Dunne what?
Child support payments are to be deducted directly from parent’s pay-packets, under new rules announced by the Government today.
Revenue Minister Peter Dunne this morning announced changes to child support arrangements, including how payments are calculated, having payments taken directly from parents pay-packets, and easing up on the penalties for those that default on payments.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5481135/New-child-support-laws-introduced
It looks like a tax, its caluculated like tax,its administered by IRD, now Dunne wants to take it from your Pay like a tax and he calls child support. When will the charade stop and Dunne be honest. He supports taxing mums and dads who are not the Custodial Parent of their children to recover benifits despite those same benifits being recovered by general taxation.
Dunne has done nothing to correct the fundemental flaws of the legislation and this is just another patch that screws seperated parents.
I got an e-mail bounced from you today Scrappy.
Can you please send me your e-mail address to [email protected].
Comment by Allan — Mon 22nd August 2011 @ 9:57 pm
Some female lawyer is quoted in the paper saying it is a significant shift in favour of non custodial parents. Bullshit, it won’t make any difference to me except that the IRD can now reach into my bank account and take out whatever they want. That sounds like a sinificant shift the other way to me. That 28% of nights threshold is still way too high but this is the result we all expected anyway, and as expected it has been used to put off the next review for another 15 years.
Dunne Nuthing has worked out how he can get more votes without losing too many in the process, simple.
Comment by Dan — Tue 23rd August 2011 @ 10:11 am
Now non custodial parents will see their children less as nasty custodial parents will ensure they see the children for less than 28% of the time, so they get more money in their handbags!
Comment by Scott B — Tue 23rd August 2011 @ 10:43 am
I think there are some fantastic changesd coming as well, or have these been overlooked?
The fact that the custodial parent’s income will be taken into account is a great step in increasing fairness. Otherwise people will be left paying huge amounts of money (in our case close to $1500 a month), when the custodial parent works and doesn’t have their income taken into account.
I think Peter Dunne is actually getting some good changes made, changes that will benefit a lot of people who are affected by child support.
Comment by K — Tue 23rd August 2011 @ 11:12 am
Fair point K, I have only seen a headline selected by a journalist and there must be more in there, I will halt my rush to judgement for now.
But remember this isn’t law yet and there is plenty of time to alter the proposed changes one way or the other. As it seems unlikely to pass before the election we will be unable to pass judgement at the ballot box should we so wish.
Comment by Dan — Tue 23rd August 2011 @ 11:51 am
Dads scorn child support timing DANYA LEVY
Last updated 05:00 23/08/2011
A fathers’ support group says a long-awaited overhaul of the child support system announced by Revenue Minister Peter Dunne has been cynically timed before this year’s election.
Under changes announced at the weekend, the way child support is calculated will be changed to reflect the actual cost of raising a child, the income of both parents and the degree of shared care between them.
The number of nights used to determine shared care will be reduced from 40 per cent to 28 per cent of the year and penalties for defaulting parents will be changed so people are not discouraged from resuming payments.
Union of Fathers national president Allan Harvey said the changes were long overdue and Mr Dunne had been promising them for years.
“It’s typical of Mr Dunne. It’s a last-minute thing just before the election to position himself for another Cabinet position after the election. The act has been in place for 18 years and he has been revenue minister for nine.”
Though the changes were welcome, the Union of Fathers believed some, such as direct-debiting child support payments, were unnecessary.
“That already happens for about 75 per cent of taxpayers at the moment.”
It also raised privacy issues, Mr Harvey said. “Why should someone have to declare to their employer that they have children that are not living with them?”
About 90 per cent of child support was collected and the Government should focus on trust income and tax losses where there had been much rorting of the system, he said.
Many of the 2000 people who made submissions to the Government called for the income of any new partner, or the household income, to be taken into account in child support calculations, he said. At the moment that income was specifically excluded.
Mr Dunne’s announcement focused only on the parents’ income, but a spokeswoman said families could seek a review to enable new partners’ incomes to be taken into account.
Kapiti Coast mother-of-three Rachel Booth says child support payments had crippled her family for years. Her husband, Chris, has a 15-year-old daughter from a previous relationship.
She said the girl’s mother had not allowed the Booths to have any contact with her, despite repeated requests to be part of her life.
Their monthly payment of just under $800 was more than they had for their three children combined.
“I have to tell my youngest daughter we cannot afford swimming lessons while this girl has a horse. It’s ridiculous.”
Mrs Booth was forced to return to work full time to cover the child support payments after her husband’s pay rise took them over the threshold to receive Working for Families. `So now I don’t get to see my children very much. I get to see them one full day a week.”
The family would be applying “straight away” for the mother’s new partner’s income to be taken into account, she said.
Her husband worked hard to receive bonuses, but the following year they were swallowed up when reassessments raised their child-support payments.
Changes to the child-support formula will apply from April 2013 and changes to payments, penalties and debt rules from April 2014.
– Stuff
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 23rd August 2011 @ 5:09 pm
Mr Peter Dunne
Minister of Revenue,
I have read your press release of today and I would seek some clarification.
Have you a date for the bill to be ready for comment? Your press release says a few months which put its release right in the middle of the election campaign.
What Child Support Formula changes are proposed? Do you plan to alter the living allowances, the percentage payable and will this be varied based on the ages (and costs of raising) children.
Will the shared care determination between 28% of nights and more be stepped and in how many steps will there be up to 50% of nights?
Your press release talks about ‘income from both parents (being taken) into account’. Public submissions were often about household incomes and not about parental income alone. What are your proposals in this area?
What indication do you have that wage and salary earners are not making payments on time and there is a loss of Child Support revenue from these taxpayers? The need to declare identifiable information to an employer about children who do not live in a person’s care is a significant invasion of privacy. It does not also recognise that many people have paid every cent asked of them for years without automatic deductions from their wages. For these people to be publicly ‘outed’ to their employer and pay clerk as Child Support payers seems most unfair.
I am delighted to see that you plan to no longer consider business or other losses an automatic reduction in Child Support payments. It is my experience that businesses or trusts have been used by accountants and their clients to avoid responsibility to children in a malicious manner and IRD staff have done little to challenge this via Commissioner Initiated Reviews. These taxpayers have the ability to raise special circumstances with the admin review process and this is how such losses or other circumstances can be considered rather than artificially lowering income for Child Support purposes.
I am also delighted to see that you will review the penalty regime which has been such a disincentive for parents who have gotten into arrears to re-engage and support their children. I trust that with these changes their will be attitudinal changes to IRD collections staff which has often been a double disincentive to re-engage with meeting of parents liabilities. Penalties benefit children not at all, neither do they benefit the taxpayer or receiving parent. Any penalties collected are presumably much less than the cost of collection to the IRD and thus effectively a tax on every other taxpayer.
As I have previously indicated I am happy to work with you or your officials in drafting the details of these changes which I look forward to seeing as a bill for the consideration of the house in the next few weeks.
Allan Harvey
Union of Fathers (Wellington)
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 23rd August 2011 @ 5:11 pm
The possible effect at the top of the cliff is this:
Once upon a time, (about 25 yrs ago)it was seen as necessary to free women and their children from the PATRIARCHY.
To achieve this,
1 No-Fault Divorce was instituted.
2 The Domestic purposes benefit, along with concessions for solo mums, was made financially far more attractive than trying to live on Dad’s wage.
3 Also, Marriage guidance, Child Youth and Family (not including Dad), and most other support services geared up to encourage mothers to take this path.
4 The Domestic Violence legislation was enacted to facilitate the process
Now, 25 yrs on, the downside is becoming evident.
1 Nearly half of all children are raised fatherless.
2 The birthrate has fallen well below replacement levels (hence the need for immigration policies)
3 Child and youth problems are becoming epidemic- (anti smacking laws not withstanding)
4 The ‘marriage strike’ (or man drought) is becoming news.
Most politicians (both here and overseas) know all this, but are still under the power of the feminist polical machine. As observed, Peter Dunn is making tentative squeaks, but is staying close to cover.
Thank god I’ve finshed with child raising, and like many fathers I don’t advise my sons to follow my footsteps, and not to be fathers.
Comment by John Brett — Wed 24th August 2011 @ 9:22 am
John,
Dont give that advice to your sons. We must fight, not behave like beaten dogs.
Bruce
Comment by bruce.tichbon — Wed 24th August 2011 @ 3:15 pm
I think one of the great debates will turn out to be the cost of raising a child. Will it include buying and upkeeping cellphones and playstations and computers and Ipods and internet useage and a TV/DVD/player for the childs bedroom? Perhaps any assessment should include buying a car for the kids and driving lessons at age 16.
Who makes the decision? If it’s IRD then us most of Kiwi dads are stuffed. Did IRD not already state it cost $250,000 to bring up a child to age 19? Think they did. Well hell, thats $1100 a month or $274 a week to bring up one child. Guess I am lucky because I only pay my ex $264 a week. She recuperates the $10 though, because she works, and lives with a high income partner who pays at least half of the mortgage on their big flash house, helps feed the two dogs and cats, pays most of the rates, electricity and insurance and upkeep.
I really think there is a need for the partners income to be realised when it comes down to the living allowance.
Comment by Morris Lindsay — Wed 24th August 2011 @ 8:08 pm
I don’t like to say I told you so, but if you remember a while ago I said that this would get played out right up to the election, and Dunne won’t be in parliament after this election, so the game will start all over again. There have been plenty of changes to the Child Support Act, which have either advantaged women or IRD benefit recovery and the collection of penalties. Don’t go patting yourself on the back Dunne nothing, because it’s another three years you haven’t done a bloody thing. The obvious here is that the percentage reduction will encourage less time with fathers to maximise child support payments and the family courts will reinforce that on behalf of the state. Hitler had the idea of United Future too, but he wore a swastika on his arm. The difference here is you’ve got bullshit on your lips and blood money in your back pocket.
Comment by Down Under — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 9:31 am
If the problem is too much government, then the solution is NOT more government.
I like the analysis of Down Under. There is no poltical, social or legal solution to this problem.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 10:39 am
Guys,
Remember Dunne is the only MP supporting shared parenting and DNA paternity testing (have a look at the United Future site). Dunne has managed to get some favourable child support reforms past the National caucus, that must have taken a long time and a lot of political skill. Dunne has got us as much as he could. I would have liked more but I know that was not possible.
Please be grateful for what we have been given. But its only a first step.
If we support Dunne he might get us shared parenting and DNA paternity testing next term. Lets set future targets, not bite the hand that feeds us.
Bruce Tichbon
Comment by bruce.tichbon — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 11:23 am
Bruce… I await to see if he has got us and our children anything other than more stress and heartache.
Comment by Scott B — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 11:54 am
For God sake Bruce – enough of the broken record – it wasn’t so long ago that you were hanging off the coat tails of the Act party saying the same thing about them, and how many guys have topped themselves in the meantime. That’s not forgetting that the worst period of men’s suicide seen in this country coincides with the illegal operation the IRD ran out of Christchurch, and that was under Dunne’s watch. He’s a murderer. The Police should investigate that, they should, but you’ll never find a Judge in this country that will sign a search warrant for the IRD. Every man’s child support debt is a bounty – collect it dead or alive and no amount of pansy politicking is going to change that. There is nothing worse than seeing ordinary decent people given such flagrant false hope, and just because this country lame arse media can’t do its job – that’s no reason for those of us – that know better – not to tell it how it is.
Comment by Down Under — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 1:12 pm
Bruce,
Sorry, dont agree with your assessment of Dunne’s proposal. Its changes driven by officials at IRD designed to make the Tax collection easier not changes that are going to produce a fair and reasonable child support system.
As to being gratefull for what we have been given, how long will it be before you realise we have been given nothing.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 2:09 pm
Child support is typically framed as state intervention on behalf of children.
However, it is more accurately an alternative to marriage for women.
Traditionally, women would find a man willing to formally commit to them before having children.
By marrying (and staying married to) the man who would be the father of her children, women would ensure investment from the man and the provision of resources both to her and her children.
Note that child support isn’t needed in the traditional model, and that it isn’t relevant in the case of the death of the father.
Even in the case of divorce, child support isn’t needed if parents share equal custody.
Where child support is needed is if women want to expel the father from the household (or never bring him in).
When the facade of Its for the children! is stripped away, child support is all about removing fathers from the lives of their children.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 4:02 pm
Agreed Skeptik. Child support should be abolished!
Comment by Scott B — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 4:45 pm
Pretty much have nailed it there Skeptic.
Ive been paying it for over a decade now. And in that time have heard Dunne nothing say how he’s always about to do something which has never eventuated.
In the time Ive been paying child tax it has not changed despite all the rhetoric that goes with it.
I still support the ex and her lifestyle choices there is no checks or balances in place to ensure the money is spent on the children. My income is proudly displayed by IRD to my ex who divorced me but remained firmly married to my pay packet and wallet. I have no right to the privacy act here.
IRD are not about reducing the tax take. And Dunne nothing is not about to be the revenue minister who succeeded in reducing that take.
My opinion is that any changes to the child tax system will be designed with the recipients (not the children) of it in mind and not the payers.
Calling this travesty “support” only panders to the leeches who receive it.
Comment by Mits — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 5:11 pm
I pay child support for my two daughters who live with me. Can Mr Dumb explain that one?
I have given up trying to get sense from the IRD Extortion Pricks!!!
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 25th August 2011 @ 9:53 pm
Child support should be eliminated. It is too easily abused by all parties involved (except the fathers). Child support is CHILD TRAFFICKING and CHILD ABUSE and ENSLAVEMENT OF FATHERS. The concept of child abuse cannot be administered responsibly, as too many people profit from trafficking our children. When the problem is too much government, the solution is NOT more government. Which means that reforming or changing the administration of child support is not possible. It must be eliminated.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 8:47 am
Child Support is supposed to work on the premise that children should benefit from the input of both parents. This should apply to care as well as cash. I think that is what should happen and as such Child Support is a wonderful tool when parties canot agree what should happen.
The reality is that our Child Support system is very inflexible and encourages one parent to be a cash parent and the other a care parent. Somewhere we have lost the tool and it has become a weapon where one parent can beat the other via IRD and the Courts.
Allan
Comment by Allan — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 2:59 pm
But also Allan the child sees the care parent as the cash parent. Leaving the paying parent out in the cold and appearing useless in the eyes of the children!
Comment by Scott B — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 3:11 pm
Sorry Allan and with all due respect
I cannot understand how you can say
“as such Child Support is a wonderful tool when parties canot agree what should happen.”
