An Assessment of Proposed Changes to the Child Support Formula
An Assessment of Proposed Changes to the Child Support Formula
Stuart Birks
Massey University – College of Business
Policy Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 31-38, February 2011
Abstract:
The current New Zealand child support formula has been in place for nearly twenty years. Despite recognised problems and ongoing dissatisfaction, only minor changes have been made in that time. The current Government has opened consultation on proposed changes which address some of the major issues, in particular the assessment of costs of children, consideration of the income of both payer and payee, and allocation when care is shared. IRD analysis replicates an Australian approach to derive a proposed alternative formula. This paper assesses the analysis. It finds that results are highly sensitive to the assumptions, that the formulation is based on questionable concepts, and that there are hidden assumptions which may be a cause of current dissatisfaction and harmful to children. A simplified alternative is suggested which recognises the limitations in analysis and implementation and may be more acceptable
Well worth the read.
Regards
SCrap
Forgive my jaded view.
I dont see the entitlement princesses either taking a drop in child tax or god forbid having the power to decide where it is spent in anyway curtailed.
Most on the DPB are gleeful at how much the govt can gouge from the liable parent even though they dont get it per say (I know it funds their benefit and lifestyle choices)
Its a power thing they rejoice in causing suffering to the ex.
Dunne nothing hasnt in all his rhetoric acknowledged that people with a private agreement have already worked out what is good for them and their children. The IRD is there for all the DPB princesses or entitlement queens. Welfare of children with these people is a secondary or even tertiary concern.
Its a power game that the have all the weapons
calling it child support is only to salve everyones feelings around the rort.
Mits
Comment by Mits — Fri 18th May 2012 @ 9:16 am
Reply to
Good post – Scrap_The_CSA
And I read this ‘For most of the range, the New Zealand proposal is the least equal.’…No kidding…Wow,I didn’t know that !!!…What an idiot I have been after all these years when I used to abode in the Gestapo feminist state of N.Z
Well maybe some one could email ‘Mr Stuart Birks’ report to Mr Feminist lover.. Mr Peter Dunnes…And lets see what Mr Peter Dunnes and of course, what his beloved Kiwi feminists staff member/s can come up there Feminists spin doctoring machine to discredit this report done by ‘Stuart Birks’
Kind regards… John Dutchie…Free at long last……
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 18th May 2012 @ 9:25 am
the end result be more than likely be liable parents arnt paying enough
Comment by Ford — Fri 18th May 2012 @ 9:31 am
Reply to Mits #2
Your comment Mits ……’Forgive my jaded view.’…There’s ‘nothing to forgive’
….Your post is spot on concerning The Kiwi women Drama queens and there’entitlement princesses’ and there ‘Victim hood’ mentality
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 18th May 2012 @ 9:35 am
Reply to Ford #3
…You took the words right out of my mouth Ford …
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 18th May 2012 @ 9:44 am
Thanks for that Scrap. It’s hard to have any faith whatsoever that any fairness will be introduced to so-called ‘child support’ to move even an inch away from the current male enslavement system in the service of women. The clean break principle was fundamental in the design of no-fault divorce and the introduction of the DPB, but that principle has been progressively ignored. I’m still looking forward to hearing from you concerning a coordinated action about so-called ‘child support’.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 18th May 2012 @ 10:23 am
Hans,
Will be in touch on the weekend.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 18th May 2012 @ 1:09 pm
Hi everyone
i agree with hans
it is only going to get harder to live now as we will be paying more to those exstorsionists
the day fathers get a fair deal is when the world ends pardon the pun
Roger
Comment by roger — Fri 18th May 2012 @ 4:21 pm
I am looking at objecting against my so called child support obligations on the grounds that the act is unfair and inequitable. (good luck I hear you shout !)
However what I need is examples of case law that have tried the same angle under S105 of the Act.
If anyone can point me in the right direction it will be appreciated.
