Child Support and Salary Sacrifice. Are they F’n Serious!!!!!!
Hi Folks,
Well there I was thinking I could salary package my car and try and save a bit on tax and running costs each year. But, stupid me hadn’t realised, until I read the following article http://www.salarypackagingcards.com.au/index.php/child-support-salary-packaging/ , that if I salary package my car I will have to pay even more in Child Tax. I confirmed this with the Novated Leasing agent and it is in fact true. I still can’t believe it and I hope it isn’t the same in NZ but it’s certainly the case over here in Oz. So, by some magic form of creative accounting the CSA people calculate that I am being given a car which I’m actually paying for and calculate the whole thing as a fringe benefit. It seems that I can’t even take a dump without incurring more child tax. I am utterly gob smacked. Have any of you guys come across a similar thing. It seems like discrimination is a bad thing unless the discrimination is against a liable parent. I feel like a social leper. All my colleagues are salary sacrificing their cars and are saving money but it will actually cost me money because I am a liable dad!!!
I will make the first comment 🙂 bend over and take it up the tail pipe.
Makes you wanna work part time or leave NZ.
The harder you work the more you get fisted.
Comment by Dominic da Silva — Thu 25th September 2014 @ 4:43 pm
Well, it is going to be similar in NZ from April 2016 with the new definition of income.
Everything will be taken into account, included FBT and more.
If you are the liable parent, you are financially impacted for many years.
Comment by Steve — Thu 25th September 2014 @ 4:55 pm
I presume that means superannuation, health insurance etc. In the modern world, its called total remuneration package. In the fairness stakes, it does make sense – stops people putting 50% of their income into say super, and trying to pay CS on only on the balance. But equally, I agree – the harder you work (and the less she works), the more you get *$%&^)&(*.
On the bright side, if your kids’ mothers work (paid employment), then everything they earn is equally taken into account.
Comment by OMG! You're *$%&^)&(* — Thu 25th September 2014 @ 7:00 pm
Well no it’s not “called total remuneration”. It would be fine if for example I was earning 100K and salary sacrificed 20K for a car or whatever. I’d then be taxed on the full $100k. No argument with that at all. But, what they are doing is adding the salary sacrificed portion on top of my pay as if it’s extra. So, 100k (actual earnings) + the salary sacrificed portion added on top instead of included within my total package. It’s Bullshit!!!!
Comment by Had_Enough — Thu 25th September 2014 @ 7:10 pm
I am on super and have to pay child support late last year I had money troubles and fell behind in cs payments. the IRD then went winz for them to make payments on my behalf. the only problem is my pension does not always fall on or before the 20th each month so yes your right I then gain a penalty. but does the ird refer back to winz NO they send me a letter telling me that I have one. What brasses me off is I am entitled to a pension from Britain which the ird have now taken over in order for me to receive a NZ pension surely they could take the penalties out of that. I paid $71.90 for 2 children to boost my money I got a part time job. I now pay for 1 child but the payment has go up to $169.00 per month. so all in all my pension plus part time work which doesn’t pay a lot and on top of that secondry tax. what comes next. I hate to think.
Cheers
Comment by Kenny — Thu 25th September 2014 @ 11:29 pm
These are some good examples of what IRD does, its the revenue collector, the tax woman.
I expect many liable parents will be shocked by the changes to the Act, it sounds fair but in reality its the wolf in sheeps clothing. When IRD is taking child support from your wages it cant be anything but a child tax.
The new system is different but the fundamental flaws remain.
regards
Scrap
Allan, will give you a call and catch up.
Comment by Scrap_The_Csa — Fri 26th September 2014 @ 6:56 pm
Ahhh…the pleasures of having children???? Well I think young men I meet now are a lot smarter than I was at their age. They tell me they never trust a female’s word that she is “safe” for sex and they always wear a condom. Truth is that for a happy and a solid meaning to life men don’t need to have off-spring. I am happy with my relationship with my girls but the price I paid to have it was way above the pleasure. As a country NZ doesn’t need anymore children as we can import the creme de la creme from off shore in order to keep a healthy tax base. No need to educate them or pay DPB to their mums and then pay for the jails for their dysfunctional kids. Do your sons a favour and get them a vasectomy.
