IRD’s Genocide of Separated Fathers
IRD pursued David Sharp for unrealistic fees and late payments for child support payments. Indeed there are three male suicides the news article. Establishing a pattern perhaps.
Story here. IRD demand ‘the final straw’
Newspapers never really give equal representation to their stories so its hard to grasp what really happen to David Sharp.
But from what I can tell it should be obvious to any IRD employee that aggressively perusing a man for something he has not got and placing that person into a position of hopelessness should have no part of New Zealand society.
A few things I picked up from the news story.
1.Curious to understand why his former wife Josephine comes out telling the world her ex was lovely man and a very good father, why she was pursuing interest in his financial affairs.
2.Even more curious to know why the IRD decided not to pursue Josephine in the same manner as her ex-partner.
I am sure the IRD wants to keep a lid on things as much as they can. Hiding behind a smokescreen of ‘only discussing cases with authorised people’ should raise alarm bells for the people who are authorised to investigate suicides and that list should include ministers of the department, the prime minister, any sitting MP and at the very least the police.
Reason why males’ commit suicides in such numbers and if there has been involvement from IRD or any other government department should be available to the public or at the very least the victims they leave behind.
My thoughts are towards David’s parents and children.
I wonder… Am I the only one, who can’t understand why a criminal, who forced his ex commit suicide via domestic violence in a form of finance control via IRD poses in newspapers outside of the criminal court?
Picture from the link shows a criminal committed an offense under s 179 of Crimes Act 1961 – up to 14 years of imprisonment.
Comment by CSA — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 2:32 pm
What a time for some realistic publicity on the behaviour of the IRD to turn up. IRD Demand ‘the final straw’ the article referred to in the above post is about 46 year old businessman David Sharp who was found dead in his home in 2009.
Some detective work by his ex-wife found that Sharp had received a demand from IRD child support for $161,000 the same day. There’s going to be varied opinions about her approaches to the media 5 years later.
It’s a pity the country is so distracted by the unravelling filth in government; otherwise it might have made the front page.
There is an interesting suggestion in the story from former ACT leader Rodney Hide, that the IRD has improved its behaviour (as a result of Ian Mutton leaving a suicide note for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue). While I appreciate that Mr Hide has been a supportive advocate in this area and would like to think that he has made a difference, I suggest otherwise and strongly disagree there has been a change in the crucifixion culture of the IRD.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise (seen on this site recently) that IRD is still playing the same game indebting father’s and ruthlessly pursuing them.
When suicide discussion was on the banned list, we saw the story of a New Zealand Father’s suicide in Australia make headlines here – it resulted in the current amendment to the child support act, which still awaits implementation due to the unavailability of a suitable computer system.
We saw how politicians reacted and debated this issue on behalf of the children that are the children of these men. Ruthless, snivelling self-interested pieces of shit that infest the pig trough of parliament – but it’s on hansard for those that can be bothered reading it.
We also saw how Judith Collins deceitfully slipped the ‘other amendments’ covertly through parliament. That may have not made the news in the media, but no, we didn’t miss the action – it’s recorded here.
Also of interest is the comment from the IRD that they had decided ‘not to pursue the ex-wife for the debt’ interesting, but that’s another story.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 3:58 pm
@Downunder. The news article stated Josephine said the IRD decided not to pursue her for the debt because her husband had no money or assets and left no will. I thought it was odd and the only thing I could think was that the IRD might consider Josephine and David as one if there’s a debt to IRD. And if that is the reason, why didn’t IRD peruse Josephine to the point of suicide as they did David.
Question”¦.. If a man who has children to an ex-partner loses his job, does his payments reduce or do they just build up along with unrealistic penalties and fees?
Comment by Lukenz — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 4:52 pm
Lukenz:
They build up and child support staff denies to accept any change in circumstances applications demanding payments irrespectively of actual income of the father.
Comment by CSA — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 5:04 pm
I think think the will issue is much more complicated. If the father has a child support debt but no will the IRD has to go the Family Court to obtain an order to write off the debt.
The way I see it is that if you die intestate and then mother challenged the IRD’s right to pursue manufactured debt that would create a precedent for them not pursuing penalties from wills.
