Child Support Quiz
Who said this ? When did they say it?
The further point that follows from that is that when non-custodial parents are asked to pay a substantially increased sum of money into the State’s coffers to offset the cost of benefits those non-custodial parents will find it that much more difficult to engage in voluntary support for their children in all those many different ways in which that voluntary support occurs—by means of the payment of pocket money, by buying an occasional pair of shoes, by paying for the occasional music lesson, and all those kinds of things in which, in fact, non-custodial parents in those situations frequently engage. From the evidence presented to the select committee it was quite clear that a number of such parents will find it very difficult to engage in such payments in the future. Therefore, of course, their children will be that much worse off as a consequence. The custodial parent will not receive any additional income; the non-custodial parent will lose income.
Have a read of this, its very enlightening Child Tax history
Very interesting. Shame his sisters in cabinet had opposite views.
Oh.. I like quizzes… May I add one too about the Ministry of women’s affairs ? On topic as a quiz but off topic as it’s not child support…
Authour moved comment to its own post as it was off topic for this thread .
I have read through these volumes and the powers that be belived there would be a massive revolt against child tax.
What made the difference to change their view to full support of child tax as we see now?
Yay. Can I play too? Which NZ Judge said this?
“The Child Support Act is akin to a taxation statute which deals almost
exclusively with financial matters without any reference whatsoever to the
welfare or best interests of the children for whom child support is being paid.”
Yes – that’s right – a NZ Judge called Child Support akin to a tax with no reference at all to what’s best for the children!
Full case here
Yes Michael Cullen was right, that is what happened to me. He had plenty to say while in opposition, and what did his party do about it when in government. Zilch, no surprises there.
JUDITH TIZARD (Panmure): I am pleased to speak on the third reading of this Bill, because it is very important. I want to put the Government on notice that it will have to change the legislation before it is implemented on 1 July 1992. I believe that the public outcry over the legislation will be such that the Government will be forced to change it. We are talking about 120,000 New Zealand families—probably double that number of households, because about 100,000 of that number are custodial parents who are on benefits, and about 20,000 are not. As we are talking about 120,000 non-custodial parents, more than 250,000 households will be affected by the legislation. The legislation is punitive. In the debate we have heard the attitude of some Government members, and I am reminded of the comments made by the member for Bay of Islands, who described people on the domestic purposes benefit as legalised prostitutes. That kind of attitude has been applied to people who are doing their best to bring up their children in difficult circumstances after the breakup of a marriage, and they are being punished by the Government.
However, the legislation goes further, because it is not actually about children or the needs of custodial parents. It is about punishing non-custodial parents for not being able to earn enough to keep both families. The fact is that in the end two families into one income very rarely go. It is punitive, it is vindictive, and it is a very ill-thought-out tax-grab. It is a revenue-driven mechanism to recover the cost of the domestic purposes benefit that society decided in 1974 or 1975 to accept as a cost on the State debt. The Government is considering increasing the tax-grab, and the legislation is a tax-grab, because it is a compulsory imposition on people’s wages. That money will be taken directly out of wages or bank accounts. It is compulsory; it is set by the law; there is no way that people can avoid it. Surely that is a reasonably good definition of a tax.
The legislation is a tax-grab
The whole thing is rotten to the core. At no stage is there any mention of encouraging both parents to reach an amicable agreement for support.
in my view the default stance should be for a private agreement between parents, and if his fails then for a third party to be present.
if there are default payments then perhaps an enforcment action.
I have proof of ird harrasing women to file for child support regardless of existng private arrangments.
in fact, i have a recording thaat proves a woman is told something quite diferent to a man. ie when the man calls and asks abou private aranagments fo child support and pushes or the truth, ird and win will reveal that this is ok so long as he money is declared by the dpb parent (which IMO is wrong). However when he woman calls it is stated that a pivate arrangmen is no possible.
There is deliberat action from WINS and IRD being imposed on custodial parents on DPB. Where and who is forcing his action is ye to b determined.
Tax grab and extortion is in effect by ou government to ofse the DPB.
Is there any grounds for he UN or human rights act fo what is occuring in our country?
Who said this….
‘The Domestic Purposes Benefit last year cost us $1.7 billion. Of that, only 10% was paid by liable parent support from the non-custodial parent. National will want to see that collection rate improves. We will actively seek to recover some of the billion dollars of unpaid child support that is owed to Kiwi taxpayers. ‘
Hmm.. and so the old defence that it is a ‘support’ and not a tax crumbles even further. Remember to call a spade a spade; it’s a TAX
Yes its a tax – its taxation without representation!
Lets not fit child support lets fight child tax.