Parents pushed to the limit
By GEOFF TAYLOR – Waikato Times | Saturday, 11 August 2007
Many parents believe they get the sharp end of our child support system
and end up with a burden they struggle to sustain. Geoff Taylor reports.
“She is my flesh and blood and I love her dearly,” says Lovich.
“I do, however, have to question why it takes $177 a week to feed and clothe her.”
Shouldn’t Lovich accept that child support is a fact of life? That it’s never going to be easy?
“I accept that but you should be able to live life without struggling to this extent.
“I’m sure there are a hell of a lot of other people out there in the same boat.”
So-called “child support” appears to be based on spousal support needs and State reimbursement for the DPB rather than any reasonable costs of providing for children’s needs. According to the standard formula a single person who does not accommodate his/her one child for 3 or more nights per week is liable for a maximum of $314 per week for that child. It is beyond me how a child would cost that much to run on any reasonable basis. A person living alone is entitled to a benefit of between $148.73 and $178.49 net per week, and the “woman alone” benefit is $185.92 net (what a blatant example of female privilege to have a special benefit, higher than other benefits, available only to women and on the basis only of their gender! – but this is an aside). How can the government on one hand consider $148.73 to be enough for an independent adult to live on totally then on the other hand claim that $314 per week is justified to cater for the needs of a child? Further evidence of the hypocrisy of the government’s approach is that a paying parent is allowed to subtract $141.50 more per week (as “living allowance”) from his liable earnings if he maintains a child in his house than if he does not, yet he can be expected to pay over twice that amount to his ex-spouse for maintaining one child in her house.
The rationale usually given is that children should not suffer a significant reduction in their lifestyle due to parental separation. Also, the government believes that child support should cover the custodial parent’s costs in providing a larger house, car etc in order to accommodate the children.
The first excuse has surface validity but does not stand up to closer scrutiny.
a) Any separation of parents except in extremely non-nurturing or dangerous situations is damaging to children and will adversely affect their lives. Therefore, any policy that makes separation easier or more attractive is abusive to children and cannot simultaneously be paraded as a child-protective policy.
b) All decisions made by parents will impact on the children’s lifestyle, so why should separation be singled out to be made immune from its natural consequences? If an earning parent commits a serious crime the State will imprison that parent and will assert that the Court cannot avoid the suffering this causes to the children whose welfare will always depend on the parents’ choices. Similarly, children’s welfare will naturally be affected by parents’ choices to maintain or to trash the children’s family units, and efforts by the State to sanitize separation are mainly bringing about further unintended, child-damaging consequences.
c) Most children’s quality of life and lifestyle after separation result from their lives with both parents. Forcing one parent to pay for the lifestyle of the other will reduce what the paying parent has to offer during weekend and holiday access so any improvement in one setting will be offset by reduction in the other. Further, if the State forces one parent to pay the other this reduces the non-custodial parent’s ability to provide directly for the children’s needs (e.g. buying them clothes, paying for medical costs etc) and thereby removes his involvement, sense of purpose and responsibility as a parent. This detracts from the children’s welfare much more than any advantage they might gain from having their primary parent’s lifestyle increased. Finally, non-custodial parents are required to maintain their ex-spouses’ lifestyles even though those ex-spouses no longer have any reciprocal responsibility towards them. This commonly breeds resentment and relationship conflict as well as reducing goodwill and empathy between the parents, and therefore impacts badly on children in ways much more important than financially.
The second excuse, that child support should contribute to the custodial parent’s expenses in maintaining a larger house etc, is spurious because the non-custodial parent will equally need to maintain a larger house, car etc to accommodate the children during access in order to maintain a realistic parenting relationship with the children. Remaining differences such as the amount of electricity the children use in each household would easily be catered for by much less than $314 per week after tax.
(Although the terms “custodial” and “non-custodial” are now legally anachronistic, I still use them because their meaning remains clear and there is no convenient alternative.)
By the way, a basic issue overlooked by many is that a percentage amount in the child support formula is calculated on gross income but paid for from net, after-tax income. This means that paying parents are actually paying much higher percentages of their effective income than they are told they are paying. For example, 18% (the rate for one child) of $500 liable income per week would be $90, but this $90 is paid out of the after-tax income, approximately $328.50. $90 out of $328.50 is 27.4% of the person’s after-tax income. This can be a bit difficult to get your head around but it is a constant deceit by the State to lead people to believe they are paying a much lower percentage of their finances than they actually are. There are laws requiring money lenders to specify clearly the actual, effective finance costs of any loan, but no such principles are deemed necessary for society’s spousal-support slaves.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 13th August 2007 @ 4:47 pm
The so called “child support” system has absolutely nothing to do with supporting children. The act doesn’t even pretend to be about supporting children. It is a child tax.
