$1.5b owed in child support
Almost a third of liable parents are shunning child support obligations, the highest rate in five years. At June 30, the child support hole totalled $1.5 billion. Inland Revenue is chasing more than $527 million owed by parents, with more than $1 billion owed in penalties. Fathers in Manukau and Gisborne and mothers in Invercargill and Dunedin were the worst offenders. A third of all debt is from Kiwi parents living overseas.
This article is a skewed spin doctoring of child tax debt.
1) Only $527m in child tax is “owed”, the rest is penalties that go to the tax-womans coffers.
2) Dunne has had 9 years to resolve the “debt crises”, but has only managed to continue to grow the debt. His actions and his officals advice, which is implemented in Law to fix the problems always makes it worse. If any other group where treated like this it would not be tolerated.
Children’s Commissioner John Angus said parents had a moral and legal obligation to pay. Parents were not meeting their responsibilities to their child when they elected not to pay.
“Children can get a message the non-custodial parent doesn’t care about them and how they are getting on, because they don’t care enough to make a financial contribution for them,” Dr Angus said.
I would suggest that this is reflective of the level of understanding of the Familes Commission on the subject of Child Tax – they dont have a clue what they are talking about. Agnus reduces the support of children to some English poor law notion from the 19th Century . Children never see any of the Child Tax paid, and in many cases dont see the paying parent but that has no relationship at all to weather a parent cares about his child or not. His statement is filled with biasis and assumption not reality and fact.
Mr Dunne said a Government review of the child support system was under way and would assess the actual cost of raising a child, how payments were measured and whether the system was fair, and would propose changes
The review is by people whose type of thinking created the current mess – Officials and The Families Comission – The reality is that new thinking is required.
As Enenstien tells us ” We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”
My message to Dunne and Agnus is simple : Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Â
Regards
Â
Scrap
So called Child Support is Govt extortion to fund the destruction of our **Whole Natural Biological FAMILYS** Spin Doctored to make you thick its Good for the Kids – Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Mr Angus appears to be promoting the psychological abuse of our children. No child should be involved in any of the adult issues. That includes Mum or Dad’s finances. To involve any children in such discussions would suggest elements of parental alienation.
Mr Angus should clarify his comments before mothers misunderstand and children are abused because his foolish message.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 3:18 pm
He sounds like another cheerleader for the Geriatric Bunny Boilers team.
Comment by downunder — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 3:22 pm
I wonder how much of that initial debt + penalties is owed by incarcerated men who still get charged at the minimum weekly rate of child tax? Quite a few of them would be fathers.
In New Zealand, for every 100,000 MEN, 7,185 are imprisoned. There are no statistics that reveal how many of them are fathers.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Not quite, SicKofNZ. I think it’s 7185 prisoners at present from a population of about 2 million men. Your point is taken, however.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Maybe you’re right. The information in the drop-down thingy is confusing then: This is a measure of how many men per 100,000 are in prison.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Can we keep to “Child Tax” please?
What other BENEFIT is associated with money recovery?
If you get sickness or unemployment benefit- do you have to pay it back?
The State offers women a Domestic purposes benefit if they ditch their husband (or the children’s father) AND GAIN SOLE CUSTODY.
In many or even most cases depending on how much hubby earns, this is a financial incentive. A mother will very often be better off on a benefit than dependant on hubby’s earnings, less tax, less his food, travel to work, clothes etc.
This is INCENTIVISING family breakup.
The State needs to be liable for the cost of this Social Engineering, if it can’t be afforded then cut something else, such as schools or hospitals, as with other benefits.
This might lead to some financial analysis of the costs of breaking up families, vs the costs of supporting intact families.
Comment by John Brett — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 7:22 pm
Can we keep to “Child Tax” please?