There’re making it look like they are being mother friendly (being nice to her) but they just don’t want to shit in their own nest in terms of continuing to pursue fathers, who do have wills.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 5:49 pm
Look at it this way – Child support is (generally) calculated on income but it is not a debt on income, it is a debt on the person.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 5:55 pm
So is it a debt on the persons future income?
Comment by Lukenz — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 6:19 pm
No, it’s a debt on the potential of the person.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 6:25 pm
Looks ever more enticing to reduce my role in life to non-fatherhood
(1) no sex unless there is NO chance of fatherhood; [Don’t accept her promises of ‘the pill’, don’t rely on condoms]
(2) contributing to sperm donor clinics under a false name (in case they change the laws later to make donors responsible for CS tax);
(3) Nah. f)*(& it. Might as well have the chop. no need for all them little fishes anymore. Sex change looking increasingly viable.
Comment by OMG! You're )*&^()&(90) — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 8:20 pm
Actually, it makes sense, the above article. If She has a debt, no need to pursue; if he has a debt, pursue him to the grave.
This is a variation of the new law that makes both partners liable for the other’s benefit fraud. A read of the papers suggests that benefit fraud is largely committed by women. When ever we see another report, it seems to be women who commit the fraud, e.g. claiming DPB wrongfully, or claiming 3 benefits under different names. So instead of making them fully liable, we transfer the liability to their partners , ie men. Why? Well we can’t pressure those poor misled women can we? They are not responsible for their actions, are they. Better we find a man – any man, and hold them accountable instead.
Comment by OMG! You're )*&^()&(90) — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 8:24 pm
And the natural progression to that is to make the son responsible for the sins of the father.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 31st August 2014 @ 8:31 pm
IRD are mongrels.My two children are nearly 25 and 24.I haven’t had to pay child support for at least 7years.Prior to that I was dragged through courts including the High Court where amongst other things I proved I had no outstanding claims against me,yet now at 67years of age I have had my pension docked since its inception, for so called outstanding interest on child support.I have never had a bill for the past 7years and although I have asked why my pension is being docked I have never had an answer nor an account,just the original letter telling me I am being docked.Seems I have no right of reply.
Comment by mustang — Mon 1st September 2014 @ 8:32 am
#9 I will certainly be warning my son along these lines when he is old enough, as should any caring father. Youthful mistakes can have lifelong consequences that you are unaware of at the time. I can’t believe that I actually used to think that the law was essentially fair!
Comment by Daniel — Mon 1st September 2014 @ 8:51 am
@Mustang
Thanks for your comment, I’ve been saying for a long time, this is where we are headed – men being forced into a lower pension regime through child support.
That’s the way IRD operate, they make an arbitrary decision and they’re right until you go to court and prove them wrong.
What is the basis of the deduction?
Is it a set amount, a minimum amount, a maximum amount, that they have imposed on you.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 1st September 2014 @ 10:56 am
@Lukenz
Another way of understanding this.
Because child support is (most commonly) ‘deducted from income’ there is a tendency to try to rationalise it on the basis of income.
Look at it from the point of view that it is a ‘required payment’ that either has or has not been paid.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 1st September 2014 @ 11:18 am
IRD are taking an amount of $70 a fortnight from my fortnightly super payment,thus that amount is deducted even before I receive it.Neither my children or my ex get any part of that sum.Initially when I was told such amount was to be deducted nobody at IRD has been able to tell how much I am supposed to owe or for how long this money was to be deducted.I receive no paperwork from them.They claim its unpaid interest back dated.
I have a legal firm wanting to take them on for damages but as they have said it will cost plenty and will go on for many years.That’s the system.
Some years back I took on Crown Law and IRD which cost me tens of thousands with no result or gain.During a High Court case Crown Law (IRD) claimed I owed them about $2500 but this was proved unfounded at that time.While I have the resources to fight them there seems little point on a matter of principle.
Comment by mustang — Mon 1st September 2014 @ 12:34 pm
It doesn’t necessarily have to be a fight in court.
If you have previously established you don’t owe anything, why don’t you put that in writing to the Minister of Revenue asking how this mystery debt has arisen?
Exaction by an IRD officer is not a principle, it’s a crime.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 1st September 2014 @ 1:05 pm
This is very sad.
This story is sad also.
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 1:15 am
That’s right Julie it is very sad that men have become so overwhelmed with manufactured future debt and have felt so hopeless about their circumstances they have chosen to take their own lives as a release or best path.
