I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're a man who hasn't had to pay for horseback riding lessons.
No, because that's not something I would ever spend money on.
The idea is to minimize negative impact on the child. Going from private tutors in Bel Aire to public school in Long Beach has a negative impact.
The standard education of a child is more akin to a public school in Long Beach than a private tutor in Bel Aire. If the concern is minimizing negative impact on the child, then the parents should remain a happy couple. Seems unrealistic? Exactly, divorce is part of life, just like going to public schools. I view the role of the government to ensure the fundamentals of life, not the luxuries.
It's not a fallacy, at all.
You never addressed the point. Just because I make 200k a year, doesn't mean that I would pay more for my child than I would making 50k a year. Forcing me to pay more, just because I make more assumes that I would spend more monthly as my income increases. That is the fallacy.
Yet again, that point isn't to provide for a child adequately in an objective sense. It's to provide the same lifestyle or as close to it as possible as the child would have had without the marriage dissolving.
And yet again, the point of the government is to provide the necessities, not the luxuries. That is why unemployment benefits is merely a hundred dollars a week and not the same or close to your previous pay. What if a parent gets a much lower income job or just decides not to spend excessive money on horseback riding lessons? Is there a government mandate to ensure that your child keeps their gig fiber connection when you disconnect it when you can afford it? As long as you aren't depriving your child the necessities (e.g. food, shelter, clothes, sleep, etc.), the government shouldn't be involved.
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 1:18pm by Almalieque
I'm biased against statistics