Comment by triassic — Sat 27th September 2014 @ 2:00 am
Another new little gem of a policy change from IRD. In its monthly demand for child tax it included a notice about ‘Important Payment Changes’, telling us that payments from 1 October will need to be RECEIVED by IRD on or before the due date to avoid penalties and interest. In the past, as long as a payment was POSTED by the due date, that was ok, but now IRD seeks to steal even more from people by making it a ‘liable’ parent’s responsibility to ensure that payments are delivered by the due date. That makes ‘liable’ parents responsible for the actions, efficiency and reliability of NZ Post or whatever agency provides a delivery service. And don’t imagine there would be any reasonable response from IRD if, for any reason, that delivery agency screws up. Then you pay penalties and interest at theft rates that any South Auckland credit firm would admire, with no problem extracting payment to bolster the IRD coffers regardless of the ‘liable’ parent’s agreement or knowledge. Yeah, isn’t it great to live in such a wonderful caring country.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 28th September 2014 @ 3:38 pm
With wonderful caring mums
Comment by Adrian Sprague — Mon 29th September 2014 @ 12:15 pm
to add fuel to the fire.. CSA love to send payments later (late as in 1 to 2 months)than the due date to NZIRD to ensure you incurr more penalties..
Comment by kiranjiharr — Wed 1st October 2014 @ 4:09 pm
Kenny
$169 a month for child support.So who is subsidizing the cost of what is half your responsibility?Someone has to pay.Obviously not you.
Comment by tracey — Sun 12th October 2014 @ 3:18 pm
Kenny – Sorry matey. But whatever benefit you are on, you need to meet your obligations. With a weekly net pension of $348.09 (after tax), minimum CS @ $16.75/week is not onerous and you should not fall behind in your payments.
Tracey – if someone is on a benefit, as Kenny is, then CS tax will be fairly low. Kenny is retired. He is not evading CS by going onto a benefit. I presume both he and his child’s mother knew his age when she conceived – and therefore knew full well that he would be on, or nearing retirement.
[This is the opposite side of the coin, where mothers quite happily take $20,000 and often still seek more in CS for one child from higher-income fathers. I’ve never yet heard a mother say she’ll accept less than the formulae, given in most cases it DOES cost far less than $20,000 to raise a single child [reference – Peter Dunne’s ‘study’ into how much it costs to raise a child, ].
How much would you like someone on maybe $18,000 per year, to pay?
Comment by Sarah Haras — Sun 12th October 2014 @ 4:14 pm
Hi Sarah Haras
Sure.Kenny should also have thought about if he is able to support a child children into retirement.Maybe this was the problem?The child still costs and someone has to pay.A part-time job may help.It’s not forever.I just get sick of seeing so many single parents getting the short straw.They also need to be making provisions for retirement.Most can’t.
I know as I was a single parent for years and did worked a minimum of two jobs.No provision for retirement despite frugal living.Like I said someone has to pay always.
Comment by tracey — Sun 12th October 2014 @ 5:16 pm
Why do we look at these situations as being single parents.
I am raising a child with my partner.
We both work long hours.
It is hard work but we manage.
It must be hard work being a single parent.
It must be better if both parents, although separated, work together to raise the child.
Instead we just fight for the money.
Why not fight for what the child could actually have.
Things like the love of a parent for their child.
Why don’t both parties just take care of their own business. Why the subsidy for just one parent?
Comment by The man in Absentia — Sun 12th October 2014 @ 5:48 pm
Tracey – I’m not sure you understand Kenny’s retirement provisions. Everyone in NZ is eligible for Super. All lifelong paid workers; all lifelong beneficiaries (sickness, disability, unemployed); all life-long single mothers; everyone who has been in NZ for (I’m not sure – but offhand I think it is) 10 years or more.
You may have been a solo parent – however I doubt you have been or will be on DPB for the full 45 or so years of your adult working life. The other 20 to 25 years, you are (or were0 as able as the next person to consider your retirement saving options.