Let’s look at David’s other options.
Another way to get loose of the situation could have been to choose bankruptcy but that would purport loss of any land or home for public mortgagee sale, any savings taken, any asset striped away. Ongoing payments to the creditor (IRD). Name in the Gazette and newspaper. Not being able to run a company for a few years and in some professions not for 10 years or maybe never. Being bankrupt is a conviction. Starting off again at age 50. Quite shameful and miserable for a man who made $250k I suspect.
Option 2.
Carry on and let the debt build up and let the IRD make the rest of your life right into your twilight years that much harder than they would have been by deducting whatever they thought necessary. Growing old and dealing with inevitable health problems old people have.
In the main I think men like to be able to provide for their family. For me I know it gives me a sense of purpose and pride to give my children and wife what they want and need.
Quite easy to understand that David’s intention was to be a good father and provider for his family but after separation and a downturn in business, loss of his family unit, not being able to provide and then having some quango at IRD keep adding impossible cost on costs and more penalties crushing any chance of an acceptable or normal future.
I hold no degree in human behaviour. But taking away the things he had in his life and replacing them with what he was dealing with makes it much easier for me to understand why he decided hurt himself to cause his own death.
And the only outcome now is his children dealing with a loving dad that killed himself, David’s parents, brothers, sisters and friends coping with his death. IRD writing off what was owed + manufactured debt. Seems pointless all round.
I am convinced the Government have all the necessary stats why men commit suicide but on the balance that most men don’t, and it’s quite and easy way to get money from one person to pay for another person lifestyle, it’s probably an acceptable ‘cost of doing business’ arrangement.
I wonder if there will ever be a time when men aren’t going to be treated as human punching bags or an endless source of gravy to enhance someone else’s lifestyle choices.
Comment by Lukenz — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 6:21 am
There’s a related post here – Homes for Women Refuges for Men
I’ve copied this peice from the link that Julie provided. Interesting also is the suggestion that rural communities do not have the facilities to cope with homeless men and that they would be better off in the cities.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 8:39 am
There is no mention in the Herald article of whether the woman went on a benefit or kept working and got IRD to collect on her behalf instead of making an arrangement. It could be that she is feeling guilty for being partly responsible for what happened – and it’s tough to say it but maybe she is.
Comment by Daniel — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 9:05 am
It is an offence under 1992 occupational and safety laws
To not asses the risk to your customers
Clearly IRD, Family court, etc fail that test.
They are guilty of conspiring to induce the act of suicide.
They should all be prosecuted, and imprisoned.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 5:49 pm
#22 yes, we need the name of the government officials who make these terrible punitive decisions without any justifications, like Judges grace, Ulrich, Johnson and Walsh who are all holding my children hostage without any communications and their mother who i am not allowed to name, and the police need to prosecute them for murder and manslaughter as the results of their decisions are very predictable, otherwise our laws are a mere farce used to control us serfs.
Comment by anonymous — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 6:28 pm
Once upon a time I owed 5 cents
IRD sent me two letters trying to force me to pay it
A year later I am guessing I already with penalties owe my sole to the devil
Hove did I assess them as being the devil.
Decades ago when I got my first bill from these slavery committing scum I was strait out of studies at polytec. I was earning $9 an hour, previously just the student allowance of $110 a week. $9 times 170 hours for a month equals $1530. My first bill was assessed at $666 dollars. Backdated 3 months plus penalties. That’s 43.5% for one child.
Backdated to when I was earning just $450 aprox a month. Or 100% plus, plus.
They refused to have the assessment corrected.
That just the beginning of the evils they imposed on me.
$666
I want revenge!
Comment by The man in Absentia — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 9:34 pm
Thanks LukeNZ #19. Your comment was well presented and gives a good description of the situation, IMO.
I had a chartered accountant write up our trust’s account statements for free one year. He simply put the information on expensive paper and used his letterhead while I had expected a review, at least, lol.
He wanted to spend time with me, tell me things about IT clients and hear what I had to say. We have a big problem with IT men. Things are not good.
….I love what you’ve shared.
