Child Support Changes Overdue
From the ODT,
Note the spin doctoring from Dunne, particuarly the claim this version of child tax is fairer.
- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
From the ODT,
Note the spin doctoring from Dunne, particuarly the claim this version of child tax is fairer.
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.
This type of reporting makes my blood boil,
Fathers owe this, fathers in Aussie owe that, recent figures report that fathers owe so much……
Do you mean to tell me that its all fathers?
I agree we are the majority getting stung with child tax but surely in all the recently released figures and information there must be at least 1 mother who is behind in her child tax.
These poor paragons of virtue owed so much by all these nasty fathers, please won’t somebody think of the children.
what a crock
Just a suggestion, should we have a facbook page?…or do we already have a presence over there?
The biggest bit of spin comes from the editor – guilt by association.
133,000 is the figure currently being bandied around by government agencies as the number of children being raised in poverty.
So the 800 (men) earning more than $100,000 a year are responsible for the 133,000 children living in poverty -nationaly!
Child tax is going to fix that – yeah right.
Then again, are we actually talking editor or gullible parrot? Labour’s Revenue spokesperson just happens to come from Dunedin and did you notice the same reference to 133,000 dished up in this release –
Link here – http://http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10870575
Not hard to spot a couple of labour juveniles playing kiddie campaigns.
they say “While parents may not be able to bring up their children together for a range of reasons, in an ideal world they should be able to agree to individually continue providing financial – not to mention emotional and physical – support to their children. ”
again i am going to ask.. if they advocate this, why dont IRD encourage this in the first instance . IRD violate their own words and are ready to leach off fathers in the first instance instead.. guess its all about perception…
It’s clear that the people involved in writing about Child Support and Family Law don’t a clue about reality. And as always no-one cares.
The changes to shared care threshold cannot come soon enough for me. Ex fought nail and tooth to stop me getting 50/50 shared care. Ended up with a parenting order which splits care 65/35. I earn just under 60k a year and have to pay $654 a month, I fall just short of what IRD call shared care. I provide everything for my child when in my care and get no grace from IRD. So i cannot wait for some reprieve when the changes come into effect. Also not to mention the constant errors on IRD’s behalf, they deduct from my salary and are constantly getting it wrong, putting me in arrears. I have lost count the amount of times I have had to call them to correct the matter and argue over penalties. My child’s mother is on a slippery slope and I am slowly building my case to get full time care. Just biding my time.
Is it just me, or does the maximum income threshold when calculating child support rise each year at about twice the rate of inflation?
In 1994, the maximum income threshhold was $57,141, which incorporated a Living allowance of 10212 – i.e 17.87%.
In 2002, the maximum income threshold was $67,569, which incoporated a Living allowance of $11,508 – i.e 17.03%
The next year, 2003, a massive jump in the maximum threshold, to $86,684 (28.28% increase), and a living allowance of $11,914 (13.74%). This represented a massive shift to increase the CS tax on high-income earners.
In 2004, threshold $90,823, living allowance $12,226 (13.46%)
10 years later, 2014, threshold $130,822, living allowance $14,960 (11.43%)
Since 2004, the maximum threshold increased 44.40%; The living allowance increased 22.36%.
Inflation, from QTR1 2002 through QTR4 2012 (about as close to the same 10 years above that I can get) http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/0135595.html gives inflation of 32% over the same period.
Since 1994 (the earliest figures on IRD website), the threshold increased a whopping 128.94%; the living allowance a mere 46.49%.
Inflation over the corresponding 20years? 54%.
Living allowance increase of 46%. CLOSE.
Maximum Income threshold increase of 128%. WAY WAY MORE THAN DOUBLED.
This is a massive income grab. If the costs to raise a child have increased so dramatically, yet the basic living allowance for dad to officially survive on (not much more than a basic benefit) has not budged by anywhere near as much.