Agree John.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Funny thing….I went off the DPB in January when I started a full time job, and because both parents worked full time, niether of us paid child support. Then 5 months later the organisation I worked for got into financial difficulties and went into recievership. I worked for 6 weeks without pay before I finally went to WINZ and applied to go back on the DPB. Because my son stays with me ONLY 50% of the time (week about), I get aprox. $100 per week less than the full DPB… $332 per week to be exact. My weekly costs are; rent $225, Genesis power $40 (I can’t change this) and $61 per week for a bedroom suite for my son. Thankfully I have $6 left per week to pay for groceries, transport, medical, clothing etc. Or at least I thought so… IRD have started charging child support again since I applied for the DPB, and in two months it has already accumulated to $144 and they are now adding on penalties. Peter Dunne should be forced live on $332 per week with one child and give his child’s food money to IRD to pay for child support. What a f***ed circus you run Mr Dunne.
Comment by xsryder — Fri 14th August 2009 @ 10:27 pm
How can you receive the DPB, and also be charged Child Support?
Comment by John Brett — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 8:51 am
I was asked to provide interviewees for a TV station yesterday. They wanted a single mother not receiving CS and a single father not receiving child support.
I wonder whether there needs to be a database of some sort where we can access men for interviews and such.
Or any suggestions on who would be the best to contact?
Comment by julie — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 9:03 am
Very good point SicKofNZ. The DV industry seems to have a poor understanding of abuse. This is also shown by CYFS who think nothing of ruining a child’s life by ripping him/her away from parents to “protect” the child mostly from much lesser harms, often only unproven harms or possible future harms. They commit guaranteed child abuse to “protect” the child from possilbe future abuse, rather than helping the family reduce the risk. They convince a child he/she was harmed. They will exploit the child as a puppet witness in order to “get their man” in court, often someone important to the child’s life. To get evidence they will force the child to submit to humiliating examinations and interrogations that look like Salem witch hunts. And they will never help to heal the family relationships they wreck.
The DV industry is based on superstition, not a balanced view of the real impact on children or their needs. This superstition has now crept even further by criminalizing parents for normal smacking. Superstitions like that know no limits. Similar superstitious thinking, directed in that case at Jews and certain types of behaviour that the Germans were convinced to see as threatening, fuelled Nazi Germany to its incredible levels of disrespect for human rights and morality. This is exactly what is happening now towards men, using an ever-widening and more exaggerated definition of “violence”. Wake up people!
Comment by blamemenforall — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 9:26 am
My ex pays child support to me. She is on the DPB. She popped out two more kids (to father #3) after I won custody of our kids. She is on the DPB and is charged child support.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 10:23 am
BOTH my X and I are charged so called Child Support – She on the DPB me on and Invalids Benefit – They are considered to balance out and neither of us are expected to pay – Onward -jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 10:34 am
Julie – You are well aware of the **FAMILY Friendly Data-Base?** – Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 11:03 am
Child Support Proposal.
Here is what I think is the a solution for child support in 2 simple rules:
This solution is based on what a parent living with his children is paying to guarantee them a decent living. The government up to today has not regulated what a parent should spend on his/her children. Because of the absence of this regulation we have never heard of children starving from hunger or lack of toys, or massive governemnt debts. A resident parent may choose to spend a 100 dollars this month or 2000 next month. I do not see why the government should dictate what an absentee parent (absenteeism most of the time engineered by the goverment) should pay his her children.
The Two Rules:
Rule Number One: The government is required to pay a decent amount of money for a child whose parents are either not of this world or simply require a benefit to live.
– To simplify let us equate this amount to 20 Dollars.
Rule Number Two: Only and absolutely only this amount (20 dollars) is required to be paid from one parent or both as circumstances dictate.
– Pay attention to the 20 Dollars. It is not 1% or 15% or 30 % of your salary or income. It means a parent has the obligation to match exactly to the cent what the government would had paid to guarantee a decent living to his or her children.
What are the implications of the 2 rules:
– Parents will pay this amount because it is fair and just.
– It is a bonus if parents spend directly more money on their children. And many will do so, because they will not have the feeling that the
government is stealing their money since they spend it themselves on their children.
– The government can not this way steal parents contributions since it is required to pay 20 dollars if these are not forth coming from a parent.
(Today’s income support is tax extortion on a massive scale since not all of it is paid for a parent’s children) You pay an amount to the government and the government pays an amount to your children.)