As for Kenny – the pension he ‘earned’ in the UK will likely be off-setting – in other words, reducing – his NZ Super, so that he, like you and everyone else, will only be receiving the equivalent of only NZ super.
Yes, Kenny should have considered his options when fathering a child; but to hold him alone to account is male bashing. The child’s mother should have also considered her options.
You were a single mother. You worked two jobs – I presume that reduced your DPB, or alternatively you were entirely self supporting, in which case every cent yopur children’s father paid in CS went straight to you? (And I hope he did meet his obligations).
[Or, if you were on DPB, then every cent he paid is considered to offset the cost of DPB, and IRD keep whatever he pays – I presume you understand how it works. Perhaps that is the case in Kenny’s ex-partner’s case, and whatever he pays is merely considered to offset DPB?].
I don’t know what DPB pays – but it is very probable that no matter how much CS is due (up to the maximum of $20,000-odd per year for one child), it will always be entirely less that what DPB pays and therefore a full DPB beneficiary will never benefit additionally from CS.
Finally, did you share care fairly (equally) with your children’s father? Did you consult properly, on important decisions regarding health, education and religion? Did you encourage your children to maintain a positive relationship with their father? Did you fairly share all relationship property when you separated? If not, you’ll begin to understand the significant resentment many fathers have to paying CS – that they are locked out – or at best have severely minimal input – into co-raising their children.
Some fathers are intentionally prevented from caring for their children; others are more subtly prevented and excluded. Some mothers move away, making it difficult for fathers to maintain contact. Some fathers give up because their ex’s just make it too difficult. Some give up because their ex’s continually criticise their fathering techniques.
Regards
Comment by Sarah Haras — Sun 12th October 2014 @ 5:56 pm
Sarah Haras
What I mean is Kenny should not complain about supporting his children as this is really bad taste.If he doesn’t pay someone else pays for him.That’s a fact.It may be his ex or the government/taxpayer.Not fair!Kenny should get a job to supplement.And stop whinging.As for my situation.Bringing up three children on my own for 20 years has severely impacted on my mortgage repayments and
savings.Sure they are slightly independent now as students but it doesn’t take 5 minutes to catch up.Also working hard to make a meagre living left no time and opportunities to look at any alternative employment options.Survival was the model.
Comment by tracey — Sun 12th October 2014 @ 6:14 pm
Tracey. I agree with you. Kenny should not complain – and should not have fallen in arrears.
Whilst I feel for you raising 3 children on your own for 20 + years, it raises more questions than it answers. Why on your own? Why not shared care with their father? Why was he exempted from shared care obligations? Why separate in the first place – and prevent the children from a two-parent family? Did he pay, or not pay, or minimise or evade his CS obligations? Who supported you? The government / taxpayers (in part, me)?
These are of course rhetorical questions; but perhaps you begin to understand where Kenny might be coming from?
One last thing, is that your position is still male-bashing. You say Kenny should get a job (and supplement (or increase?) his CS contribution. He has already stated he has done that. You state Kenny (all men?) should support their children, not someone else (i.e. his ex, government or taxpayer). Would you say the same for all mothers on DPB – that they should support themselves, not rely on someone else (ie a benefit)? That would ignite a huge political conflagration. Or that all mothers on DPB should be provided for solely by their ex’s? Should Kenny, on maybe $18,000 Super (plus part time work), pass it ALL over to his ex to raise their kid, rather than having her significantly rely on us, the taxpayers?
You see, your view will be tainted by your experience. What you would have Kenny do; what the Government would have Kenny do; what his ex would have Kenny do; may all be miles a part.
Better have an independent panel adjudge what is fair CS tax, levy that, and then Kenny meet his assessed obligation. End of case.
This is what CS assessment does, rightly or wrongly, fairly (in all cases) or not. And of course next year the assessment formulae is to change, after careful consideration by IRD and their bean counters, thanks to Peter Dunne. Some guys will pay less; some more. Most will still complain and resent, for the reasons I previously outlined.
And single mothers will still not be satisfied.