Comment by Bob — Sun 20th May 2012 @ 5:01 pm
http://www.lexisnexis.co.nz/our-solutions/legal/research-solutions/online-research-solutions.aspx
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 21st May 2012 @ 10:46 pm
Hi Bob (#9); don’t despair before you start; S105 has been contested before, and won, by the respondent. Case here with plenty of case precedents as well. So it may help your cause. Suggest you save the file in case “someone” decides to remove it.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/family-court/legislation/decisions-1/documents/CYF-V-SKF-FC-FAM-2007-000528-16-November-2007.pdf
Good luck
Comment by Bruce S — Mon 21st May 2012 @ 11:17 pm
Reply to all
Have a read of this article on Child support,link is below……
http://nzchildsupporttruth.blogspot.co.nz/
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 8:41 am
Bruce S #11 Thanks for showing us this judgement. In this case, it looks as though a proper outcome was achieved, at astonishingly high cost to IRD and Government and probably the father too! This example epitomises the overall economic inefficiency of the child [and spousal] support act.
In reading the judgement, I couldn’t help but think of quite a few men who have been in similar situations and didn’t bother to follow through with application to familycaught$. Deterred by the wasted costs of dealing with familycaught$, the hopelessness of trying to trust such greedy people, many just shrivel up their lives, or jump on a long distance aeroplane, or suicide.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10805559
IRD’s manner of dealing with people, encourages this hopelessness, rather than dealing positively, honestly and constructively with the real world issues at hand, that is to try to serve the children’s interest, rather than the mother’s perceived interest.
IRD child [and spousal] support isn’t contributing to better parenting in NZ, on the contrary, they are a dark and dangerous force against our children. Do IRD child support officers know anything about your parenting skills, or your ex-wife’s parenting skills? They just act in an ethical vacuum, just doing their “jobs”, like Nazi officers.
They are incentivising solo parenting, with all of its concommitant problems, including increasing the children’s suicide rates too!
We should be looking at support between parents that maintains accountability, for the quality of care – not just enforcing cash payments and refusing to discuss quality of care of the children!!!!!
No fault divorce should not enable escaping of accountability for quality of care. If we want to protect the upbringing of children, then we must maintain accountability between parents, including after divorce.
Care of Children Act already protects this in legislation. It’s just that the “judges” won’t make it work, they can get more money by enhancing disputes, rather than enhancing ongoing accountability. Funny isn’t it, they are not skilled at facing up to any sort of accountability themselves, at any professional level (except Boshier did publish the Kay Skelton judgements..)!!!
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 11:05 am
ive read quite a few articles from the nz herald..they are in desperate need of a decent proof reader
Comment by Ford — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 12:18 pm
Reply to MurrayBacon
I read this from that article MurrayBacon
‘After Paul Jenkins killed himself his dad Tony called the Australian Child Support Service, which was acting on behalf of the IRD, to advise them his son had died. The taxman asked what assets had been left in the estate.’
My reply to feminist lover ‘Peter Dunne’ and the rest of his beloved Kiwi women feminists Cohorts employed at the…’Its our job to be fair’… I.R.D…May all of you rot in your beloved feminists hell….
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 12:28 pm
#13..after reading the article all i see is standover extortion Mob mentality..pay what they tell you to pay or well drive you to death..and because some take their own lives others wash their hands of the responsibility of nothing less than murder
Comment by Ford — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 12:32 pm
Reply to Ford #16
‘nothing less than murder’…Yes Ford..But its more like this..’nothing less than ..legalized… murder’
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 12:35 pm
Hi Murray; I believe you are 99% correct when you say that “…Deterred by the wasted costs of dealing with familycaught$, the hopelessness of trying to trust such greedy people, many just shrivel up their lives, or jump on a long distance aeroplane, or suicide.”
Which just makes a mockery of the judicial system; simply it’s just too hard for citizen John to get justice! If you read the entire proceedings of that particular case; you will note that even two high courts had a problem figuring out how to interpret the statutory wording around retrospective IRD child support payments…..
