Peter Dunne’s Christmas Present
While The Minister for Child Tax, Peter Dunne, plays an elf in the Johnsonville Christmas Parade I wonder what his Christmas present for those afflicted by Child Tax will be?
Consider this; if the changes the oligarchy of officials proposes for tinkering with the current Child Tax legislation are to be implemented in 2010 Dunne has to act by the 22 of December. Assuming Dunne wants to implement the officials latest attempt to patch the flaws in the Child Tax Act 1991, by the next financial year, he will need to have everything in place by 31 March. To achieve the tinkering for the next financial year he has to move by 22 December.
Of course my prediction could be wrong, but the tinkering means changing the code that runs the programs that produce the assessments and that all takes time. The patches would have to be in place for the financial year end, it would be an administrative nightmare to implement at any other time as assessments would change and under and over payment would be rife.
It would not surprise me if the changes were released just before Christmas as the “feel good” news of the Christmas period will drown out the news that a major piece of the matrix of Family Law is being tinkered with yet again. You can’t fix this legislation it’s fundamentally flawed!
What is a summary of the changes scrap?
Comment by Alastair — Tue 8th December 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Scrap,
All they have done for nearly 20 years is tinker. I agree the legislation is fundamentally flawed. I would be amazed if anything radical happens this time, like happened in Australia under the Howard government. I understand the Australian reforms are being quietly reversed now that Labour are back in office.
Frustrated
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Wed 9th December 2009 @ 5:47 am
I have tinkered with Dunne and his office many times before. And been told changes are underway. They effectively ‘postphone’ dissenters by advising them changes will be implemented in the interim by implementing the IRD review system, and that changes conforming to the Aus system are underway.
They lie and continue to lie.
I have continued to say that any CS system cannot possible work on an Income Based System. I have been proven to be correct. It leaves kids in poverty, and on the other hand leaves a single parent with more money than they need top raise a child.
I asked that a careful study be carried out to define the financial needs of raising a child and this was done. Poorly.Very poorly, and incorporated the need to buy aother house, a 3 bedroom house and the mortgage cost and interest included.
I say the cost of raising a child between the age of 0-13 is no more than $100 a week. I say this from pure experience. Nothing more.
People disagree. Mainly woman. Govt disagree. Ird subsequently disagree.
And yet I can raise my son in a private school, feed him well, clothe him well, take him fishing, take him on holiday 3 times a year, I pay for his cellphone and he has a PS3 as well as a computer and PPS and games and friends. He is healthy, well balanced and I pay for his sporting activities.
I do all this for under $100 a week, (except for the holidays)
So come on!!!!! Lets get it right for once.
Comment by Morris — Wed 9th December 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Agree Morris,
$100 per week is a realistic figure your estimate is as good an estimate as the Families Comission.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Wed 9th December 2009 @ 2:43 pm
I also agree that $100 per week is sufficient. Any more than that is just a tax-grab.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 9th December 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Great, because it is as I have said after 5 years of VERY careful study from my son’s expenses, from age 7 to age age 12, including ALL expenses including doctors fees, and my son is a Heartkid. My expense after paying for school fees and outings are at the very absolute worst and on average equate to $109 per week.
So as I say, lets forget about the tax grab and the tired lazy ‘mothers’ and concentrate on our kids, and focus on the well meaning Dads who do the damn best to provide for their kids.
A kid is better off with their well meaning dad than their mum who collects CS without passing these funds onto the kids who need those funds to maintain their health and safety.
We all need to do better. I intend to provide support.
Comment by Morris — Wed 9th December 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Some sensible Question on the flaws of the child support system?
1. Why is child support living allowance calculated using the social security benefit rates nominated in the Child Support Act 1991 (comparing to unemployed people) and the child support payable on the percentage after deducting the living allowance. If IRD believes that Child Support should be based on what the NCP earns and not what is the need to raise a child, Why doesn’t IRD use the figures from social security rates to calculate the amount needed to raise a child?
2. Why IRD pays “working for familes tax credit until age of 18, because THEY {IRD} believes that a child become financially independent at the age of 18 THEN why does the same IRD make the NCP pay child support until age of 19?
