MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Maximum percentage of CS tax based on PAYE income

Filed under: Child Support,General — Had_Enough @ 2:14 am Sat 9th March 2013

Hi All
I remember hearing somewhere that IRD CS aren’t allowed to take more than 25% of a liable parents income per month. Can anyone confirm if that’s true or not? If this is so is it based on gross or nett income? The other thing I was wondering is about arrears? Is arrears regarded as a completely different tax or should child support + arrears combined also have a maximum per month total for the liable parent. The reason I ask is because on the 1st of April my assessment will be $1750 per month + arrears of 250 per month. I have been told that there is no way they will accept less than 250 per month for arrears.The total figure of 2000 per month will be more than a third of my nett income so I’ll either have to give up the house or stop eating. Does anyone out there know what the maximum they can take is as a percentage of monthly or yearly income including arrears. Thanks guys.
Had_Enough

61 Responses to “Maximum percentage of CS tax based on PAYE income”

  1. OMG you're ^&(%&$% says:

    I think it’s 30% (covers 4 children), and it is out of your gross income, after deduction of an initial living allowance. The living allowance depends on a few factors. Go to IRD.govt.nz, find the child support calculator, and plug your details in.
    As for collecting arrears – they’ll take whatever they can get, including any tax-refunds in full.
    As for refunding overpayments – well that never happens, coz its like getting blood out of a stone, to have any past assessment reduced!

  2. Down Under says:

    @Had_Enough Who is they?

    From what I understand you are in Australia – therefore you should be both subject to and protected by Australian law – that’s where you are living but from the way you are talking it sounds like you are being bullied into compliance with the demands of the New Zealand state regardless of your circumstances and you are complying because of the belief or fear that Australian law will not protect you.

    I think you need to stand your ground in Australia the same one you did with the application to the New Zealand Family Court for advance lump sum child support.

    Looking at your situation and comparing it to the circumstance Rogered has recently described we can see that implementation of the child support act is being used in the manner of unofficial bankruptcy where by the demands of the State you are effectively placed in administration and subject to oppressive and unrestricted taxation.

    Subject to this regime of fear you are contemplating selling your joint family home believing it is a better option than having it forcibly taken away from you.

    Do men simply not bother owning property assets? Hell why doesn’t the New Zealand labour government give up on its 300 new houses policy and build Labour camps for men instead – that’s the foundation this type of law and enforcement is derived from and they are supporting it like robbers dogs chasing the tail of the National Party poodle.

    There are some big questions here about the preservation of income, violation of property rights and the right to a peaceful existence.

    Beyond that if we are progressing to some so-called civil society in New Zealand exactly what does its law look like – not very appetising based on what we are seeing here.

    You would actually have to question the legal advice being provided to parliament and who is actually providing it.

    Ministry of Women’s affair perhaps – the only thing they are interested in is higher incomes for women.

  3. Had_Enough says:

    Hi Downunder. Yes I can see your point. IRD would have us believe that they are above reproach and can’t be challenged. Much as I loathe lawyers I am considering getting a lawyer involved because it’s got to a point where my right to eat and live in a house is under threat. What prompted me to write this post was something I had heard a while ago that states that a NCP can’t have more than 25% of his income taken in CS. I frequently visit the CS calculator and as things stand at the moment I would have to pay $20,318.00 p.a. in Child Tax. That means that I will be paying one third of my Net income in Child Tax which seems way too much as a percentage.

    Then I have to worry about a further $250 I have to pay in arrears. They have told me that $250 per month is the minimum I can pay in arrears. So, as things stand I will be paying $1,943 per month in Child tax but for some reason IRD want me to pay a bit more than that even though they based it on the same income I used on the calculator. Anyway I will end up paying over a third of my income in Child tax + arrears and I have max’d my credit cards and have a stack of unpaid bills on my kitchen table and she has an Admin review on me that’s taking place in 2 weeks and I almost always lose those so can normally count on a big increase compliments of the man hating failed lawyers of the Admin Review office. I really need a lawyer I think but most lawyers out there don’t seem interested in this area of litigation.