“[36] In summary, although there are two High Court decisions which state that a
retrospective departure application is not possible in terms of the statutory wording,
the reasoning used does not support this conclusion. Aspinall v CIR relied on the
reasoning in Taylor v Oliver that the use of the words ‘would’ and ‘to be provided’
meant that the section could not refer to a previous child support year. That
reasoning is not grammatically correct.”
Ultimately, this case was WON on a point of GRAMMAR and not law. So for all of those of us who hated grammar at school; let this be a lesson; paying attention could have saved us thousands!
Comment by Bruce S — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 2:11 pm
….and perhaps I should have added that all this discombobulated gobbledegook, disguised as child support statue law, is only designed with two purposes in mind;
i) revenue generation for the crown;
ii) to intimidate child support paying parents into ensuring i) above is achieved.
I don’t see where beneficial child welfare assumes any level of gravity in any of this law.
Comment by Bruce S — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 2:30 pm
Dear Bruce, although the cost of running IRD Child [and Spousal] Support consumes nearly 50% of the total money taken in, much of that child support would have been paid anyway. If we separate those payments from the chased payments, then the picture is even less successful.
Generally a tax is considered inefficient and unworkable, if administration consumes more than 5% of the revenue. GST and income tax run at less than 2%.
The child support enforcement ends up costing more than 100% of the payments that they chase and get in.
Thus, for the small additional amount taken in by Government, the net achievement of the IRD CS staff is to have spent more for the additional dollars income, that the additional income. This demonstrates that the underlying basis of the existing child support legislation, is simply to abuse non custodial parents (mainly men). It is just a method of filling up an office with clerks, paying them to hide unemployment, to not be floating around the streets or doing burglaries….
Most of the penalties results from wrongful assessments and are as illusory as the initial assessments are wrongful.
Even having said that, the most important facet of Child Support Act, is not money, but that it effectively removes accountability of custodial parent to the non custodial parent, for the quality of care and supervision given to the children. This is the largest impact onto the lives of children whose parents have separated. This is why these children show up far out of proportion in criminal behaviour, self destructive behaviour and suicide statistics. IRD have inadvertently swept way the very things which best protect children’s futures.
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 2:51 pm
Dear Bruce,
why are people confused about Child [and Spousal] Support Act?
CSAct 301 pages = 4.9 MBytes
CSAmendment Act 95 pages = 1.3 MBytes
CSReciprocal Agreement Australia 23 pages = 524 kBytes
CSRules 98 pages = 1.2 MBytes
assorted judgements 20 pages each x 50+
It all adds up to not much more than 1000 pages of text (1419 pages). I find I need to read things like this through at least 5 times, to have a reasonably rough understanding. (I haven’t read that crap through that carefully, as it appeared to be a complete waste of being alive!)
Also, most of the public do not have access to judgements, except at inordinate cost.
Besides, would any good parent spend that much time, to try to protect themselves from being abused as a parent? I suggest a good parent would rather give their time to their children!
So, why did Kent Richardson get depressed about child support!?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10805559
For all of the paperwork, where is there any wisdom?
This Act does more harm than good for families, children in particular.
Before we pass legislation, we should checkout what the whole set of consequences will be?
DPB won’t result in single women choosing to have unsupported babies!
DPB won’t give an incentive for women to leave marriages, just because their husbands work for less income!
If we don’t put in enough work to study the incentives we create in legislation, then we will be bedevilled by perverse outcomes and be left paying dearly for them. The cost isn’t just taxpayer dollars for DPB and addon costs, it is also cost of extra crime, vandalism, children’s suicides…..
If we want to protect families from thieves and vandals who pray on families, then we need to carefully analyse legislation, not pass adventurous, risky legislation under feigned urgency, late at night.
Funny? isn’t it, you can get CSAct and Rules free on internet from Government, but do they offer helpful material about parenting to parents? We should have a much more constructive, positive focus.