Comment by tren Christchurch — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 11:36 am
we pay to off set the benifit paid by the government to solo parents who leave there spouses to go bed hopping at our expense as what we pay, part pays the benefit so we are actually paying child and dpb support. it is no our responsibility to pay for there benefit, we didnt hold a gun to there heads to go on it. that was there choioce and if the government wants to give them a benefit, so it be on there heads not the non custodin parent who as at presesnt cant have the same quality of life as those recieving the dpb and the perks that go with it. ird fuck up, charge penalities for there mistake, you cant contest anything with them as in there eyes no matter how wrong or how many times they balls up your child support they are always right. well that would make a great tui ad (ird always right? YEAH RIGHT!)
Comment by glenn — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 10:41 pm
Dunne is mearly doing his job – Gathering TAX from New Zealanders
The Western World and many others have discovered many ways to force TAX revenue
So called Child Support is just one of them
Expanding the economy thru an **Empire of Injustice**, DVA are others
Making suggestions as to how to change so called Child Support or the **Empire of Injustice**, or DVA etc is like suggesting to a gardener who knows what he is doing to change his manure when he sees the garden growing well.
We MUST change the foundations (Soil) of World-Wide FAMILY Law and Social Policy by ENSHRINING **Preferencial Equal Shared Parenting** deep with World-Wide FAMILY Law and Social Policy rather than fiddle with the manure.
Real **Equal Parenting** NOT the far right version offered previously in NZ will take the sails from ALL That-/-Who damage the **Whole Natural Biological FAMILY**.
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 11:03 pm
I would probably support these figures.
I remember figures in the 1980’s of around $150,000 for the first child, and $75,000 each for subsequent children
Having raised 4 children, with a mostly non-working wife I could actually show that I had spent about that.
Whilst I don’t agree with the present system of “Child Tax”I also get grumpy at certain sperm-donors who complain about the small child support payments that they pay.
John
http://nz.news. yahoo.com/ a/-/top-stories/ 5819018/cost- of-raising- a-child-to- 18-revealed/
Cost of raising a child to 18 revealed
While parents know that raising children is a costly business, they may be surprised to find out that new estimates put the bill at $250,000 per child.
The calculation has been included in a draft study for Inland Revenue and will be used in a Government review of the formula for determining child-support payments.
The $250,000 figure covers only expenses for “average” parents raising a child to the age of 18. It does not count stay-at-home parents’ loss of income or childcare costs, the Herald on Sunday reported.
Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said it was the first time such figures had been calculated, and he described the findings as “stark”.
The costs were determined by comparing two adult households with the same estimated standard of living — one with children and the other without.
The authors concluded that parents on a high income would spend almost three times as much on a single child as those on a low wage.
They also found costs for second and subsequent children could be reduced by the use of hand-me-downs.
Not surprisingly, children aged 12 and under cost less than teens. But the figures covered only basic expenses, such as food, clothes and vital equipment.
A shake-up of the child support scheme could affect more than 250,000 parents.
Mr Dunne said a discussion document about possible changes to the 20-year-old system would be released in a few weeks for public consultation.
He hoped to take a firm proposal to the Cabinet early next year.
The present system is based on an overseas formula where payments are calculated on a percentage of the liable parent’s income.
The review could look at ways of reflecting the income of a parent’s new partner.
Comment by John Brett — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 12:57 pm
There are lies damn lies then there are statistics. I don’t believe any of this shit about how much it costs to raise children. All I know is that it didn’t cost me $1420 per month to raise my 2 sons when they were in my care but F###ing IRD seem to think I should pay their mother that amount now that they are in her care. That’s not Child Support, that’s alimony,, a cosy little deal cooked up between the Feminazi’s and IRD to ensure that some of us are more equal than others. Dunne wouldn’t have the faintest idea about what it’s like trying to make ends meet on a medium wage when 1/3 is taken as PAYE and another 1/3 is taken in Child Tax leaving me and my wife to struggle on with the remaining 1/3. F###ing National are just another flavour of FemoSocialism supporting one gender to the detriment of the other. No wonder the family unit is breaking down in this godforsaken country!!