  4. Down Under says:

    Having the preservation of law in other countries is an important balance and the preservation of sovereign boundaries are imperative for men but that’s a whole other subject. Compare cases like Kim Dotcom and what’s her name Corby.

    Anyway a few years back I tried to take a child support case to court here in New Zealand, had a lawyer, all ready to go and he suddenly left the firm, disappeared. I even had his personal cell phone which he wouldn’t answer.

    So this new lawyer arrives at the firm, hired overnight, takes over and tells me there is no court case and I have no choice but to negotiate with the crown.

    To some people this is just a game of high stakes poker and stacking the deck is fine if you run the house and leaning on the legal profession is just part of the game. No doubt the first lawyer took his cue and found a job overseas.

    At least you have the opportunity to test the integrity of the Australian administration – I seriously doubt it is corrupt like it is here in New Zealand, well as corrupt, there is always corruption but keep in mind the lengths that some people will go to when large sums of money are involved, integrity takes a poor second unfortunately.

    Hopefully you can find a good lawyer, well, one that at least has sufficient integrity to pulse the veins of a fungus gnat.

  5. Allan Harvey says:

    Unfortunately Had enough you heard wrong.
    There is some legislation about benefits here that says you can’t have more than 75% of your benefit gobbled in debt repayments and Child Support etc but that isn’t going to save your bacon.
    Unfortunately IRD have not Had Enough.

  6. Down Under says:

    @Allan I was under the impression that WINZ applied the same rules that employers are required to use; a maximum of 40% and deductions made according to a priority list. Where did you come across the 75% legislation?

  7. Allan Harvey says:

    I’m not certain about this and am recalling a conversation I had with Scrap about this WINZ maxiumum deduction. I can’t see that Maximum deductions can be 40% of gross given that tax is 34.7% including ACC and Student Loans are to be 12%. If you add even a modest Child Support deduction to that many will be paying at least 66% plus on their top dollar.
    WINZ will (reluctantly) deduct benefits at sopurce to pay things like rent, doctor’s accounts etc and given benefit levels the prospect of having only 25% or even 40% of an unemployment benefit or a sickness benefit to live on is frightening.
    Where does the 40% figure you mention come from?

  8. Down Under says:

    Other way around. 60% to live on 40% maximum deductions. Yes, I agree it is a freightening reality for many people. You would probably find it in the guide to employers or wages on the IRD website along with the priority list which tells wage clerks (or whatever you call them these days) what to deduct in what order until the $40% threshold is reached. The deduction amount can still be larger than the threshold allows so that simply becomes your liability to deal with. I am not sure if that is legislation or simply policy however both those things can change at time anyway – I assume these rules still apply.

  9. Down Under says:

    With the proposed change in the current child support bill before parliament the clause making child support a deduction at source rather than a deduction from wages would put child tax on a level with income tax.

    Then you would end up with two deductions made by legislation that would be outside the 40% net rule and could also easily exceed an amount of – 40% net of income tax.

    The question would then would be does the 40% net of income rule apply after child tax and income tax.

    You could see this generating more admin reviews which would routinely assess outside of the specified percentages in the legislation and it is probably why admin reviews are currently doing this because once that bill passes it is the big payday for the IRD and no doubt a good number of women.

  10. Down Under says:

    And no doubt some percentage will apply to legitimise the collection of fines but you won’t get the labour bitches asking those questions in parliament on behalf of their impoverished constituents – they’ll just keep rabbiting on about children and women’s income.

  11. kumar says:

    FROM IRD WEBSITE: talks about IR130 form to be filled
    http://www.ird.govt.nz/childsupport/paying-parents/avoid-debt/repay-debt/

    Repaying your debt
    Repaying your child support debt
    If you get behind in your payments, or think you are going to have trouble paying on time, phone us on 0800 221 221.