Even as a child tax it is extremely unequitable.
The child support Act needs to be scraped and replaced with an act that provides limited relief for the care of children. If the non-custodial parent is prepared, willing and able to pay more than that then that is a parenting decision for the non-custodial parent to make. This is the only way I can see fairness being a part of the system.
We need a entire attitude change to encourage fathers to be involved not drive them into poverty and give them large incentives to avoid child taxes.
Studies and offical stats show that the most effective way to increase financial contributions to children is to have both parents actively involved in raising the children.
Comment by Dave — Mon 13th August 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Costs me $248 a week – has done since Child was 8 months old.
Comment by Frank & Earnest — Tue 14th August 2007 @ 6:43 pm
There was an excellent article challenging the justifications in the Auckland Sunday weekend paper. I suggest it is posted here.
Something, however, that I would advise those who are in the mood to up the ante is to exercise caution.
When I first got into and committed to this debate of indirect unlawful discrimination against fatherhood and direct unlawful discrimination against children in 2000, I had an hour and a half with Laila Harre, then elected with the ministerial portfolio for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I already knew Laila so it made traversing the issues much easier than for others. That aside, she made (among many) an interesting comment that stuck with me. She appreciated my views and acknowleddged that they were far more coherent than the many others she had responded to or observed. The reason was simple. My focus had nothing to do with child support. The alternative view, those promoted by my brethren in the fathers movement – now as if in coalition, was primarily centered on child support. This is to say that our central policy to date, that which draws commonality is that of: “how much do we have to pay for being separated?” This doesn’t wash. Those pushing this barrow are well and truly overshooting the mark of justification they would wish to achieve.
In saying this and drawing on that meeting as its qualification, the rationality behind the argument isolating the injustices in the child tax are not dismissed. Nor are they mitigated. The point that requires emphasis is that they are chronologically out of order. The first and primary focus is on the child and not on the wallet.
Hopefully some of you will see what I am saying without dismissing it as if it is another diatribe missing the point. To concentrate the arguement what needs to be centred is how much it costs to run a child. And not: as we have, how much is being exploited (by generalisation) from the father.
Energy should be focusd on this area if equity is ever to override the myth demanded of equality. Take the children out of the equation.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 10:51 am
Benjamin, Thanks for your suggestions although I’m not at all sure what they are. I gather what you are recommending is that we should calculate how much it reasonably costs to run a child and argue only from that basis. We are still left with the need to clarify issues such as what should be included in that calculation, e.g. should the mother’s rent be considered when the father has the same costs if he is to accommodate his children during access? Also, we already know that, Prince Harry aside, children will not cost $315 per week to run. The fact that the Child Support system sets routinely sets such amounts shows it is not concerned with the actual cost of raising children.
What do you mean by “take the children out of the equation” and (the injustices) “are chronologically out of order”? And what do the following phrases mean: “well and truly overshooting the mark of justification they would wish to achieve”, “drawing on that meeting as its qualification”, “if equity is ever to override the myth demanded of equality”?
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 1:13 pm
(1) Yes: reasonable costs to run a child. Not by way of rental set. Reasonable costs. ON top of that exceptional circumstances should be sought. Firstly they should be sought by way of social plan. If there is difficulty constructing this then by court order. But by income bracket there should be an average cost to run a child. These costs are split and the child suppport paying parent only required to pay half.
(2) The IRD does not set or research these costs, and not only in this field because the costs are calculated to the benefit of a money orientated system.
(3) I say this takes the child out of the equation by starting negotiations at an average cost and then working up and down from this point. At teh moment it is all about how much that individual child is worth as measured by the paying parent’s income. That is a rubbishing equation and has nothing to do with resolving emotional problems. It frustrates, encourages and exploits ill feeling.
(4) I explained the chronological order in the original script. The relationship with the children has nothing to do with money and it is the first denominator. Then we set the child support as a factor which is across the board. Then we deal with the circumstances as they can be improved by encouraging a plan. Then if it becomes necessary because conflict between parents is still in an aggressive condition and subject to disorder – orders would be used.
(5) I am saying again that not by rationalising the argument on child support to focus on the specifics of its primary cause (the children) the argument as driven by any authority will always go back to that denominator isolating the arguer to be a detrimental function against the child’s need. Taking me back to point (3).
