Not satisfied with remaking NZ in her own [u**y] visage, the Anti-Clark was on telly tonight stating they have given us [through an extension of daylight saving] “more sunlight hours”.

WooHoo! as the fat yellow dude would say!

I’d chance a small wager that Johannes Keppler thinks differently to the fascist twit that heads the FemiNAZI Labour Party…

…surely this must mean the Anti-Clark is sooooooooo POWERFUL that she can actually SLOW DOWN the passage of the Earth around the Sun between September and April…

…boy-oh-boy do I want to see that with my own eyes!

Surely you jest?

Are you suggesting that paying a parent a FULL-TIME salary for doing PART-TIME work is not the right thing to do?

Shame on you!

It recently came to light that when parents who have been on the DPB for a significant period of time no longer qualify for the benefit, they find themselves in financial poverty.

Wimminz refuge and Bradford looked into this “sad” state of affairs and established that the poverty arises from the parents having “no significant assets” (ie no savings, no house etc) when the benefit ceases.

They then went on to make the deductive leap that this means the DPB is not paying enough or parents would be able to SAVE for their retirement.

Silly me! I hear you say, Now why didn’t we think of that reason?

Of course they give no consideration to the FACT that, when a DPB parent saves money, their benefit is quickly “abated”. For us simpler types this means the DPB payment gets smaller the more they save.

Of course they give no consideration to the FACT that, in almost every case, the DPB receiver cannot enter the work-force and earn anywhere near the salary that the DPB provides.

Elsewhere on MENZ I recall seeing a DPB receiver with 2 children receiving in excess of $35,000 per annum [after tax]. For a worker such as you and I, this is a salary in excess of $55,000 per annum [before tax].

In my experience, the people who get salaries like that do a lot of FULL-TIME, very hard work in return for their salary.

Something rotten in the FemiNAZI state of New Zealand? HELL YES!

I found a link to a site http://www.sharedparenting.co.nz where they talk about support for children being based on “essential needs”. I’m not sure from the blurb exactly what this means, but the examples they give seem to be much fairer on everyone than what we have now.

Not sure if they have the answer, but the status quo certainly is not working so we definitely need to look at other options.

My apologies if the parody was too much, but the opportunity was just too good….

Regards

Scrap

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=47616&searchresults=1

Australia: Changes To The Child Support Scheme

16 April 2007
Article by Andrew McCormack

Originally Published December 2006

Introduction

The original Child Support Scheme established under the Child Support
Act 1988 has recently been subjected to review and criticism from
several areas. A number of parliamentary committees and at least one
taskforce have examined the Child Support Scheme in depth and have
made recommendations in respect of shared parenting.

These recommendations included a change to the child support formula
and cultural changes within the Child Support Agency (”CSA”). As the
Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 has
now been implemented, the changes to the Child Support Scheme are
designed to foster shared parenting and to ensure that parents share
equally the cost of bringing up children.

To read this article in full please click here

Summary

The changes to the child support system, in particular changes to the
formulae, are very complex. The CSA has advised that it is presently
writing new versions of the online calculators to take into account
the changes in the formulae. It envisages that these calculators will
be operational by 2008, to ensure that sufficient time is available
for them to be tested.

It would appear from the reading of the legislation that it will be
imperative to take into account the time a client will spend with
their children when calculating what child support liability they
will face.

It would appear from rough calculations that child support assessment
may be reduced and parents may share such things as the family tax
benefit where the level of contact of a non-parent equates to 5
nights out of 14 nights.

Hopefully, the changes to how child support assessments are
calculated will bring about some equality in respect of assessments
and there will be some incentives for parents to enter into and
remain in shared parenting arrangements in order to minimise child
support liability.

When advising clients, all practitioners should be mindful of the
amount of time that children will spend with each parent, and should
suggest that the client at least consider a shared parenting option.
It will also be necessary to provide clients with advice as to how
their child support liability will be affected if they wish to
partake in regular care of their children.

“““““““
Onward - Jim
http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz

It would be nice to think they would apply the same level of effort to stopping benefit fraud.

Perhaps they should also look at our esteemed members of parliament and the gratuitous salaries and perks these people receive at the expense of the hard-working tax-payer?

Some of us would really like to see what benefit we receive for the excessive money we expend.

…instead we simply pass an amendment to the law that makes the commissioner of IR the police, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner.

Really makes Hitler look a lot like a Kindergarten Teacher in comparison and Mrs Clark look like Mother Theresa.