    We will talk to you about ways to pay off your debt. The quickest way to clear the debt is to pay the total amount in one sum. Other options are to pay a partial amount of the total, or to pay off the debt over time by entering into an agreement with us. We will help you to work out what’s possible for you.

    The Child support repayment of arrears (IR130) form may be used to help you and Child Support work out how much you can pay towards your child support debt.

    If you are paying off your debt over time, you should choose a way to pay that best suits you. For instance, it may be easiest for you to have your payments taken directly from your wages or salary each payday. Or you may want to write out a cheque each month and post it to Inland Revenue.

    There is a range of ways you can use to pay your child support debt. These can be found on the ‘How to pay your child support’ page in this section. Additional information is available on the ‘Overseas payments for child support’ page about making payments if you are a paying parent who is living outside New Zealand.

    Some parents who have a debt do not have a choice about how they pay. For example, if you receive a Work and Income benefit, we will ensure your debt repayments are deducted from your benefit before it is put into your bank account. In some other cases, we will take money directly from a bank account, or require your employer to deduct it from your wages.

  12. Mum of Sons says:

    Hi , when my then hubby an i were together an pregnant with our 1st, he had to pay a certain mount of child support for his 1st child, we took all our income paper work an bills along to IRD they dropped the amount to the lowest..
    i don’t think this child support is very fair…it’s more paying for a life style the person enjoys..do the children really get to see much of it…

  13. Ted says:

    do the children really get to see much of it”¦

    It’s not certain… maybe they do, maybe they don’t. What is certain, though, is that the system doesn’t lift a finger to ensure that they do, even though it exerts itself strenuously and intrusively in its collection activities. Yet another indicator to show its real interest (and that’s not the “benefit of the children”).

  14. kiranjiharr says:

    IRD and the system are continually violating the objective of “for the benefit of the children”. They are allowing the monies to be misused. Their comments that the mother has discretion on how to use the monies is in no way alleviating them and is contrary legally to their own promotion of why the monies are collected. Wish i had enough cash to start a legal action.

  15. kiranjiharr says:

    on a case by case basis they will certainly lose a legal battle.

  16. kiranjiharr says:

    Had enough are you sure its 250 extra over per month and not per week?? Would be interesting to know what happens to you as I know a couple guys in the same boat as you.

  17. Ted says:

    the objective of ‘for the benefit of the children’.

    It’s not an objective. They have no intention to benefit the child, nor anyone apart from themselves. It is merely a deceit to cover what is really going on – their parasitism.

    In the natural world, one way hosts use to reduce the depredations of their parasites is to keep away from them. To carry this analogy over to the FC/CSA situation, this would mean minimizing all contact with them, the ex, and – unfortunately – the child too, as much as possible. Under this paradigm, taking court cases against them would definitely be the wrong thing to do.

  18. kiranjiharr says:

    agree on the paradigm but think about it.. they themselves state it.. in fact they promote it publicly..now to go against what they themselves state.. isn’t it a contradiction?.. and contradictions can be used…

  19. kiranjiharr says:

    on a case by case basis..

  20. kiranjiharr says:

    just a question to you all.. why isn’t there a stronger emphasis during elections to get congressman to commit to this?

  21. kiranjiharr says:

    the male gender makes up a large portion of the population. lets make some noise..

  22. Tracey says:

    To Mum of Sons
    So lets be clear here.You did know or did not know that youur partner already had a child?

  23. kiranjiharr says:

    ooo.. troll Tracey..
    wats that got to do with her comment?

  24. Tracey says:

    kiranjiharr
    I am not a troll.If you dont like the question that does not make me a troll.The reason why I ask:-It seems to me that often times the new woman are really anti the ex in these cases.Mostly about getting money from their new man.Just something I’ve noticed.Its a really ugly,mean,unwarranted phenomena that I have become aware of.Sad but true.