Comment by Had_Enough — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Minimum wage, less tax, less suggested child support equals, current unemployment benefit. $26,000 – $4,580 – 13,158 = 8262.00/52 = 158.00 compare benefit $158.65. Usual Bullshit.
Comment by downunder — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 1:51 pm
When I worked in finance the figures we used for working out any applicants budget: One adult cost $100 per/week and every subsequent person cost $80 per/week for food & groceries. Clothing, health etc cost extra.
Using the adult rate of $100 per/week + $10 per/week for clothing = $110 per/week X 19 years = $108,680
$250,000 – $108,680 = $141,320/19 yrs = $143 p/week per/child in extra expenses some where. That does seem excessive.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 3:17 pm
SickofNZ we are talking the same language here. Note the article quotes $250,000 for 18 years=$ 13,888 per year or $267.00 per week.
All of this needs to be inflation adjusted, so the $250,000 would only be true in 2009 dollars
I am sure that I paid nothing like that, but maybe $100 pw, but that was 20 yrs ago, so adjusted for inflation multiply by approx 2.5- hey its close!
Clearly some live cheaper than others- ours all had make do and hand downs, neighbours with 2 incomes got far more spent.
Re “Downunder”- have you raised a family? you typically end up personally with less than a benefit. You CANNOT raise a family on minimun wage, never could, unless you got free board or some other handup.
Consider this: If you are not there to make babies- (and why would you be- Fatherhood has the same long term prospects as a Suicide Bomber)
Sex in marriage can cost $250,000 a go
Sex in a VERY NICE brothel, will only be a few hundred, and no contingent liabilities.
Vasectomy for maybe a thousand.
No wonder there is a Man Draught, a growth Sex Industry, and Vasectomy Ads in every radio commercial break.
Comment by John Brett — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 3:43 pm
18 years of age – divide by 19. It is nothing to do with families, it is simply another formula for maximum revenue off easiest target.
Comment by downunder — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 4:14 pm
I don’t see the prospect of any change on the horizon, when we only have trained parrots for media in this country. They will do back flips over their notepads for an escaped monkey, but lack the intelligence to comprehend the effects of financial impediments on fatherhood. They will contribute to a generation who doesn’t give a toss about tomorrow or want to pay for the news of the day. Perhaps in recognition of their own deprived pockets they might think about what they could have done, when its to late to change what they contributed to.
Comment by downunder — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 5:32 pm
I suspect their figures are deliberately inflated. Their figures appear to me to be double the cost of raising a child. I raised three children on far less. I’m still raising my youngest child who is 16yrs old now.
They’ve used 18 years to work out the cost of raising a child however the non-custodial parent will be expected to pay up until the day before the child’s 19th birthday (364 days longer than 18yrs). That will push their figure of $250,000 even higher.
Your true costs 20 years ago of $100 per/week compared to their figure of $267 per/week suggests inflation of 167%. I’m veeerrrry doubtful.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 8:32 pm
$250,000 is the biggest figure they can chase without causing a conflict with Winz. Over the 19 years the biggest expenses come in the second half of a childs life. If this just becomes an arbitrary figure the liable parent will pre-pay expenses that most probably will never exist because the child will start work or be independant before the age of 19 years.
Comment by downunder — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 8:41 pm
NZ — Jim Bagnall on TV3 — Cost of raising a child put at $250,000
http://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/nz-jim-bagnall-on-tv3-cost-of-raising-a-child-put-at-250000
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 8:51 pm
In the 80’s a NZ bank ran education trusts. They would only release money from these these accounts upon proof of education receipts.
As I was paying out a fortune in child support at the time I wanted to ensure that the money was spent wisely and on my child. I met with the bank a drew up a scheme that I knew would work well.
In the early 90’s there was a review of child support and I met with the committe in Auckland and presented my case as follows…
A basic amount ($50) to be paid each week to the mother. Above that amount reciepts would need to be shown to the bank and the money would only be released upon my and the banks approval.
I asked the Bank at the time if they could see this operating and if they would be interested in operating it. They were quite keen as the system was already in place.