Why is it not directly proportionate to the increases in maximum income threshold? (it should now be $23,367?)
Or is the disproportionate increase in maximum threshold nothing more than a socialist income-reigned mechanism?
Why the sudden increase in 2003? [Labour in power](Increase the threshold; it’ll score us more votes from the poor; it won’t lose us many votes)
Anyone on the maximum will now be paying over $20,000 a year for one child – up to $396,245 for the full 19 years of an assessible child’s life at 2014 rates. Yet the government tells us repeatedly that it only costs in the region of under $300,000 to raise that child!!!!
Peter Dunne – you need to start answering these questions.
This is the inherent ineptness and injustice of the CS-tax system.
This is why men avoid and minimise their obligations.
and you realise how close that 20,000 is to the living allowance for a single person who is expected to pay rent and bill out of the living allowance..
IRD is corrupt as they come.. people who work there are … well i don’t have appropriate words for them..
Hi all – we have now got a shared care arrangemebt through ird for my husband’s two daughters. The mum works full time also and as she has just started full time work last October, hrr offset amount to us is based on her dpb. However she runs her own business from home and has done for 6 years – she was on dpb, getting working for families, accommodation allowances etc while we paid all the bills for the girls which was fine with us. She’s was also earning approximately’ 60k per year in her cash business. We have 50/50 shared care. She decides in January to apply for child support and still expects us to pay all the bills on top of the 17500 we now pain in cs. SO…we have applied for admin review providing proof of her cash business and asking her to be reassesses based on her total income – what do you think are chances are? Thanks kit
Your chances of a significant change by seeking an admin review will not do anything unless you have also applied for Child Support against her in which case Fathers child support payments will fall between 35-50%.
If you don’t apply against her then what she earns or does not earn is irrelevant.
Hi Alan thank you for your reply. We applied immediately for shared care child support from her as soon as we knew of her sole application. Ours was accepted and she pays us the annual minimum based only on her winz benefit from last year this is offset against what we pay which is based on hubbys income of 120,000 per year. She also earned cash which she didnt declare and we have proof of that whi h we procided in our admin review application. We dont mind paying child support we just want both of us to beassessed fairly. We didnt fill in the financial questionnaires and ird phoned today advisibg us to do it as things could go badly for us! What does that mean? She rips off the system defrauding working for families, dpb, paye, child support, accommodation allowances etc and they want to know about our finances – what a cheek! We are not filling it in and we will have to just take our chances – unbelievable. Kit
I think you are making the right call regarding the IRD budget and income form. It is hugely invasive and not the sort of information that needs to be shared with an ex.
One of the changes an admin review can make is to bring current year income into the assessment rather than last years tax return for wage and salary earners or 2 year ago tax return for IR3 Taxpayers. It is probable that the review officer will seek a high standard of proof for her income or her income “potential”. Be prepared for that.
My very strong advice in shared care situations where both work and the Child Support differences is large is that if you pay Child Support don’t pay a single cent for ordinary matters like school, and extracurricular activities. However there are also extraordinary costs that I think should be shared like orthodontic costs or private health care etc
HI Alan thanks – we were paying for everything and now pay for nothing except funnily enough health care which you mentioned 🙂 my hubby has own busines and that has decreased by about 25 percent in the year ending 2013, so hopefully they will reduce what we have to pay her. I have provided proof of her income to the of her cash business so hopefully that will take tgat into account I will let you know the outcome – this a great site with lots of info for people in our situation. I feel like I need to read up on the child support law to be prepared thanks kit
hi kumar. this might be of some interest to you in facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/146596408780407/
Today I had reason to speak with Child support in reference to my “account” I have one of these as I am apparantly classed as a “customer”.
The customer service is second to none. When I asked as to why I have had such an increase in money that they demand I was told the following,
PAYE is the most important thing in your life.
This is closely followed by your child support payments.
We are not here to talk to you in respect to how much we demand from you.