(6) I draw on teh meeting as a qualifier because of what the then Mistry of Women’s Affairs told me as I explained. Lianne Dalziel will do the same again now if anyone argues directly that the child support argument is the most critical issue before the wellbeing of children post separation. You’d get shot down as soon as you opened the door.
(7) The myth? Equality on issues of gender must be the greatest exploited myth of all time. It’s createde a rort like child support and an industry as dysfunctional as that of domestic violence. Women cannot be equal with men because they bare the child. They want to be equal because they don’t want to feel inferior. Equality is an assertion against status and just like the argument of men complaining about child support rates are neglectful of children, it should be mirrored: women demanding equality over the well being of any child are as abusive as any adult cuffing a child around their ears for not eating their beet.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 3:56 pm
It is not up to the Ministry of Women’s affaris to set the agenda. They are considered by everyone except themselves to be irrelevant. We certainly have no interst in them.
Sure the destruction of the child’s relationship with his/her father is more important than the mess created by this Child Tax. However that doesn’t mean that this child tax is unimportant or can not be openly discussed.
Ben, you have got sucked in to the usual feminst line of thinking you need to justify yourself. Only a feminist would assume that money was more important to fathers than their relationship with their kids.
We don’t need to concern ourselves about this. If anyone makes such rediculous claims – then challenge them then and there. Show them up for the radical out of touch people that they are.
Comment by Dave — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Thanks Benjamin, that clarifies your points, and some good ones too.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 11:01 pm
Good call Dave,
yet, my experience tells me that you remain naif (naif is the masculine term naive the feminine – think about why people don’t know this as general using the feminine variant as if the only).
So I return to you that I would like you to explain, why you think I am so wrong. In the early stages of my debate here, on this site, I have been trying to get “men” out of their customary thinking to become active, (you included) instituting a challenge against the most blatant and naked abuse to fatherhood in the world’s history – made challengable by Margaret Wilson when falsely introducing the COC in order (I speculate) to protect attention coming on the FACT that IT allowed single women and lesbian couples to have children without providing a required guarantee under the UNCROC for the child of an association with their biological dad. What I just said is that fathers for this event have been given a legal license, for the first time ever to stand up collectively and say, children are more important to dads, because dads are important to children, and I received – “nothing”.
Scrap on the other hand said that child support IS the most important issue and wished me luck with my challenge and I reply with “bollocks”.
So tell me Dave your justification for not standing by my side on this challenge where I have already done all of the hard work and continually challenge this blatant “injustice” on my own. Then, and only then, could I possibly agree with you. Good answer though!
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 16th August 2007 @ 9:48 am
Way to go Ben!!
You CAN write lucidly and succintly!!
Whatever you changed to help you write in this style PLEASE keep doing it!
1. I have no problem with the lack of Latin style gender rules in English. I don’t want to learn masculine and feminine forms of words in this language. Es bastante difÃcil en español.
I realise I am naive. Boy, oh boy have I been naive in the past!! So no agruements there. Although it would be nice if you refered to me as “overly optimistic” when publishing your opinons. I do have some pride left.
2. Re: CoC you are right on all counts. How you manage to keep going is one of the mysteries of this world. I do what I can. I have made an active contribution, including a personal presentation to the Select Committee, as you know. It’s too late now for my own children so it’s not as if it’s the most pressing issue for me as an individual any more. I didn’t vote the looney lefties into power and I didn’t take it lying down. I am not about to shut up about it either but don’t go laying it at my feet. I never promised you New Zealanders gave a flying f**k about children.
Don’t you read the news? New Zealanders like to bash their children. It’s the national past-time. If we could get it recognised as an olympic sport we’d be drowning in medals. We are reigning world champions at it. Along with teenage pregnancy rates and a whole host of bad outcomes for children we excell at.
Of course you got “nothing”. What country did you think you lived in? You call me naive. Sh**! Wake up and smell the roses man!
3.
Well for some the child tax has become the most pressing issue. It is also one that [in theory] could be most easily solved. I do struggle with the idea it is the most important issue for the children of NZ. However it is right up there.
4. You are having a non-debate about which is most important. Both issues are important and both need to be openly discussed and addressed. End of story.
Comment by Dave — Thu 16th August 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Ha –
It’s a French word. And yes, I mean not to insult. I mean to encourage. Your scripts are directly, constantly focused on the child. Which gives you a head and shoulders over other views. There is no other option, plan or alternative. Eventually when you boil down both the objective and subjective arguments you arrive at the same place. So you are already there.