Regards
Comment by Sarah Haras — Sun 12th October 2014 @ 6:55 pm
“If he doesn’t pay someone else pays for him.That’s a fact”. Nyaaa wrong answer. Kenny could have 50% shared care and still be hammered for child support and hounded by the IRD into debt, massive penalties and worse – which sounds like the case. The system does not encourage men like Kenny to try harder and indeed it doesn’t encourage people like Kenny’s ex to play fair either. One logical option is to go on a benefit until the kids turn 19, certainly trying to earn more will cause him grief in later years and he will get absolutely no credit from the state for looking after his kids. There are plenty of Traceys who get great satisfaction when they read stories like this because it means the system is working – in the hateful vindictive way the THEY want it to work. Have a nice day Tracey and may your karma come to you soon.
Comment by Daniel — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 8:17 am
Is child support actually worth it how it works at present.
What if we just spread it out amongst all taxpayers.
Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, Grandmothers, Grandfathers, could all chip in.
We could then raise our children easily.
If we all chipped in.
During your lifetime an average person would pay the average cost of raising themselves.
Then the system would be fair.
CS is an intellectual stupidity.
It forces men to protect themselves in any way they can workout.
By fleeing, our reducing income, being dodgy with income(comes with the help of Lawyers and Accountants).
The tax taker ultimately loses.
The relationship with the child is were you will find wealth.
Sarah Haras: You are talking a lot of common sense. Its refreshing.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 4:37 pm
If the cost of raising everyone was spread across everyone, so that in a lifetime everyone paid 9in taxes0 what it would cost to raise them …. wouldn’t that be communism where everything everyone has, is shared equally so that everyone has a fair share?
You should run for Labour Leader!
Comment by OMG! You're (&*^%%^% — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 4:52 pm
It means every child would get a universal payment.
Like the pension.
Is that communism.
I advocate for men, that would disqualify me from the labour party.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 5:31 pm
Child support can still occur by agreement.
People with more than two children could get less per child.
Or fathers become more liable at the third child or more.
We have the right to reproduce. But not proliferate.
Don’t most children already get some form of taxpayer subsidy.
What would really change.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 5:47 pm
You’re right on your last point, but wtf should every child (every mother on behalf of every child) receive a universal benefit? That would only give them more justification to preclude men from fathering. SO all men would pay for every child to be raised by as many mothers as want to be single.
Every child under 18 (or until the finish education?) on a benefit; every single mother on a benefit (it is a small jump to extend a universal payment for every child to a universal payment for every mother); every person over 65 on a benefit; every bum (no intention of working) on a benefit; every disabled / sickee on a benefit; Just leaves the men working, really.
How does that benefit men?
Still sounds nastily close to communism [what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine].
Comment by OMG! You're (&*^%%^% — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 5:53 pm
You’re right on your last point – “I advocate for men, that would disqualify me from the labour party”
Comment by OMG! You're (&*^%%^% — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 5:54 pm
#22 Spot on MIA child support should be by agreement by default and the state should butt out except in extreme cases. If they have a problem with the mother getting child support on top of a benefit they should take it up with HER through the normal tax system. Replace the words mother and her in the minority of cases where the man is the custodial parent.
Comment by Daniel — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 5:59 pm
I’d go a step further. Shared Care (50/50, week-about) with both parents living in close proximity to the child’s school should be the default. No Chid Support payable by either party, and both parties working part time to pay their way (being paid a living allowance (@ minimum wage / hour, or maybe the ‘living wage’) for the balance of 20hrs). Employers should be forced to accept 20hr/week employees without prejudice; and (where either party cannot work their 20hours, then a minimal additional benefit paid to bring them up to the equivalent of the Pension wage.
OK, actual bene amounts are flexible, but think a little laterally, the concept could work.
Only where either party opts out of shared care (foregoes their 50% or part of it), then they pay CS to the other parent.
Comment by OMG! You're (&*^%%^% — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 6:07 pm
[society needs a re-think on ‘working hours’ to accommodate increased automation; employers need to start thinking about reduced hours AND people need to learn how to share more (ie live on less) of the precious available income dollars. Society needs to rethink some major costs including housing etc.
A massive issue, I know, and nothing that would be fixed ever, if market forces are simply left to their own devices.
