Every Man’s Duty.
It is every man’s duty to pay the least amount of tax, or it was in the days when he was allowed person responsibility toward his family. These days we have child support theft and tax theft.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
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.
Yep, and the politicians know that the child support calculation is unfair and unreasonable, creates misery and poverty for many men.
The politicians know, and do nothing. They condone theft. They therefore become criminals in my eyes.
Comment by Morris Lindsay — Sun 9th September 2007 @ 11:08 pm
So,
the wall begins to crumble.
How balanced will those be who challenge the existing authority for its many misdomeana, when faced with the abslote enormity of the task, and are they devoid of a corruptable strain in their bodies – and if not, (do they want not to be corrupt) what instruments are at their disposal to avert from replacing a damaging institution?
The questions if not asked go begging, and the times change back to where they were once before.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 10th September 2007 @ 12:07 pm
With the vast amount of men out there that are being ripped off with this ridiculous amount of child support.its about time that we all got together and did something about it instead of sitting on our back sides complaining.I am sick of living hand to mouth each week trying to juggle the money around robbing peter to pay paul.while my Wife and myself are going hungry.I have been assessed three times the first being $247.00 then the next week $232.00 then the following week a massive $294.00 a week.i recieved this last letter from them a few days after i got out of hospital after having surgery for cancer.i think that they are trying to get as much out of me in case i should die.so come on guys lets do something.
Comment by Kenny — Thu 13th September 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Hell that’s nothing. My child support arrears went from $6,500 – $95,000 and that was just for becoming a Republican. They even gave me a written directive of enforced Labour, telling me how much I had to earn, so they could demand even more child support, and they didn’t even invite me along to the review.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 10:49 am
Kenny,
we’re getting there – there are challenges going in – most especially as relevant to the CSA, although it is going to take some time as it is in limbo awaiting a reply from another complaint I have tabled with the Ombudsman, I have a complaint in with the Ombudsman. I hope this pressure will demand a review of the justifications as they are implimented where they are not demonostrably justifiable. And, hopefully Scrap will be able to take up a challenge that I have started from an observation by Paul Catton that the state double dips from the tax take taking from the net (your money) money that they say they take for the child from the gross. Think about it! Your being duped.
I’ve asked Bevan and Paul to forward on the letters to Scrap but don’t know yet if they have – might have to do that myself now that Rosie got his address. If he takes up this challenge then put all of your available energy into what he advises you should do because he is holding all of the cards!
BTW, I have to withdraw at this stage from my comments on the taking of CS being unlawful, where until I properly test it, I have to presume that section 74 HRA (b) protects its extraction.
So watch Scrap.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 11:56 am
Hell Bevan it doesn’t look as if it would be wise for me to become a Republican.But one things for sure,they won’t be shooting us.
Comment by Kenny — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Bullies, liars, thieves & social terriorists of the Women’s Republic of New Zealand.
Comment by The Punisher — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 7:00 pm
No they expect you to shoot yourself, but some people just don’t die, and they don’t run either, and thats why you should be a Republican. Enough of this bullshit.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Bevan,
I’m not sure if this is the place to address the Republican issue, especially where I am sure for your obvious commitment, that the wheels are in motion and your purpose defined.
We have already discussed respect for Maori and respect for eachother, so no problems there. And additionally there is a present wariness for an access in unity to become tainted to a behaviour that is disctatorial and dismissive of alternative constructions, so that is accepted; but, is Republicanism going to become an establishment without a war between cultures.
Now I say this with experience with Maori, which you in part have shared, as well as for legal knowledge, which I state constantly is ignored by all.
The point is a definative betweent he objective and the subjective. Republicanism is a subjective that is intended to mature as a public directive and the LAW as it stands at present is the objective.
The law, as I want to submit to you and am doing before the Select Committee later this year does not permit the English text of the TOW a right (for loss by rite) of survival.
To achieve Republicanism succesfully in this land you have to as do the present administrators, override this observation with ignorance. That ignorance can only be furnished by more subjective expression if it is to survive if your argument (Republicanism) does not meet with my challenge: of you.
If I am wrong, you should tell me so and why, I can give you my full and comprehensive backing which is not insignificant. If I am not wrong then you must consider what it is you are saying, for to be stronger subjectively you will have to (in the end) enter into a cultural war.
This is what is happening in NZ at the moment. Sovereignty is about Republicanism. What they are trying to do is to figure out how, without going to war. Which is surely a good thing?