How does forcing one parent to hand over money to the state or the other parent when they are in disagreement, become a wonderful tool?
I do agree with you on the care as well as cash is a good thing, but with my ex I can tell you that if she dont get her cash then I dont get no care,
and she dont care
Mits
Comment by Mits — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 5:54 pm
Child tax needs to go. Simple as that.
Comment by Scott B — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 7:04 pm
I would suggest abolishment of the child tax, an income tax increase to offset that, and then working for families increased.
Isn’t that what the state is for… Helping those that really need it? Those that work and earn well don’t need handouts for their children. Those that don’t earn so much do.. I’ll never forget the day I handed over 75% of my unemployment benefit for that month to IRD for 1 months child tax, even though I had shared care at the time. Later, when they got off their high horse they reduced the crazy amount, but were unsympathetic at the time with the notion that I needed clothe, feed, house my children and myself!
Comment by noconfidencewithnzfamilycourt — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 10:11 pm
Hi Scott and Mits.
Both parents need to be care parents. Both parents need to be cash parents. The best parents after seperation is BOTH parents.
If parents can’t asgree on how children should be supported then who does. Child Support fills that role but the way it is currently set up it encourages one parent to care while the other pays. That is not fair.
I live over 500kms from my ex, my kids live with me should the other parent not contribute something? Child Support encourages us to reach agreement otherwise what incentive is there for the other parent to contribute to my costs of care? I don’t agree that the current system is a good tool but some tool is required.
I look forward to making a detailed submission to the draft bill Peter Dunne will present soon. The big test will be will any party pick up the bill after the election and continue it’s passage via the select committee process.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 10:12 pm
….think of the cost savings such a policy would make. The dismantlement of the child tax offices and laying off of their staff would save us all money.
Oh, and remember to correct any journalist who publishes a statement that billions are owed in ‘child support’. It’s mostly penalties and interest which go into the governments coffers so there’s no way it can be seen as ‘child support!’
Comment by noconfidencewithnzfamilycourt — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 10:15 pm
I disagree with you Allan. I support my children through the clothes, education and after school events that I pay for. If I pay for all that then why should I pay child tax as well ?
I was paying my ex through an agreed private arrangement until she reneged and got 2 lots of money from me; 1 from the private arrangement and 1 from IRD.
If both parents have kids equally then why should one pay the other? That’s socialism gone crazy…
Equal custody should be the de-facto unless 1 parent doesn’t want it. For them, they should pay their dues through income tax. Nicde and simple. Then dead beat dads will only be deadbeat because they don’t care about their children not because they can’t afford to look after them like the current system does
Comment by noconfidencewithnzfamilycourt — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 10:23 pm
A major problem with the current Child Tax is that it provides resources for children AND spousal maintenance.
The State speaks with forked toungue. They pay about $370 a month for children of beneficaries but they ask most paying parents much more than this. If a paying parent can afford more than this for his children it should be available for their use but as I understand it it isn’t until over $1250 a month is paid that any “surplus” not recovered by the State is available for Child Support purposes.
$1,250 less $370 a month means $880 a month or over $10,000 a year spousal maintenance is included in Child Tax over an about the Child Support portion.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 10:37 pm
@nonconfidence – I like the sentiment of your approach to our dilemma but disagree with an increase in “income” tax. I have always been a supporter of a “consumer” tax, which ensures that people have choices of how they spend their income, and are taxed as a function of their choices about how much of our natural resources (to some degree) they use.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 26th August 2011 @ 11:40 pm
So how exactly am I supporting my children by paying child support Mr Dunne? They don’t know me, they don’t know my money is going to them and/or their mothers booze fund! They think that their mum pays for everything and does everything for them and that their dad doesn’t love them or care for them. If/when I do have contact it is stopped abruptly by the mother and I am yelled at, sworn at and abused. Usually with a follow up in writing… AND I AM PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE FOR THAT!!!! So how am I supporting my children Mr Dunne?
If you’re gonna take my money straight out of my pay packet then I will quit work. You’ll be taking your own money then. Or will you find a new way of getting money out of me Mr Dunne?
The family court etc have already decided I can’t see my children for no good reason so why am I still paying? Why? If I am not good enough to see my children and care for them, then why is my wallet good enough? Great, thanks. I am worth less than a stinking wallet. Thank you. I know where I stand. I think I will post you my wallet Mr Dunne. That’s all I am to you and my ex anyway!
If I quit work, it will be you paying for all that, not me. Should have thought of this earlier. There is no incentive for me to work. If I get a better paying job, you take more of my money, not just with higher income tax but with more child tax too. Where is the incentive to work? It won’t help my children and I have a relationship. Where is the incentive Mr Dunne?
Let me guess, you’re gonna say my money goes to support my children right? Well I have never seen any proof of this Mr Dunne, can you please supply me with the evidence? Where is the proof Mr Dunne? Especially when my ex keeps complaining that she doesn’t have any money!
How are you going to calculate how much it costs to raise a child Mr Dunne? I am really interested to know!
Living with no rights and sending money to someone who is abusing you and your children is not my idea of fun Mr Dunne. But please, by all means you keep telling yourself that you’re doing a great job while my children and I suffer. Roast lamb for dinner again is it?
Comment by Scott B — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 12:19 am
@Scott – I’ve always framed part of your argument this way: If I’m so allegedly abusive to my children and my wife and have so many alleged anger issues that prevent the State from letting me see my own children, then how on Earth does it expect me to be able to work with so many serious issues, let alone manage my finances or do anything else?
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 4:29 am
Ahhhh Allan Now I see how you find child tax such a wonderous tool, you receive it rather than pay it.
I have to tell you that Im yet to find someone in receipt of child tax that doesnt think its a good idea and such a wonderous thing for the children.
I do know some who get the child tax that ensure every cent goes to the children and that are open with where the money comes from and the other parents involvement and input. But sadly that is, in my experience, the minority and in my own case the ex has gone as far as to tell the children that she didnt receive any child tax from me while they went without and she played the victim card and treated herself.
There would have to be some checks and balances in place to ensure that the money went on the children before I would subscribe willingly to such a scheme. This doesnt happen which is why In my case the government needs to make my tax compulsory through IRD. Ive said it before here that parents with voluntary private schemes dont need the IRD and when ever Ive talked to one they seem bemused by the problems paying through IRD cause. Child tax through IRD is in my opinion a mechanism of power playing by the other parent where they will force predominantly the father to pay a subscribed ammount for their discretionary spending that may or may not benefit the children.
Again calling this travesty “support” is pandering to the consciences of those involved.
Mits
Comment by peter woolston — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 8:17 am
Look how the media treats issues around children.
In 1998 The National Government released a national youth suicide prevention strategy in response to our international shameful youth suicide statistics.
See what I mean about this country’s media. They are not journalists, they are just bloody parrots.
Comment by Down Under — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 8:32 am
Darryl X – well put.
Peter – yes it happens all the time, parents who recieve child tax telling the kids that they don’t get any!
Down Under – yes the media here is a disgrace!
Comment by Scott B — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 9:38 am
Hi Peter,
I have paid Child Support as a so called NCP, received in a shared care arrangement, paid in a shared care arrangement, had an each pays their own agreement in place for many years, had private arrangements where I pay, had private arrangements where she pays, had arrangements where we both paid money directly to the children for their own use. I think I have a pretty broad understanding of the NZ act and how Child Support can work.
Child Support needs to be a wonderful tool because Children have needs and expenses which both parents should contribute to.
If Scott B wants to write to me I’m sure we can start proceedings for contact with his kids. In 10 years of Court action I have only ever had one case where a parent has absolutely no contact with their child and that particular child has very sepcial needs that lead the Court to that conclusion.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 10:18 am
Won’t happen Allan.
I will never willingly step foot in a family court again unless there are huge changes in the law. I do not trust a single person involved in that place.
I cannot afford it financially, emotionally or healthwise. You’ll probably say I should do it for the sake of the children right? Well I have fought for longer than both world wars combined and my children and I have come out worse than when we went in!
Not gonna happen.
Comment by Scott B — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 10:49 am
Nor do I trust the police (when involved with family court stuff, but with other things I do), CYFS or any other agency involved with family stuff.
Comment by Scott B — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 10:53 am
Allan;
I will attempt to have my upcoming appeal published so joe public can see what ‘judgments’ the family court gives out and what IRD do as a result. Somehow, I doubt the judiciary will really allow such publicity getting out as it would show that blatant sexism that exists. The issue in my case is one of a judge exceeding their legislative authority…
I thought that child support is somehow ‘wonderful’ is abhorrent.
It is a socialist tool which, as other commentators on here have shown gives no incentive for people to work. In fact, some of us would be better off not working. How is that a good system ?
I want a political party that supports the following:
Equal custody after separation is mandatory. Those that ignore their obligations to their children are penalized (call it a child tax if you wish).
If equal custody occurs then no child support is needed. The difference in pay between households is up to each household as some parents have worked harder than others on their careers.
(The notion that mothers took time out is no longer true as they have more choices).
Disagreements are handled by a government sponsored counsellers.
They only have the authority to disclose to police when there is a PROVEN situation of child abuse, not a hear say one.
Family court is disbanded.
District courts handle any matters relating to child abuse, or deadbeat parents who refuse to see kids and then refuse to pay for them.
Money saved can be spent on new ways to research how fathers who have been abused by family court can be rehabilitated and compensated, and research into suicide, & child abuse improved
Perhaps I should start such a political party…
Comment by noconfidencewithnzfamilycourt — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 11:00 am
Somehow, I doubt the judiciary will really allow such publicity getting out as it would show that blatant sexism that exists.
Which is why they never release anything. They hide behind the rhetoric of “it’s in the best interests of the children”. But the real reason is “it’s so we can do whatever we want without scrutiny”.
Comment by Scott B — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 11:06 am
Once the STATE of the family (read that as the smallest state in the world) breaks down and you go to the ‘Family Court’ your sons and daughters become children of the STATE. Mothers and Fathers become PARENTS of the STATE. So the ‘Best Interests of the Children’ needs to be read as what THE STATE wants for its children. What the STATE currently wants is for female parents to be custodial parents and male parents to be paying parents. The family court is of and for the State Political. It is unfortunate the people believe it is either a court of Justice or a court that will be concerned for the interests of their sons and daughters. The court will consider matters of the WELFARE of THE STATE’S CHILDREN. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not agreeing with this – merely expressing the thinking that you are battling against. Now take the words CHILD SUPPORT and do you see them in a different light.
Comment by Down Under — Sat 27th August 2011 @ 11:47 am
What a beautiful discussion, with most viewpoints well covered. I am not sure how much credit is due to the moderators? Either way, the discussion has brought out the issues well and made strides towards deveoping a more workable process, than the present IRD beaurocracy, which seems bedevilled by personal agendas and conflicts of interests created by the employers incentives to staff.
Hope the progress will continue and lead to a politically workable process, this side of the upcoming election?
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 28th August 2011 @ 11:36 am
Progress?
The only progress I see is for the IRD, non paying parents and Mr Dunnes political career!
Comment by Scott B — Sun 28th August 2011 @ 1:13 pm
No person in IRD, Government or politics is going to give us progress AScott.
We need to debate and plan and outline what progress means and then sell it to our communities.
You have said you feel depleted financially, emotionally and in your health.
There is a quote I try to live by and it goes something like;
We must embrace defeat and feel it in our souls because unless good people dream; somewhere, sometime, someone will win and that victory is the hope we can all feel.
Personally I find many are just not committed to the struggle for us to even dream of change. We seem to think Dunne Nothing will deliver it to us on a plate.
We must continue to be in court, to campaign and to dream. No matter if that has costs on our wealth, our health or our emotions. Prison cells may be lonely places but many a revolution has come from such a place.
Could I perhaps suggest to you Scott B that you rent one evening the movie “votes for women” and you may appreciate that often social changes takes many years, many generations and commitment to a dream.
Murrasy has challenged us to dream that dream and I’m sure it will be better if we do so collectively.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 28th August 2011 @ 4:41 pm
“The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight one hundred years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing – for the sheer fun and joy of it – to go right ahead and fight, knowing you’re going to lose. You mustn’t feel like a martyr. You’ve got to enjoy it.”Izzy Stone, independent US journalist;
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 28th August 2011 @ 4:44 pm
In 45 above I refered to a movie “votes for women” which is on the cover of the DVD but it’s title is actually Iron Jawed Angels about suffereage for women in the USA.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 28th August 2011 @ 4:52 pm
It annoys me extremely to find people commenting here and whinging and doing little or nothing about seeking change and reform.
From 2002 I had many who questioned if I was a fit and proper person for many roles I had in my community dut to the position I took about fatherhood. In 2004 I write the following to a bureaucratic institution which was out to censure me and remove my livelihood.
They eventually found several years later and with some reluctance, in a divided decision, that I was a ‘fit and proper’ person. It wa a question of which I had no doubt.
Earlier I had a protection order discharged in the Family Court with an affidavit that included the paragraph;
It is an absolute cop out to say one is tired or better emigrating or advocating that our sons should not become parents themselves. The struggle continues!
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 28th August 2011 @ 6:03 pm
MGTOW IS reform.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 28th August 2011 @ 6:23 pm
Pendulums swing and often the task is to recognise the midpoint in the swing.
I like the quote from Izzy F. Stone
One hundred years ago the situation regarding custody was 100% reversed. Neither extreme is fair or good for children.
Faulkner, Carol (2011). Lucretia Mott’s Heresy. Penn Press. pp. 160. ISBN 978-0-8122-4321-5.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 28th August 2011 @ 10:16 pm
Allan… you make a lot of assumptions about me, and considering you don’t know me at all, that is just plain stupid.
I have done a lot and I know a lot about all of this as well. I can’t be bothered going into it with you. Just don’t make assumptions about people.
Comment by Scott B — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 9:57 am
Agree Allan,
We must keep fighting even if we gain nothing. We have to fight this fight for our kids!
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 11:47 am
I am not against keeping up the fight but doing it through the system and family courts is not the way. It is through those two things which I will not and cannot continue the fight.
Comment by Scott B — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 12:09 pm
Every time anyone willingly goes to the family courts it shows that people have faith in the system. Stop going there!
Comment by Scott B — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 12:09 pm
Can anyone tell me how an ex partner can go on the dpb even tho we shared care 50/50. We had an agreement when she was working that no child support will exchange hands. Now that she has decided that she will have more money on the DPB than working I will be forced to pay it as many of you are aswell now that the IRD are about to get involved.
Any advice or positive wisdom would be welcomed. I was told that an admin review could be applied for. What information should be included,case law if any etc.
