Child Support Reality TV
Its not often that I am surprised by the next attack on Dads who are in debt for child support. I guess it never occurred to me that Fox TV would create a Child Support Reality TV show.
‘Bad Dads’ Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy
May 02, 2008 03:54 PM ET | Adam Voiland | Permanent LinkThis week, I received an intriguing E-mail from Glenn Sacks, a men’s advocate and journalist, crying foul about the possibility that a reality show called Bad Dads might air on Fox. The show’s producers and officials from the National Child Support Center plan to hunt down deadbeat dads and humiliate them into paying child support with the cameras running, according to an article first published in the Hollywood Reporter and then by Reuters, which calls the concept “ambush reality TV—but for a noble cause.”
No doubt Judith Collins is negotiating for the New Zealand Rights for the show. Don’t worry, Peter , I’ll get into bed with any political party, Dunne will probably fund IRD to run a reality TV Child Tax show here.
Squads of Child Tax Police (aka IRD Officials) hunting down Parents (mostly Dads) who owe Child Tax. The loonies (officials and Families Commission) are already running the asylum, designing policy with a model is seriously flawed. The lunatics are indoctrinated with an organisational culture that focuses on collecting money not supporting children. Watch the research results and what they suggest and get ready for Reality Child Support TV
Regards
Scrap
Posts RSS 2.0
Might be a good opportunity for some of the dads to explain their true circumstances and thereby change public opinion. Even more than in NZ, US fathers are hammered hard, expected to pay on the basis of as much as they could possibly earn and at least as much as they earned prior to separation. Most so-called Deadbeat Dads (a totally sexist term given that liable women are more likely to default than are liable men) in the US are low-income earners who live in relative poverty given the impact on their functioning from separation and loss of their children, and other unforseen changes to their earnings. But I guess Fox will leave out any intelligible speakers who might attract sympathy, and only include those who look stressed and guilty because that makes for better tv, and Fox probably receives money from feminazi government agencies to promote the desired propaganda. Nevertheless, I would be keen for the opportunity to be interviewed by such a show in NZ. Sadly, they wouldn’t ask me because I have paid all requisite father-removal tax to date.
Here’s another situation I came across highlighting the immorality of NZ’s child tax regime: A father has full care of one child and the mother has primary care of the other. The child with the father refuses to stay with the mother at all, but the child living with the mother spends many weekends and other times staying with the father. So overall the father is contributing financially and otherwise well over 50% of the care of the children. Yet he still pays towards the mother’s lifestyle at 18% of his gross earnings. This is because the child tax formula does not consider the parents’ relative total contribution to thier children, but conveniently considers each child separately to allow more to be charged. Also, our child tax is based only on the parents’ earnings and not the contribution the liable parent makes to a child who lives with the other parent. In many cases the father is punished because he works to earn a living while the mother is rewarded for living in relative leisure on the DPB. The result? A parent who does most of the parenting of his children and incurs most of the actual child costs gets nothing for his contribution but still pays to support the independent lifestyle and lesser child care contribution of the other parent.
Remember also that the formula is based on gross income prior to income tax, i.e. an amount that the liable parent doesn’t actually own. The liable parent pays child tax from his nett earnings, the money he is left with after income tax has been extracted. When he pays 18% of his gross earnings, he actually pays about 30% of the after-tax money that he actually gets in his hand. Do the calculations; you find that he is effectively taxed at 60 to 70% of what he earns. Calling the proportion 18% is a massive scam that most people don’t realise. That I guess is why so many liable fathers wonder why they can’t make ends meet.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 4th May 2008 @ 12:53 pm
This concept would also work well for mothers (actually custodial parents) who denied access to fathers (actually non-custodial parents), by simply making the children unavailable. This problem of course, only occurs because the NZ familycaught “judges” (with the notable exception of Principal Family Court Judge Boshier?) obfuscate and eliminate instead of enforcing their caught orders.
Because the people visiting the mother’s house are not listed on The Protection Order, it seems that this idea would work well and deliver visible benefits for the children.
I have been told by a familycaught judge (m. d, robinson about 11.30am on 13th February 1995), when he refused to address a kidnapping situation, that the familycaught is always available to enforce access orders for fathers.
I wasn’t sure whether he meant that familycaught wouldn’t enforce anything BUT an access order for a father, or whether he was lying completely. My intuition told me that he was lying through his teeth. (I hate being lied to by anyone, that was the whole reason that I and the mother were in familycaught at all!)
