MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
21 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
Child support laws reminds me of the stand over tactics used by the Mafia to extort money out the pockets of business people and workers. The more money you earn, the more money the Mafia extorts.
The big question, WHY, isnt child support payments tax deductable?
Perhaps the fairest thing is to cut the child support percentages in half as a starting point.
But one must not forget, child support laws are used by the government to reduce it’s deficit, by slashing welfare payments. When one considers the fact that children bevome more expensive after divorce/separation, yet the government wants to reduce welfare payments, by taxing the non-residential parent.
Comment by Phillip1 — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 9:11 pm
On a slightly different tack, looking for assistance with objecting to IRD child support demand. long story but in March 08 apllied for reduction to shared care rate based on forecast 148 nights on agreed access. IRD agreed and reduced my payments. Ex immediately started to reduce access, November recieved letter from IRD stating they had made a mistake, now have to pay full rates, backdated to March with penalties. Onjected as finally was due in court in Dec (after 2 years waiting, then delayed until Jan but finally got shared care)informed IRD that will have 146 nights by March 31 so they promptly recalculate but only for the peroid Feb 09 onwards and maintain that for period March 08 to Jan 09 must still pay full rate, all the publications talk of 40% of nights in a year, not part of year, after all they do not allow a reduction for school holidays when care is week about. Any suggestions who to contact to discuss in detail for advice?. I have 7 days left to object. PS Before they sent letter in Nov they rang to see if I had changed my name, then the letter arrived with other childrens names that I had never heard of, when challenged to make sure that my file had not been mixed with someone elses “o no, it was just a typo mistake, and a form letter not correctly filled out” yeah right
Comment by bruce — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 9:49 pm
I took as similar issue to the Tauranga Family Court back in 2004-5.
I was successful with what i sought to achieve.
Contact me on [email protected]
Comment by nameless — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 12:58 am
IRD are above the law and there is little you can do.
Comment by Scott — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Hi Bruce, Not sure how useful this is but you can probably save some time trying to contact any of the mens support sites listed under this web site (chch fathers group, caring fathers group, Union of Fathers group, Mens Trust Mensline or Advisory). I emailed every one of them and got an email from 2 that were vague and less than helpful. One of the replies came from a fellow called “Brieding-Bus” which I found a little too ironic and decided it could not be real after I failed to get a 2nd email. Sorry if this is less than helpful but it may save you some time.
Comment by Aussie-In-NZ — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Unfortunately those who have control of the child tax setup see the payers as an example of what will happen to them if they don’t toe the line. If the system was fair we may have a lot more men deciding that their freedom is worth the child tax payments. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are some men who are happy in the traditional family setting but it must sting to know that they had better do what the missus says or you will be homeless tomorrow and if you aren’t careful you will not be able to see your children. Let’s be honest, x years in govt job …. they are not about to start thinking for themselves any time soon, let alone standing up.
Comment by Aussie-In-NZ — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Child Support being tax deductible ‘kin oath. Calculated on before Tax incme, then deducted from net income, that really is just crap. I phoned IRD to find out how they calculate the percentages for CS, to be told “it’s in the legislation”. So I looked, and for sure it just states what the percentages are, not how they were derived. After inquiring more and get stonewalling, I was told that the only way to find out was to “see your MP”. So I have, I tabled a question with him to find out how the percentages are worked out, and so far have nothing back. So now I will become the biggest squeaky wheel ever to get what I want. If everyone hassled their local MP to do the same, then we will discover, I am sure, that the figures are basically to cover Parental Mainteneance as well, because there is no way that kids take 24% of your wage to look after them … So, take time out in the next week, find out when your MP is going to be in the office and go hassle them !! Talk is cheap, take action …
Comment by Blocky — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 7:36 am
The article you have linked to Scrap is from April 2007.
When I first read your post I thought there had been some new development.
Preventing a NZ citizen from leaving the country is taking away a basic human right recognised by the UN and the NZ bill of rights. To prevent someone leaving the country because they have failed to pay a court imposed fine after a court hearing is one thing. To prevent them leaving with no charge and no recorse is another matter.
In addition what we have is a punitive child tax that has no relevance to supporting a child. To prevent people leaving the country on this basis would be one of the worse abuses of state power in the world.
Further more the NZ Child Support Act is quite possibly the most failed piece of legislation in NZ’s history. Surely a rational response would be to consider why it fails so spectaularly rather than assume you know why it isn’t able to be implemented. Judith Collins and Co assume they know why it is not working. However they have no evidence to support their assumptions. In fact it is irrational to reach the conclusions that she reaches.
