the top.
As far as parents "allowed" not to work... I know of several interstate cases that would make your position bunk. Meaning, as they are interstate cases, federal law applies In those cases, as long as the ordered obligation is paid, the non-custodial parent's working or not working isn't addressed by the court.
I know of cases in income share states where the custodial parent's income is imputed.
Finally, it looked to me as though *both* households are lible for a hit if the other household chose to have additional children (reduction if in NCP household or increase if CP household). If you re-read my post, you'll see I took that into consideration, which is why I said, it would be a second hit for un or under employment. Where is Agnes with her pie theory when I need her? lol
As far as parents "allowed" not to work... I know of several interstate cases that would make your position bunk. Meaning, as they are interstate cases, federal law applies In those cases, as long as the ordered obligation is paid, the non-custodial parent's working or not working isn't addressed by the court.
Besides the fact very few people have the resources to pay court order child support without holding some sort of a job, your statement does nothing to prove what I said as "bunk". The simple fact is, there is not a single state in the country, nor a single federal law that states a CUSTODIAL parent much provide a specific amount of financial support to their child, or that they must hold down a job to financially support said child. On the other hand, every state has a specific amount of money the non-custodial parent must pay every month and most state use inputed income if the non-custodial is consider "under employed". Again, this is not done to the custodial parent.