3. If the cost to raise a child is 18% after deducting living allowance, then it equally costs the same {one child} to raise this child in the care of NCP?
4. Familes Commission has realeased a document that it cost $250,000.00 to raise a child. IF THIS IS TRUE THEN
-working for familes should increase
-all benefits should increase
-child subsidy should increase
AND ABOVE ALL THE WAGES SHOULD INCREASE AS NOW IT IS IN “BLACK AND WHITE’ EXACTLY HOW MUCH IS COSTS TO RAISE A CHILD?
5. CHILD SUPPORT IS NEVER ABOUT SUPPORTING A CHILD, IT IS A CHILD TAX
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Wed 9th December 2009 @ 7:50 pm
I agree completely
Also this tax isnt supposed to be the only support there for the child.
Doesnt the Parent with the child also have a duty to provide support thereby effectively doubling the figures IRD quote?
Comment by mits — Thu 10th December 2009 @ 7:06 am
All points raised at all levels of Officals and Politicians over the past 10years (Repeatedly!)and virtually all have ben ignored.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Thu 10th December 2009 @ 11:54 am
Dunne is a master at feigning interest and doing nothing.
Comment by [email protected] — Thu 10th December 2009 @ 2:52 pm
I do not understand why it has taken this long to calculate the actual cost of raising a child and why figure the familes commision has come up differes from the amount used to calculate the living allowance…….why can’t the data used to calculate the living allowance be used to calculate the cost of raising a child refer below:
sic child support formula includes a living allowance component. This is a deduction from the child support income amount which recognizes the liable person’s basic living expenses and financial responsibilities.
The living allowance is calculated using the social security benefit rates nominated in the Child Support Act 1991. These rates are expressed as gross amounts.
.
The gross benefit rate is calculated by increasing the specified rate in the relevant Schedule to the Social Security Act 1964 by the total amount of income tax deductions that would be required to make the rate a gross.
.
.
“Single rate of invalid’s benefit” means the rate specified in paragraph (b) of the Sixth Schedule to the Social Security Act 1964.
.
.
“Married rate of community wage” (previously known as the “gross married rate of unemployment benefit”) means the rate specified in paragraph (h) of the Ninth Schedule of the Social Security Act 1964.
.
.
“Gross married rate of invalid’s benefit means the rate specified in paragraph (f) of the Sixth Schedule to the Social Security Act 1964.
.
The amount we deduct as the living allowance depends on the personal circumstances of the paying parent.
Living allowances from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009
Single person with no dependents $13,964.00
Married or with a civil union or de facto partner and with no dependent children $18,858.00
Single, married or with a civil union or de facto partner, with one child living with the paying parent $26,425.00
Single, married or with a civil union or de facto partner, with two children living with the paying parent $29,096.00
Single, married or with a civil union or de facto partner, with three children living with the paying parent $31,767.00
Single, married or with a civil union or de facto partner, with four or more children living with the paying parent $34,438.00
Before the Child Support Act the cost of supporting the child was calculated, and the amount of maintenance paid reflected that cost. However, for no apparent reason the Government ended this essential aspect, and now the Child Support Act bases the amount of maintenance on the liable parents “capacity to pay”. It is virtually impossible to define what ones “capacity to pay” actually is, where as the cost of supporting a child is self-evident. Further, the Government now takes no responsibility for telling us what is a reasonable amount of money for supporting a child. The Child Support Act makes liable parents feel they are paying a fine or a tax, rather than paying to support their child.
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Thu 10th December 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Dunne nothing huh.
Imagine if his salary was to have a garnish of child tax penalty payments liberally applied to it
Then we might see something dunne.
Bollocks its a tax and IRD and govt are not looking at reducing the tax take. Mark my words that any tinkering will see these payments go up not down.
Comment by mits — Thu 10th December 2009 @ 3:37 pm
A system that is easy to work out and self controlling is this:
1) In absence of a parent or parent without income, the government pays X dollars
per month per child.
This payment scales down for 2 or more children.