Comment by Dave — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 5:16 pm
NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990
Part 2 Civil and political rights
Freedom of movement
(1) Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.
(2) Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.
(3) Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand.
(4) No one who is not a New Zealand citizen and who is lawfully in New Zealand shall be required to leave New Zealand except under a decision taken on grounds prescribed by law.
On 10 December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Kind Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09)271 3020
Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 5:38 pm
I hope that this law will catch Judith Collins, if she is booked onto a plane to leave NZ. I suspect that John Key isn’t paying [spousal and] child support, so I hope that he gets caught out too!
Its all soooo serious. Keep them in the slammer for a week, keep them in the slammer for a month.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 9:29 pm
Hi all fellow fedup fathers. I’ve been reading thru some of these notes and heres another twist to the on going story. I hold down a job and get payed weekly etc… Every so often I get a letter from those lovely understanding people at the IRD, saying my child support payments are late again. So I go and see my employer, who gives their accountant a ring and then its all sorted for another few weeks or so. All good you’d think… no. It seems my elusive payments were late again and because I didn’t check my employer’s accountant’s work (silly me) it’s my fault the payments didn’t arrive at the IRD on time… I’m liable and they see fit to slap the penalies on me.
I’ve rang IRD on numerous occasions and get the same response or a variation of. And as we all know the IRD are always right, not us idiots that don;t speak IRD. Ok that’s enough does anyone else have to go thru this aswell or have they just singled me out . If there is anyone there maybe you could drop me line and let me know how you managed to rectify the problem. [email protected]
Comment by Paul — Mon 30th March 2009 @ 5:41 pm
My payments change month to month sometimes by hundreds. I just keep paying the correct amount.
Comment by Scott — Mon 30th March 2009 @ 6:17 pm
Giday again …My payments are not changing, they actually stay the same . Talking to my boss about it thismorning and he has no problem checking for me but because of privacy issues I am not supposed to talk to their accountant. And further more everytime you ask an accountant to do anything , there is a fee to pay. I wonder do I pay this aswell. It just keeps going and going for me. Surely I’m not alone?
Comment by Paul — Tue 31st March 2009 @ 11:00 pm
That’s the problem if you are the “paying” parent… that’s exactly what you do, just pay pay pay pay pay.
Comment by Scott — Wed 1st April 2009 @ 8:27 am
Then your ex tells you off if you dare spend a couple of dollars on yourself.
Comment by Scott — Wed 1st April 2009 @ 8:34 am
I am almost brand new to blogging and really like your post, it is really on target.
Comment by Pet Foreclosure Assistance — Mon 6th April 2009 @ 3:00 pm
With human rights issues, it seems to me that the only way dads will win, is if you take it to higher and higher courts.
Comment by Ian — Thu 14th May 2009 @ 6:51 am
Son has turned 18 been working for the past two years, chucked his job in, was offered another position but turned this down, has gone back to live with his mother and now I have to pay child support until he turns 19. Funny how WINZ has a 13 week standown but a person who chucks in their job can get child support and doesn’t even want to try and get a job. At 18 they can vote, handle their own money, hold a credit card, drink, are legally an adult, make legally binding contracts, sign own tenancy agreement, marry, have children, go to jail. Where is the justice?
Comment by Steve — Sun 22nd November 2009 @ 9:54 am
In my view the legal age of maturity is 18. The period between 16 and 16 is the realm of transition where the State takes its societal responsibility reprogramming the child and rewarding or commenting on the development status and general condition of the child. The period between 16 and 18 is for building independence and enhancing skills and this is directly reflected in the fiscal approach to the circumstances.
The age or more accurately ‘common sense’ application of securities for and between the age groups of juvenile (if this is the sequential beginning) , youth and adult are in serious abrogation, and it is because of this fact of disparities that the abrogation of the constitution by Hon Margaret Wilson of June 10/11 2003 is so valuable. Without there would be no position from which to reconstitute reasonable protections for our young growing into their natural maturity.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 22nd November 2009 @ 11:29 am
Sorry that is 16 and 18
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 22nd November 2009 @ 11:30 am
The Government needs the rewards from YOUR hard work. Who are YOU to stand in their way? LOL
I agree with you. It’s shocking!
If Mum makes a habit of rescuing him instead of pressing him to earn his keep, when he obviously can, then she’ll be stuck doing it after he turns 19 and when you can’t be held responsible by the $tate.
You’ll have the last laugh.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sun 22nd November 2009 @ 11:55 am