The COC mistake was the bad mistake. It doesn’t just relegate Labour from power it relegates parliament.
Think about it. Ask me questions if you want better answers. Think Declaration of Independence and fixing the problem not as Labour (if not all) are scrambling as hard and as fast as they can Kingitanga. That; like child tax against the direct relationship and demand between son and daughter and mother and father comes second!
Then we fix domestic violence. No awards, just accolades for fixing an international problem.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 16th August 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Ben,
Tell the truth. If you are going to claim I say something then quote it and put it in context.
Its not the first time you have claimed I said/written something that I have not.
Fortunately people know where I stand as its on the web and written in plain English.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 16th August 2007 @ 1:10 pm
I am not insulted. I asked you to write succinctly and you did. You said I was naïve and it is true. No problem.
Your plan sounds fine. Others just have things in a different order. That’s not a problem. My view is; address all of the above at the same time. They are all inter-related after all. But hey, go your own way. No problem.
Actually thinking back I did tell you several years ago when we started out, New Zealanders cared about children but not about men. That just shows how naive I was. Oh well the family caught and IRD corrected that fantasy well and truely. I am not delusional any more. I’m still “overly optimistic” – but no longer in denial about what sort of country I live in.
Comment by Dave — Thu 16th August 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Its about the matrix of family law and the underlying structures supporting it.
Dave you are right all must be addressed, not just one isoloated compartment.
Mind you thats what I have been saying for a long time – Equal parental rights and responsibilities.
The other thing I have been saying is that court fights, petions to commissioners, select comittees wont bring the required change.
The change has to be legislative and that requires political power – representation in the house.
The feminists succeeded because they gained political power and now write the laws.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 16th August 2007 @ 2:42 pm
This sounds just like parliament James; at question time.
So, in reply I will ask you questions, from that point we can debate the end, for what is or what is not said.
(1) Is under your review of the NZBORA 1990 s.4 beyond the jurisdiction of s.6 together with s.7?
(2) Did you not wish me “good luck” challenging this through the Human Rights legislation?
(3) Did you not call me a wanker?
(4) Did you not say, or if not directly imply that Child Support is the most important issues facing fatherhood.
(5) Have you not refused to engage with me further on topics when you simply deterrmine that you have had enough?
Now I appreciate that you have covered some of the groundwork already for this last of your posts, and I do not wish to enter into an area where you think I am trying to score points over you, so I wish to determine clearly exactly what it is I want to achieve. This means that I do not expect you to answer my questions one by one, although you are so welcome if you wish. I want you to answer the following question more than anything else.
If you see that parliament is in direct breach of its obligation to the public interest, and that breach is a constitution of direct child abuse, as a father, do you not feel obliged to challenge, on behalf of all children that abuse rather than suggesting it should be enhanced and furnished by positively engaging its authority.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 16th August 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Ben, Ben, Ben!
You had been doing so well… Sigh!
This thread starts with:
It was posted by someone calling themselves: Scrap_The_CSA.
It is pretty obvious what that person wants. He just wrote:
I understand you have concerns about “positively engaging [the government’s] authority”. However your post reads like a bun fight with Scrap and the link back to child tax is so obscure that few would be able to see it.
Comment by Dave — Thu 16th August 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Benjamin,
Just interrupting here but could you please (being friendly here) not use peoples names when they specifically have given an anonymous name or a different name online.
I gather from all comments that no one is questioning how intelligent you are nor how much you know but a bit of consideration wouldn’t go astray. I am thinking myself of having a special name for online,. Just haven’t decided what it should be. Maybe jane doe. hehe
Comment by julie — Thu 16th August 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Julie I make a point about child abuse. To pretend, as folk pretend that we do not need to coordinate oursleves to protect children from this feminist advance that would allow improper (as illegally introduced) legislation to directly unlawfully discriminate agaisnt the child and indirectly unlawfully discriminate against fatherhood is a pretence.
It is the same as the neigbour who hears the commotion going on next door and wilts into nothingness frightened that they may be damaged for alerting the police about the babies screams going around and around and around in the dryer – bounce, bounce and bounce.
Why I continually challenge this behaviour on this website where the information of how to challenge that abuse is exclusive, is that that pretence is a practice, where we folk concentrate on ourselves rather than openly stepping up to the mark and using the instruments available to us to compete with this child deprivation.