Thanks
Comment by Trying Hard — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 1:13 pm
Trying hard, there is nothing stopping her from claiming the DPB even if you have 50/50. Welcome to IRD into the picture, you will have headaches with them, starting with penalties for late payment.
Do you have your 50/50 as verbal arrangement? If so, get to a lawyer and get it written up ASAP.
With shared care (if you qualify), you will get some (very little compared to what she will get) money as well.
Comment by 2c Worth — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 6:14 pm
Ttying Hard Im sorry to say mate no advice will help you. You are going to get hammered mate. Postive wisdom will not come into it once the feminist man hating IRD branch of nz nazi child support become involved.i KNOW.
Comment by Brent Cole — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 6:28 pm
Yep. You’re screwed.
Comment by Scott B — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 6:50 pm
TH,
1) What has happened is perfectly legal.
2) Recourse in law would be lenghty and costly – The biggest cost being the likely impact of the fall out from the conflict on your child.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 7:07 pm
Yep, whoever applies first gets the DPB and the other shared-care parent can go to hell. Except that if the father applies first don’t be surprised if Income Support decides to discontinue his DPB in favour of giving it to the mother.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 8:47 pm
Scrap is correct what she had done is perfectly legal.
However you could at an Admin Review run an issue of underemployment and earning capacity. I would be less pesimistic than Scrap about that affecting your child with a conflict issue any worse than you currently have.
Find someone with some research skills or commision a legal worker to dig out for you Johnson v Hewitt and CIR AP 404/48/01 Auckland High Court Justice O’Regan.
If she has given up work to take DPB then there is alomost certainly special circumstances which is the first step in a review hearing.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Mon 29th August 2011 @ 10:16 pm
I would like to make a general comment on many of the commentors.Some of you are just plain angry people.I think you were most likely to be angry long before any relationship break up.The reason we have the IRD collecting Child Support is because if Child Support was left to individuals to organize it would mostly not happen or be spazmodic or intermittent depending on the mood,fluctuating available money (have they gambled,drank it or whatever else)of the paying parent.It would make the parent that should be recieving the support be at the mercy of the paying parent.I realize this can be the case even with IRD involved but a least there is a third party that is required to deal with the non payment.Please remember that the parents are not together for a reason.These reasons are often many and varied and communication may not be good.There is often anger for both parents.However I believe most Non Custodial parents know that they need to pay Child Support and some want to pay more than is required by law.Please could everyone who is too angry to be rational put your children first and pay up.Also quitting your job so you dont have to pay is a bit like a child having a tanty.So childish,so nasty and irresponsible.Dont expect respect from anyone for doing this as you are just sad sad sad.
Comment by Bill — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 2:03 am
Hmmmm, Bill. I agree that some commentors are angry. And the men who have expressed anger on this site have good reason. Some women have expressed anger but, honestly, there was no basis for their anger. But I wouldn’t say even remotely “many”. I would say an insignificant amount. Can you identify any significant passages or posts that project anger. I encounter more frustration and defeat than anger on this site. Also, “anger” implies lack of substance and analysis. And I have certainly encountered little of that here (meaning I read a lot of substance and analysis), and if I have encountered any anger (without substance and analysis) it was from women (at least they claimed to be) and not men who have posted here. Are you sure you know what you’re writing about? Your sentiments resemble a woman. I live on half of a poverty level income after child support and will be jailed (possibly for life) if I lose my job for any reason. Sounds like slavery. The mother of our children refuses to let them see me. There is no legitimate or rational reason. She’s just insane. In the US, and I’m sure NZ as the rest of the world too, my circumstances are so normal that approximately one-half of all fathers and children in the US experience similar circumstances. Your comment isn’t legitimate because it is unsupported by any facts or data. And you are wrong about what would happen if parents were left to support their children without interference by government. Almost all fathers support their children the best they can without interference by the gov’t or mothers. Only when the gov’t and the mothers interferes does support become difficult because the fathers aren’t just supporting the children but the excessive lifestyle and adultery of the mother. And under threat of imprisonment and loss of passport and driver license and business and recreational license. Unike your conclusions, mine are based upon considerable facts and data. Get your facts straight.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 9:10 am
When your children are being abused and all the agencies etc turn a blind eye, wouldn’t you be angry?
When you’re expected to pay for the privilege of being abused yourself and have no rights to see/speak to your children, and the mother spends more on booze and fags than on the child(ren)wouldn’t you be angry?
When you have tried everything and all the authorities, agencies, courts, MPs etc tell you to just give up and stop trying to be in your childrens lives, wouldn’t you be angry?
When you have been accused and charged with no evidence other than hearsay, wouldn’t you be angry?
The list goes on and on Bill. I would question anyone who has been through any/all of those 4 examples (remembering there are so many more) who isn’t angry. Should we be happy? Should we just bend over and say, please sir, may I have another? Not on your life son! I’m glad I am angry, it means I care for and love my kids. It’s what you do with that anger that counts.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 9:55 am
Also I don’t believe you understand child support at all “Bill”. I agree with Darryl X, your post does sound like it was written by a woman… or maybe an IRD stooge!
Comment by Scott B — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 9:58 am
Billette (reply # 62): You refer to “the parent who should be receiving” so-called CS. On what basis should a parent receive CS? In most cases from my experience, the paying parent would rather take responsibility for children for 50% of the time and provide support directly for the children’s needs, thereby building a bond with his children and participating fully in building the children’s security, identity, health and development. But what we have instead is mothers encouraged through feminist ideology and state facilitation to break up their children’s family units at almost twice the rate that fathers do, those mothers knowing that they will get to call the shots regarding children and that the women’s financial security will be assured by the feminist state through ongoing exploitation of the men those women betrayed. Those fathers have their contributions channelled through the mothers to the detriment of the children who lose that direct involvement with fathers.
Rather than amounting to a fair approximate half of the child costs, so-called “child support” at up to about $3,000 a month is often many times more than children would actually cost to run. Even at average levels of $500 to $1000 per month, it is blatantly spousal support, also known as father-removal tax and DPB-recovery tax. The paying fathers in many ways have equal child-related expenses to the receiving mothers because if they are to spend time with their children they need to maintain a big enough car, a house with rooms and furniture for the children, clothes and equipment for activities with the children and so forth. Yet they are expected to pay enough for all such provisions by ex-partners while also providing their own totally.
Yes, there is considerable anger in men at gender double standards favouring women and at the exploitation and disrespect our society now subjects men to. However, most, the vast majority of men would gladly contribute reasonably to their children’s needs if such contributions were designed to be fair and in the children’s interests. They are not.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 10:16 am
If people could rationalize the damage done by child support legislation and enforcement they would be angry too, but unfortunately they cannot join the dots. No, like you Bill, comfortable in your own little piece of existence, they simply don’t have the need to understand. Would you prefer that we forgive your ignorance or just ignore you?
Comment by Down Under — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 10:17 am
I am very aware of the Child support Act.I did lose my job and i certainly know nothing about going to jail.Get a grip!My ex partner has never been told my income by IRD though she could work this out on what I now pay in CS.I seriously think your statistics about what you imagine the non custodial parent would pay without interference from IRD is fantasy.Put your energy into building good relationships with all involved instead of bleating on about how unfair it all is.Life is never ever 100% fair for everyone.If you think its going to be you are a fool.You comments today lead me to believe that you all had poor relationships before your so called Child Support problems.Dont waste your life it too short.
Comment by Bill — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 12:45 pm
Excellent comments in this string
Allan Harvey back at #45 “often social changes takes many years, many generations and commitment to a dream.”
Very true, it took the rad feminists decades to get the current family law mess in place, and fixing it will take just as long. Dunnes Child Support reforms are a start. The most important thing in them is assessing both parents. This is a huge step towards the principle of shared parenting, but well short of shared parenting itself.
Billette is right, there is a lot of anger on this string. It needs to be turned into constructive political action. And stop lambasting Dunne for delivering too little, and be grateful for the first real constructive step we have seen in 20 years. If you expect him to deliver everything at once, you are expecting miracles.
So looking forward, lets work together for equal shared parenting and DNA paternity testing next parliamentary term. Alternatively, lets spend all our time on these web sites slagging each other and any politician who tries to help us.
Comment by bruce.tichbon — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 1:00 pm
Yes I agree that this appears to be a forum to slag off on.
Comment by Bill — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 1:28 pm
Bruce, hes delivered nothing not too little.
AS to being grateful please explain what here is to be grateful for? (also should it not be spelled greatfool)
Regards
SCrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 2:06 pm
Bill, I needed a good laugh.Your comments fitted the bill nicely – next time your tax bill is due dont forget to pay it twice because I believe all taxpayers know that they need to pay tax and some want to pay more.
LMAO
Regards
SCrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 2:19 pm
Bill
Put your energy into building good relationships with all involved… with whom? Who should we be trying to build good relationships with? I won’t comment until I know exactly who you mean.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 2:21 pm
In reply to your comment, Bill (30 August 2011, 2:03 am). First up, what are you doing typing comments at 2:00 in the morning? Secondly, reading your post, would I be safe to assume that you are, in fact, a mother who receives child support? Especially as us paying parents (fathers, mostly) sleep at that time, in order to go to work the next day.
I put my experience to you (It’s a long one, please bear with me, and hear me out):
My ex and I split up some 7 years ago. I paid child support to her on a personal basis, without fail, based on the calculator on the IRD website, plus an additional $200 per month, amounting to about $250 per week. I never missed a single payment. I was offered a 6 month contract in Australia paying exceptionally well. I accepted the contract and started paying my ex $340 per week, as I was better off, and I wanted my kids to also have some of this. Based on the IRD calculator, with me started living with my partner in Australia, she was paid $250 per week more than what I should have paid, amounting to about $6500 over the 6 months. When I did my budget after the 6 months in Australia, coming to see my kids once a month, and paying this child support, I realised that I was actually worse off in Australia than I was in NZ. During this time my ex and her partner acquired a jet ski and a new Nissan Navara.
When I came back to NZ, the payments reduced again to $250, even though I had no work for a period of two months. She was not happy with this and repeatedly asked me for more money, claiming that her partner was beating her and she needed help. Three months later they sold both the jet ski and the ute. In September (13 months after I went to Australia), I received a letter from the IRD in the post, stating that I have to pay child support for the month of August. I called them up and told them that I was paying her privately and that she already got her money for August. I was told that I should have been informed by my ex about her claiming child support. I called her up and asked her what was going on. She told me that I was not paying enough and she wanted me to pay my fair share. The IRD, at that time, was not aware of my overseas income, as I was not aware that I needed to declare it, thinking that there would be a tie between the IRD and the Australia revenue system. So they calculate my child support to be $200 per month, which I paid.
My ex contacted me and asked if we could go back to the arrangement we had before. I told her that I can do that if she comes out with the truth about events that had led to numerous previous court cases, costing me thousands of dollars. She refused my offer and I continued to pay $200 per month. About six months later I learned that I should have declared my overseas income, so I did that with the IRD. Next thing I get a letter in the post from the IRD, claiming that I owe my ex $6,000.00! I applied for an administrative review based on the fact that I had already paid her the extra child support while I was in Aus. This was turned down as it was a ‘personal arrangement’ and had ‘nothing to do with the IRD’. I had to pay her $6000.00 on top of the $1400 per month that was calculated based on my overseas income (two years prior instead of one, because I did not declare my overseas income). I ended up paying her $1600 per month. At that time I was on a salary of $60,000 per annum, which was about 40% less than I made in Aus. I applied for reduction of child support based on my current income, but was denied, because I failed to declare my overseas income.
After paying for the mediocre flat that I lived in at the time, with car, power, phone, and other bills, I had less than $200 per month for buying food!
Three and a half years ago, after I told my ex to move out with the kids, as she told me that her partner was still beating her, I started a court case in order to get the children away from this family violence. Two and a half years and $20,000.00 later, I had 50/50 shared custody of my children. When the recession hit, the company I worked for, ran out of work in Auckland. I was offered positions in Christchurch, American Samoa, or West Australia. Because of the shared custody, I could not move out of Auckland (where my kids go to school) and had to take voluntary redundancy.
I started my own business in garden maintenance and land surveying, but that was very slow in picking up. I have finally made the last payment in child support arrears and penalties when I got my tax refund this year. I am now doing a course in IT programming, in order to be able to provide for my family (I now live with my new wife, her two kids, and our 18 month old son). She is currently also out of a job and we are struggling to make ends meet. Her ex only pays her $400 per month in child support.
When I finished studying next year, I hope to get a well-paying job, maybe even the same as what I got in my last one. But I would then still have to pay child support to my ex, even though we have 50/50 shared custody. This will be based on my income. My ex lives with man who owns his own business, is doing extremely well (had just bought a brand new boat and brand new Holden Captiva). My ex does not work, nor will she ever again (by her own saying). So she will only ever pay the minimum amount.
So Bill (or Susie, or whatever), please pardon me for being angry. I made my payments diligently, never “spazmodic or intermittent depending on the mood”. I do not gamble, drink, or take drugs. My anger, by no means, makes me irrational, unless it is irrational to think that this is bloody unfair? I am trying my best to get back into paid employment, but I am unwilling to pay exorbitant amounts in child support and pay off their new car and boat. My apologies if this makes me sound “childish,so nasty and irresponsible”. I have always put my children first. In the custody court case, it came to light that my children have been told that I am not their real father, that their surname is, in fact, that of their step-father, and because I can’t afford to buy them expensive gifts, do not love them!!
Sorry if this makes me angry. No, bugger that. I am not sorry!
Should you wish re-post, please use a spelling and grammar check?!
Any comments in reply would be greatly appreciated.
Comment by Chris L — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 2:42 pm
Chris L your story is universal 99.99% of us here believe it, bet Billie won’t!
And yes Bill sounds more and more like a feminist every time she posts.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 2:49 pm
99.99% of people who comment on this site is not 99.9% of people who pay Child Support.As for why i was on at 2am. Have you heard of shift work?
Comment by Bill — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 4:36 pm
Just as I thought Billie is a woman and is only here to try and upset us. won’t answer questions, just attacks. Boring.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 6:18 pm
Actually we’ve seen this sort of thing a number of times before on here.
Comment by Scott B — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 6:31 pm
As far as I can determine this does not address the fundamental flaws in the system. It is still an income tax for a selected portion of the population. It is still not a child support system. It will never be a child support system until it is about providing the basic costs of raising a child.