Our job is to make you pay. We don’t care who gets the money we take from you or where it goes, our job is to take it from you.
Upon my statement as to “well they CS payments will end one day and im looking forward to that day” I was told,
when you have paid all that we deem you owe us including penalties it will end and not before. If you die first we will take it from your estate. We will have what we want eventually. There is no where you can go or hide from our team.
It was also suggested that if I am struggling to pay CS maybe I should’t have had children.
Im not just amazed, I am stunned by this person and their attitude. Sickened. This must be stopped somehow. This is the worst Customer service I have ever experienced. EVER
And if you are struggling with PAYE, you shouldn’t have started working.
And if you are struggling with life in general, you shouldn’t have been born!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ roo they need a dose of their own medicine..
recod em and put it on youtube..
That could look good on Reddit.
I have come across at least 4 cases in OZ where the CSA and IRDNZ have colluded to collect more that whats owed in Arrears and CS. whats common in all cases is that IRD makes an assessment for child support, CS then doubles the assessemnt and adds on an equivalent extra amount for payment of arraers i.e its Child Support payment x 3 per invoice. Now can anyone guess why the IRD is “owed” billions in child support? Its cos they themselves make up the amo8nts and then add 10% late costs ontop of the 3 x CS payments. ripoff industry at its best while violating their own legislation of protected wages act. so in effect when taking into accopunt the normal OAYG taxes etc plus child support, a person gets to take only 30% of the net pay and support himself and his dependents on this while the Ex gets a huge chunof the collections as admitted by one of the CSA staff in OZ.
imagine how many more cases are there like this?..
yesterday one of the guys contemplated killing himself because the system is unfair.. I told him IRDNZ and CSA in OZ do not have a conscience so it won’t matter.. i do pity him as this just prolongs his mental pain..
Kit, your situation and manner you have followed through with the advice given here has been great. I guess the pursuit of fairness is what we all seek (partners included) and lets face it, if you are are committed to your kids paying for a fair ratio of care is fine. I have just received a review that states my payments (due to recent PAYE data) is about to go up by $1000/month which knocked my socks off. I struggle to see how my child, who has been in receipt of $750/month, can physically have that amount of money spent on her, it is more than a retired pensioner. The ex lives in this scenario – free family home on farm, nil power or rates, farm pays for fuel, has a live in partner which has two incomes coming into the household. WTF! my contribution is supplementary for an overseas holiday fund as all future schooling was covered as part of a trust, since carved up. I would like to go through an admin review however the reading in this site makes for a predisposed outcome that will not be in my favour and I would have to open my financial life up to others than the IRD review staff. I want to believe in a fair process that take into account the individual circumstances..I hope 2014 CS changes bring some sanity.
If there are any good tips in how to prepare and then present a case for review, much appreciated. There are many who have been through hell on this site – I hope to use the lessons learnt and pass it on to others.
This new formula does not take into account your new partners or her children in the calculation of your living allowance. This is so unfair. The argument here is …then why the government IRD is asking for the partner to include her new partner who pays child support in her working for families, i feel we all should unite and raise this unfair decision.
to all those women out there… if you are the second wife and your partner is paying child support, you or your children in the new calculation will NOT be included, but on the other side IRD will ask you to include you partners income in the working for families income.
where ird is paying working for families- they ask you to add your partners income and hold him liable to support your children and when it comes to include your children for his child support, they IRD say that your new partner is not responsible for your children thus assess him on his gross less single living allowance
this is so unfair
The new formula has nothing to do with fairness its about creating a perception of fairness.
when this new formula comes in then my step children will not be included in my living allowance and ird says i am not responsible for my step children, i will then ask my new partner to inform ird to exclude my income from working for familes, one one side ird says i am not responsible for my step children and do not include them in my living allowance and on the other side they include my income when calculating working for families for these children… i will tell my partner to tell ird to exclude my income..
I am so disappointed….