Comment by OMG! You're (&*^%%^% — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 6:10 pm
If the government wants to encourage and facilitate the wrecking of families by offering to replace fathers with the DPB, why should the men who don’t choose to wreck their children’s family be made to reimburse the government? Let the government, i.e. all taxpayers whom the government represents, carry the can for this child-abusing foolishness.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 6:16 pm
#27 Dear OMG! You’re (&*^%%^%, you are absolutely spot on, in children’s interests even more than the parents!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 6:19 pm
Sorry Max, I disagree. Why should I as one of those taxpayers pay for some woman’s foolish decision to preclude the father of her child from active parenting, no matter how facilitated by the Government?
If woman is intent on going her way, simple invoke something like what I suggest – ie default of shared care, and let her and her ex sort it out …. [sadly I realise the paradox and apparent contradiction of that sentence, with my previous post. As both parents would be parenting half time, they will both need some support by the government – I.e. us tax payers.]
Comment by OMG! You're (&*^%%^% — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 6:25 pm
OMG! Because you as one of those taxpayers are responsible for the government that is voted in. The government chooses to spend your taxes as it sees fit and you can only participate in the political process in order to change that. The great injustice with the DPB is that its victims are made to pay for it.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 6:49 pm
The starting point of equality of custody is not set in law.
At the moment its who can get the protection order in first.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 6:54 pm
Man in Absentia: Well, not really. Courts don’t grant protection orders as readily for male applicants, and even when an order has been made against a mother the Family Court often finds ways of ensuring the mother still gets ‘custody’ eventually. (‘Custody’ no longer exists as a legal phenomenon, though ‘day to day care’ operates similarly.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 7:04 pm
Day to day seeing children going to school.
Day to day on your way to work.
Day to day not doing the same thing with your own child.
Day to day just because your a man.
Day to day just because the court said so.
Day to day seeing children going to school.
Day to day, but never with your own child.
That is a suffering.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 7:11 pm
It is the same argument, Max, that sees Women’s Refuge and other matriarchal Ms-ogynistic organisations grabbing more and more of the taxpayer’s – my – money for their causes. The belief that the government is free to take as much as they want from us plebs, and spend it wherever they see fit, is a massive myth, that will always ultimately result in collapse of civilisations.
It is the same rort that sees Auckland ‘super’ city demanding more and more in rates – and wanting a bigger slice of government expenditure. Its the same myth that sees exorbitant settlements paid to Maori – whether it be explicit settlements, or political bribes such as Whanau Ora.
Tax payers are not bottomless pits; how much more would you and I have if we didn’t pay 30% of our income in tax, If I didn’t pay a further 18% of my income on CS tax, and then pay 15% of what is left in GST.
This is the reason I did not vote labour – who would use even more of my money (at least they’re honest about introducing more ways of extracting my wealth).
Or maybe, perhaps the governments should simply take everything everyone has, and then mete out a ‘living wage’ to each and every one of us, and use the rest to fund their flailing ways.
Communism, anyone?
So actually, I am dead against people always looking to the bottomless pocket of ‘taxpayers’ to fund other people’s mistakes.
Comment by OMG! You're (&*^%%^% — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 7:19 pm
Off topic, I know, but …
If I earn an extra $100 tomorrow, I’ll pay …
– $30 in tax;
– $18 in CS tax;
– $2 or so in ACC levy;
– $8 into KiwiSaver (optional, I know);
– $4 taken out of my $100 by my employer, and paid into my KiwiSaver;
That leaves me $38 to spend on myself.
When I do, the Government will snatch a further $5.70 in GST, meaning I only benefit by $32.30.
I could put that into smokes or booze – or maybe a half tank of petrol, but then even more will be snatched back by our dear old tax collectors (excise duties etc).
Or I could use it towards my mortgage – but then, what’s the point of that? If I buy a property, the Labour lefties would only capital-gains-tax that too, if or when they ever get back in …
Or I could bank it, earn maybe 5% interest, and then pay tax on that, and probably never retain parity in my net interest against inflation.
Oh *&^%* it. Booze it is.