  25. kiranjiharr says:

    I don’t beleiev they anti ex. They are more anti the system that is not making fair considerations.

  26. Tracey says:

    kiranjiharr
    Fair Consideration?That is the question.Someone is in a relationship and they decide to have children (or more often that not plan not to avoid them)The relationship fails.It coud be one or the other or both at fault.Whatever…whoever?Should the children forgo what they have become accustomed to?Music lessons,dance lessons and so forth?Is that a fair consideration?

  27. kiranjiharr says:

    somethings you not considering…

    would you call depriving the partners new household of basic needs just so’s your kid can go dancing unfair?

    Is it fair that just cos you have been brainwashed into thinking you need to fleece the ex for as much as you can so he cannot meet his own basic needs?

    Would you say its fair to deprive the ex of wanting to re-build anew and getting on with his life even if he didn’t break the relationship in the first place just so your kid can go dancing lesson?

    I think in the scheme of things your kid can forego dancing lessons until he/she grows older and is able to pay for them. Dancing is not a basic need. just an ineterst. Child support claims by yourself is not for such frivolous spending on your part.

  28. finallygotjustice says:

    hi guys i havent read much of this, but enough i feel to comment.
    when i split with my sons mum in 2003, poor legal advice made me think i had to leave the son i had pretty much raised on my own for 4.5 yrs with his mum. she made every last fuÖÖing thing as difficult as possible from day one. the stress she caused not only robbed me of my son, but led to a serious work injury at the time, caused me no end of shit with now ex partners,i paid almost $300 a week to her for my son, and he consistently came to me in rags,along with worn out or no shoes at all. she used to tell me non stop it was my job to cover the cost of everything(all travel costs associated with my contact with my son)AND pay her some kind of compensation (but we never married so no spousal maintenance applied-try getting that through to her). i left her with everything i had worked for, and took nothing. she even tricked me into signing a bank slip back in 2003 so that she could borrow 200 dollars from our sons bank account, then stole the lot.8 yrs later my work injury came back to hit me, and im now permanently disabled as a result (remeber who caused the stress that caused me to not focus at work in the first place in 2003-that injury came back with a vengeance in 2011 and i will never recover to full health) so the bitch has even cost me my health.
    last week i finally and very sucessfully gained the full custody both myself and brad craved all these yrs-his mum now has savings in excess of 40k thanks to my child support that she saw as her own money rather than money to ASSIST with my sons upbringing (yes i said ASSIST, i.e not pay everything), plus my sons having to go without evrn the dimple things for ten yrs-he went on his first ever school camp just before xmas!!. i say bollocks to the people on here (often female) going on about how us guys have this percieved obligation to maintain their ex mrs’ and the kids standard of living ESPECIALLY when the bitch (in my case, and i suspect a lot of other guys situations) destryed our relationship in the first place. So think about this ladies out there, she stole all 1200 dollars of our then 4.5 yr olds savings, she pocketed all of the 10k a yr child support i was paying and my son had to settle for 2 minute noodles and 7 dollar shoes from the sallies, whilst she bought her own clothes in places like caroline fXXcing eve, she cost me my home, my health, 2 relationships that broke down because of her being difficult, 10 lost yrs of a relationship with my now 14.5 yr old,the list goes on.

    so guys,i had a lawyer called Margaret Harrop in new plymouth-someone at cyfs put me onto her saying she was a bitch to go up against in court as she apparently frequently crucified them (cyfs) in court,well she got me justice in 2 yrs flat,i coulda kissed her in court on friday.my next mission is to get my sons savings back.

    ring her up guys, shes a good one working for mooney&webb in new plymouth, shes no mess, no nonsense,no unnecessarry costs etc, just results, but in my book the sooner the court process is made “UNISEX” by the pc brigade (like everything else nowadays)the better-if i can help anyone here please email me direct: johnnyspangle@hotmail.com, and im happy to tell you all about my obstacles, and how margaret was just plain fXXcing awesome.
    good luck guys, be strong-the road does have an end believe it or not-you just need the right map!