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 4:30 pm
Reply to MurrayBacon #21
valid post MurrayBacon but then our beloved Peter Dunne quoted this in that article
‘Revenue Minister admits the system is broken.’…And a question for you Mr Peter Dunne…How many Fathers have ‘you’ with ‘your’ legalized ‘Its our job to fair’ broken system have driven Fathers to the point of despair and have to flee N.Z to never see there child/children ever again…
How many decent and loving Fathers that ‘you’ Mr Peter Dunne with ‘your’ beloved Kiwi feminists that are employed in the… ‘Its our job to fair’… I.R.D Child support have been driven mentality and emotionally to brink of total despair and the only the option they feel they can escape this ‘hell’ is to commit suicide….
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 4:49 pm
Suicide is often called the coward’s way out, but what else do you do – go and assassinate the Revenue Minister to make a point, and spend the rest of your days incarcerated.
Comment by Down Under — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 5:21 pm
#23..once incarcerated child support stops after after 18 weeks?..no more rent..no more power bills..no food bills..doctors dentists ..everything is free..clothed and fed
Comment by Ford — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 5:51 pm
living in prison is/can be alot better than living on the outside and has to be better than committing suicde
Comment by Ford — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 5:58 pm
Reply to Ford and all concerned..
Have look this poor sucker getting right royally screwed in ‘the land of the free’ called America ….This must be a classic case of a western European women Feminists definition of ‘utopia’…
Maybe Peter Dunne and his feminists cohorts should travel to America and learn and adopt there so called ‘Its our job to be fair’ Child support system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drI1YdbTSx8&feature=fvwrel
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 6:41 pm
#26..i hope he sucessfully sues for millions
Comment by Ford — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 7:14 pm
#21 Correction – Having read about 1419 pages of text of legislation, rules and judgements, at least 5 times, you still wouldn’t really know what goes on in familycaught$ and IRD CS.
To work your way safely through the system, you need to know what really goes on in the actual world.
You need to know about all the familycaught$ cases that weren’t published. (Difficult to find out about these, unless you have all of the caughtrooms bugged and camera monitored.)
You also need to know how IRD CS operate the act. For example, when they reject your application, but don’t post out the letter informing you of that. This makes it harder to appeal, as you only have so many days in which to appeal, from the date that they are required by legislation to tell you that they rejected your application.
In any case, you can make an end of year income estimation, to overcome the fact that you were cheated out of your legislated right to appeal their decision. It doesn’t say this anywhere that I could find, I just stumbled onto it by mistake. Why haven’t these hopeless NCPs also discovered this?
Why would some people give up and become unemployed?
Why would some people give up and suicide?
Why do the staff in IRD Child [and Spousal} Support want to behave in these ways?
I guess they just had a bad upbringing? Maybe they grew up in a single parent home, funded by DPB, with no worker role models in their lives?
We have to work out how to save these idle wasted workers, from their present path into oblivion, depravity and doom…
What could they do that would be useful and contribute to society?
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 7:47 pm
Stuart Birks has written an econometric analysis of NZ child support.
http://nzae.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/Session3/35_Birks.pdf
If my reading of his paper is correct, he has analysed the financial issues, for a range of family situations, but not considered values of non dollar denominated factors.
For example, although ostensibly a financial transfer act, it has inadvertently (or worse still – deliberately?) almost completely removed the previous incentives to accountability of the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent. Although this accountability does not have a saleable price in any open market, I believe that many NCPs would, for the protection of their children, pay quite a high price for this accountability to be reinstated. (Of course it would be wrongful to charge them, for what should already be theirs anyway!)
I suggest that the social value of accountability between the parents of the child, is greater for the child, than the value of the financial transfers. The social value is seen as children’s happiness, quality of their development eg schooling attainment, moral strength, work capability or criminal propensity and even their suicide rates too.