Anyway, I now know that familycaught judges (except sometimes Judge Boshier) personally find it essentially impossible to enforce any type of order against a mother and on top of this - you have to wait until the access hasn’t been honoured and then apply to a CLOSED familycaught!!!!! ha! ha! ha!!!
As said previously, the familycaught only hurts people who take it seriously!
So, this reality TV concept offers fathers a lot, for competent enforcement of access orders.
Where do we start on Saturday morning?
Can we get around all of the houses?
It sounds a bit like Santa Claus, doesn’t it, perhaps he can help?
I can see quite a few rocks thrown and insults traded.
Can we enforce access orders more cost effectively than the familycaught?
I am confident we can achieve better results than waiting for the familycaught tuatara to respond.
This then becomes active competition for work, between the reality TV enforcers and the old style outdated familycaught. We can’t lose.
We need to introduce customer choice and competition for work into all facets of familycaught work,
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 4th May 2008 @ 7:41 pm
I’m interested to read the comments, however, I’m one of “those” solo mothers for whom the pendulum has started to swing the other way. All I ever hear about these days is how men are so hard done by, and it’s tiring and stressful for them to have to pay child support. God.
My daughter’s father, [name removed by moderator], flatly refuses to have any contact with me and our child. He has not paid a cent towards her upbringing, ignores my phone calls, and further - didn’t even tell his family Hazel existed! I did not demand money from him, nor have I ever asked him for any. I have simply asked that he acknowledge her and be part of her life. He was engaged at the time I became pregnant (a small detail he neglected to tell me), and has since married her and fathered two more children to her. Why should my daughter miss out on her heritage and family while he swans about pretending he’s a candidate for Father Of The Year with his other two kids???
He owns a computer company [details removed by moderator], which obviously makes enough money to advertise on national television, yet he complains that he will be hard-up if he has to pay child support, which is his supposed excuse for not having contact with his daughter. His wife Kristie is also obviously capable of working to support their white picket fence life-style, as she claims to have a masters in computer technology. Meanwhile, I struggle to pay the bills working while studying full-time for a nursing degree. And yet the law does nothing to protect the psychosocial health of my daughter.
I’m the one who answers the hard questions about why [name removed by moderator] plasters photos of himself and his other kids at the zoo all over the internet, while Hazel sits in childcare so I can pay for the roof over her head! She’s no fool, she sees that other kids have dads and she doesn’t, unfortunately, no amount of reassurance by me will ever convince her she hasn’t done anything wrong. After-all, to a four-year-old, all dads are wonderful and would never offer more love to one child than another, unless one child had been naughty. It disgusts me. And these are people who claim to be CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!!!
Money would be great, but even if he paid child support, [name removed by moderator] would still be a deadbeat dad.
Comment by Alice — Sat 31st May 2008 @ 10:51 pm
Mmmmm maybe you should be a father with a violent wife who then takes out a protection order against me alleging that I was violent (i never touched her), who then stopped me seeing my kids for months. Maybe you should experience what it is like to be a father who complains to the police after being attacked and they give HER leaflets about male violence. Maybe you should experience how the NZ family court just allows the mother to get away with everything, letting her decide if it is one or two days a fortnight that the father can see his kids although he has to pay 25-30% of his gross salary to the government, while cupcake claims legal aid, DPB, then your petty problems won’t seem so bad after all, why dont you try working like men have to do all their lives for these evil women who leave them to “trade up” kicking them out of their kids’ lives forever. YOU HAVE NEVER FELT THE BIAS OF NZ “FAMILY” LAW, YOU DON’T KNOW HOW LUCKY YOU ARE, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO MOAN ABOUT, TRY WORKING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by martin swash — Sun 1st June 2008 @ 4:35 am
Yes Hans I have been saying this for a while.It is 60-70%!!
The father in question would be better being on the DPB himself probably(which he is totally able to do).Welcome to modern day New Zealand.
As for Alice good on you for not claiming Child Support.I feel sympathy for your situation.Be strong and positive and this will attract strong and positive people to you.You have obviously chosen to have and to bring up this child on your own so follow through and make the best of it.
Child Support Reality TV would obviously be popoular and get the issues discussed so bring it on!!
Comment by whanga — Mon 2nd June 2008 @ 11:27 pm
[...] trading systems, automated trading, investments, invest Sites you may be interested in Child Support Reality TV at MENZ Issues Tags stock market trade stock market investing stock market stock trading trading system day [...]
Pingback by Massive 70% Commission! | 7Wins.eu — Fri 6th June 2008 @ 4:31 am