Comment by Vman — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 8:34 pm
You blokes miss a point.Convenient for you though I must say.Dont let the truth get in the way of a good story eh…Both sexes of Non Custodial Parents can be liable for Child Support.Yes I am a woman but the last time i commented you lot were so rude and dismissive.No one can have an opinion unless it is a bent as yours it seems to me.I only hope that you dont possess weapons as you are off the planet with your anger and half truths.How can anyone take you seriously?Your reality is unreality.Anything you can grasp at and twist you do.It is no wonder the ex wives and girlfriends are not with you with the anger you appear to suffer.Heavens help your children.
Now let see how you can twist that around???
Comment by Bill — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 8:36 pm
Ya know Bill it seems the only one angry here is you.
I mean there are some pretty high emotions being bandied about and with child tax I would think that is to be expected.
Im suspecting your harbouring some issues that you havent fully resolved yet.
Im going out on a limb but would it be fair to say that, in this last time you commented, where you found the replies to be so rude and dismissive it might be seen by some that your comments were (how shall I put this) similar to the generalising diatribe that youve spewed onto this thread?
As I said out on a limb could have it wrong, let me know which thread and what non de plume you were using that time and I’ll have a look myself.
Other than that, thankyou for you comments here. While I totally disagree with you, I commend you on raising the number of postings on a child tax thread as this insidious deception that alot of good people think of as “support” needs airing in public and the more posts here to draw attention the better.
Im intrigued that your ex is a she and that both of you havent found a way to screw some guy for child tax but thats probably a whole new thread.
Mits
Comment by Mits — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 9:07 pm
Bill @ #80,
Ad Hominem attacks don’t amount to rational argument.
………………………………………………….
I see Dunne has played a part in seeing that men will have the gobmint plundering straight into their pay packets for child tax, whilst at the same time we get the “The most important thing in them is assessing both parents” attitude from Bruce @ #69.
Excuse me whilst I wince, then eye roll, then yawn whilst tut-tutting under my breath as I regain composure.
For those who haven’t already noticed NZ Men are ROUTINELY assessed vis a vis women as parents in the supposedly ‘impartial for the sake of the children’ femily caughts and too many report getting financially and emotionally arse raped in the process already.
And we’re expected to believe this will somehow translate to a bureaucracy that will somehow magically mean NZ men being given a fair shake when it comes to both parents being assessed?
Yeah Right.
Dream on.
Another Tui billbord moment.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 10:33 pm
So you think posts like at number 80 will win you friends?
Comment by Scott B — Tue 30th August 2011 @ 11:21 pm
@Bill – Do not contradict conclusions based upon facts and data analyzed objectively and published in peer reviewed journals in compliance with the Scientific Method with your unsubstantiated and unqualified opinions. That’s solipsism and has no place in civil correspondence. The problem with child support and it only being used when both parents do not agree is that a woman can choose not to agree anytime she wants child support. It’s call hostile parent veto.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 8:45 am
@Allan – I disagree with your comparison or contrast of custody with mothers today and fathers one-hundred years ago. One-hundred years ago, few fathers initiated divorce and basically the same number of mothers initiated it and the incidence of divorce was less than seven percent of marriages (in the US but I think that is consistent throughout the developed world). Today, the incidence of divorce exceeds fifty percent of marriages with most of that initiated by the mother and percent initiation of divorce by fathers remains unchanged from one-hundred years ago.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 3:15 pm
Hi Darryl
You refer to my post back at #50
First I’m happy to bow to your knowledge of US History. In NZ schools history is not a big deal subject like in the USA.
My comment was centered around the Stone quote
While today children are no longer considered the possessions of their fathers minor children have often become assumed to be the possesion of their mothers post separation. Neither situation is right. The best parent post separation is BOTH parents. That was my point.
I do however read as widely, as I find time, and I was intrigued to discover feminists of 150 years ago battling a similar kind of prejudice to that fathers suffer under today.
I don’t disagree with what you say about divorce but I can’t see how my comments in any way caused your comment as I said nothing about divorce myself. Faulkner, the author of the book I was reading, commented that somme early feminists opposed divorce which may be your own position Darryl. Your own position about divorce does not seem clear from what you wrote above.
Personally I’m not hassled about divorce at all as only 50% of couples marry these days. What we need is better stability of care and support for children and I would be interested in debating that topic.
Comment by Allan — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 4:28 pm
Alan,
you say –
I was intrigued to discover feminists of 150 years ago battling a similar kind of prejudice to that fathers suffer under today.
That’s a stretch!
Feminist mothers of 150 years ago were exempted from the military draft unlike fathers who routinely got handed white feathers if they objected to becoming cannon fodder.
The richer feminist land owning ones had the vote so could influence family law, unlike the poor masses of unlanded men.
Also unlike men they didn’t go to debtors prison like men did when their spouses overspent.
Remember the Titanic too – a potent example of the stigmatizing pressures ONLY MEN and FATHERS, not mothers were subjected to during that period.
So there’s just 4 instances of MASSIVE prejudice against fathers from that period.
I’m sure I could find lots more instances to debunk your feminist hokum further with some quick further research.
Seriously Alan, if you’re going to try and present history in a way that’s even slightly skewed towards being feminist I think you should be writing elsewhere rather than attempting to infect guilt tripping feminist historical falsehoods on good men and women here.
Perhaps Neville Robertson – feminist ‘social’ psychology lecturer at Waikato University could find a use for you.
And you go on to say – Personally I’m not hassled about divorce at all as only 50% of couples marry these days.
So let’s see now that leaves 50% of couples who DO marry, of which approx 50% get divorced, of which current research points to 70% of those divorces being initiated BY WOMEN.
The internet is literally awash with stories of our brothers, uncles, workmates, fathers and sons, more distantly related men and men in general being systematically alienated from their kids and financially raped through the femily caught divorce industry.
Oh, and there’s no need to gloss over the FACT that even when couples don’t marry but have children together most often the whole feminist misandric divorce process ensues no differently than if the couple were married.
It must be nice to be so blissfully ignorant.
Too bad I have to disabuse you with verifiable facts.
I think it’s terribly ironic then that you conclude saying – What we need is better stability of care and support for children
Well, I reckon you got the last bit right at least.
Well done!
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 5:52 pm
Well said Skeptic
Comment by Scott B — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 6:08 pm
Hi Skeptic and Scott,
My point is;
Nothing more nothing less.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 9:25 pm
Vague esoteria doesn’t negate the other comments you made which I’ve challenged you about.
Do you stil have your nose in Dunne Nothing’s feminist trough?
Are you still getting paid for supervising guys who the femily caught deems need their visitation from their kids supervised based only on the word of the kid’s mother or have you seen the light yet and started taking the red pill?
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 31st August 2011 @ 9:35 pm
@Allan – You didn’t have to write anything about divorce. It’s relevant anyway because since few fathers have ever imposed upon their wives unilateral divorce, there are no consequences for any significant number of children as a result of actions by the father. (Feminists may have been battling it, but what were they battling? Three percent of all marriages in which the father filed for divorce because his wife was so abusive that living with her was impossible and likely dangerous? And I am not aware that any of those mothers were actively denied access to their children. The feminists were just pissed because the women lost their meal ticket.) What feminists were “battling” 150 years ago is not even remotely similar with what men are experiencing today where more than fifty percent of mothers are divorcing their husbands and stealing the children and keeping the meal ticket. Whether or not minor children were regarded as “possessions” of the father or not is irrelevant outside the context of divorce because children grew up with both parents under those circumstances in almost all instances – men didn’t abuse their ownership and divorce their wives to disadvantage children. Today mothers abuse their ownership of children by imposing upon the fathers unilateral divorce. Possession or ownership is irrelevant, it’s how you manage that possession or ownership that matters and men have a long historical record of managing responsiblity and women have a long historical record of managing irresponsibly. In the rare instance of divorce by men (and women) more than one-hundred years ago, children didn’t lose either parent. In the frequent instance of divorce by women today, hostile parent veto by women forces children from their fathers in almost all instances.
As far as history, American public education is in rapid decline and the average youth is ignorant of history (or we wouldn’t be in our present circumstances – we’re basically a third-world country with a huge military and small population of very rich people). In real terms, more than fifty percent of our country’s population lives below the poverty level established in 1965 (of course, gov’t data and statistics are complete propaganda and lies).
Good topic to debate but have to run now. Sorry for the haste. More later.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 5:56 am
Hi Darryl and others,
Sorry but I cannot accept the concept that “Possession or ownership is irrelevant”. That is the basis on which slavery was maintained that an owners management of slaves was the issue not the fact people were owned.
No matter what age I do not accept that people should ever be owned by someone else.
Before the introduction of solo parent benefits I expect that divorce was a high stakes choice for parents, arguably we have made the choice now too easy and even an incentive to separate in this country.
I mix in many circles and I have found the fact early feminists opposed children remaining solely with their fathers post separation a very good talking point and powerful argument for my position that matters are out of balance in New Zealand today. Heaps of our members are grandparents, parents, new partners or friends to men who have been marginalised from their children as a result of separation. Many of those who get it most quickly are the grandmothers, mothers, sisters of those same men. The argument that the Pendulum has swung too far I have found is an extremely good point to get even the most rabid feminist thinking and moving in their position.
Personally I find it much more persuasive than the rhetoric of Angry Harry and Skeptic. In my view we are in a game of winning hearts and minds and while we have many different styles of activism I find the quietly, logical, repeated approach works for me. I think it helps to look, read and listen carefully which is how I came across this persuasive gem in a feminist biography. A good story of a feisty woman.
Comment by Allan — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 9:35 am
Hi Skeptic and further to your posy #90,
For your information the only people lacing my hand with filthy silver these days for supervised contact services are all women.
The dads want their kids to have good safe contact with mum.
It is a service tailored for those who wish to use it.
I don’t do Court funded visitation as there are just too many hoops to jump through to take their money. The people who come to see me want the contact, wish to pay for my services, and find the service I offer meet their needs. Kids are almost universally delighted to spend time with their parents.
Does that mean I have seen the light?
Unfortunately the Family Court is a dark tunnel and I try to encourage many of my clients there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I often find supervised contact works like striking a match and provides a short patch of light amidst the darkness of the tunnel.
We clearly have different approaches to our activism. How come you can’t accept that?
Next time you are in the Wellington area give me a bell and come and have a look at supervised contact in action, some of my ex customers would love to talk to you.
Comment by Allan — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 9:57 am
Allan – In the US, fathers are jailed if they are unable to comply with orders for excessive child support. Almost all orders are excessive and almost no fathers deliberately refuse to comply. They are just broke. In the rare instance they do not comply deliberately, it is because the mother interferes with the relationship between the children and their fathers. Presently, there is a FaceBook campaign sponsored by one of our larger family law reform organizations, American Coalition for Fathers and Children, called Save the Turnips. Turnip is a pajorative term used by Cynthia Brown (a top administrator in the federal Child Support Enforcement Agency) to describe men who are too poor to comply with their child support orders (as in you can’t get blood from a turnip). So the campaign is designed to promote public awareness about turnips and to help get them out of jail and keep them out. During the past forty years, more than two-million fathers have been jailed for child support arrears. If you get a chance, please visit this site and “like” the campaign in support of turnips. And please share the site with others. We have support from all over the world now. And the campaign has really been a good cross-pollination of thoughts from places like England, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, etc…
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 1:12 pm
Allan,
I refer to your reply copied below.
Hi Skeptic and further to your post #90,
For your information the only people lacing my hand with filthy silver these days for supervised contact services are all women.
Wow! That’s a change from sucking off the feminist court teat. But I have to ask were these women like men routinely are sent to supervision on the basis of mere uncorroborated claims that they were violent?
I doubt it.
I’ll bet my right arm the evidence was so overwhelming that even a femily caught judge tempted though they’d so often be couldn’t give them the pussy pass.
The dads want their kids to have good safe contact with mum.
As do the vast majority of Dads.
Unfortunately too many good Dads get stitched up by false allegations and end up with either prison like supervised ‘access’ to their kids as you’ve mentioned being paid for in previous posts. Either that or the father gets entirely alienated from their kids.
When you’ve been in either situation yourself you’ll understand more what that’s like.
It is a service tailored for those who wish to use it.
It’s part of a system deigned and enforced by feminists who wish to abuse it.
I don’t do Court funded visitation as there are just too many hoops to jump through to take their money. The people who come to see me want the contact, wish to pay for my services, and find the service I offer meet their needs.
I’ll believe such view when I get it straight from the people themselves, and given your denigration of men with feminist hokum being touted by you as valid history, I’m skeptical about your word on this matter anyway.
Kids are almost universally delighted to spend time with their parents.
Tell us something new! Something we don’t already know!
Does that mean I have seen the light?
No.
You still haven’t apologized, made amends or even acknowledged taking money from fathers held over a barrel with mere allegations by the corrupt feminist courts to ‘supervise’ them.
You come to MENZ and push feminist bullshit as if it’s gospel truth and still want to be seen as sensitive to males.
Incredible!
Until you debunk the feminist bullshit, come clean and make amends you’ll always be seen by me as being in denial and two faced – someone who wants to seem sensitive to males yet hangs onto deluded feminist notions.
I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways.
Unfortunately the Family Court is a dark tunnel and I try to encourage many of my clients there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I often find supervised contact works like striking a match and provides a short patch of light amidst the darkness of the tunnel.
Nice flowery words, but again, we’ve only got your word for that. Not a peep from your ‘clients’ forced by corrupt ‘courts’ which don’t hold to principles of innocent until proven guilty whilst the ‘Human Rights’ Commission willfully looks the other way.
I prefer to get the views of those subjected to supervision, and ONLY when they are free of court duress mind you, so I can be sure they aren’t just parroting the party line for their own safety.
We clearly have different approaches to our activism.
How come you can’t accept that?
That question strikes me as incredibly naive and just plain weird! For I’m surprised you haven’t had the sense to already arrive at the same conclusion as I have. Namely that I HAVE FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW totally accepted the fact that we have extremely approaches to our activism.
I’m not the one who’s been taking money from those Star chambers – the femily courts recently.
I don’t peddle feminist ‘history’ as being truthful on men’s website forums either.
I’m not the one speaking glibly of divorce as being something I’m unconcerned about as ONLY 50% of couples marry!
Nor do I gloss over the fact that those who co-habit for a few years are treated under the law as though they are married anyway.
Next time you are in the Wellington area give me a bell and come and have a look at supervised contact in action,
I’ve got better things to do.
some of my ex customers would love to talk to you.
So says you, not them.
I’ll bet they haven’t even heard of me.