The government deems the amount X sufficient to insure basic needs of a child
are covered.
2) When the parent has an income, he (she) is only liable to pay the same amount X
Benefits of this scheme:
A)
No one feels cheated and so less disgruntled parents.
The current scheme is a scam and a government organized extortion racket:
a parent pays 30% of his income on top of taxes, leaving him with no room
to re-build his life, a full time resident parent is never asked to spend 30% on his children!!!
kids do not get the full amount paid by a parent.
B)
Because it is fair, no parent will feel compound to run away overseas.
Encourages child parent relationship and bondage (Parent present not overseas)
Did I mention skills remain here?
C) It leaves ample room for parents to be more generous with their kids, i.e
spend more money to benefit their kids.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 10th December 2009 @ 4:44 pm
@Disappointed NCP and all,
>> 4. Familes Commission has realeased a document that it cost $250,000.00 to raise
a child
We know this is remotely a realistic figure. The government wants you to debate, it, argue this astronomical figure because it wants you distracted and amenable to accept a lesser figure than that but deadly for you.
Let us ignore that figure, focus on the essential:
1) Come up with workable solutions that are for the benefit of the child and parent ready to be put on the table of IRD, family commission and what not.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 10th December 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Do you guys see any changes before the begining of the next financial year??? why it it taking so long……I have been that the changes are in the pipe line…I DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG THE PIPE IS????
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Thu 10th December 2009 @ 6:53 pm
I got an touch with United Future’s office a few weeks ago, and a Ministerial Advisor to Peter Dunne told me he would keep me updated with developments.
I have been advised by him a few days ago that with regard to the Child Support Discussion Document, Cabinet: “for the time being, has decided to defer further consideration of the issue”.
This is not looking promising.
Comment by Rippey — Thu 17th December 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Yep, Dunne nothing blah blah blah has dunne nothing once again blah blah blah.
Dont know why I ever thought he might get off his fat arse anyway.
Comment by mits — Thu 17th December 2009 @ 6:46 pm
Can someone please explain what is meant by >>>>> Familes Commission has realeased a document that it cost $250,000.00 to raise
a child, it is $250,000.00 a year?
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Thu 17th December 2009 @ 7:21 pm
I think that figure is supposed to be calculated up until the day before the child turns 19yrs of age. Of course that figure is utter bullshit regardless of what age it is calculated to.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Thu 17th December 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Personally… I didn’t expect anything else….
Comment by noconfidence — Fri 18th December 2009 @ 9:41 am
Does this means that the document and figures gives the Govt a very clear idea just, how much it costs to raise a child and if this is true that it cost $250,000.00 to raise a child. IF THIS IS TRUE THEN
-working for familes should increase
-all benefits should increase
-child subsidy should increase
-Child living with the NCP should be allowed $250,000.00
AND
ABOVE ALL THE MINIMUM WAGES SHOULD INCREASE AS NOW IT IS IN “BLACK AND WHITE’ EXACTLY HOW MUCH IS COSTS TO RAISE A CHILD?
I AM WAITING FOR A FEEDBACK ON THIS
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Sun 20th December 2009 @ 6:48 pm
I have my submission ready for when things come through the pipeline. I suspect Dunne is waiting for things to cool down a bit. We shouldn’t let this happen. The act does not meet it’s own declared objectives. Children are having the absolute piss taken out of them.
Comment by Scott — Sun 27th December 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Sunday News headline “KIWI DADS ARE CHILD SUPPORT GRINCHES”.
I wish to take issue with your nasty little man bashing headline “KIWI DADS ARE CHILD SUPPORT GRINCHES”. Your headline is not only sexist, failing to recognise the gender equality that is supposed to exist in the modern world, it also fails to take into account that parents paying so called “child support” in this country are usually forced to cough up not only enough to care for the children from their previous marriage but sufficient to support the ex-partner. Many of these paying parents provide accomadation for their ex-family as well as going the extra mile for luxuries.
Peter Dunne is correct in saying it is the children who suffer from parents failing to pay to care for their children but fails to mention the other millions that don’t make it to the kids due to poor IRD administration and missappropriation of child support by custodial parents.