The committe meeting was a waste of time as it very quickly became apparent to me that it was NOT the childs interests at heart but the mothers. Why make things difficult for mum they said. I know from experience, as many thousand of other fathers in the western world, it’s all just a big racket which states “F**K father’s just take their money”
In London, where I now live, I meet young guys regulary who have no intention of hooking up with a lady. They have all seen what happens to the “dream of fatherhood” Their cry is “F**K women”. However lets look on the bright side of life……There will be no religous war between Islam and christianity as there will be no christians left in the world within a few generations.
Comment by Triassic — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 10:53 pm
I am now, thanks. 😉
Comment by julie — Sun 16th August 2009 @ 11:28 pm
The part that pisses me off mostly is that the NCP appears to be expected to pay for 100% of the childs expenses. Why can’t the CP pay half. I pay about $715 per child per month. So, using that figure, if I am really paying only half, she must be spending $1430 on each child every month. Does anyone actually believe that this is the case, apart from TV3 News??? $1430 per child per month is about $350 per child per week!!! YEAH RIGHT!!!!!
Comment by Had_Enough — Mon 17th August 2009 @ 8:37 am
SickofNZ your maths are a bit shaky-
The figure published is about 2.67 times my $100, (267%) but is over 20 years.
As a rule of thumb for inflation, –
The number of years for something to double- times- the rate of inflation = 72
So for 10% inflation, 7.2 years to double.
The inflation rate based on my figures works out at about 6.5% per year
Comment by John Brett — Mon 17th August 2009 @ 8:43 am
EDIT: 167% increase over 20 years….
…or 267% of the original figure.
either/or
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 17th August 2009 @ 9:49 am
“Dunne is mearly(merely) doing his job — Gathering TAX from New Zealanders”
A tax levied on the person.
The blind man heard a coin drop but he knew not where it came from — thank God this sort of neo-nazi rhetoric didn’t pervade the thinking of the Nuremberg Trials.
Comment by downunder — Mon 17th August 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Just to note since 1991 when the child tax law came into effect inflation has been low between 3-5 % .
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 17th August 2009 @ 4:28 pm
NZ is such a cool place to live in right now.
Not only do I have 1080 poison being dumped all over the top of me,which has resulted in my business closing down,I’m now being expected to contribute towards my husbands child support payments.
Comment by Rosie — Mon 17th August 2009 @ 6:57 pm
what do you mean.. sorry did not understand you..
Comment by karan jiharr — Mon 17th August 2009 @ 8:24 pm
“At June 30, the child support hole totalled $1.5 billion. Inland Revenue is chasing more than $527 million owed by parents, with more than $1 billion owed in penalties.”
A few observations:
1. This is 150% more than about 2 years ago. The rate of growth is increasing.
2. You would have to be brain dead to suggest the panalties system was working.
3. To the best of my knowledge there has never been another tax in New Zealand that has so spectaularly failed.
4. If this isn’t a signal that the system in unworkable then shall we wait until it reaches $3 billion? $6 billion. Should we except there is something fundamentally flawed with this system?
Comment by Dave — Tue 18th August 2009 @ 4:01 pm
NZ — Christchurch — Taxman exposes the rot of IRD from the inside — GO David Theobald / Mick Elborado you are a HERO
http://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/nz-chrischurch-taxman-exposes-the-rot-of-ird-from-the-inside-go-david-theobald-mick-elborado-you-are-a-hero
Comment by Jim Bailey — Wed 19th August 2009 @ 1:07 pm
You’re all missing the point!
Surely, if it costs that much to raise a kid, we should be raising the level of DPB to at least match it – plus more, because mum’s got to live as well, doesn’t she.
I suggest DPB should start at – oh maybe $26,000 for one child, and increase by a further $14,000 per annum for each additional child?
Comment by Fearless Frank — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 3:39 pm
I was thinking along similar lines.
Does this mean single mothers should ask for a raise from the government? 😉
Comment by julie — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Try working back the other way
Take:
One average wage
less Tax
Less rent or Mortgage
Less the cost of dad, food, basic clothes, transport to work
You might be surprised that the remainder is LESS than the DPD.