Besides Ex ‘customers’ (I prefer the word prisoners myself as I don’t airbrush with PC wordage these days) can say weird untruthful things when still under systemic duress and having been coached.
Another red pill here.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 2:16 pm
Addendum,
I HAVE FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW totally accepted the fact that we have extremely approaches to our activism.
should read –
I HAVE FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW totally accepted the fact that we have extremely DIFFERENT approaches to our activism.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 2:21 pm
I like the encouragement CYFS activists in Auckland received from long time father’s activist Jim Bagnall. He said, “CYFS are more vulnerable than the family court – go for it”. He was and is right because CYFS is about working WITH families while the FC is just another place for lawyers to argue law between each other and with an overseeing judge (promoted lawyer)
Yesterday’s father’s case for instance where the child’s lawyer argued the father only wanted more access to pay less Child Support. It’s a joke because it cost him more in lawyer’s fees than years of child support.
Fathers IMO are now-a-days (after 5 years of hearing how bad men have it) hearing from women who have the same tale to tell. And why not, for no-one is winning in the family court except lawyers and while men and women complain they have it harder…. laws are being implemented (things are always implemented before the law changes)to make it even worse for both father and mother.
The only good that has come out of all this is a family movement. I personally think everyone needs to be nicely reminded there is no justice system, only a legal system and if someone thinks feminists are the greater lobby group, think again for men are lobbying equally these days and before we know it, they’ll both cross each other out and back a child’s movement (as they are) where neither will have any right to their children and their children will join all the children under CYF who are being encouraged to divorced their parents.
The FC seems to win no matter which gender or sex (not the same thing) complains.
But then hating/disliking one another helps one feel better about themselves, lol. Who cares about the rest of the country.
Comment by julie — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 3:13 pm
CYFS are as useless as the family caught.
Comment by Scott B — Thu 1st September 2011 @ 4:38 pm
I am not sure I can say CYFS is useless. But in saying this, CYFS are much worse. For starters it’s a much longer process and now-a-days you don’t even get a court process for your children are in homes for life instantly.
But then, this is not a contest as to who has it worse IMO, it’s all bad for families.
Comment by julie — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 4:55 am
Listen to Julie.Her comments are the only balanced ones I have seen so far since going on this site.Seriously do you just want to be a site that has it in for more than half the population?Fight the enemy!
Comment by Bill — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 5:07 am
Clearly Bill youre not a father.Fathers on this site put a lot of effort into raising their children in very extreme cirmstances.May the fight continue against child tax so New Zealand childrens wealth increases throuh good contact with both parents and both parents paying equally for their children.Dunnes Bill is a political move by him in an election year so that shows how much the government is interested in sorting out child tax.The ird department of child support has a very high staff turn over and very low moral within its work force.Mistakes are always MADE which come back on the liable parent.You try trying to get through on the phone.My daughter turned 20 on tuesday and my family and I WERE SLAPPED WITH A bill of 24000 two years ago because there mum must of been bored and had the time to put in a complaint.They back dated my child support to 2003.I didnt have a chance once that complaint went in.They sent me out forms to fill in for the last five years which i done under extreme duress we had a new daughter a new morgage and were getting on with life minding our own business.They sent the same forms to her and under the information act I had a look at them and she had not even put on day on hers.Any way life moves on and there not much i can do about owing someone who hasnt got any dependent children 24000 tax free dollars who is also entitled to all my hard earned tax returns .But i have got a nice four year old and a beautiful partner who im going to make sure she gets a good education and start in life.And I would lie to thank the contributors on this site because their wisdom helps me alot, except for you Bill.May the fight continue.
Comment by Brent Cole — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 8:27 am
What do CYFS have to do with child tax?
I wouldnt take to much notice of Bill there Brent. Noted earlier in the thread there are a few unresolved issues lurking there and she finds trolling for a wind up theraputic.
In all the blah blah thats gone on about child tax the apologists for it never acknowledge that some poor sap being forced to hand over money to the state when the (predominantly) mother is on the DPB does his children no support at all.
In fact parents would in this case be morally correct I feel to dupe the state and say they are unsure of the parentage so that they can keep their money for the welfare of their children. This raises the issue of children not having a complete birth certificate which I find morally repugnant as well so I think the lesser of two evils would be to either can the DPB or stop double taxing people to pay for it.
Also child tax is always reported by the recipients as being such a godsend for children because in Godzone there is not one recipient of the tax that isnt such a paragon of virtue that they dont use every last cent for the welfare of the children.
Not a bit of it is used to support their lifestyle choices and decisions.
Any (predominantly) father bemoaning the fact that his children don’t see the monies that he is paying must by the vary nature, of such a benevolent system and the saint like generosity and self depreciating attitude of the recipient, be a bitter angry man whose selfish obsession with money and obvious hatred for women and children is why he brought the whole situation upon himself in the first place.
What a crock.
I pay child tax as I have no choice in the matter.
I also pay money over and above the child tax for my children.
Take the tax out and I would have more money to spend on my children but the ex would have to forgo the $1000 dollars a month she gets tax free for her discretionary spending.
Which may or may not go on the children depending on her whim.
How does anyone still describe this nonsense as “support”
Comment by Mits — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 9:48 am
Cool Mits has there been a media statement put out denouncing these changes by Dunne Nothing?
Comment by Brent Cole — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 10:13 am
Spot on Mits!
The pedestalizing of women and demonizing of fathers by feminists and chivalrous types has got to stop.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 10:26 am
Non custodial parents pay custodial parents/caregivers – mum and dad pay grandparents, or other extended family members, mum and dad pay the state, mum and dad pay strangers.
I’m open minded 🙂 Perhaps it is therapeutic, perhaps it’s something else. Yesterday it ended up… “measuring my own growth.” …….The break’s been great – gosh, I’ve grow. But I don’t want to upset any of societies so called “apple carts”, so I’ll stick to building something I believe in from the bottom.
Keep up the great work. 🙂
Comment by julie — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 11:20 am
So Julie’s back.
Supposedly rehabilitated after being sensibly thrown off the site by John Potter for slagging folks off and writing irrelevant postings – site owner and moderator.
What’s the first thing she does upon arriving back?
Tries to sidetrack a predominantly Men’s issue (Child tax payments / extortion) to a predominantly woman’s issue (CYFS).
Welcome back Julie,
I look forward to holding you to further account if necessary.
Comment by Skeptic — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 12:31 pm
You have to look ahead to see why child support doesn’t change. The IRD has created a child support penalty industry, which has given the government a billion dollar asset. It is recoverable by reducing unemployment benefits and in the not too distant future by reducing old age pensions – those men just need to arrive there. Men who have been forced to pay these extraordinary penalties have subsidized the cost of creating the asset. We know the Act doesn’t work for separated parents where the DPB is not involved, because it was never designed for that. It can’t be both and be effective. These are well canvassed points of view through previous discussions. What happens in these discussions is the participants change; there is a variety of the theme, but no change. The reason for this is that the discussions operate at an individual level, based on outcome. What is happening is that the men most affected are not represented in these discussions, and the reasons for the resistance to change are not apparent. Until people can get their heads around creative taxation and inflation proofed future deductions you can’t point a knowing finger at a politician and demand an answer. This is the same issue that is driving what is being called Brown Poverty in New Zealand. The simple answer is that government is not being held accountable for the behavior of its revenue department and too many people are going cap in hand begging for government funding because they can’t join the dots, they too only see the damage.
Comment by Down Under — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 1:21 pm
I am not back Skeptic – I am not interested in gender or hetero sex warfare. I figure I have to carry my online opinions (at a given time) with me in whatever I do and should be aware of what sort of things are written of them (posts and comments). Nobody can own anything about another person – each is responsible for themselves.
And no, I am not sidetracking a men’s issue to make it a woman’s issue. I already know CS changes are set in concrete by National and wrote about it before I left – for men I know it means more money. Plus I don’t agree with the gender war for I don’t think the gays are any good politically (they don’t give a shit about the world, only what they can get from it…. which they told me themselves) and I am not interested in a hetero sex war nor ideologies.
If by chance I gain enough confidence, and focus well where I spend my time, hmmm…. just the fact I am willing to speak to a left wing politician after what I went through is a big step.
Comment by julie — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 3:39 pm
If you dont really want women to contribute to discussion on this site why dont you all be honest and just say so.What i cant work out is if you are all so down on women why do you go into new relationships with them.Makes no sense to me.
The truth is all non custodial parents are by law required to pay Child support in NZ.This is irrespective of their sex.Thats the truth.The IRD has never ever told me what my ex partner earns as they are required by law not to(Privacy Act) .You can sort of work it out though from the formula.
Please tell me what you propose as a system that is fair that would be an improvement on Child Support through the IRD as it stands.Bear in mind the true cost of raising children.Food,power,accommadation,education,clothing,activities and sport etc….Also please dont forget the loss of income by the custodial parent if the children are very young or have special needs.They may be able to work parttime only or have a position that does not hold too much responsibility(be overly depended on by employer) or are unable to travel with their work due to home commitments at home.Allow for the fact the the custodial parent may also have to take more time off work due to sickness of child/children.
I personally would really approve that the government/taxpayer did not subsidize the raising of children due to relationship/marriage breakdown.Why should they/we?
So please tell me you model new plans about how to make all parents be responsible for the costs (money and others)of raising children in this country.
Comment by Bill — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 3:52 pm
Hi Bill, with due respect and for respect to you, I don’t think it’s a good idea to include me in the so called ‘women’s say’ bracket online.
I wrote posts and comments here for years, so I know some of the writers and commenters here. We have different opinions and that’s that – been arguing them for years, lol.
On another note, the men’s movement is as huge as the women’s movement with lots of groups that don’t have exact opinions either. If you take some time to look over the pages behind the forum, you’ll get the gist of what this men’s group is about and why.
Comment by julie — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 4:16 pm
NOW the thread has been side tracked….I spent 7 years paying CS and my kids are older now so it doesn’t affect me.
Hopefully this thread can get back on track and to help, I am not making another comment.
Comment by julie — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 4:23 pm
Bill,
Rest assured women are very welcome here.
Some have written splendidly relevant cogent postings.
Others tend to waffle, go off topic and lean towards their own rather than men’s interests.
When challenged some frequently go to the feminist default position of accusing those challenging them of being woman haters, being bitter, being patriarchal – all of it nonsense designed to shut down the challenge.
I think you need to realise that men have until quite recently been quite cowed by an onslaught of feminist rhetoric for the last few decades. But increasingly men are speaking out and challenging feminism and women in general to grow beyond their limited view and understand men.
I dare say women in general have then grown comfortable with the idea of NOT being challenged but now as that has changed are uncomfortable and get defensive.
Now to give an answer to your question framed in gynocentric terms I must say as Child Tax gets paid vastly more often to women than men there are several simple (yet I imagine to you very unpalatable answers).
Firstly no fault divorce should be scrapped – too often it provides a means for women to use men as sperm donors then unduly kick them to the curb in favor of using the government as father substitute. Besides which the idea of being able to UNILATERALLY end a relationship which CHILDREN depend upon for their well-being for selfish-no fault reason (in other words to change lifestyle) is simply preposterous as well as being morally bankrupt. Women’s hypergamy is now well documented (just google it if you don’t understand the term) and having no fault divorce just feeds straight into it. It is painfully obvious now to increasing numbers of men that women only view men as a means to an end – thier comfort. Don’t take my word for that – go online and check out men’s forums – you’ll see that meme articulated time and time again. Furthermore it’s obvious to such men that as soon as they stumble in a marriage, albeit for a short term far too often the wife kicks them to the curb and goes running to her substitute husband – the government and Dunne Nuthin’s extortionate tax grab.
To put it briefly we must stop incentivizing divorce and the destruction of family along with growing statism.
Secondly reproductive rights should be extended to men who current have NO reproductive rights whatsoever.
It takes two to create a pregnancy but once a woman is pregnant of her own volition the man is reduced by law to the status of a serf.
The old hackneyed argument is that as the pregnancy takes place in a woman’s body it as their mantra says a case for her of “My body, my choice” and the man has absolutely no say in the matter of whether she puts up the kid for adoption, aborts the child or carries it full term to birth.
However despite having absolutely no reproductive rights he is expected to fulfill a responsibility of supporting HER child for up to 19 years. Notice I don’t say HIS child? That’s because it isn’t HIS child. He has no reproductive rights whatsoever, remember?
That’s a shitty place to put men, and Dunny Boy should really be ashamed for propping it up, but there it is.
Lastly and perhaps more obviously the ‘family’ ‘courts’ should be totally open to public scrutiny AND keep full accounts of all proceedings which also should be open to public scrutiny.
Julie is right about one thing – such ‘courts’ embody family law, but do not stand as examples of family justice. Justice doesn’t exist hidden in the shadows of a hidden unaccountable system. Justice exists in broad daylight where all can see it and criticize it if necessary.
There are other things that I’d change too given the opportunity, but this will suffice for now to give you an idea of where I and other Men’s Rights Activists stand on some issues related to the topic of this thread.
Comment by Skeptic — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 5:56 pm
Bill seems to be a bit ambidextrous in her posting
first we had
“My ex partner has never been told my income by IRD though she could work this out on what I now pay in CS”
Then the admission that Bill is actually female but cant post as such as you guys are just to dismissive and nasty when she does
Now we have
“The IRD has never ever told me what my ex partner earns as they are required by law not to(Privacy Act)You can sort of work it out though from the formula”
sort of a bob each way if you catch my drift
Her knowledge of child tax would make me believe that she finds it better to receive than to give
“The truth is all non custodial parents are by law required to pay Child support in NZ.This is irrespective of their sex.Thats the truth”
Thats the truth only if the DPB was involved I would have thought.
Oh my god I had my child live with me for a year because the mother threw her out and I didnt claim child tax! Am I now a law breaking criminal on top of everything else?
But I do take onboard her pearls of wisdom thought that, surprise suprise, children have a cost involved. So long as someone else is to bear that cost Bill dont seem to bothered.
She even mentioned accomodation,
and I can tell you in all the time Ive had children Ive never once asked them to stump up with the rent or subsidise the mortgage payment. I always considered that my responsibility not theirs. But with someone in receipt of child tax count how many times you hear it raised, that a roof over the childs head costs money and the child tax should contribute to that cost.
As simplistic as it sounds what I would do is can the DPB and no fault divorce and then I believe there would be less children needing child tax
If you dont like that then as a bare minimum allow the paying parent to pay their child tax on receipt of invoice for what the children actually get, and take the discretionary spending of the current receivers (predominantly mothers)out of the equation.