My name is Benjamin Easton: – I am a wanker – you can call me the Political Busker: – New Zealand’s children are being abused not by this government but by a secretive and conspiratory practice of our parliamment and this is already proved. I have proved it – continually alone, alienated and isolated. Why is this so difficult to recognise? Nothing, anywhere is a question on my intelligence. Everything written is seeking those who refuse to listen to what they are being told because it is fact and they wilfully chose to disregard it as if it is not a legislatively accurate description of enacted child deprivation. Stop looking at the wall – turn around and face the public – face the truth – et al. Please!
Dave you patronise me to an extreme. The issue we are debating is not about child support, it is about protecting children to their rightful association with fatherhood. This association once it is effectively and properly protected will provide that child support will be implimented and maintained affectively.
My letter, if you read what it says – seeking a reply, reasonably, avoids a bun fight. I want to get down to debating the issue. You saying that I am doing nothing of the sort is overlooking the facts as they are presented. I want to study the facts and not the emotions. My comments in reply to an allegation that I am misquoting: Scrap, deserves an intelligent and comprehensive reply.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 17th August 2007 @ 2:00 pm
BTW: my reference to parliament and specifically question time, is about the practice of those employed to side step the issue.
I need to qualify this because reading back through the thread – which is under a heading of “Parents pushed to the limit” Dave made the comment that my comments were difficult to link back to the thread. I think this is wrong. My comments are directly related to the thread.
In coalition, we could all be debating how much emphasis should be being put on different issues in order to achieve any affect that is consistent with the want (I will call this here, The Public Interest).
I am saying collectively that government – under Labour – broke the law (adding from other posts) that parliament too are proved to be unprotective of the public interest and that this MUST be challenged.
Yet I am challenged for making this blatantly obvious point and a baby gets tumbled in yet another dryer.
If we are going to affectively challenge what we say we want to do we have to do this on one single point and that is that Governmnet/parliament broke the primary law protecting a child to an association with their biolgical dad.
Simple. Where are the numbers? Where are the soldiers? Where is the truth?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 17th August 2007 @ 2:56 pm
OK, Benjamin I hear you.
There is nothing wrong with fronting to your views. In fact it is necessary.
Anyhow, my stand is already known. It wouldn’t make any difference if I used an online name or not.
Comment by julie — Fri 17th August 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Don’t Forget also the added expenses put on top of the already amount set out by Cyps for children like late penalty fees and interest hikes. How the hell does one live when the paying parent is already struggling to keep his head above water. NZ’s system of Child Support stinks to the max, its totally unfair the tax dept can take practicly all the paying parents earnings. When confronted with how one is supposed to live they say they dont get involved in the emotional issues all they want is the money. These laws are so archaic and leave the paying parent feeling like no more than a sperm donor at the end of the day regardless if they love their children. His ex partener can walk out of their home take the kids and move to the other side of the country and where another set of costs crop up and with an already heavy burden of child support eating away the fabric of the paying parents life risking alienation from his children because he cannot afford the costs to visit them or pay for them to visit with him.
Take the case of a Paying parent who paid up all his child support before leaving NZ to go live in Australia and then his ex moved 3 days later to Australia as well in another part of Australia. The NZ law states when both parents and children no longer reside in NZ the child support payments Stop. Ahh but does it ? Noo he gets Data matched leaving the country She in turn still expects child support but is NOT Data matched.
2 years down the line she contacts CYPs NZ asks for child support is told no but there’s a technicality.. because she was not Data matched going out of the country she can claim 2 years worth of back child support from her ex which triples in amount with late fees and interests hikes to somewhere around $30.000.00 When paying parent is confronted with this issue the NZ Inland Revenue cease further payments up to 2006 but refuse to back date it to the time the paying parent’s EX left NZ in 2003 at the same time the Paying parent also left NZ. This put a massive and unnecessary strain on the paying parents financial situation on a low income which needn’t happen as he had already been up to date with IR Child support which should have been cut off when he and his EX left NZ and she left 3 days later also.
Australian Laws on Child support however state she can apply for child support in Australia but it goes on her income and her spouses income and that of the paying parent and his partners income, Plus deductions taken off for each time the child stays over with a paying parent. Plus the paying parent can apply to the courts to stop her moving their children around the country cutting expenses in travel as well as emotional alienation of the pay parents child / children
Its about time New Zealand updated its policies and adopted these practices to make it fairer for paying parents and thier children as well as blended family units to be able to live comfortably and not below the bread line or worse.
Heather Collins
Comment by Heather Collins — Sat 18th August 2007 @ 12:21 am
The problems ongoing, as identified by those who complain about, for example, child support, can be overcome through different means.