Comment by OMG! You're (&*^%%^% — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 7:29 pm
Thankfully I don’t have a student loan as well ….
Or 4 kids.
Comment by OMG! You're (&*^%%^% — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 7:34 pm
Im saying you wouldn’t pay the CS tax.
But maybe some more other tax.
Men might desire to succeed more, if they don’t have to pay the EX the CS tax.
Or stay in NZ and pay tax.
The economy will grow.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 7:43 pm
OMG! I agree with you. I don’t believe government should be allowed to spend taxpayer money on a destructive, family-wrecking, child-abusing DPB benefit. However, changing government and the rules under which they govern is the only way to overcome the reality that taxes are used to fund government policies. The DPB on the other hand is significantly reimbursed through ongoing theft from the individual fathers (usually) who have been discarded because of the DPB. If the people want our DPB to go on doing its destructive work, then the people should pay for that.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 13th October 2014 @ 8:29 pm
17 & 18
Daniel and Sarah Haras
Daniel if you mean Karma as in bad luck I’ve had plenty with bells on!Hope that makes you smile now as you sound real angry.
Sarah you must have it in for women with your blanket negative beliefs of solo mums.What actually is your angle?
Do you have a partner that pays or is required to pay child support?
Comment by tracey — Tue 14th October 2014 @ 3:40 pm
Its been a while since I got to say “don’t feed the trolls”
Comment by Mits — Tue 14th October 2014 @ 4:08 pm
Mits
Someone has to try keep you all honest
and point out generalisations,irrationality,lies and so forth.
Comment by tracey — Tue 14th October 2014 @ 4:27 pm
Sad Tracey labels me to have a blanket negative beliefs of solo mums. Why? Because I challenged her with a reasonably well laid out challenge to her comments criticising Kenny?
Sad Tracey felt Kenny was to blame for impregnating a women – and failed to acknowledge the woman in question was equally responsible.
Sad Tracey insists Kenny find part time work so he could pay more CS (even though he freely admitted he had already sought more work, even though retired).
Sad Tracey feels the government (taxpayers, e.g. me) shouldn’t have to support the mother of Kenny’s child, even though it appears Tracey herself accepted such government (taxpayers, e.g. me) support herself as a single mum for 20 or so years.
Sad Tracey labels Daniel as angry – does Tracey herself come across as angry?
As least Tracey acknowledges she is a troll.
Comment by Sarah Haras — Tue 14th October 2014 @ 6:43 pm
I think a lot of good points have gone up, but i’ll simplify it for all, there should be no child support tax system. No DPB.
If you have no job there is unemployment. The End!.
Comment by Too Tired — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 1:27 am
Angry? Not at all, I’m a born optimist but a small part of me feels bitter towards my ex and the system she has dumped on my head.
My comments to you well you can’t come here trolling and not expect to be called out for it. Why bother coming back to argue about it, are you trying to score some points for yourself or for some ideology? Sad.
Comment by Daniel — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 7:35 am
Continuing an earlier thread I heard on the news this morning that some report on child poverty has just recommended among other things that child tax be passed on to the custodial parent without the government making a 5 finger discount.
That sounds like a step in the right direction, unfortunately it was a report into child poverty not men’s poverty so they stopped short of recommending that the IRD get out of the loop altogether. It also sounds like either of these possibilities will only happen over the IRD’s dead body.
Comment by Daniel — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 7:45 am
There is no cut taken by IRD for it’s Child Tax services.
100% is passed to the “custodial” parent and we taxpayers pick up all the costs of this service. Admittedly IRD do impose penalties that are not passed on but research from Auditors General Office show the only effect of these penalties is to reduce compliance with payment.
What was probably proposed was that beneficiaries get the Child Support and the WINZ benefit and hence double dip.
Taxpayers of course pay taxes and can also be donged by Child Support so that is double dipping again.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 10:05 am
I realise the IRD does not take a “commission” but if the recipient is on a benefit the full amount is not passed on, only any amount above the benefit which they would have received in any case. To me that is blatant theft by the government and flies in the face of the “child tax is to support the children” argument – it’s cheap arsed spousal maintenance.