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 10:30 pm
Downunder #20
What you shared was good, IMO. It highlights the attitude that the cities are better equipped for homelessness. (which the are but that in itself shows problems, IMO)
The groups dealing with the homeless know what the problems are and hopefully cover some men think it’s safer on the street than in a home with a few to many strangers that suck them dry on benefit day, steal their shoes, etc, beat them up and have mental health problems, anger issues, alcohol and drug addiction, etc. (my view)
I read a research paper that named every place the homeless can stay in Auckland and they said there was between 180 – 190 beds left over each night if every homeless person was provided shelter. I wish I could find it. So far, I found:
New Zealand Coalition to End Homelessness
Auckland Homeless Taskforce
The Court of New Beginnings (we have drug & alcohol court and family violence court also in Auckland)
Thing is, most small groups get men in need contacting them for one thing or another (I had a father who was still with his partner – she wanted him out and to end the relationship while he wanted to work through the problems. She was being a horrible bitch because she couldn’t be nice to him else he will think she wants to work it out. Catch 22. (is that the saying?)
I didn’t know where to refer him and all groups I asked said, “If you find out, please let us know”. I think there needs to be a database available online or a men’s helpline with the information. How can we stop domestic violence? How can we stop addiction and slips while in recovery? How can we house men thrown out because the relationship ended? And more.
Below is a new facility and idea. There must be lots of these popping up to help with the problem. There sure is alot of homes popping up for men leaving prison and then the refuges so men can leave the home.
Night shelter to Tauranga’s homeless men (only 20 beds, can sleep 40)
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd September 2014 @ 11:50 pm
I see this post being about the behaviour of society that both attacks men and leaves them vulnerable.
Homelessness may be a consequence but that debate is probably better had here under the post Homes for women Refuges for men I’ve copied some of the above comments to that post.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 3rd September 2014 @ 12:12 pm
The kiwi way.
Steal his coin
Lay him bare
Take his children
Care not their welfare
Let him work not
Free trade is of the past
Unsustainable make his lot
For certain he will not last
Tell all it’s his fault
For being a simple man
Say he wasn’t progressive
Or in our final plan.
Comment by Soothsayer — Fri 5th September 2014 @ 10:47 am
How many children died as a result of lack of money before the “child support” system was introduced?
Zero as far as I know.
How many fathers have died as a result of the implementation of the “Child Support” system?
There is at least 3 in this one article.
Some facts need to be thrown at this child tax system. It is ideological and fundamentally flawed.
The problem in NZ is that people in general and men in particular are too passive and accepting of fundamentally flawed laws.
Comment by Vman — Fri 5th September 2014 @ 4:58 pm
The coroners office does not examine this.
3 is just a number on a hundred sided dice
each and every year
Why do so many teenage males commit suicide
Why does the human (bigot)rights commission only examine female mother suicides
But does not examine teenage father suicides
Because it is the human rights violator
And mass murderer
Comment by The man in Absentia — Fri 5th September 2014 @ 5:10 pm
I have changed the heading from “IRD’s Genocide of Fathers” to “IRD’s Genocide of Separated Fathers”.
It is more specific. If you dont agree let me know.
Comment by Lukenz — Fri 5th September 2014 @ 10:51 pm
One cannot ignore the immense psychological effect on trapped men
Our child support system is an act of slavery in all respects
It causes a $4 billion GDP annual loss from dads that flee our shores
It causes men to not fight for there name to be put on the birth certificate
It causes men in contempt, to reduce or stop working
It induces male drug use
It induces domestic violence
It causes mass suicide of men, separated and not separated, or never in a relationship in the first place
ETC ETC
It is a Genocide in all respects
Comment by The man in Absentia — Sat 6th September 2014 @ 8:48 am
#31 The webmaster will be horrified – I have felt his technical wroth oozing through the net since raising the idea in another post recently.
But apart from that, I don’t agree that it helps to reference the discussion to separated fathers and make them an isolated group that can be easily targeted as being at fault. [Let’s play dead beat dad game]
Ok, so that message is getting through and we don’t see that so often now but we see something else.
You may have noticed the recent media trend – whenever a mother is in trouble for hurting the children – the stand-out comment about the ineffectual male. [If there’s one in the house, blame him]
Also compare this:
Father works like a dog.
I suggest the problem we have as men is that we do not reference our discussions to reproduction and production. Instead we reference our complaints to all number of things that appear to be an answer to our immediate concern.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 6th September 2014 @ 9:57 am