The system allows you to vote. You vote and if you are succesful, you get what you voted for, whatever that may be. You can stand for parliament and directly influence, if not control for your part in any majority of the legislation. Additionally you can make submissions to select committies or run petitions, and this is the primary method of influence accessible to the general public. Alternatively, you can find fault and have this tested by the courts, which is rare, or define faulted processes and test these trhough the civil services. The remaining method, without considering any influence of any corruption is to pressure from the public perspective, using media – or protest alike. As I am aware, this covers the spectrum. These are the choices open to the public to interfere with law.
My question, where Heather, as many others describe; a citizenship that is rendered powerless against a political power using influence that is directly and improperly exploitative of the public interest. What the public who are damaged by child support are saying, is that “we are being damaged by child support”. You are hurting us and hurting our children!
Yet it seems that the administration seems set not to listen. The administration seems set to maintain its damaging power giving it a title of a “demonstrably justifiable limitation in a free and democratic society”.
It is not. It is a licence for families to break up where the parent who retains day to day care/custody for the Child Support formula can maintain an adverse control over the separated from parent.
As I mentioned earlier it is accepted mainstream that child support is a necessity and this commands a general response to any complaint on its ill effects on the paying party (or their new family) as that of “whinging” or of selfishness.
I’m still not familiar with the new legislation on Child Support yet, listened read a debate in the HOuse where it was under construction that it was still not seen as ideal by some of those who would vote it through.
I allege this is because those who would vote it hthrough do not care for the alternatives where the family is more important to society than how they would exploit that family to maintain there power of fiscal conditions.
This morning on Agenda TV this kind of behavioural thinking and its pattern was amde very clear by a panel asking Pita Sharples a range of questions. The interviewer Roydon Christie was able to separate in a sentence the differences between Maori and the present capitalist system, recognising the difference as exactly that – one of tribalism and one of capitalism. Pita Sharples reply was interesting – and at its philisophical end, I do not think he effectively comprehended the differences that were presented as he advocated evenly that Maori too were capable and wanting to embrace the capitalist system and would prosper amicably and capably from its effect: – if only Maori were to be given an equitable respect.
There were two points that I felt weren’t covered. (1) That the transition from a colonial system is unlikely to defer its power in order to accomodate Maori assimilation into its bastions and will work as restrictively as it can to maintain and preserve its power. This was the principle of Dr.Shaprles complaint, yet it was never expressed clearly. (2) That Maori tikanga (the way Maori are) is unlikely to adapt so rapidly to Dr.Sharples perspective where Dr.Sharples is termed “koopapa” – or traitor to indigenous Maori. He talked of embracing a pakeha system without the authority of any legal justification by way of constitution to make these comments for failings on the validity of our system to effect justiciable law.
Now I well realise here that John Potter’s heckles will have been raised, and my politicising could be deemed off topic: yet as Bevan Berg complained earlier about John Brett saying he was “off topic” on drugs, it is not. Everything here is related, if the menzmovement is not just another talkfest.
We have very serious problems in our country. There are serious issues such as the feminisation of a nation, the globalisation of a nation, the corruption of a judiciary and of an executive and the failure of our public to stand up and be counted to reject an oppression are all very relevant.
On this site, I talk about the race relations issue as if it is consistent with fatherhood, and this is because if we do not embrace our constitution as the method to redirect away from corruption, of which the emasculation of the nation is its primary effect, you/we all are to be emasculated.
If you/we are not prepared to unify to challenge blatant injustices of teh like of child tax, then you (that is ewe not yoo) will be fleeced, as will your children, and their children’s children’s children.
Presently, unlike any other time in parliament (in this country at least) the public have access to reconfigure against the injustice. The laws on freedom are being rewritten to cut down the commoner, the administrations are emasculating the public so that they will simply watch and be directed. In parliament you hav, at least, three influences (Judy Turner / Future New Zealand / Act) who seem prepared to challenge against teh abuse of a nation by our traditional main parties. What they need, to be effective and not to lose, is that the public gives them their weight.
How heavy is our public these days? Are we obese or are we lightweight?