When my marriage restructured, I had to earn 1.5 times the average wage to be ahead of the “Break-Even” point where she would be better off on a DPB. In those days, possibly now, DPB beneficiaries could ALSO get lump sums for this and that, which are definately not offered to non-beneficiary parents.
On the plus side- I was asked to leave on FATHERS DAY! Now I look back and think WHAT A GIFT!
Comment by John Brett — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 5:56 pm
It does mean those looking after Kids on Benefits should ask for a rise, except those protected by HelenGrad and now John-K’s endorsed Family Tax Credits for the Rich and famous thats not helping any who actually need it.
However is this not the Govt softening those who pay so called Child Support that supports these benefits, to pay more.
The DPB is only one of many benefits one can be on and looking after Kids.
ALL benefits are made up of many parts
Its only the Kid bits that need raising if these latest figures are true.
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 22nd August 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Try looking @ the bigger picture of what Governments are trying to acheive with so called Child Support and the Likes of the DPB and DVA.
Stop fiddling around with the numbers within irrelevant subjects and abusing your gift of time and energy.
Put ALL of our energy and time into FAMILY Law and Social Policy that will overide all of these SCULDUGERYS that tear our **Whole Natural Biological FAMILIES** apart.
Enshrine **Perferencial Equal Shared Parenting** deep within GLOBAL FAMILY Law and Social Policy.
Then armed with the Law on the side of FAMILY Orientated FOLK drive those who damage us from the **Empire of Injustice** / bastions of power.
Onward – Jim
Supporting a fathers coalition and expanding the aims of Ration Shed.
Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 24th August 2009 @ 8:54 am
Oh FFS! What is this nonsense about children not seeing a cent of “Child Tax”?
“Natural Family” – here’s an idea – don’t be a misogynistic prick towards your wife, don’t “trivially assault” your children (or your wife), fulfill your wife’s needs in bed (yes, she does have needs), and spend time with your children. This is the solution to the “problem” of divorce.
Oh, and also, if you get to have the “freedom” to change your lifestyle, income, employment status, etc, at the detriment of your children, why doesn’t a woman have the “freedom” to change her lifestyle by seeking a divorce?
You are all screwed in the head. Seriously.
Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Wow somebody sure has issues,
I guess those needs werent filled huh?
I know, why dont I go on a site and abuse everybody about abuse! yes that will work and show everyone how rational and open I am.
Seriously
Comment by mits — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 4:25 pm
I have met many hate-filled women such as this. My hope is that no man is stupid enough to get involved with her until she has worked through her issues.
To all the good dads who have found themselves saddled with such a woman is:
Respect yourself-
don’t accept her abuse,
try to show your children that they don’t have to accept it either (this is hard because they don’t know any different).
Develop a good ‘exit strategy’ – Consult people who have done the hard yards, such as at menscentre.
Just getting out alive is good, getting out with your children is better, getting out with any money or assets is outstanding- beyond expectation.
then DITCH THE BITCH and GO. Never look back.
Comment by John Brett — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Why assume that I am female?! LOL
Men are actually capable of not being arseholes, and being reasonable!
Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 4:44 pm
Ah, argument and opposition is what you mean when you say ‘abuse’. This makes things much clearer.
Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 4:46 pm
You say
“Men are actually capable of not being arseholes, and being reasonable!”
That’s right! take me for example!
I’m just going on what my mother (now late mother) said, what my two sisters have said, and what my children now say.
When I was still in the marriage (for most of the 22 years) I had started to believe that I must have been a bad person in some way.
I came out of my marriage with ZIP- no money, no assets, no job, and a case of burnout.
Now I have everything a man could want.
Now, if someone starts to put me down, (as you did zaahk) I shut them down PDQ.
So be nice- or Be off!
Comment by John Brett — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 5:22 pm
zaahk: Why are you being personally abusive towards me?
Comment by Fearless Frank — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Consistency FAIL on the ‘putting down’ front:
Again, not female, but the ‘put down’ was directed at me nonetheless. I guess my opposition to your views is ‘abusing’ you. So very sorry.
Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Huh? When, where, why, how?
Seriously, the word ‘abuse’ has been seriously ‘abused’ on this website.
