What evidence is needed to show a payor is capable of higher-paying work than they currently do?

Showing that a payor is capable of higher-paying work generally starts with their own history: prior earnings in the same or a similar role, their education and professional qualifications, and any specialized skills or licenses that indicate a realistic capacity beyond their current earnings. Evidence of the actual local job market, including comparable job postings, prevailing wage information for similar roles, or in more contested cases expert evidence on employability, can help establish that better-paying opportunities genuinely exist and are not purely theoretical.

The strongest cases usually combine several threads: the payor's own credentials and experience, a demonstrated gap between what they earned before and what they earn now with no adequate explanation, and evidence that comparable jobs are actually available in their market rather than assuming higher pay exists in the abstract. Courts are generally cautious about imputing income based on a purely hypothetical "could theoretically earn more" argument without some concrete evidentiary foundation. Because this evidence can take real effort to assemble, a recipient pursuing this argument should start gathering job postings, wage data, and the payor's employment history as early as possible.