  29. Nickstar says:

    @Tracey…I am a new partner of a man who pays CS for TWO children to TWO different mothers. Both cases he did not break the relationships up, both cases the children were small babies or yet to be born when the relationships ended. 6yrs ago this all happened. I have been with him for 2yrs now. we have a 7month old wee boy together and my daughter lives with us. His exs were all fine with his crappy lifestyle before I came along. He was allowed to have his children overnight, through the day, babysit when they wanted to go out. Not only did he pay CS but also was dictated to by them, what xmas and birthday presents to by them, sometimes exceeding $100!!! I came along and put a stop to their ridiculous demands of money, so they punish him by reviewing his CS, not allowing access at all!!!, telling FC that he is violent which there is no evidence of what so ever, he doesnt even have a police record!! In the meantime….We stuggle EVERY WEEK to support the children whom live with us, so I dont think it is fair to say that the new partners of men who pay child support get jealous etc we just get sick of paying for the exs holidays, plastic surgery and manicures, while our REALISTIC family go without basics. Would love to hear your reply to this Tracey.

  30. finallygotjustice says:

    WELL SAID nickstar. its nice to see a partner voicing the same things as their male partners. my ex wouldnt buy my son jack shit. he wore his clothes well past their use by date, had second hand shoes bought for 7 bucks at the second hand shop, then had to watch mum buy 300 dollar jackets etc for herself. I think its about time these fucking leechers were held accountable for all this money that doesnt benefit the child. I paid that bitch 10k a yr for almost 9 yrs,yet in the 6 months hes been with me I have treared him as a “normal” kid-hes not spoilt but he does get to go on school camp, and have his school photo done etc, and even has new clothes as he needs it, and I can tell you now on average he costs me around 120 bucks a week when u factor everything in. so you do the math-I paid her 300 a week and he had nothing.his mum was such a control freak too as many of these self absorbed bitches are-they dont want the ties of a kid, but they want the meal ticket. and people wonder why so many guys commit suicide or kill the ex mrs. they get driven to dispair by someone who not only doesnt want you, but also dont want you to have any kind of life either since they been left with the kids, but when you offer to take the kids on, they cant bear the thought that not only will you and the kids have a happy and healthy home, but they also loose the only meal ticket they have to muck up your future in all ways they can with all the emotional blacmail to extort money for themselves-then when you add a new woman to the mix, man its like pissing in their territory, if they cant be happy neither can you…..and in the 21st century we have a system that PROMOTES this kind of carry on.roll on the PC brigade in the family court I say

  31. shafted says:

    Hi all.
    What i don’t get is this.
    Child support costs me $600 per child (3) and this is before i am paying off a “debt” created as a result of admin review at $300 per month.
    My fourth child, has recently returned home to live with me and the relief i get on my child support is in the vicinity of $200/month (just got notice yesterday)
    So why is it that despite mum earning more than me (job plus rental income and none cash perks) the effective contribution made to me to support a 17 year old (FOOD!!, uniform etc etc) is only $200 per month.

  32. Allan Harvey says:

    Hi Shafted,
    This does not make sense.
    You have one child at home and get 18% of her gross over her living allowance.
    if you are paying for 3 children then your % is 27% or about 9% perchild so you should in theory receive twice per child what she recieves.
    Ofsets are probably in place that obscure what may be the real situation.

  33. shafted says:

    Yes allan
    2 ex’s .2 kids per ex.
    Ex number one looks after our daughter. My son is from ex number one.
    Ex number 2 admin reviewed me. I am assessed as single (despite being defacto now) and am only able to offset my living situation against ex number one as i am bound by admin review by ex no 2. Make sense?