George Piskor resented this paper at 2nd Male Studies Conference, April 6, 2011, in Canada:
http://www.malestudies.org/pdf/piskor-cs.pdf
IRD have put quite a lot of work into looking at the costs of bringing up children. I haven’t yet been able to obtain a copy of the paper, but here is a powerpoint presentation that they show, when presenting their paper. It gives a simple indication of the content matter of their paper.
For all of the window dressing, there isn’t any explanation that this study has actually had any impact onto the new formula at all anyway!!!!!!!! I am guessing that the paper is a smokescreen, to hide that the act is largely based on taking as much as is possible.
http://statisphere.govt.nz/seminars-training-forums/~/media/statisphere/Files/os-forum-2010/2-1450-iris-claus.pdf
Lots of love and good luck – you are going to need it!
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 7:33 pm
Just a comment on Mits post.
I fully agree with everything that you have said.
My Ex wife is most certainly an entitlement queen with more weapons in her arsenal than most.
I have just been dragged through yet another administrative review ( seems to be a yearly process ) In the latest decision letter there was a clause that stated
” if ***** experiences any financial discomfort because of these recommendations then it is for him to re structure his finances and employment situation accordingly to meet his child support obligations for the 2013 year ”
And I thought extortion was illegal in this country, but it seems not when administered by IRD.
On the advice of my lawyer I have lodged a formal complaint on the basis that
1/ This is an unfair and heavy handed approach from IRD, bordering on bullying tactics.
2/ As my lawyer pointed out, I have the right to an administrative review myself at any time should my circumstances change.
This effectively makes this clause deliberately misleading.
It will be interesting to see what the outcome of my official complaint will be.
Comment by 1 rocka — Sat 26th May 2012 @ 2:58 pm
@rocka
In Egypt than had slave whippers.
In Rome they had tax collectors.
In New Zealand they have slave-whipping tax-collectors.
Comment by Down Under — Sat 26th May 2012 @ 3:14 pm
Reply to Down Under#31
your comment Down Under of ‘In New Zealand they have slave-whipping tax-collectors.’
Just my humble opinion would be thus ‘In New Zealand, they have Gestapo slave-whipping feminists …”Its our job to be fair’…. Child support tax-collectors.
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Sat 26th May 2012 @ 3:29 pm
Does anyone have any information about (or know where I can get information about):
IRDs figures of the cost of raising kids at each age group
What IRDs living allowance will be for the 2013 year when the new formula is in force
What IRDs minimum Child Support level will be for the 2013 year under the new formula
I have tried to get this from Dunne and IRD on many occasions but unsurprisingly have consistently been brushed off with the claim that the info “is available (from various sources which it is not because I have already referred to thos esources)or that the info isn’t available because the Bill is not yet opassed into Law!
Comment by Kelvin — Sat 26th May 2012 @ 6:27 pm
#33,,you could try google
http://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/keyword/childsupport/ir150-form-cs-calculating2013.html
Comment by Ford — Sat 26th May 2012 @ 7:48 pm
Kelvin #33:
IRDs figures of the cost of raising kids at each age group?
Supporting children
A Government discussion document on updating the child support scheme
See: APPENDIX 3 Estimated expenditure for raising children in New Zealand 76
http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/publications/2010-dd-supporting-children/overview
What IRDs living allowance will be for the 2013 year when the new formula is in force?
What IRDs minimum Child Support level will be for the 2013 year under the new formula?