That I’d vote for
Comment by Mits — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 6:48 pm
About 12% of receiving parents are male. However there are perhaps close to 50% of parents who never receive a cent as it all goes in benefit recovery. Perhaps the greatest recipient on case number is the consolidated fund and not women or men.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 7:55 pm
Very good point; in my case the ex received a mortgage free house, all chattels, modern SUV plus a huge cash payout. I agreed my daughter should remain with the ex so as not to upset my daughters schooling, hobbies, clubs and take her away from friends. With all the apparent necessities in place to ensure my daughter was well taken care of; I still had to pay a stupid amount of child tax….well, in my first year of separation. There was just no way, one kid needed that amount of money per month to survive in anything but the lap of luxury. Lesson learned; quit work, cash up investments and minimize assessed child tax.
If my daughter had come with me; I wouldn’t have even considered “receiving” child support; I would have gladly continued to look after her without state support.
Comment by Bruce S — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 8:42 pm
Accommadation = you need possibly an extra bedroom for a child.In my town that is in rent terms between a $120 to $150 per bedroom.Dont know what planet you are on?Cant answer all of your points right now.Just to clarify.I dont have any dependent children and am a grandmother.I dont have any unresolved issues that i am aware of right now.I just want to help with your issues by being a racial ,honest,onthe planet contributor to your site.Can I ? Am I allowed?
Comment by Bill — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 8:49 pm
See the Donkin Method
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 9:00 pm
Since it cant be accurately calculated as each childs costs very, the best that can be provided is a guesstimate.
Your definition of true costs is needs to be trimmed back to essential needs, not choices. For example education is “compulsory, secular and free” sports and activities are choices dictated by income. Its should not be an entitlement to support 1 parents choices, it sgould be support for essential needs of the children.
The State provides paid parental leave and benifits (funded by taxation) Sick leave comes with a job. Its your responsibility to support youself, not the fathers responsibility to support YOUR choices- Both parents are responsible to equally support the child.
I had hoped post modernist victim mentality feminism was dead, sadly it appears to live and thrive in Billette
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 9:16 pm
$120-$150 a week per bedroom? That would mean that on your planet the “average” 3 bedroom house is between $360 and $450 a week?
While you certainly CAN pay that kind of money in rent, there are few places (except perhaps parts of Wellington and Auckland) where the cost is that high, unless you CHOOSE more upmarket accommodation.
So what planet were you from again Bill?
Even if it did cost (as you say) $120-$150 a week in rent for a room (just to humour you) the “average” solo parent will receive approximately $70-$80 a week in accommodation supplement (depending on their income and being conditional on having custody of a child). Which brings the real cost down substantially.
Perhaps you should try using a calculator and doing at least a minimum amount of research before you tell us these things. Just a suggestion, because if you add up all the “help” that solo parents actually get, you will soon discover that custodial parents in reality don’t actually pay ANYTHING toward raising their children. The entire sum is paid for them in Accommodation Supplement, Family Tax Credit, In Work Payment, childcare subsidies and “child maintenance”.
Do some research, and add it all up. I dare you. Find out how much custodial parents are REALLY paying to raise their children.
The facts will speak for themselves.
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 9:18 pm
Mr A,
Interesting observation.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 2nd September 2011 @ 9:26 pm
@Bruce S and Mr A –
Yes, it is documented (in the US at least) that almost all men who have custody of children do not pursue child support and their decision has nothing to do with income of the mother. Even when she has a substantial income or an income which exceed that of the father he still does not pursue child support.
The mother of our daughter justifies $17,000 per year in child support, in part, because our daugther needs a place to live. The mother of our daughter has a three bedroom condominium outside San Juan, Puerto Rico and a vacation home on the western coast of the island. She justifies her need for $17,000 per year child support because her mortgage and utilities and condo fees are $12,000 per year and she explained to the judge in the support tribunal that I should be responsible for half ($6,000 a year just for shelter). It does not make sense. She lived in the condo before conceiving our daughter. So, she was already paying $12,000 per year before our daughter. She already had three bedrooms. She was already paying the same utilities and condo fees. So where is the extra expense for our daughter. There isn’t any. Even if she had to move into a larger space with more utilities and fees, my contribution should still not be that great. If she was paying $7,200 per year and had to upgrade to $12,000 per year, here is how my contribution and hers should break down. The additional cost for our daughter would be $4,800 per year. I would be responsible for half and the mother would be responsible for half. That means I would be responsible for $2,400 per year concerning shelter (the mother and I have the same after-income tax net income – if our net incomes were different, then the amount I would pay should be proportional to the difference in our net incomes, either less if she had a greater income and more if her income was less than mine). But NOT $6,000. But since there are no additional expenses, then I should not be responsible for anything, let alone $6,000 per year. According to her, I am paying $3,800 per year more than I should just for shelter alone. I am paying for the excessive lifestyle of the mother that she chose before conceiving our daughter. Pure fraud.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 12:56 am
Oops. Made an addition mistake on the last post (# 21). Where it is written $3,800, it should be $3,600.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 1:07 am
Allan,
Well that’s a long way from being unequivocal!
Or perhaps I should say that’s possibly about a long way from perhaps being unequivocal – maybe, give or a take a bit, if you should know what I mean……like………kind of????!
LOL!
I think it’s fair to say that even if you remove all the equivocation and statistical smoke and mirrors I seriously doubt you can reasonably prove that by far the vast majority of child tax money isn’t flowing (being grabbed by Dunny and Gobmint sidekicks) from men to women.
Almost 200 posts on this thread alone gives credence to that.
I wouldn’t expect IRD as an organization well infiltrated by feminists with cushy sit down jobs, mostly in your back yard – Wellington) to inform us of the true extent of the transfer of wealth however.
After all they have a bloated bureaucracy to maintain!
Like the massive underfunding of Men’s Health Issues vis a vis women’s health issues (even though they outlive men by 6%), the raft of welfare supports that go to women only, tertiary college programs and ‘non profit’ services ONLY available to women it’s simply a transfer of wealth from Men to Women.
Of course some men participate in the process, indeed many can make a quite handsome income out of it.
Such careerist White knights and Feminists are easily spotted by their tendency to promulgate feminist shibboleths which marginalize and shut down long overdue discussions and remedies for Men’s Issues.
The tide is gradually turning though.
As someone once said “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool everyone forever”.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 1:35 am
Mr Anonymous
Paid parental leave is for parents taking time off for birth and time off after.Not applicable on a long term basis.I dont know what you get but when I worked for an employer i was entitled to 6 days sick leave a year.Please consider that this needs to be enough for myself and the child/children.Wouldnt take more than a dose of the flu going around to use that up for sure.
Sport is a life style choice .It is one children are encouraged to take at school along with healthy eating.The government spends a lot of money on promoting these choices.Do you not think these options in life are not good ones to take? Would you not as a caring parent endorse them?
Education is far from free ask anyone who has to pay.What planet are you on!Obviously you have had almost nothing or nothing to do with raising children.
Rent in my town is between $480 and $650 a week for a 3-4 bedroom house.I live in Wellington.Yes people can live somewhere cheaper.In my experience ,which is vast you get what you pay for.If you live in a cheap town a bit out of the way you employment options are often limited and the pay reflects.Also the educational options are generally poorer.
Also you feel that your childs living costs should be in part paid for by the Government through Accommadation supplement and so forth.Most custodial parents work for a living and may not be entiltled to this government assistance as their income is too high.This however should not effect the support a non-custodial parent should pay.We cant have a custodial parent being asked to subsidize an non custodial parent by working hard and doing well.
I do think there are a lot of people commenting on this site who have no idea about the reality of hands on child raising.They need to let go of their anger and join the real world.
Comment by Bill — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 6:05 am
Bill,
All of the rant against Mr Anonymous glaringly misses the point.
Women CHOOSE to bring a pregnancy full term and give birth.
Men have no say in the matter except for the act of sex itself, which even then is a CHOICE women make at the same time.
Women then CHOOSE to divorce the father and use the government as substitute provider whilst also wanting money from the biological father who is legally a non parent.
That’s right. Read that last bit again – legally a non parent – someone with NO reproductive rights at birth and no parental rights once ensnared within the femily caught divorce industry.
So you see your argument that men should as non custodial parents shoulder responsibility for WOMEN’S sole choices which men have no legal means of also enjoying, means you apparently want everything your own way.
Surprise, surprise.
Total Reproductive power and control over man and child/ren.
The entitled feminist Queen incarnate.
And with Dunne Nothing and Co in your corner you’re getting it.
However Mr Anonymous from what I can gather takes a far fairer view of matters.
I get the distinct impression you’re here on this thread not to hear men’s concerns, for you view them as an expendable means to an end – your comfort, but to vent your own misplaced sense of victimhood that heaven forbid ever gets challenged by those who want fair play for men, and more importantly for children.
Keep going though.
Between your sort and Dunny Boy the Misandry Bubble keeps expanding and it’s bursting grows ever more near.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 7:02 am
OOPs upset the Skeptic again.Where did i say that it is about men and women?I am talking about facts here.Non and custodial parents.I do not believe for a moment that it is always women who initiate divorce as you seem to believe.Are you talking about your own experience?Dont worry that only women make the choice to have children as soon this may not be the case and women may be freed at last.It seems to me that you think women have it all.What a joke.Dont you know that women have always drawn the short straw.Childbearing,periods and all that goes with this.Who would choose this? Men have way more freedom.
By the way just to clear things up again.I live in comfort nowadays and have just returned from an luxury holiday in Europe.I have no dependent children.I am certainly not a victim but you certainly feel you are one.My advice to you is get happy and stops being a victim.Look around you and loose your hate.
Comment by Bill — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 7:36 am
Actually, Bill, at least in the US, women initiate more than 80% of divorces and the remaining 20% are split evenly between the man initiating and mutual agreement (so 10% for men and 10% for mutual agreement – it actually might be a little smaller for the man and really most “mutual agreement” is initiated by the wife and the man just acquiesces). That means the number of women initiating divorce exceeds number of men initiating divorce by at least a multiple of eight (at least eight times more). Approximatley 60% of marriages have ended in divorce during the past forty years. That means that when a man and woman marry, there is at least a 48% chance the woman will initiate divorce and less than a 6% chance the man will.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 8:06 am
Bill,
You’ve missed several points this time, and avoided the whole issue of men as legal non parents.
I’m talking about facts – far more often it is women who file for divorce and take to the state as substitute spouse/provider.
When you actually acknowledge that you’ll realize I am indeed speaking of parents and non custodial non parents.
I’m glad to be able to say that with the imminent arrival of the new non hormonal birth control pill it will be men who are the reproductive gatekeepers. Women’s total power and control of reproductive rights will come to an end.
It’s very rich to moan saying ‘women have always drawn the short straw’ and in the same breath accuse me of playing the victim.
FYI nobody chooses what sex to be born as and so the question you raise about choosing to be a woman is senseless. You may just as well ask who chooses to be human, or African, or blue eyed or …..(fill in your own blanks here).
Men most certainly do not have more freedom.
Had you been more attentive to men’s conversations and thus educated about the current circumstances of men you’d see that idea is naive to say the least, and an insult to the lived experience of many men who post here.
It clearly seems to display YOU projecting victimhood too. Ironic that.
I think you’re showing your colors here and gradually digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.
I do not solicit your advice, nor likely would trust it.
I doubt that you’d be able to offer compassionate advice.
This is a site as it’s headline banner states for – promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience.
I am a man.
It’s a tired and by now predictable old feminist tactic to try and shut down a man in a discussion by accusing him of hating. So 1980s!
Search high and low on this website on which I’ve place thousands of posts over many years and you will see I have never used the word in reference to any person.
I freely admit to hating the attitudes and behavior of certain people, but that’s an entirely different thing from hating the person.
If by victim you mean I, like all other NZ men am a legal non entity as far as reproductive rights, and parental rights within vast swathes of the divorce industry are concerned, am not the recipient of countless state benefits only deemed needed by women and not represented politically and academically with my own sex’s exclusive bodies, then yes I am a victim.
But again you miss two important considerations.
Firstly I’m here regularly and elsewhere working to open peoples eyes to the misogyny that remains so ingrained in NZ culture.
And secondly I don’t need to look around me as you advise.
I already do that and believe as a result have a much bigger picture than you of men’s issues.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 8:11 am
@Bill – In the US, men are jailed for inability to pay child support (jailed for being poor). That’s approximately 10% of the entire adult mail population is at risk for imprisonment. No way to enjoy that. Women have and always will have more freedom than men. Identifying characteristics of a particular sex as confining is solipsism. Both men and women are confined by properties of their sex. Problem with women is that instead of doing anything productive for themselves or anyone else, they manipulate everyone else with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood. Yes, it is true that most men are victims – of women. If women want to portray themselves as victims, they are only victims of themselves.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 8:11 am
Its good that bill is churning up the numbers on a child tax thread.
from what Ive gathered so far she needs child tax to help pay for the expensive bedroom she keeps that her non dependant child that her female ex partner is and is not paying child tax for.
Everyone else here is a hater and we’re lucky that bill, and the other identities she posts under, has taken the time to troll the site not as a wind up but as an exercise in entitlement
whoops sorry bill, enlightenment
Comment by mits — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 9:01 am
Skeptic
Do you know that ‘Drawing the short straw’ is luck not a choice.So I dont know what you are on about.Both you and Daryll X Make huge generalizations in your comments about women.No wonder you feel overwhelmed by them when you lump them all together as you do.
The fact that more women initiate divorce need to be looked at seriously.Why do they not want to be with their husbands?What has gone wrong?I would not lump all men together and assume it would be the same for all.Many things have changed in our societies in the last 100 year or so.At least in this country .Women got the vote,were no longer chattells of their husbands,they could have their own bank accounts and retain wealth,could go to university,could prevent child birth through effective contraception the list goes on and on.I think these events and the result of these choices may influence women into their decisions not to remain in adverse situations.It would be wise to look at why relationships are failing instead of blaming the government and its policies for the failures.
I am not against men or women I love them equally.I would like to see more discussion on how we can improve understanding.Much of the discussion on this site is about ‘Us & Them’.Yes it is a site to discuss mens issues and I do believe it is a excellent idea to welcome and encourage other points of view.Otherwise it is just a site for seething ,angry men that hopefully dont have guns.
Comment by Bill — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 9:05 am
Mits
Wrong.
Comment by Bill — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 9:07 am
“I would not lump all men together and assume it would be the same for all.”
blah blah blah
followed by
“Otherwise it is just a site for seething ,angry men that hopefully dont have guns.”
generalise much?