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 18th August 2007 @ 11:51 am
We currently thru IRD have ‘shared care’with my step chilren so our c/support payments are $1000 per month. We receive $71 a month from the custodial parent because of shared care. We are now applying for 50/50 care thru the f/court for his 2 children)(another battle in itself!!) and IRD tell us that we still need to pay $1000 pm as we are already on the ‘shared care’ rate….However by having week about with the kids surely that brings down the custodial parents expenses…..We already buy them clothes when they are at our house because the mother wont supply them with any when at our house, we pay $120 a month for a schlorship fund for them and we pay for their medical insurance….. Why does it seem that our expenses go up food, power etc and we still have to pay $1k pm…..YES it does feel like we are funding the other parties lifestyle. She chooses to work 25 hrs a week and to enable us to afford c/support and additional costs for the kids we both have to work fulltime!!!! AND the mother gets top ups from the govt because she doesnt earn enough…what a joke!!! Its about time IRD got into the real world..what encouragement is there for these dads to be apart of their kids lives when they are getting crippled by c/support. We definitely agree c/support needs to be paid..no dispute there!!
Comment by Karen Raggett — Wed 29th August 2007 @ 12:04 pm
I read an article recently where the approximate cost of bringing up a child for 18 years came to $82000.Which is $4555 a year or $87 a week and that was allowing for $1000 of clothing a year.So how can the IRD possibly think that it costs $283 a week to support two children? Or are some men supporting their staff’s children as well?
Comment by rosie — Sun 9th September 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Rosie – Can you give us more details on that article.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 9th September 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Before Child Support is paid, if the interests of teh child are the paramount consideration, the difficulties that face every individual in thos circumstances needs to be mapped. We haven’t done this.
The delusion that people are not important has been the predominant function of the capitalist expansion. Money is more important than people. Systems are more important than mental health, or; the mental health and well being of a society is less valuable than the systems used to keep that society in its operation.
The advent of democracy remains heralded as the best system developed to achieve the most common of goals. That is a falacy. Democracy is teh system most accessible for those who wish to aspire to making the most money, so to do without having everyone else on their back about their naked sense in greed.
So: do children need to have their child support paid? Yes. Absolutely. Is that payment more important than anything else? No. Why? Because that value has everything to do with those who hold power, retaining that power, and while that power is money, then the “losers” are the ones who just cannot cut it.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 10th September 2007 @ 11:56 am
I saw it here Bevan
http://www.homemaking.allwaze.co.nz/homemaking15.htm
There are two different sets of costs but obviously the other was for wealthy families who’s children go to private schools
Comment by rosie — Mon 10th September 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Interesting Site – Another Quality Kiwi initiative.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 10th September 2007 @ 9:02 pm
Some fathers are paying as much as $400 a week in child support.
I asked at Winz today how much for instance would a couple on the unemployment benefit receive for two children.The guy wasn’t interested in telling me but I persisted.After a few minutes he finally told me that the amount that they would receive would differ according to the childrens ages.For a child of 9 years old,the payment would be $57 a week and for a 12 year old $82.When I asked him if he would give me a print out for that,he didn’t want to know me. Funny that.
Comment by rosie — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 5:06 pm
And it gets worse than that because some guys are paying for truant children and children on courses not at school, so they are effectively paying the youth dole and supporting truancy.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 7:20 pm
I’m feeling kind of confused right now.On one hand my husband is told that he has to pay an outrageous amount of child support because he is a high income earner.And on the other hand,we are given community sevices cards because we are low income earners.
Comment by rosie — Mon 17th September 2007 @ 1:10 pm
I have a question – do you now think he is paying child support or child tax?
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 17th September 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Child tax.It’s kind of like what the English did years ago,where the more windows you had in your house,the more taxes you paid.And this is what this government is now doing to children.They are also encouraging a new breed of heartless women,who if they don’t get their own way,run to the IRD for revenge.
Comment by rosie — Mon 17th September 2007 @ 8:15 pm
So what does a thinking women do about this ?
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 17th September 2007 @ 9:30 pm
To tell you the truth Bevan,I don’t know.None of the politicians are listening to me.Can you give me some advice of who or where I should go to next.
One thing I do know, is that I am going to be sending my community services card back.I have asked at WINZ,why they have tossed us these bones and they can’t answer me.The only answer that I can come up with,is that the IRD can’t afford to lose any of these men and to make it worse,there’s not even enough meat on them to make a good pot of soup.