Appendix 5: Examples of contributions under the new formula
The complete Child Support Amendment Bill:
http://www.legislation.co.nz/bill/government/2011/0337/latest/DLM4071711.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_child+support_resel_25_h&p=1
Cheers.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 26th May 2012 @ 7:59 pm
http://news.msn.co.nz/worldnews/8474242/doctor-to-pay-child-support-after-failed-abortion
Comment by Down Under — Mon 28th May 2012 @ 11:43 am
Reply to Down Under#36
I am so gob smacked after reading that article …
Watch this space….That judgement will also set a ‘precedent’ that western European women feminists will use else where in other western European countries…
Note how.. ‘She’… the poor sweet western European woman portrayed herself as the poor sweet innocent victim
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 28th May 2012 @ 12:32 pm
#37..i also note that the mother says she is now happy and wants the child..must have been all that money that cheered her up..wait till she gets pissed off with her kid and starts calling him an ‘unwanted abortion’ or things of that nature
Comment by Ford — Mon 28th May 2012 @ 1:27 pm
Reply to Ford#38
Yes I read that too Ford…
Your comment Ford of ‘must have been all that money’…Hmmmmm…just my opinion ‘must have been all that money she, with the help of the western European women feminists legally ‘extorted’ money from the hapless sucker…
However ….A question to ponder on,if the Doctor who performed that failed abortion was a ‘Western European Women’…Would ‘She’ have to pay child support…????…I already know the answer to that one….No….!!!!
Kind regards”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last”¦
Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 28th May 2012 @ 1:44 pm
I am in favour of this bill…. At present I pay my ex $1600 a month in CS for my 8 year daughter when I have her for 130 nights a year ! I can’t see how I will be any worse of.
I have tried, unsuccessfully, to get my daughter on a share care basis but my ex know’s that if I get 1 more night a fortnight she will get less money so has resisted all the way. At least this bill reflects that I have play a significant part in my daughters life. The other thing that I like is the fact that it recognizes what it costs to raise a child. I have never understood why I have to give money to my ex which would be discretionary. Surely, they should just work out what it costs to raise a child and split that between the 2 parents and then divided by the percentage of time you have them. Hell, I have the same costs when she is with me and I still have to have a room for her when she isn’t.
Comment by chris — Thu 18th October 2012 @ 5:26 pm
ops sorry posted too soon…..
finally, if I am missing something here with this new bill, please let me know.
I am also interested in what are peoples views on it coming in as proposed in April 2013 considering the select committees report is not due to be present until the 8th of Nov ?
Comment by chris — Thu 18th October 2012 @ 5:28 pm
Chris,
Tell me how much you will pay after this bill comes in and please explain the calculation.
Have you read Stuart Birks analysis?
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 18th October 2012 @ 7:18 pm
Yep,
It is rocket science designed to confuse and intimidate. i also note an expansion of the grounds for admin review. Includes “special needs” of child and given the gouging i currently experience under the act PLUS adjustment for admin review PLUS backdated fictitious debt, i fear i will now be up for orthodontics blah blah blah.
No wonder men bugger off to the East to get away from this damn place.
Sickening
Comment by shafted — Fri 19th October 2012 @ 1:48 pm
(Oh dear Shafted, you are not meant to complain like this – you’re just meant to suck it up and give her the money so she can pay for it.)
But seriously – I hadn’t looked at that bit. What you’re spelling out here is that there will now be the normal percentage of child support plus any other amount determined to be for the special needs of the child that will be decided by admin review officers. What section is that in?
Comment by Down Under — Fri 19th October 2012 @ 1:58 pm
“No wonder men bugger off to the East to get away from this damn place.”…Which I have …And the best move I ever made in my life….Free at long last from the feminist cesspit hellhole called N.Z
“Happier Abroad”
http://goo.gl/JltOx
“How Feminism Destroys Femininity in Women and Love”
“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal… If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters.”