Comment by mits — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 9:37 am
This site does not include all men.There are men out there in the real world that know nothing about MENZ and are happy and not angry.Really Truely!
Comment by Bill — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 10:29 am
Billette (#31) listed some of the historical achievements of feminists that presumably contribute to her ability to live the privileged life she describes. Those changes were brought about in part by women’s groups who gathered and complained bitterly about what they saw as discrimination and unfairness towards them. Anger was a prime driver of their activities and statements which, although often lacking balanced reasoning, understanding or accuracy, helped bring about changes they sought. Those changes relied also on enough men listening to and supporting reasonable arguments in the feminist cause. Men contributing on MENZ have often applauded many of those changes to historical gender discrimination in attitudes and laws based on superstition, although men here are also brave enough to promote more realistic facts and understanding pertaining to the historical situations that feminists now portray inaccurately in their efforts to extend their victim status and to maintain female resentment towards men.
When men pointed out that in many ways they too drew the short end of the stick, women’s groups asserted the right to advocate on their own behalf (after all, they had more than enough to do to address women’s issues) while telling men to stand up for their own needs through forming their own support groups. So here we have MENZ, men taking that responsbility. But don’t expect any respect, caring, fairness, careful reading or rational debate from the likes of Billette; she has simply come to slag us all off, rolling out stereotypes, derogation and demonization when men dare to express their own views and experiences or to complain about any aspect of the feminist regime she enjoys.
Her comments here have been mainly cheap insults, her claims and arguments largely devoid of reasoning, examples or evidence. She simply doesn’t like some uncomfortable truths she reads so reacts by ridicule and attempted character assassination, based not on analysis of the statements she reacts to, but on her own extrapolations and silly psychological assessments of people she knows almost nothing about. Although her comments deserve to be roundly ignored, they do serve as an example of typical feminists who have no interest whatsoever in equality but instead are more than happy for men to be treated unfairly (in all the new feminist ways in addition to nearly all of the historical ones that have not changed along with feminist progress e.g. conscription to die in wars, shorter lifespan, more homelessness, less caring from society towards men’s needs and suffering, harsher punishment through the Courts, harsher conditions in prison, harsher conditions and much more death and injury in men’s work roles, greater responsibility for the actions of wives and children, etc etc etc ad nauseum) as long as women are on the favoured side of the equation.
Taking Billette’s approach it seems clear that she is the one who is dangerous due to feeling so threatened by men supporting each other. Given the level of verbal violence and irrational claims in her contributions on MENZ, she is the one we hope does not have a gun.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 11:16 am
Wow rents in Wellington increase quickly…..on 2nd September they are $360-$450 a week
and on the 3rd of September they are, “between $480 and $650 a week for a 3-4 bedroom house.”
Seriously now, how does Bill expect anyone to take her figures seriously? Especially when a quick look in the newspaper or the rental section of Trademe reveals the actual cost of rents in the Wellington region?
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 11:26 am
If you care to really look you will see rent vary a lot.Much housing in Wellington is below an acceptable standard.OK for teenagers/student flatting but not for families.The rents where i live are high not $300 a week i can assure you.I own my own house outright so i am not in the market for renting.If you check the papers you will know $650 a week is common.
I don’t feel threatened by men supporting each other but keep the arguments rational please.I know myself how high emotions can let the truth get in the way.Keep the stories true.Remember omitting facts is still lying.I would not describe my comments as verbal violence in any way.However if you want to see what verbal violence looks like go back over comments made on this site and you will see plenty.In fact most contributors can’t write rationally and keep to the real truth without resorting to gross generalizations about women.Seriously try to read them with fresh eyes and see you cant get anywhere with irrational rantings that some of you are making.
I don’t have a gun and never resort to violence so don’t worry.
And thanks for the comments because its better than being shunned.I really do appreciate your responses.
Comment by Bill — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 12:04 pm
Has anything changed in the 8 or so months I have not visited this Site. The short answer is no. Internal bickering, slagging eachother off and ending up bac @ the same place time and time again.This movement needs too grow some momentum. He said/she said just does not work.
Comment by Paul — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 1:11 pm
I agree with your comment.
Lets see some constructive discussion and no more slagging off more than half the population.
Comment by Bill — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 2:14 pm
Bill.
From what I can gather your presence here is aboout as irritating as a potted catus in a monkeys pajamas.
No offence intended
Comment by Paul — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 2:35 pm
Hi Bill,
OK by me so lets have some constructive discussion.
This is a thread on Mr Dunne and Child Support.
What reforms do you think would be helpful to our current Child Support regieme?
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 2:36 pm
Paul
So who is a slagger now???Go back to whence you came.
Comment by Bill — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 3:53 pm
Bill,
Or is that Willamena?
I’m glad you’ve responded to me.
For I think you have rather neatly articulated the misplaced ideas promulgated by feminists which underpin the terrible sense of entitlement they unfortunately convince themselves of having. One of the end results of such a misplaced sense of entitlement being the child tax situation described by men on this thread and ENFORCED by the likes of Dunne Nothing and Co.
My responses in italics –
You state –
Skeptic
Do you know that ‘Drawing the short straw’ is luck not a choice. So I don’t know what you are on about.
Previously on this thread you say women have always drawn the short straw as reference to the belief that women have always had the rougher deal. Now you seem to be backpedaling and decrying ownership of that view. I don’t think you can have it both ways.
Both you and Daryll X Make huge generalizations in your comments about women.
No wonder you feel overwhelmed by them when you lump them all together as you do.
I think I can safely speak for Daryll X and I by saying we view women as a collective because currently under a raft of feminist mandated legislation brought in over the last century in western nations including NZ ALL women get privileges that men can only dream of. More on that later.
The fact that more women initiate divorce need to be looked at seriously.
Why do they not want to be with their husbands?
What has gone wrong?
That analysis from a Men’s Rights perspective has already begun some time ago and increases daily as the new paradigm spreads. You only need to have an open mind and read Matthew Weeks superb and widely influential – “The marriage strike”, or see the series of videos ManWomanMyth to see it happening
I would not lump all men together and assume it would be the same for all.
I would. Because I recognize that that living under a feminist zeitgeist affects ALL men.
Many things have changed in our societies in the last 100 year or so.
At least in this country .
Women got the vote, were no longer chattels of their husbands,they could have their own bank accounts and retain wealth, could go to university, could prevent child birth through effective contraception the list goes on and on.
And here we get to the nub of things. The misplaced grievances promulgated by feminists which unfortunately influence so many women today to have a sense of unbridled entitlement as ‘payback’ for ‘patriarchal oppression’ which simply didn’t exist.
As I stated previously women got the vote. Men got national service and the draft.
Now who do you suppose EARNS the right to vote? The person who will defend a territory at the price of horrible injury or death or the person who won’t? So, you see right from the start feminists advanced a notion of gaining rights (to vote) without upholding concomitant responsibilities (to protect).
When you come to understand this you see that feminism is a supremacist movement which cloaks itself in a false sense of victimhood to garner more and more resources and privileges for women at the expense of less for males. I could go on at great length articulating that.
For the record I don’t think modern women deserve the vote as they eschew the responsibility of protecting the territory. Again I reference the 1951 NZ Defense Act which is still on the statute books unamended, let alone repealed.
Indeed whole books have been written by intellectual luminaries such as Warren Farrel’s groundbreaking “The Myth of Male Power”. It’s true men (once married) held bank accounts, but then you see men, whilst being the ones who went to work in coalmines and battlefields, not women, went to debtor’s prison when their womenfolk overspent producing a bankrupt household.
Again a case of men only having rights because they took on concomitant responsibilities.
It’s a fallacy that women couldn’t go to Universities. A quick google search will dispell that myth. Again refer to manwomanmyth series of videos, specifically this video, for further evidence of it’s inaccuracy.
It’s worth noting that the female birth control pill, in fact almost all forms of female contraception were MALE inventions which have empowered countless billions of women.
I think these events and the result of these choices may influence women into their decisions not to remain in adverse situations.
Whilst I don’t condone marital adversity over extended periods of time, I see it’s become far too easy and convenient for women to divorce and fracture families whilst stripping men of children and assets. The adversity within marriage IS I therefore believe on the part of men who live on a knife’s edge knowingly or not a quick telephone call away from joining the ranks of millions of good men/fathers throughout the western world of being tossed out of their marriage and families on the whim of their wives/de facto wives.
Read Christina Hoff Sommers’ superb related wider reading “The war against boys” for a well articulated analysis, or visit here for a synopsis.
It would be wise to look at why relationships are failing instead of blaming the government and its policies for the failures.
As mentioned previously on this thread the government AND people are complicit in bringing about the current feminist zeitgeist. So this little piece of advice is unnecessary. Besides the government is elected by people who put them in power because they support relationship laws. It’s an unavoidable fact that most voters are women as more females make it to adulthood than men and thereafter because of the longevity gap women who already constitute greater numbers than men get to live for 2 whole voting cycles longer than women.
I am not against men or women I love them equally.
I would like to see more discussion on how we can improve understanding.
I know you think you love men and women equally.
But until you get more educated on Men’s issues that ‘love’ will I fear always be tainted by feminist misconception and effectively render you incapable of really deep empathy with the modern male’s true condition. The resources I’ve given links to should help in that regard, provided you approach them in a heartfelt way with an open mind
Much of the discussion on this site is about ‘Us & Them’.
Yes, I agree. But then that’s what else you can expect from men who have an understanding of the social reality for them of living in a feminist zeitgeist.
Yes it is a site to discuss mens issues (I’m delighted to see you acknowledging that now) and I do believe it is a excellent idea to welcome and encourage other points of view.
I disagree, if by different point of view you mean feminist ‘understanding’ of men’s experience.
That’s an entirely different and abjectly wrongheaded topic to this website’s stated banner focus of “promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience”.
Otherwise it is just a site for seething ,angry men that hopefully don’t have guns.
Actually despite the well placed righteous anger articulated by men here, I believe you’ll find NOT ONE OF THEM owns a gun let alone has ever used a gun on anyone. The site acts as a place where open honest communication can exist amongst men and as such a salve against getting so stressed as to become tempted towards violence. That’s despite the fact that everyday in westernized cultures we have to deal with feminist misandry which is supported and ignorantly ENFORCED by those who DO carry guns.
I see I’ve given you an enormous amount to digest.
So I encourage you NOT to rush back with a response immediately which is likely to be reactive, but take your time and digest the information. I think in doing so you’ll gain a much deeper understanding of men which will enhance your compassion and lead to closer relations to the males in your life.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 4:53 pm
Addendum and apology –
I wrote – men get to live for 2 whole voting cycles longer than women.
I should have written – because of the longevity gap WOMEN get to live for 2 whole voting cycles longer than MEN.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 4:59 pm
I agree with Allan Harvey
Thread for Mr dunne nothing and child tax. Bill is just trying to divert from some of the good ideas that have been raised.
I suggest we ignore her peurile little outbursts and get back to the subject. Treat her input as the nonsense that it actually is.
I will be the first to admit I played into her little game as she was such a tempting target with the gross generalisations and complete lack of a grasp of reality. My bad I apologise.
Back on subject
I for one dont see much in dunne nothings proposals and it wouldnt be gaining my vote.
that being said at least dunne nothing raises the issue where all the others simply bury their heads.
Mits
Comment by Mits — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 7:08 pm
Thanks for the admission that sport is a choice its not an essential need.No I dont support National. Its irrealevant if they are good choices they are not essential needs for cildren
Thats the issue, what does it cost too raise a child ? Thats about what essential needs of children are not parental choices of “what YOU want to raise a child.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 7:11 pm
It seems to me that WINZ have set the appropriate amount being the difference between a DPB and a solo benefit rate.
Surely that is what the Government says is the costs of raising a child. More than that should go directly for the benefit of the child.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 3rd September 2011 @ 8:23 pm
@Bill re comment # 31. What generalizations did I make? I presented very specific data that may be measured within certain tolerances and verified. Most of these data are published in refereed scientific publications. Although scientific publications and the information contained therein are not perfect, they are our most reliable and accurate source of information about reality and the world around us. I was not generalizing. I don’t think the posts by Skeptik may be characterized as generalizing either. I think most of the men on this site present very specific and legitimate concerns that have tremendous impact on the future of civilizaton and on the present lives of men and women and children. I don’t read any generalizations here. An example of generalization is, “I think all women are psychopaths.” Of course, not all women are psychopaths – aproximately 80% are as broken down along lines of assortive mating strategies and number of women who have criminally defrauded a man (among other criteria).
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 12:29 am
And I am not using the term “psychopath” in a pajorative sense. I am using it in a clinical sense to describe and explain the behavior of women that needs consideration in instances of divorce and custody and child support. Failure of courts to consider facts like this or exploitation by courts of facts like this are what has corrupted our entire system of law and politics and society. Men and women are fundamentally different and, quite frankly, the irrational behavior of most women as institutionalized in law and politics and social organizing has no business in a civilized society and they must be punished and taught how to behave civilly and appropriately and responsibly. For the last forty years, their criminal and uncivilized behavior has been exploited, enabled, encouraged and rewarded in a campaign of hate against men and children by those in absolute power so they may maintain absolute power and funnel money from the poorest to the richest. Ultimately, that will effect women too, but so far most victims of this dynamic have been men and children. A few victims have been women but maybe as the number of women victimized by this system increases, maybe even they will lobby for some change. Hopefully when they do it will not be too late.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 12:56 am
@Paul – Actually, there have been some significant developments (in the US at least). Please see my post in August about a recent US Supreme Court decision about jailing fathers in arrears for child support.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 1:05 am
46.Darryl X
Yeah right so thats why you think non custodial parents should pay squat?BLAH BLAH.If you ever had the chance to find out how much it costs to feed and care for children properly you would change your opinions in a split second.
Also you do make outrageous generalizations.They are not based on fact at all.Get some sleep you must be worn out with all the ranting and raving you do.
Yeah now i am being patronising LOL .No matter what i say you will say the same old shit in reply.I cant take it personally though.