  34. Allan Harvey says:

    Shafted,
    Your circumstances have changed and you need to apply for a further admnin review. If your 17 year old is stil in education and financially dependent on you (he isn’t eligible for student allowance till he is 18 anyway). That automatically will overturn the admoin review against you and give you an L3 living allowance which is more than an L2 with a partner.
    Are you claiming Child support against your first ex? Is she against you. There can be very strange anomolies arise where children to one parent are treated significantly different to others which IRd know about but don’t know how to rectify. This is a further example that the BS talked by Dunne (that he encourages private arrangements and CS only as a last resort) actually is totally nonsense and the whole CS system encourages adversarial disputes and using IRd to harrass parents (both paying and recieving).

  35. shafted says:

    Thanks Allan,
    I went to calculator for 2014. Plugged in that i am single with one child liveing wth me and came up with the same numebr as if in a defacto relationship (which is disallowed as per admin review up until 310313 anyway)
    So, after having done the sums, i will be $142 per month better off at best. He eats more than that per week!
    Its the most disgusting heartless B S process ever.

  36. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    This is a further example that the BS talked by Dunne (that he encourages private arrangements and CS only as a last resort) actually is totally nonsense and the whole CS system encourages adversarial disputes and using IRd to harrass parents (both paying and recieving).

    So true Allan!

    Dunne and IRD have spent a lot of money and time spin doctoring the 2014 changes and the theme is how much fairer the tax will be. The problem when you have been insulated from the real world like Dunne nothing you live in an imaginary world of the political hack, guided by sycophantic officials you end up promoting lunacy like child tax and taxing car parks.

    Got my latest assessment today, shared care and im still paying $10k double last assessment. Its great when you get punished because you employer thinks you’re doing a good job and you excel in performance. Guess its time to execute my CS strategy 2.

    Now that will get the IRD trolls thinking. Will be in touch offline Allan.

    Scrap

  37. kiranjiharr says:

    I don’t beleiev CS is a last resort… in fact its the first thing women are advised to run to instead of coming to an arrangement.lawyers, womens crisis center and IRD encourage and advise women on this measure.

  38. lisa says:

    Hi i was interested to find out more about the administrative review process my husband has just had an assessment done and now has to pay more child support to his ex partner. We have two children together and the reality is we just

  39. lisa says:

    Cant afford to pay it, i was told by ird that if we went for this administrative review that the ex partner didnt have to take part yet was entitled to see all our financial details with out being able to see hers she is in a relationship also. My husband never owned anything with her. Yet she gets to see whst we own whst our house is worth etc i dont know if its worth ghe hassle

  40. lisa says:

    If anyone has any advice or views would be interested to know or anyone in similar situation

  41. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Lisa,

    Before even considering going to admin review get hold of Allan Harvey (Union of Father’s).

    Regards

    Scrap

  42. lisa says:

    Thank you Scrap

  43. Down Under says:

    Took me a while to find it but here we are. The correct term is protected net earnings

    Link to IRD – http://www.ird.govt.nz/childsupport/employers/emp-protectedearnings/

    Deductions and protected net earnings

    Protected net earnings and child support

    Employees must be allowed to keep 60% of their net (after tax) earnings. This percentage is their protected net earnings to cover their living expenses.

    You should not deduct the full amount of child support if this leaves an employee with less than 60% of their net earnings. However, this protection applies only to child support payments. If there are other deductions from an employee’s salary (for example, student loan repayments, insurance, superannuation and union fees), these will then need to be taken out of the protected 60% of their net earnings.

    If you do not deduct the full amount of child support from one pay, do not make up the difference from future pays. Inland Revenue Child Support will make arrangements with the employee to pay the balance owing. The situation usually only arises when an employee earns less pay than usual.

    There was also a priority list but I haven’t located that as yet.

  44. Down Under says:

    Here is the link to priority, although it makes no mention of fines, I believe child support takes priorty there also.

