Child Support Benefit Recovery
I haven’t seen any detail on this. I caught a voice clip in relation to an end to child support payments going to the state and to now be paid to the (it said mother) but I assume other parent.
Affecting some “14,0000” children I assume rather than parents.
[Part of Budget 2022]
Some details, I found looking.
This was clearly part, of a propaganda campaign.
This was well published, in advance by Stuff.
Strangely, they are not talking about it.
I support the change, but will argue against it.
“Passing Child Support payments directly on to sole parents, from July 2023, which will increase the incomes of around 41,550 sole parents by a median of $24 per week and lift up to 14,000 children out of poverty – $354.266 million over 5 years.”
So not for another year, so also confused the maths on the $354 million.
Is it over those four remaining years, or something else.
Anyway at a guess, they take $70 million a year.
Since very few males, are dependency parents.
Effectively you can ignore males in the argument, on financial benefit.
So women get $70 million more, and men get nothing.
Who knew, such a thing would happen.
They sell a story then, that it’s for the children.
It begs the question, what do they not tell us.
They do not mention, the female sexual predator.
Who wishes an easy life, taxpayer funded in dependency.
Just need to have a child, and everything’s free.
Even better now, with the new incentive.
All you need is the law on your side, and a plan.
Get pregnant without consent, and don’t tell him.
Give birth, resulting in the father having no legal rights.
You can now get the benefit, and the full child support.
Just say violence, he tried to force you to abort.
Use the paternity test, as implying he’s no father.
Since the government, gives more money for another child.
And sexually abusing another male, also gives more money.
Your on to a winner, and a plan that works.
While this looks good, it’s also very bad for men.
It will be interesting, how this plays out.
As a big reason, in not naming the father is gone.
The mother now gets full rights, father none but no Child Support.
As there is no financial gain, in naming the father.
And not naming him, removes any trouble with custody.
If anything they can bribe for less, threatening to name him.
Society knows it’s happening, with tens of thousands if not hundreds.
It’s almost a secret, society ashamed to number the fatherless children.
It never answers the genuine unknown, with numbers of pure dishonesty.
Now there is a financial motive, in naming the father.
Now there is a financial motive, in having more kids.
Will this result in more trapped men, and suicides.
Will this result in more violence, by both genders.
Will this result in more allegations, to get custody.
Will this result in men paying more, in Child Support.
This could be a big winner, for lawyers and bureaucracy.
We could see a large increase, of men under attack.
High conflict cases, with females reliant on custody for a living.
It’s a big commitment, for males to get equality in the Family Court.
How many more will get sucked in, robbed going for 50/50.
Forcing a pregnancy on a man, is not discussed.
Imagine a young boy, to drunk to consent to sex.
But a predator girl, targets him so she can rape him.
Getting pregnant, she asks for help from IRD.
Who knowingly support the rapist, without question.
The Prime Minister, is giving a talk at a University soon.
I doubt she’s there, to read #3 to them.
Since there the experts, that condone female sexual predators.
I doubt, they could see the funny side.
The crowd is full of offenders, and victims.
Something for men to consider …..
I put up a post along these lines a few year’s ago.
That related to how we were in a similar situation to the later Roman period where Elite leaders found child bearing offensive and that was left to the masses.
Subsequent calculations (and don’t get me wrong I’m not a fan of modeling) suggestioned that the average women of the city of Rome needed to produce 11 children in their lifetime to sustain the population.
There was a car window sticker with a stack of 11 kids on board floating around US social media which from memory I included in the post.
It is interesting referring, to the Romans.
Your number may be true, as I’ve read a similar figure.
That half of children, died by the age of seven.
And if half again, died before puberty.
You would need, women to have eleven children.
Yet if you look at the leaders, that’s not the case.
Living lives of debauchery, they had few children.
How did they stop, or abort pregnancy.
Why could the masses, not do the same.
Such an environment, would speed up evolution.
While presently, it must be at its slowest.
If you would like to know the intimate details, the Roman Elite used goats bladders as reusable condoms.
They were in short supply and had to be purchased, of course so not all Romans could indulge themselves in this form of contraception.
A heard a good argument, made by a woman.
And it was about, women ripping men off.
If a one bedroom rental, costs $1000 a month.
But a two bedroom, costs $1200 a month.
Then that part of child support, is $100 a month.
As the male only owes, half the cost.
Feminism demands they pay half, or $600 a month.
All the bills, have the same argument.
Power used by a single person, vs with a child.
Men do not owe, half of the power bill.
They only owe half, of a small sum.
I have heard feminists, demanding rates increase.
Men don’t pay, there fair share.
Yet it’s already fraudulent, ripping men off.
Why is it then, few men demand child support.
If life’s so tough for women, why are men not cashing in.
Isn’t the economy and costs, identical for men.
The feminists must hate men, to demand so much.
Knowing suicides happen, they demand more and more.
What if the aim was men working, paying the bills.
As some people, choose that option.
A part time working mother, still needs income support.
If men work more, then they pay more tax.
Then child support should reduce, as income increases.
If you can define, a fair cost to the child.
How fair is it for it to be at a high rate, after that.
What about a fair cost, for the child and mother.
Shall it continue, at the high rate.
Which incentive in tax policy, is higher income friendly.
Which one will do overtime, or up-skill or ask for more.
If minimum wage, is the maximum rate of child support.
But if just $5 more an hour, was the first reduction.
Would they try to get to the next reduction, after that.
The men earn more, so they can then pay a fair cost.
Plus earn more in other tax, for the mothers subsidies.
After the child is eighteen, he still earns more.
For taxation, the bonus continues.
That is of course, for people choosing that option of not 50/50.
Or in the case of men, culture and the legal system.