Go get raped, or assaulted, or brought up with fundamentalist christian values, or grow up as a child whose father didn’t pay child support, then come back to me with ‘abuse’.
Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Hi Zaahk,
Of course men can be reasonable over half us here are more than reasonable, indeed we congregate about the norm. Look at posts overall and see what paragons of reason and scholarship this site attracts.
All of us also have arseholes but in the polite company of MENZ we don’t discuss such bodily organs or functions.
What does FFS mean, Zaahk? I hope it isn’t some code that might lower the tone of debate on this august site.
Comment by Sanity — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 5:54 pm
I have not expressed any views for you to disagree with.
Your first contribution is ABUSIVE- to most people on this group.
If you can’t see that- it’s probably the reason for your presumably miserable life.
John
Comment by John Brett — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Frequent Flyer Services.
I’m sorry if you al feel abused, but seriously, wake up to the reality of the situation, and instead of blaming everyone else (women, ‘feminists’, ‘the system’) realize that you are causally responsible for all that which you moan about here.
And, I assume its the unreasonable <50% of the people on this site that have posted all the comments.
Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Sorry that denying your myopic conception of reality has made you feel abused. Genuinely.
Comment by zaahk — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 6:07 pm
zaahk,
If you don’t want to look like a troll, why go out of your way to appear like one? The shaming language kicks in within the first few sentences, and it follows the same, tired old script. It’s almost Soviet in its predictability. If you’re looking for some kind of social engagement, you’d do better on a dating site. If you really want a rise specifically out of us, at least try to be original. It’s just no fun when one partner doesn’t make an effort.
Comment by rc — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 6:43 pm
I was the primary caregiver of my three children since their births. I divorced my ex-wife after her attempts to kill our children.
Your advice to solve the “problem” of divorce is flawed.
DV equality would have spared my children from years of maternal abuse.
Your statement tells me more about your similarities to my ex-wife than much else.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 6:46 pm
Its just that you said “You are all screwed in the head. Seriously.”. So I was wondering why you’re being personally abusive by telling me that I’m screwed in the head.
Given we’ve never (as far as i know) met, that’s a fantastic psychiatric assessment to make …
Comment by Fearless Frank — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Also, now you assume I’ve never been “raped, or assaulted, or brought up with fundamentalist christian values, or grow up as a child whose father didn’t pay child support”
How are you able to assess that I don’t meet any – or all – of these experiences?
You clearly have hurts and wounds; or at least you seem to imply that youy do. I’m not sure why you are taking it out, amongst others, on me?
Comment by Fearless Frank — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 8:14 pm
I have posted comments on this site. Why does that make me ‘unreasonable’?
Comment by Fearless Frank — Wed 26th August 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Zaahk,
Are all who think differently to you screwed in the head?
I have DEMOnstrated, by Email, letter, Megaphone, select committee, against ALL that I see that damages good old fashioned Mum, Dad and the Kids now some 14 years.
My picture may be obscured by the traumas that have come apon my Son and I because my Sons Mother chose that we were not to be together while pregnant with him some 14 years ago. She trafficked my Son to gain an income most of that time until he was mature enough to demand he come live with me full time resently.
NZ FAMILY Law, Social Policy, its purveyors and her religious mates supported her in that trafficking and made things difficult for my Son and I all those years.
However much has been learnt durring that time and I hope I am able to pass that learning on to a few.
I also wish to learn from you and others.
I find it hard to ear what others are saying if they use language that is tooo obscure and deny my experience.
Especially my experience gained as a DAD and Grand DAD limited by the damage done to my health by the Injustices discovered that has left me disabled but well able to FATHER, Grand FATHER and Men-TOR others who bother to listen to those experiences.
The choice is yours to listen a little, TELL a little, find and join with others of like mind as they learn.
I hope you will share your passion in a way that I can hear over many face to face conversations in my beloved Ration Shed in Beach Haven some times.
Contact details are easily found by clicking Jim Bailey above by the Photo taken years ago when gaining the 10,000+ signatures as 5/6 of us worked sometimes dailey outside Auckland City FAMILY Caught and toured the North Island.
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 27th August 2009 @ 5:22 am