    Priority of child support deductions

    Child support deductions have priority over any other deductions from an employee’s pay. After deducting PAYE, you must deduct child support before you deduct anything else like:
    “¢ student loan repayments
    “¢ insurance
    “¢ superannuation
    “¢ union fees.

    Note: Work and Income NZ collects some money owed under other schemes. If you are already making these deductions, continue doing so until Work and Income NZ contacts you. Pay these deductions directly to Work and Income NZ and not to Inland Revenue.

    Forms and records

    As an employer, you need to complete and return:
    “¢Employer deductions (IR345) form, and
    “¢Employer monthly schedule (IR348).

    Both these forms must show the total child support amount deducted for the period. For assistance in completing these forms, see the Employers’ guide (IR335), which is also available by calling our 0800 self-service line on 0800 257 773 .

    In addition, you must keep records of child support deducted along with your normal wage records.

    I am not sure if this is policy or part of the Wage Protection Act.

  45. Down Under says:

    Wages Protection Act, if anyone wants to dig through that.

  46. Rogered says:

    Then why do I pay 89% of my income to child support based on the invented potential earnings I could make after an admin review. My employer doesn’t take it though. Instead I pay it myself?

  47. Down Under says:

    There is nothing stopping you paying child support out of protected income but is it legal to make someone pay more child support than what protected income allows and is it legal to add penalties if you don’t pay child support out of protected income.

    Are the IRD guilty of manslaughter for taking greater amounts of money from bank accounts than protected income allows?

  48. Ted says:

    The protected income rules read to me like they applied to whoever was taking the money out of your account. The objective seeming to be that you had enough left to live on. So – presumably – they should apply to the IRD when they actually take the money. I guess penalties and interest would continue to accrue though.

    Are the IRD guilty of manslaughter

    They are guilty of contributing to deaths, that’s for sure. But there will be some form of words to absolve them and distract attention from what’s really going on.

  49. Jenny says:

    My husband and I have 6 children together and he has one child who lives with her grandparents. He has to earn alot to provide for everybody and the CS formula is only based on 4 or more children not each child after that. He has to pay $300 a week to the grandparents who both work long full time hours and have boasted about buying their home while living in a state house. I think it sucks that he has to pay so much. Hi supposed living allowance/family allowance ammount is very much under how much we need to live off each week. and its based on gross income which includes our tax we dont actually get. MY oldest and 7th child got child support of $400 a month which was heaps. I wiped my exs arrears and fees and said forget child support. my son doesnt lack for anything and his father gets him anything he needs which he can choose to bring home or keep there and if I really needed help eg camp, I only have ot ask. This is how it should be. Otherwise it should be calculated on nett income and take into account that my husband has a single income and 7 other children. Why should we pay for their house especially when she wants to live with us??!!

  50. Jenny says:

    Lisa we had to do an administrative review because my stepdaughters grandmother told IRD that my husband was earning $120,000 4 years ago when he earned $65,000, she got to see everything funnily all she wrote was that we were going through family court over my stepdaughter, CS ruled in our favour as we and I think and employer only had a right to change our income/say what our income is not the grandmother especially as we had always paid. Someone love her sob story I guess. Although it sucks the opposite party seeing everything we have nothing to hide, all we are doing is supporting our families and there’s no shame in that, and if it works for our benefit then thats good. Im not sure however whether all CS reviewers were as good as the guy we had. Good luck though.

  51. Nickstar says:

    Lisa, Myself and my partner are in exactly the same situation. We have been through it with anothe rone of his evil exs. If you want to have a chat about some thing that may help email me nickstar.hislop@gmail.com

  52. Had_Enough says:

    The part that pisses me off more than anything is that my hard earned money is handed over to the least competent parent. The IRD CS people are enabling her to drag me down with her which means that I will end up living in a sub standard 1 bedroom shack somewhere with no money to spend on improving my lot in life. The children are the biggest losers here because they could have had one very financial and loving parent who would have given them a great start to life. Instead they ended up with an absolute loser of a parent who doesn’t spend any of my money on the children, leaving me broke in the process. It does beg the question though; is there any point in me continuing to work when I would have a better lifestyle if I got myself fired from my job and went on a benefit?