If you are interested in this debate, which I implore of you that you are, we can hold this off line. I am not adverse and have a preference for holding the debate on line but that would be your call.
I am asking you to substantiate Republicanism against international instruments, previously the United Nations daclarations on internation treaty’s (no link sorry) and last week on our ridiculous vote not to honour honour by voting against a declaration of rights of indigenous peoples.
Saying this, and importantly before you make your decision on whether or not to engage with me on this paramount issue this discussion does not affect my establishing your experience for authority on the damage to fatherhood as societally required to monitor a national redirection (in fact you give it more colour).
Yet I do (here publicly) want to test your weight to navigate racial accord and specifically where fatherhood is the more a primary that other secondary cultures.
Cheers,
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 15th September 2007 @ 11:10 am
Just to see how they can legally but immorally get child tax I want to publish my case here.
The lawyer, Christine Forbes, who appeared on behalf of my ex-wife, was well known to be involved with a female psychologist, Sarah Calvert and they lived together for some time.
Sarah Calvert was appointed by the Family Court to do a psychological report on our family. I received several warnings from people that Sarah Calvert had been in a personal relationship with Christine Forbes, but the people warning me about her were afraid to testify in writing.
When I realised having these two women on my case would cause a conflict of interest, I applied for a judicial conference to ask that Sarah Calvert be removed from our case.
The female judge, Judge Anis Somerville denied me a judicial conference without any reason.
I also noted how Christine Forbes could organise a hearing with Judge Anis Somerville with very short notice while other people had to wait months before they could get a court hearing.
I n order to get a fair hearing, I asked that Judge Somerville be dismissed from presiding in any of our Court Hearings. Judge Somerville then organized a hearing where she herself presided and judged herself that she is not bias and that she will preside in our future cases!
Communication and responses to and from Principal Family Court Judges:
Letters of response I received to this injustice from The Acting Principal Family Court Judge R.F Pethig, 10 April 2002 said he could not get involved because the hearing was in procession. He advised me to seek a review in the High Court. The Chief Family Court Judge P.D. Mahony 24 September 2002 said he could not get involved because the hearing had finished and there is nothing he can do now.
If I was getting a fair trial in the Family Court, I shouldn’t have to go to the High Court. The family Court has avenues to question the conflict of interest of the report writer; but I was denied the opportunity to do this, forcing me then to go through the High Court at my own expense.
I do not believe I have received a fair trial.
Margaret Wilson, the previous Minister of Courts:
I wrote a letter to Margaret Wilson, then Minister of Courts, voicing my objections about the Family Court appointing Sarah Calvert as the pyschologist. Margaret Wilson’s reply was that she is unable to assist me.
I tried numerous times to get an appointment with Margaret Wilson the Minister of Courts to discuss this issue. I tried unsuccessfully for two years to get an appointment with her, and her office is here in Tauranga. She knows who I am, as her secretary would ring back straight after I phoned them, to see if I was really who I said I was.
Later I read an article in the Investigate Magazine, December 2004 issue that Sarah Calvert and Margaret Wilson lived next door to each other in Tauranga and were great friends!
Margaret Wilson’s letter to MP Sandra Goudie, 19 December 2002, states, that and I quote “If the appointment involves a conflict of interest, the report writer is under a professional duty to disclose this.”
Sarah Calvert did not disclose this but waited until just before the same day that the final hearing had to start. The courts accepted all the reports done by Sarah Calvert although I continued to object.
I have written letters to all the leaders of the main political parties in New Zealand. I wrote to express my objection to what is happening to the Family Court Judge Peter Boshier, who responded 31 Jan 2005 to say matters are now of antiquity.
The decisions made by the Tauranga Family Court had a flow on effect as from the biased perspective against me, came forced child support, less time with my children than what I had before we were separated.
Comment by Kobus Abrie — Fri 23rd November 2007 @ 11:59 am
I do believe that the children should be supported, but why through a corrupt government tax collecting agency?
Do we not as men who partake in this corrupt system, indirectly helps to keep it going and by that way cause more harm to future fathers?
Comment by Kobus Abrie — Fri 23rd November 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Hi Kobus,
You haven’t mentioned a complaint being tabled to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. I’ll check the legislation to see if there is an expirey limit in the presentation of facts and get back to you if you want to further this avenue to progress.