– Cato the Elder
Comment by johndutchie — Fri 19th October 2012 @ 3:17 pm
John – Eastern Europe – I like the look of that – This place ( N. ZUD ) is only going to get worse – land of the long brown stain – not a racist comment – just sick of the constant shit going on here. Every aspect of our lives is being dissected as these hapless politicians look for new ways to generate income from thin air. You see when we have massive debt, and constantly decreasing income from business and employment – Manufacturing lost 40,000 jobs in 4 years, most small businesses have moved offshore – etc etc – all they can come up with – is how can we take more – while doing less. That is all this is about – getting rid of everything which has a cost to govt – and looking at every new way to take more – through regulation, compliance and heavy handed enforcement if you dont toe the line. This is Facism. Ie Children – Removing all costs associated with a person up to the age of 19 is a huge cost reduction for govt – thats what this is about – think about it – if the child leaves school at 15 and cant get a job – not a Govt problem any more – you dont qualify for a benefit – because your “family” ( this is being expanded beyond just poor old dad now ) is legally and financially obligated to look after you until you are 19 – so as one father here commented – the little buggers can sit at home on the computer at mums ( or dads in the future ) all day – doing NOTHING – while parents have no say in getting them motivated to work – no we will just have to PAY ( a new form of child taxation ) and keep PAYING until we have nothing left to give.
As john says here – THE SYSTEM IS NOT GOING TO HELP THE PEOPLE – ITS LIKE A BANK MANAGER ON STEROIDS CHASING YOU FOR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS and INTEREST IN ADVANCE -It matters not which “BANK” he works for ( Left or right, NATS or LAB ) the result is the same. HUGE DEBT – YOU PAY – NO SERVICE.
Comment by hornet - a furious father — Fri 19th October 2012 @ 10:13 pm
When you think about the increasing imbalance of women over men in the country, when it comes to election time politicians will be pandering to the most gullible voting-block – it will become all about hand-outs for women.
You might think it is just men leaving the country but here is an interesting point to consider as well. I had an interesting conversation with a young lady a couple of years ago, university graduate and started work on 100k. When she told me she was leaving NZ I quipped ‘off to chase that big global dollar, eh.’ I was really taken back when she answered, ‘no, actually I am just not prepared to bring children up in this social environment.’
While the Bitch State is losing it brightest overseas (seriously, what sensible young man would stay and get attached here) it is filling up with sponges that just love what they can get from the government. What we pay in tax is being wasted on increasing numbers of foreign women coming here in the same way child support is wasted on New Zealand women.
Recipe for disaster I think.
Comment by Down Under — Sat 20th October 2012 @ 7:21 am
Down under – I agree with your point on that one perspective – however the problem on a big picture scale is this – keep the entire population impoverished and oppressed – and reliant on govt for survival – and you have POWER – Control of the people. Thats all politics is about – MONEY AND POWER – I was told that many years ago by an older wiser person than I.
Divide and Conquer – keep the sexes in conflict – keep social and political issues alive and contentious ( left / Right or throw in some race based concerns ) so “We the people” have to live our lives in constant debate with no solution ever being proposed – and while we play that game – we all lose sight of what is actually happening to us. Its a deliberate political tactic to keep us all in the dark – and when we and IF we do click on – they throw in a few reviews – offer a few proposals – But because time forgets – nothing ever changes.
Lastly – from my personal experience on the Child Support issue – we have seen this very process at work. Dads have slowly gained a voice as to the oppressive tactics used in the past, and govt are also now seeing more opportunity and need to include BOTH parents and all extended family to help contribute with child costs by way of an oppressive tax ( which benefits Govt so they can leverage loans against this debt ) – we have just seen a review with promises for some changes – this just to give the perception they have listened – but if you look there is NO DETAIL in the remedy – the Decisions will still be open to abuse by Govt appointed review people, who will INTERPRET how the move forward – and from what I have seen – that INTERPRETATION is aimed at sucking ever last cent out of you – discriminating at will and punishing harshly anyone who objects – and that is the case now – you as an individual have NO opportunity to seek any changes to these decisions – because the system is designed to grind you down emotionally, wear you out, and be far too costly for you to ever actually get a decision which is JUST and RIGHT.
And that is how they operate on all matters effecting you the people.