Comment by rosie — Tue 18th September 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Like many of us – you have to stop existing with the way it is, and become part of the change. We can do that.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 18th September 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Can anyone out there pls tell me if they have 50/50 shared care arrangements and have had their c/support reviewed by IRD to make the payments less each month. Ive already had a 6 month battle with IRD (which I won) to say we have the kids 40% of the time.Funny how the custodial parent only had to say no that was not true and IRD believed her……so 6 months of many letters,ph calls etc we finally got the c/support down from $1350 a month to $1k a month. We now have 50/50 shared care so have them about 183 days a year and IRD still ask us to pay $1k to the part time custodial parent…..where is the common sense here?? Im wanting to battle with IRD again saying our expenses have gone up with 50/50 care, custodial parents are lesser. We also pay for clothes, medical and school/sport costs when in our care so how come the monthly payment hasnt gone down. IRD did say it could be reduced if the other party wrote a letter to say she was happy to have the payment reduced…What planet are these monkeys on……My husband cant even have a civil conversation with her because she is full of hate let along getting her to sign a letter to have her monthly salary from us reduced……
Comment by Karen — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 10:47 am
Yes I have shared care.
How many children? Remember if its a single child the tax on percentage of gross income reduces from 18 to 12 and the living allowance is increased significantlty.
The reduction depends on the number of children and generally sees a 6% deduction in the percentage amount used to calculate the tax.
If you are taxed for 3 children the reduction is from 27% to 21% of your gross income after the increased living allowance has been deducted.
In plain English you still end up paying a S***load of tax.
There is no common sense or reality involved with this.
Peter Dunne has delivered a worse not better system. Write to him and tell him how it is.
He will refer your letter to IRD.
IRD will tell you.
You can claim child support from her and she would be assessed at the same way you are. Of course getting her to pay child support is likely to trigger WWIII and that will not help the kids.
You could also seek an admin review but that is hardly likely to change anything.
Maybe you need to ask MR Dunne why he penalizes re partnered liable parents and their children.
The only solution is law change and thats whats needed. You may be able massage your situation but its not going to go away.
You could seek to become the custodial parent. But thats likely to buy you a long and probably costly fight in the court.
Dont forget to write to Child Tax Minister and United Future Leader Peter Dunne.
Regards
Scrap.
P.S. as to letters signed by her. Yes it is probably a legal mechanism but given the background it is highly unlikely that a parent who fights tooth and nail against shared care is going to agree to a salary reduction.
Don’t forget to send peanuts to the monkeys,
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Wasn’t quite sure where to put this, but thought it may be of interest, especialy to you james, where you are likely to have some excellent ideas that are not listened to by NZ politicians: because they demand change.
BTW, what changes would you promote here in NZ?
Benjamin.
Received this morning.
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting).
Request for Candidates and/or Volunteers
The forthcoming Federal Election will be held on Saturday, 24 November 2007. The Election is one of the few avenues where we can show the major political parties that family law issues are important.
Would you consider either?
1. Providing a donation to the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) ’s election fund? (donations are tax deductible up to $1500.00)
2. Running as a candidate for the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)? A candidate’s election costs are tax deductible. (You need to be an Australian citizen. However you cannot be an employee of the Commonwealth Government at the time of the Election).
or
3. Giving out “how-to-vote” cards on the day of the Election.
Our target is to run, at least, two (2) candidates for the Senate in the each of the six (6) States and the two (2) Territories. We also aim to run candidates for the House of Representatives.
We have a full range of policies. However our basic aim is to seek changes in the way our Family Laws are drawn up and administered. The Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)’s Policies can be found at our web site located at http://www.ncpp.xisle.info/
If you wish to run as a candidate, we would have to ask you to pay your own deposit ($1,000.00 for the Senate and $500.00 for the House of Representatives). We may be able to help out with printing costs.
Our aim is to let the major parties see that there are votes in our issues. This is rather than be elected to Parliament ourselves.
We estimate that the number of people that are adversely directly affected by the current family law and child support system would be in the order of about 5 per cent of the electorate. (For example, there are 700,000 child support payers in the overall electorate of 13,000,000 people)
A candidate’s deposit can be refundable. In order to have the candidate’s deposit refunded, the candidate has to receive at least four (4) per cent of the primary vote. Realistically, it is extremely unlikely for this deposit to be refunded, in our case. This is because we are only targeting approximately five (5) per cent of the voters, in the first instance.
Please note that the closing date for nomination of candidates is Thursday, 1 November 2007.
Your assistance and support would be appreciated.
John Flanagan,
Deputy Registered Officer
Non-Custodial Parents Party Equal Parenting),
PO Box 57,
THIRROUL. NSW. 2515.
Mobile no. 0415 899 574
[email protected]
18 October 2007.
—
Comment by Benjamin Easton. — Sat 20th October 2007 @ 7:51 am
Good one Benjamin.
Comment by julie — Sat 20th October 2007 @ 10:24 am