I have always said that the government would probably want to set guidelines but apart from that should butt out of what is essentially a civil matter between two people, unless one or the other was obviously not playing the game. Let the parties make their arrangements and if the receiver’s income exceeds any thresholds or is not declared then it’s her/his responsibility to sort it out through the normal tax processes.
Most of the damage caused by this tax is inflicted by the government and the agencies they choose to do the dirty work, get them out of the loop and the comments on this site will drop by half.
Comment by Daniel — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 12:08 pm
Yes get IRD out of the loop. It costs all the rest of us millions a year in collection costs that have nothing at all to do with any general public good. Child Support is often just a further means of harrassment of the paying parent by the so called “custodial” parent.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 2:01 pm
Allan Harvey
I agree it would be idealistic for IRD to not be involved at all in the collection of Child Support.I am not so foolish to believe that that would solve the problem of people not taking responsibility.It is already very stressful for people with children to house feed clothe etc…without more uncertainty of being able to pay for these things than already exists.It’s a sad fact.Some people have priorities that don’t include paying for the cost of children.They may have expensive habits such as drinking ,drugs ,gambling ,shopping for clothes and the list goes on.That us why the government has to redistribute.Yes we would all like to think people will do things better and more responsibly.But…..
Comment by tracey — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 2:51 pm
Tracey how does the current system prevent these people you mention from indulging their expensive habits and not looking after their children? Are you referring to the custodial or non custodial parent there are plenty of losers in both groups so why only target one group. But that shouldn’t give the state the right to place their jackboot on my throat and squeeze as hard as they damn well feel like.
Comment by Daniel — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 3:17 pm
Tracey, There is plenty of research evidence that shows where both parents are active in children’s lives Child Support is paid (and often a lot more for activities, clothes, health , holidays etc etc) willingly and with co-operation between both parents.
When parents can co-operate then children do so much better than when parents are stuck in conflict!!!
I totally accept that some form of Child Support is needed as a backstop for delinquency. Unfortunately some people struggle to be perfect parents. However as Daniel suggests delinquency occurs on both sides of parenting and Child Support. Unfortunately IRD only have remedies for one side of that equation and while CYFS offer some intervention this only happens in the most extreme of cases.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 4:42 pm
Allan Harvey. #52
There is plenty of research evidence that shows where both parents are active in children’s lives Child Support is paid willingly and with co-operation between both parents.
This is because not only do the parents get to actually love their children. They develop empathy for them. The money becomes less important, so you will be willing to give.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 5:48 pm
Ahhhh c’mon guys give Tracey a break I think she has nailed it with this one.
Some people have priorities that don’t include paying for the cost of children.They may have expensive habits such as drinking ,drugs ,gambling ,shopping for clothes and the list goes on.That us why the government has to redistribute
I agree with her. Custodial parents that do this should be well and truly ashamed of themselves.
In these cases its a pity the IRD wont let the poor old non custodial pay their child tax by paying directly things like school fees, uniforms, sporting subs, medical expenses and so on and on up to the agreed amount of calculated extortion the child tax model allows.
This would allow the custodial parent to have their expensive habits without affecting the children so much. And the Govt redistribution would be 100% targetted at supporting children, we could even change the name from child tax to child support. Brilliant idea!
Good point Tracey shall I take it up with IRD or will you?
Comment by Mits — Wed 15th October 2014 @ 8:15 pm
Mits. Your suggestions are very good. One major problem with our so-called ‘child support’ system is that it channels a father’s financial contribution through the mother (either directly or through the DPB system) so that it often doesn’t contribute to the fundamentally important emotional bonding between father and children. The children experience their needs being provided by the mother when in fact the father’s blood sweat and tears are actually providing behind the scene. Moreover, the children’s understanding of their father’s contribution is often further damaged by the mother complaining to them the father is not providing enough, usually out of her jealousy at seeing him enjoying any comforts or out of her blaming him for poverty that usually results from her own mismanagement.
Your suggestion that men’s contribution be allowed to be provided directly to children would go a long way to overcoming this problem, and would be much better for the emotional welfare of the children and their bonding with father. But children’s welfare is not the aim of our so-called ‘child support’ system; enslavement of men in the service of women is.
