I lean RP but child support is definitely the most reasonable form of male-female wealth transfer, since fathers should have some responsibility to provide for their biological children.

Disclaimer, I do support "financial abortion" but it's been discussed at length already. I won't be addressing it for the purposes of this post, and I'd ask everyone else to avoid bringing it up as well.

I believe the current system often provides broken/bad results, which can be unfair to either side depending on the circumstances. Fundamentally, I think child support should have two purposes:

1. To provide for the basic needs of the child

2. To compensate the primary caregiver for the burden of childcare labor

These should be to the extent that the payor is reasonably capable.

I think the following changes would be good to support those goals.

1. A cap on the maximum amount of base child support.

There is no good reason for exorbitant payments for a single child just because the payor is high-earning. Child support should be for necessities, no parent should be legally required to provide a luxurious lifestyle for their child. It's also bad at the macroeconomic level because it disincentivizes paying parents from increasing their income.

2. A floor on the minimum amount of base child support, with the expectation that the payor is working at least full-time.

Except in cases where they cannot work full-time for reasons such as disability, or perhaps if they are in school, obviously you cannot draw blood from a stone.

But the child needs support and the primary caregiver deserves compensation for their labor regardless. If we do not demand exorbitant amounts from the richest payors then it also seems fair to ask for more than a token amount from the poorest. Even if they are unskilled they can take on more hours for overtime pay, which seems fair if they have little or no parenting time.

And sometimes payors try to evade/reduce child support obligations by cutting down on work, and moving back in with their parents and living off of them. This also addresses that.

3. De-emphasizing relative parental income in calculations.

This is currently the primary factor in child support calculations in most of the US and Canada, and I believe this is fundamentally flawed because in practice it ends up turning it into more of an equalization payment between parents than payments for the provision of the child.

These sometimes even result in substantial payments where parenting time is roughly equal, or even payments from the primary caregiver to the other parent, both of which are unreasonable.

4. Emphasizing relative parenting time in calculations, with higher payments in cases where parenting time is heavily lopsided.

This makes more sense, relative parenting time reflects the time and labor involved in childcare, which should be compensated. It also indirectly reflects the amount of direct spending on the child.

In my opinion, based on what I've seen, child support orders are often unreasonably low in cases where one parent is the clear primary caregiver, and unreasonably high in cases where parenting time is roughly evenly split.

5. Including the age of children as a factor, with higher payments when the child is young.

To add on to point 4, the time and labor involved with rearing a child drastically varies depending on age. A teenager is mostly independent and requires little or no supervision, whereas a toddler requires constant supervision.

6. Increasing enforcement powers targeting payors that are working for cash.

This is a common method payors use to evade/reduce child support obligations. If there is evidence that the payor is earning a substantial amount of cash that they aren't reporting, there needs to be harsher investigation and enforcement powers.