Your paper engages in cheap shot journalism by maligning a minority of people in our society that are unable to defend themselves in this political enviroment.
Get it right.
Comment by Scott — Sun 27th December 2009 @ 6:04 pm
If indeed it does cost $250,000 to raise a child, then the NCP child support should be max $126 a week per child, or $548 a Month. Anything over that is more than what is needed to raise a child. The CP should also have to put aside $126 a week towards the child as well out of their wages/benifit etc.
Thats $6579 a Year per parent to total just over $13,000 a year to raise a child.
The Median Income in Nz (acording to http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Income/NZIncomeSurvey_HOTPJun09qtr.aspx) is $538 a Week or $28,000 a year take tax and kiwisaver off that and you have $417 Left, less the $126 a week for Child support and you have $291 a week left over to live on… considering to get a decent place to live eg 2 bedroom costs eaisly $250 a week, that leaves you with $41 a week for food, gas, power, phone, etc etc… (this isnt taking into account other benifits that you could possibly get such has accomodation suplements etc.)
Now if this is the median wage, how on earth does it cost $250,000 to raise a child to 19? there must be many people on less than this wage, and they still manage to raise a child. Sure you might not be able to give them a Xbox for christmas, and the latest nike shoes, does this caculation include rental payments? or morgage? Shouldnt the cost of raising a child be based on the min required without the frills, what is absolutly essiental, eg schooling, healthcare, clothing (essential, not a $100 labeled tshirt) and then if a parent wants to add the frills let them, if they can afford to let them.
But when it comes down to it, children are all born equal, sure their parents may be poorer, or wealthier than other parents, but that is their choice, it is a parents choice whether to add the frills to raising a child, it shouldnt be a standard.
Comment by nzleagle — Sun 27th December 2009 @ 6:58 pm
250K is the ESTIMATE of tax police and the Families Commision, its a breaucrats estimate. An estimate is an “educated” guess, although in this case the Tax police I am loathe to use the word educated, the Tax police and the FC are educated in one ideological and methodolgical approach but in the end they dont matter.They are irrealavent to change as they are subject to their political masters – Cabinet Members are the ones who can change the child tax act.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Sun 27th December 2009 @ 9:28 pm
The femnazi of the womens’ republic of new zealand are the grinches.
After a childhood of half a day at Christmas as all that I was permitted to see of my loving father and then having an ex who goes to great, but ultimately futile, lengths to cause friction at this (and any other) time. For me, Christmas is a church service an and opportunity to share some kindness with my oppressed brothers.
As an aside, my mother has refused to see me since she stopped receiving child support and also she refuses to she her grandchildren who are now in their late teens.
Since the femnazi no longer permit me to work, I don’t really see how I’m going to survive let alone support my child who has left home as well pay child support. Even if I do find work and scrape through the next five or so years for my children’s sake, my own future looks rather bleak.
Options?
Comment by Peter — Mon 28th December 2009 @ 2:32 pm
Must be a very affordable private school. Could you kindly tell which one it is? The sexism and repression of boys I witnessed in NZ state schools was appalling.
Comment by Peter — Mon 28th December 2009 @ 2:43 pm
I think I said something, about him being easy to put in prison.
Doing that, is clearly a mistake.
Imagine the consequences, of setting the bar so low.
Maybe he is an example, of humans in general.
The difference between clever, and wise.
He is certainly clever, but not necessarily wise.
His psychoactive substances bill, looks wise.
I don’t support those drugs, so it even works for me.
But this is about being clever, and wise.
Unfortunately, there’s a technical error.
All psychoactive substances, were made illegal.
You certainly cannot manufacture them, or sell them.
It would be wrong, to even use them.
But your body makes them, as well as everything else.
Is what your body makes, or food makes even legal.
Have they tested them, for there safety.
No, they have done nothing of the sort.
What then, did he make illegal.
Should a judge be made to test his own body, against the law.
Should the supermarket close, for its toxic substances.
It must just be me being clever, and him that is wise.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 20th December 2021 @ 9:35 pm