There is no good reason why a limited range of provisions for children could not serve as child support. The father would take the children to purchase food basics, clothes, school uniforms, school books, medical services, sports and hobby equipment for them, entertainment (to a limited, specified proportion) etc and would provide receipts to show that child support has been provided. Instead, what often happens at present is that fathers provide all of the above in addition to the one-third of their take-home pay that was plundered for so-called ‘child support’. So fathers can’t get ahead financially and their children end up missing out when it comes to their father’s ability to help with tertiary studies, wedding, first-home purchase etc.
Regardless of how much a father contributes economically to his children’s needs, fathers still need to spend substantially to maintain contact with their children, to share enjoyable activities with them and to build a bond with them. The whole arrangement is essentially an economic gouging of each man to fund the separate lifestyle (without any reciprocal obligation) of a woman who wrecked their children’s family unit.
Then, when a faceless, heartless IRD machine administers this system, any humanity towards men is abandoned.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 16th October 2014 @ 8:02 am
To The NZ Herald,
I currently pay $8927.70p.a. in Child Support. I earn approx $50,000 p.a. so my take home pay is $595.45 per wk and the current cost of a 3 brm rental in Papakura the area my three children live in is $404 on average. That dosen’t leave alot to live on. In fact with petrol, food, ins, and my car payment I would be currently in a deficiet of $4,357 according to the Sorted.co.nz website. The only reason I don’t live like that (apart from impossible) is I live away from town and ship my children to my Mothers or Sisters to stay while I have my weekends with them. I have great access to my children and have paid all my child support for five years. Next year there are new rules that don’t really cover any real change at all. I still wont be able to afford to live a normal life and house my children under my own roof. Not even the cheapest rental in Papakura. So with no credit debts, no hire purchases or other payments and working a decent wage I am still going to be punished beyond acceptable levels for my wifes infedelity solely due to her having the fulltime care of my children. There are no options, I would love to take shared care but she has need of my money so wont allow this option I would need to spend alot of time and money in court to cross my fingers and hope I got shared care all the while not having any access to my kids so thats just not an option. There is so much more that goes into every situation of split parenting but the IRD paints everyone with the same brush. I simply cannot afford it any more but they don’t care. No one does.
I love my kids, I’ve been on school camps and my Sister just paid for us to go to the Gold Coast on holiday, so I have alot to be thankful for. I have great access to my children but I pay through the nose for the privlage. And the Tax payer pays for thier mothers total cost of living. She lives in a Housing NZ home, child tax credits and student allowences for five years without any acreditation. And just when things might have seen her in employment she went an had another child with her new husband who also is studying full time.
Is there any wonder at all why men commit suicide over this system? I would never do such a thing because I need to tell my children the truth as soon as they are old enough to understand it.
The GOVT and IRD need to do something real about this child support system they changes in April 2015 are nothing.
Wish I had mentioned more of what you guys wrote about above.
Comment by too tired — Thu 20th November 2014 @ 2:21 am
To Sarah Haras
Great reply to traceys continued rants about child support.
Her attack on Kenny and your reply is B/S bitterness as well as a few other posts of hers.
Personally I also believe that NO female who is with child below the age of 25 should get any assistance from tax payers like the DPB
WHY. I believe Parents should be made accountable after all it is sex education and up bringing that is called into account.Why place bad parenting and burden on the tax payer
Parents of the Female should take responsibility that includes ALL costs
I mean for goodness sake there is NO valid reason today for Females to JUST accidentally get impregnated the amount of sex education and contraceptives negates that delusional argument. Before and after the physical act its that advanced.
After all Tracey bangs on about Males throwing there seed around carelessly should pay for it.
Should have saved, planned and thought about the costs from the start of making a child..
Well Tracey the Females that catch that sperm should be JUST as accountable under the same demands forced on Males.
Woman do bang a big drum on Equality but when Motherhood or Mothers rights and attitudes are challenge everyone cows down and I mean everyone including the Law and Courts..Its ridiculous.
Comment by joseph — Fri 12th June 2015 @ 4:33 am