Comment by hornet — Sat 20th October 2012 @ 8:13 am
@ Hornet – Too much of a conspiracy theory. When the state goes rogue it should first be attributed to stupidity rather than malice. It is a combination of self interest and what individuals can get away with (each only doing the job) which becomes a collective effect. Self interest of women and the self interest of the state combined is the perfect political storm.
Individually men cannot get accountability, as you say; the state no longer recognises men as citizens. Women and gays are citizens; men are gender nationals with limited-rights-residency.
Comment by Down Under — Sat 20th October 2012 @ 8:59 am
Down Under – I try to always look at facts or my direct personal experiences and make deductions from those – I DO NOT buy into conspiracy theories and the like.
Divide and Rule – Im not sure there is anything “Conspiracy theory” about this age old political tool – refer by definition – its been used throughout the ages to control people. For a lot longer than NZ has even been settled.
” In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) (derived from Latin: divide et impera) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.”
“In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites “divide et impera” in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in POLITICS.
The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign ( government ) to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his/her rule.
If these practices were NOT the case in NZ, and it was just a conspiracy theory – answer me this – why have Fathers concerns with Child Support and a deliberate refusal to allow fathers access to his children – been allowed to continue for decades without redress by any government?
Why has NZ been embroiled in land disputes for years without it ever being resolved – either now in the future?
Why are Referendums in this country not BINDING on the state – if you had not noticed with many recent decisions made by the current government on significant social issues – the majority decision requested in the referendum by the PEOPLE was not complied with at all. IN fact we have had direct refusals to do as the people have wanted. So we dont live in a democracy if thats the case.
Look at the recent decisions on the drinking age – were those decisions made for the betterment of this society – or for the benefit of the industry and govt which makes huge profits from the sale of liquor – take my small town – in the last MONTH we have seen THREE new Wholesalers open up – Three new stores – when we already had five in the area – I see NO good coming from the approvals handed out for this, when we have so many huge concerns with alcohol abuse already?? We need more liquor shops like we need more politicians.
if you look at other societies in this world which are PROSPERING – they have a drinking age of 21 years, they have govt by DEMOCRACY, they look at ways to keep people employed rather than impoverish them with more punitive legislation and compliance costs.
Allowing conflict to continue – divides people on issues. A simple but effective political tool.
Comment by hornet — Sat 20th October 2012 @ 6:58 pm
I gotta agree with you hornet.
This is why men are so isolated – kept isolated – why mens groups get no recognition from government.
You’re alone in family court, so your lonely voice doesn’t get heard.
Whereas women have a state funded family court national network (women’s refuge, living without violence and all associated counselling services) to equip and prepare, guide and support women for their family court battles, men are isolated and left to fend for themselves.
Mens groups including this site get talked down in family court, so that you down’t want to be associated with them, and therefore there is no cohesive men’s network, and certainly nothing government funded.
Divide and conquer.
Comment by Exotic Ant Hills — Sat 20th October 2012 @ 7:04 pm
I agree with you there Exotic Ant Hill. I think it’s important to talk up this site and other Men’s Rights sources.
Comment by Skeptic — Sat 20th October 2012 @ 7:23 pm
Reply to Hornet #47…
Attention: Hans…You will fine this link (below) to well written articles, and interviews on “youtube” concerning the “manwomanmyth”…TRUTH, LIES AND THE WAR ON MEN interesting too
Hornet your comment of “This place ( N. ZUD ) is only going to get worse -“…Its not only N.Z Hornet, its the rest of western european society…To validate this see link,it will open up your eyes how the second wave of Feminism as totally corrupted western european society….
Oh and Tracy a friendly challenge to you …Have a look too….You can see what the future holds for your son/s….You will be overjoyed…Not…!!!!!!!!!!!
“manwomanmyth”..TRUTH, LIES AND THE WAR ON MEN
http://goo.gl/4MpRN
Kind regards to all”¦ John Dutchie”¦Free at long last from feminist cesspit of hell,called Feminist N.Z”¦
Comment by johndutchie — Sun 21st October 2012 @ 11:22 am