  53. Nickstar says:

    My partners ex has great pleasure in informing us that he has paid for her pedicures, manicures and plastic surgery she is now persuing. She even looks at me after she says it and says I quote ” Don’t you wish you hadn’t hooked up with such a broke loser that can’t support your kids?? Well, he can support me and my recreational activities” then she laughs straight in our faces!!!! It takes us all our strength not to punch that bitch out!!! Makes me soo mad!!!

  54. Skeptic says:

    #53 Had Enough,

    Why not get out of your job to stop feeding the beast and lose the anger too?
    Sounds healthier doesn’t it?

  55. Mits says:

    Ive always thought of that option, stop working, reduce my child tax to a manageable level
    But then I also have the mortgage, my family, and all the other payments to meet so seems like Im locked into it for now.
    Plus hearing the horror stories from Admin reviews where someone has stopped working but their child tax has been assessed at their previous income irrespective of what they are now earning gives me the shivers.
    Actually I equate child tax to prison, in 5 more years or 4 if the current round of Dunne Nothings tinkering come about I will have finished my sentence. there is no time off for good behaviour.
    I will always be there for my children but in 4-5 years I will be able to support them instead of supporting their mothers lifestyle, often I think to their detriment.

  56. Allan Harvey says:

    If there is even the slightest hint of reducing income to reduce Child Support an admin review will set the income level back to the previous level.
    The only time that “capacity to earn” does not apply is for women who have often been working little just before or after children are born. They then begin part time work but Review Officers and Court decisions have found that their capacity to earn is of little significance. I once supported a case in FC where Father demonstrated 6 jobs within 30kms of mothers home in her field of expertise and part-time work. One of these jobs included an additional 15 hours a week for her existing employer but they included hours between 3 and 7pm in the evening. Her employer had provided a glowing reference to support her position but completely ignored that they were currently advertising for additional employees. Despite this clear evidence Court found it reasonable that as she had never worked more than 25 hours a week that was OK as the basis of calculating Child Support even though the children were now 17 and 14 years of age and in a 50:50 shared care with Father for the past 10 years.
    Father meanwhile had a history of working 60 hours on his off week and 20 hours a week on his on week. He also traveled 2 hours per day cf mum whose work was just 4kms from home and she traveled past 2 jobs recently advertised in the past 3 months inher field of expertise.

  57. Jenny says:

    And now we just paid for their 50+ inch flat screen TV. Sigh…..

  58. Allan Harvey says:

    Jenny-Marie you can’t take this stuff too personally. In fact it is invasive of her privacy that you even suggest she has just purchased a new TV and probably deserves a Protection Order against you and your partner for the challenge here on MENZ. I jest not!
    The best way to maintain your own sanity is just appreciate it is a system that processes and you and your family are currently subject to the processing. What she does isn’t your business, don’t make it such, keep your self and your loved ones safe and get on with life as best you are able. Que sera sera.

  59. Jenny says:

    Noted 🙂 And I just got a wonderful lady with child support which is very unusual lol – Shes just changed the entitlement, We were paying too much with 6 children 🙂 FINALLY, good luck to everyone else. 😀

  60. michaelqtodd says:

    After my 18 years of dealing with them my answer to you is that there are no rules. Putting Child Support debt collection cases into the family caught was a master stroke for several reasons. Firstly every terrible thing that happens stays secret. As well as this IRD has access to a wide range of man hating judges ready and primed to make and to enforce bizarre decisions such as getting you to pay more each week on CS than you actually earn. Welcome to New Zealand!

Leave a Reply

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.

Skip to toolbar