Comment by Bill — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 3:23 am
@Bill – Please refer to my posts #21 and #22 for examples of specific concerns about financial contributions by the non-custoidal parent to cost of raising children. Of course, in most instances in which parents are separated or divorced, the entire problem of supporting children and government interference to affect that is solved by a presumption of shared parenting. Only in rare instances is child support necessary or even possible (the mother’s hostile parent veto not withstanding). Currently, I have 85% of my wages garnished for child support, I live well below the poverty level to the point where even my job is threatened because I cannot afford a car to get back and forth to work, and I am not allowed to see my chidren. There is no legitimate reason for my children to be denied access to me. They are simply used as hostages for ransom. That’s child abuse and child trafficking. The concept of child support is so wrong-headed that there is absolutely nothing constructive about it. It just allows dishonest and shiftless people to traffick our children.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 4:32 am
As addendum to my post #51, even though I live well below the poverty level, I am NOT eligible for any public assistance, including food stamps, housing voucher, medicaid or medicare or unemployment benefits. So, as a non-custodial parent living in poverty, I am much worse off than others living in poverty. My circumstances are similar to half of non-custodial parents (almost all men) who owe child support in the US (one-sixth of the entire adult male population of the US during the past forty years). I have had wisdom teeth extracted without anaesthesia and suffered both kidney stones and shingles without any medical attention or treatment. I have fasted every other day for almost seven straight years (my medical problems are the direct result of malnurishment), and I have lived on the street for approximately one-and-a-half years. While remaining employed to pay child support. At the same time, I am under perpetual threat of incarceration if I do not pay child support as has been the fate of millions of men in the US during the past forty years. I’m sure even you can acknowledge the absurdity of my circumstances and those of millions of other men forced to pay child support.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 5:05 am
Paul (reply #38): I don’t think there has been much internal bickering at all on MENZ in recent times. There is some difference of opinion about such matters as Dunne’s proposals on cutely-named ‘child support’ but debate concerning such differences is important. ‘Bickering’ has mainly occurred with people like Billette who are not part of the men’s movement but stride in to ridicule, dismiss, distract and damage the movement.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 10:43 am
Darryl
Ok so apparently in the US you are incarcerated for non payment of Child Support.In NZ I have never heard of anyone jailed for this offence.In fact most can easily still leave this country owing arrears and do so.A quick trip over the ditch to OZ has been a long standing means of evading Child Support in this country.
So how did you get so far behind on your Child Support?And excuse me for not having time to read all the postings since you entered this site.Why are you not allowed to see your children?
Comment by Bill — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 11:41 am
Hans Laven
I am just trying to get my head around what this site is actually for.Sorry that you find I am slow on the uptake.I am trying seriously.I am not trying to damage and ridicule the mens movement but do feel there needs to be considered,honest,fact based debate.The anti women rantings are extreme on this site.
Comment by Bill — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 11:46 am
Billette (reply #37): It seems clear that any attempt to discuss issues rationally with you will be a waste of time resulting only in more patronizing dismissal of informed male views and general mens-movement bashing from you, but for the record I will make some responses to show up your mischief.
You state
No, of course you wouldn’t. And neither would you make the gross generalizations that you criticize others here for doing, would you now? Well, let’s just have a look at a selection of your comments since you first graced us with your rational, fair-minded, intelligent presence. I have no doubt that if even a few of these comments were made by a man towards a woman, any NZ Family Court would see them as verbally and emotionally violent enough to grant a protection order. These comments definitely fall within feminist definitions of violence.
You state
Yes you do. The evidence shows you have frequently resorted to verbal violence in your postings, but I doubt anyone will be worried by you.
You state
Oh really? Well it’s easy to make vague claims but where is your evidence? Show us the ‘plenty’ of verbal violence you refer to. It would be difficult for you to find as many as you have managed to demean us with in your short, and hopefully short-lived, time of visiting MENZ. Yes, of course there are some intemperate expressions of anger here; it is after all a site for men to express themselves from their perspectives. Yet few comments on MENZ would match the vitriol of numerous feminist pronouncements men have had to endure such as “all men are rapists”.
You state
This is one of a number of statements you have made (see the quotes above) stating or implying that contributors here are lying. Again, it’s easy to make derogatory accusations, but can you show us the evidence? Please be kind and refer us to any lying that has been done in this thread, or indeed any other threads.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 11:59 am
Hi Bill,
You need to do more research. Going to Aussie is no way to avoid or evade Child Support. We have a taxation agreement that means Aussie IRD collect on NZ’s behalf and vice versa. It has been this way for many many years.
Also now anyone coming into New Zealand that wants to leave NZ and owe sgnificant Child Support is stopped at the border and can be incarerated and bought before the Family Court for examination of means. It has become a common practice just like the adverts for paying your Court fines.
You requested back in post39 for some constructive comments to debate. I have tried but you never engage you just want to slag people off. What gives?
Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 2:47 pm
Yes you are right.I am a slagger.You all are not.You are all fairminded ,honest,non angry,non violent in the verbal sense,wholesome,responsible,good ex husbands and partners,great fathers who only care about their children best interests,nice people.I was foolish to think you were not.I am so sorry that i may have offended and hurt you.I just thought this site was for woman haters of ex partner haters.I dont know where i got that idea from?I now know that this site is for the only honest,good,fairminded & rational people left on the planet.
No fun at all.Goodbye and once again Sorry.
Comment by Bill — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 3:05 pm
@Bill – In the US, men are imprisoned for child support arrears. Only a few countries do that. My contribution to this site is too make sure that countries like New Zealand do not adopt such draconian measures. Also in the US, the passports of men are suspended or revoked (as mine has been, so I’m a prisoner). Driver licenses and business licenses and recreatinal licenses are routinely suspended. I want to impress upon anyone visiting this site how counterproductive such measures are. Can’t get a job and pay child support if you are or have been in prison or if you don’t have a driver license.
In the US, arrears usually are more than the cost of raising a child by a multiple of two to four. And more than the non-custodial parent (the father in 97% of instances) should be paying by a multiple of four to eight. These estimates are based upon reasonable math and the cost or raising children (see posts # 21 and 22 for some basic arithmetic about child support and why expectations of mothers are usually excessive). That’s how I went into arrears (couldn’t pay all my child support). Half of all men in the US who owe child support can’t comply with the orders. They simply exceed the cost of raising a child so much and are so inconsistent with what the father can pay, that he is constantly broke and in arrears. One of many reasons that child support is so excessive concerns federal subsidies to states – states receive approximately one dollar in subsidies for every dollar in child support transferred from fathers to mothers. So, the states have an incentive to order excessive child support even if the father can’t pay because the State will receive “kickbacks” from the federal gov’t. This and other elements of the child support system are what make it “CHILD TRAFFICKING”. States and the federal gov’t are literally paying mothers to snatch children from fathers in exchange for money. I know this does not happen in New Zealand, but it is a similar dynamic in which mothers get paid to snatch their children and the country benefits (at least in the short-term).
Why can’t I see my children? The same reason one-third of all adult men (one-half of all fathers in the US – approximately 36-million fathers and 52-million children) can’t see their children. False allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. I have never abused my wife or son in any way. Once, my wife tried to kill me by stabbing me with a pair of butcher knives to the back. She tried to snatch our son (again) and run from the house (for absolutely no reason – she is just insane) and I physically intervened (passively) and she shoved me and I slapped her. That is the extent of the “domestic violence”. When women in the US want to divorce their husbands (apprxoimately 60% of marriages have ended in divorce during the past forty years), she goes to a “womens shelter” and lies about domestic violence and child abuse. A restraining order is issued against the father. That gets entered into the record of the divorce, custody is awarded to the mother, and the father is forced to see the children under “visitation” with which the mother interferes with impunity (hostile parent veto, parental alienation and maternal gate-keeping). Then the father after years of “visitation” and being jailed for false allegations of violating the restraining order finally gives up on being a father to his children after being driven from their lives. That’s a brief summary. In the US, more than 50-million children have been forcibly separated from more than 30-million fathers during the past forty years. It’s complete insanity.
Comment by Darryl X — Sun 4th September 2011 @ 9:53 pm
Let’s look at this through some of the foundations of a modern society.
The right to a fair trial.
Equality under the law.
Balanced representation in the media.
Protection of private property rights.
Freedom of expression.
Freedom from political oppression.
All of the above are compromised by our child support legislation. It is the most socially and economically destruction piece of paper in this country. Remember there is not only a direct effect, but a notional one also, as individuals make decisions in the shadow of the law, based on possible and probable outcomes.
This Act is a major contributor to issues like
Work place accidents.
Social stress.
Lower economic performance – which includes lower individual and business output and less real tax paid.
New Zealanders taking up residence in other countries – especially Australia.
to name a few, but why, when this is a major contributor to social and economic malaise, do we not change?
Comment by Down Under — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 8:54 am
Let’s look at this through some of the foundations of a modern society.
All of the above are compromised by our child support legislation. It is the most socially and economically destruction piece of paper in this country. Remember there is not only a direct effect, but a notional one also, as individuals make decisions in the shadow of the law, based on possible and probable outcomes.
This Act is a major contributor to issues like
to name a few, but why, when this is a major contributor to social and economic malaise, do we not change?
Comment by Down Under — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 8:56 am
Question: Were any of these things present under the South African system of apartheid?
Perhaps it is time to put the gender based discrimination that men now face into a wider perspective; apartheid was hated and vilified worldwide as an oppressive system of racial discrimination and yet men are having their children taken from them, they are being imprisoned (in some countries), emotionally abused, financially abused, miss-represented, and (in some cases) murdered with impunity, doesn’t this have parallels with what used to be the situation in South Africa?
Western Countries are rapidly becoming the WORST examples of human rights violators in the world.
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 9:16 am
@Mr A – I agree that the family law system is apartheid. It is so common, however, that most people are habituated to it. The system of Apartheid (applied to blacks) was isolated to one population in one country. The system of Apartheid applied to men is global and cannot be isolated and dealt with as easily as it was in South Africa. And it wasn’t that easy to deal with there. Also, Aparteid as applied to men is hugely profitable to so many that there is no incentive to deal with it. As a matter of fact, trafficking children this way is such a large part of the global economy that stopping it would bring an immediate grinding halt to the economy of the world at a time when it is extremely unstable and vulnerable. That being said, bringing a grinding halt to such a malevolent form of usury is just what is needed to fix our economies. Quite the Catch-22.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 9:41 am
The emotion surrounding child support is based on mistaken beliefs. The realities are completely overlooked, as is the damage, and media reporting is based in emotion and not in fact. The response then is one of morality or virtue allowing people to hold what is perceived to be the proper opinion, rather than a constructive opinion. If child support was reviewed in a reasoned manner it would have been shut down quicker than the Pike River Mine, and the death toll there was under thirty.
Comment by Down Under — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 10:19 am
I agree with the sentiments about western nations expressed by Mr. Anonymous.
That’s why for several years now whenever I’m asked about NZ by someone from Asia or South America, which is frequently, I always tell them about the gender apartheid there and give examples.
I always say something like “check it out yourself, I’m sure you’ll find I’m telling the truth”.
They see I am an educated, sane man and it gets them wondering.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 6th September 2011 @ 10:24 am
à ¸ªà ¸²à ¸¡à ¸²à ¸£à ¸— à ¹€à ¸‚à ¹‰à ¸²à ¹„à ¸›à ¸”à ¸¹à ¸‚à ¹‰à ¸Âà ¸¡à ¸¹à ¸¥à ¹€à ¸žà ¸´à ¹ˆà ¸¡à ¹€à ¸-à ¸´à ¸¡à ¹„à ¸”à ¹‰à ¸–à ¸µà ¹ˆà ¹„à ¸«à ¸™ à ¸„à ¸£à ¸±à ¸š ….
Comment by jobthai — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 11:28 pm
jobthai – à ¹ƒà ¸«à ¹‰à ¸”à ¸¹à ¹€à ¸§à ¹‡à ¸šà ¹„à ¸‹à ¸-à ¹Œà ¸™à ¸µà ¹‰
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 8th September 2011 @ 11:48 pm
Allan (reply #57): One thing that has surprised me in child support issues is the apparent silence of the legal profession. My personal experience leaves me with little doubt that Inland Revenue knowingly disregards the provisions of the Child Support Act in its administration. When I contacted the Law Society to see if it was an issue they had picked up, they suggested I refer it to the Minister. The Minister said tax administration is not his concern and forwarded the issue to the Commissioner. The response from the Commissioner was priceless – for the specific concern I had raised, his quotation of the law just ignored that the provision existed (section 39(1)(c)). How does one generate some interest with them?
For the issue you raise (stopping at the border), I am informed by Inland Revenue that the relevant authority is section 199 of the Act. The question is how it is possible for the authorities to demonstrate that a person is leaving with intent to avoid child support, as opposed to leaving with some alternative intent (e.g., to take up employment abroad). Has anyone ever taken a close look at whether this practice is really on all fours with the law?
Comment by TaxExile — Sat 10th September 2011 @ 5:55 am
i have about 3 yrs of c/s to go..ird and the family court and the lying toerag x have pretty much destroyed me..i no longer have faith in a system that is so lopsided its not funny..the law seems to protect politicians.police and womem..3 things in your life one should never trust..up the lot of them
Comment by Ford — Wed 19th October 2011 @ 7:55 am
Ive read ever comment on here and its 4 years on.Id like to hear how things have turned out for the majority of those that shared 4 years later.
I hope things have improved and that your children are safe and out of harms way and somehow things have worked out despite a loaded deck against you.
This is MENZ issues. This is a MENZ forum and I can say without prejudice that the anger expressed on here has valued merit.If your a woman you are welcome only if you are here to balance the books do so at your own peril.You wont find any empathy or sympathy here.
If you continue then apply the same logical reasoning towards that anger expressed on here thats instantly applied to woman.
First Please send me any evidence ANY, that woman would pay for nothing and would be morally and ethically HAPPY to do so..pfttt
Men would now know you are from another planet here to haunt us with your very own unrealistic reality.
Just apply to MEN The “damsel in distress syndrome”
Are you angry….yes I feel threatened, hurt,suffered,alienated, isolated and ignored all acceptable reasons to be angry.
All things that MEN are taught from a child to ignore and MAN UP too.These emotions still apply they dont just disappear.The problem is Men are taught to repress these emotions bury them deep rather than be taught to express their concerns like woman.Until they cant anymore.
Both Woman and Men as well as BAD PARENTING are guilty and share blame for this stupid ideology that continues to plague a mans health.
I crack up when my Grandfather could say “Keep em barefoot and pregnant”
All the females in the family their friends hell even the neighbours laughed it off. Goodluck any male saying that today and keep a safe hold of their now shredded manhood.
If you are a woman ,Treat MEN with the respect they are due and you will receive the same treatment
“MEN behaving like GENTLEMEN’.We are not a dying breed
Comment by joseph — Mon 22nd June 2015 @ 11:59 am