You have an oopportunity to advance this issue if in fact, as I was told recently that Margaret Wilson has just been married to a woman under the Civil Union legislation. If this is a fact then the avenues are directly open to challnge these conditions of sexual preference being discriminatory where the association of interest have been a condition outside the public view and open for debate. If Margaret Wilson in fact married a woman then it denotes a reason as to why she would have altered the responsibility of office as Attorney General making law improperly to protect women without men to have children. That this legislation allowed lesbian women to breed freely as directly discriminating against the existing protections for a child and unlawfully discriminating agaisnt fatherhood by no means a small basis for complaint. What I have just said is that if you are complaining that you have been discriminated against where two women in a case have not declared a conflict of interest and you suspect this corruption has been protected to the highest level of Minister of the Courts, then for Margaret Wilson to have made that declaration of interest is a necessary condition of your complaint. What I need to know in order to help you build a real case is if Margaret Wilson did in fact enter a civil union with another woman last weekend. You need to establish a fact before you can expect to disestablish its injustice.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 23rd November 2007 @ 12:15 pm
I have just seen the Big Buddy link, what a fantastic idea ! Matching fatherless kids with an external male role model.
No doubt, one day a mother will make false violence allegations against the role model and the law will believe her (of course, she is female)
But what a great idea
Comment by martin swash — Sat 24th November 2007 @ 4:50 am
Hi Ben
Thank you I would appreciate it if you could do that.
Below an open letter I am writing to Peter Dunne, Minister for IRD.
23 Nov 2007
Attention: Peter Dunne
I recently sent you a carbon copy of a letter that I sent to the IRD employee Jenny Davies on the 11 October 2007.
This is a follow up letter to that letter.
I have been earning a salary since 2002 from which PAYE tax was deducted; hence I did not need to fill in an IR3 form. Not that that stopped the IRD from starting court action against me for not filing tax returns!
I want to quote the following from the IRD’s website:
“The income tax year runs from 1 April to 31 March. Most people who earn salary or wages pay the correct amount of tax and don’t need to do anything at the end of the tax year. However, if you earn income that has no tax deducted, or if you paid too much or not enough tax during the year, you’ll need to file a return (IR3) or get a personal tax summary (PTS).”
It seems that the IRD is determined to go ahead with charging double tax and is threatening me with Court action.
I put the following questions to you:
Q.1. Do you agree with the conduct of the IRD that they have gathered the full tax of Abrie Dental 2002 Ltd over five financial years, then they have later chosen a figure allocated to me personally and charged me that amount of tax with penalties and interest, while I received a salary which I paid tax on? (As I am no longer employed)
As you know there is a shortage of health professionals in New Zealand.
Q.2. Do you approve of the IRD sending a letter to the company warning that they will receive penalties if they employ me? (I am no longer on the pay role thanks to the IRD)
Q.3. Do you agree with IRD officials showing up at the place of business holding up the flow of business and intimidating the staff?
I want to state to you that IRD is attempting to force me out of dentistry.
You can appreciate it that the business has suffered immensely from the IRD`s actions. It has lost staff, the cleaner, and patients have been forced to go elsewhere as I have not been available to see them.
I would appreciate your response.
Yours truly
Dr. J.P.Abrie
CC: The Ombudsman
Dr. Lockwood Smith MP National Party
Ian Wishart, Editor of Investigate magazine
Political discussion groups
Comment by Kobus Abrie — Sat 24th November 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Hi Kobus,
in reading through your letter to Peter Dunne, and having an idea of which kinds of letters draw a response from politicians, I cannot see that you will get a reply. That’s not to say that you won’t but i don’t think your questions are weighted enough to the facts. They are weighted to how you have been treated operating form a presumption that the Department has a responsibility to fix up the problem for you. Departments do not work like this.
In your first question you ask the Minister to concur with something that is fact. Why would he bother? If it is fact it needs no demand for him to make any comment on it because it already exists. So the statement you should be making is not “do you agree?” but “In 2002 the IRD gathered…” You need to tell the Minister what happened and then isolate the fact down into why you have been badly treated.
Question two is more direct. You are making a demand on the policy of sending threatening letters. This kind of letter is very effective. You rquestion is better suited to: “On what legal grounds did the department send…?”
The third question is far more tricky and shouldn’t be asked because you haven’t yet found out the replies and details for the first two questions.
There is no shame in rewriting your questions as more inquisitory for answers rather than where establishing grounds by neglect for further complaint. I am sure you will find if you reapply your questions carefully to the change of emphasis you will get the reply you want.
On the discrimination affair and its relationship with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner – can you answer me if you know if Margaret Wilson entered a Civil Union the weekend before last?
Cheers,
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 26th November 2007 @ 12:42 pm