Its Official Child Support Is a Tax!
Politician and Official agree, so called Child Support is a Tax
On 15 August 2004 the Hon Paul Swain,Associate Minister of Revenue and John Wright, Under-Secretary to the Minister of Revenue, issued a media statement. Fairer tax treatment proposed by discussion document. I would suggest that you read the statement. In summary it’s a media release telling taxpayers that IRD want to try and be fairer.
“The proposals in this discussion document attempt to strike a balance between the two extremes, to encourage voluntary compliance with the tax laws in the best possible way.”
Interesting as this is have a look at question and answer number six :
6. Will these proposals apply to all taxes?
Yes, with the exception of child support. Child support payments may be passed on to the custodial parent and are paid for the support of children. If child support debt was written off the children involved would suffer and the principles of the scheme would be undermined.
Its nice to see Paul Swain, the politician, and John Wright, the official agreeing with what we have been saying for a long time.
It is child tax, not child support.It is calculated on gross income using an inflexible formula and mostly ends up in the consolidated fund. It targets a group called ‘liable’ parents and it takes no account of individual circumstances. The Child Support Act 1991 is focused on collecting money, not on supporting our children, and is nothing more than a tax applied to ‘liable’ parents
Given that David Cunliffe, espouses the notion, “that the level of payment is fair and that the system is based on sound principles.” one can only conclude : that taxing separated parents with a Child Tax is fair and sound?
David Cunliffe and other tax collectors would do well to remember the words of Tiberuius Cesar “It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them.”
Myself, I am reflecting on the words of Henry David Thoreau ” If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible.”
Think about it friends, a “peaceable revolution” may be the answer?
The Child Support Act 1991 is financially crippling, mothers, fathers, children, step families, parents with student loans, parents with variable income, parents who are suddenly unemployed, parents planning families……the list goes on.The time for change is long overdue.
Thursday night I am having a reunion with some of the friends I made on MEN’s Convoy 2004 as we prepare for the MENZ PIKNIK (for Dad ,Mum and the Kids) at Parliament this Sunday, Fathers Day. It will be a great celebration, music, clowns, lollies for the kids, a sausage sizzle, prizes and giveaways. A celebration of fathers on fathers day. All are welcome.
Following the PIKNIK I will be addressing the Wellington Members of NZChild Support Reform Network. An update on this will follow next week.
The theme of this address will be “Is a peaceable revolution the answer? ” Keep an eye on your email and letterboxes.
Together we will achieve our goal of a fair and reasonable child support system.
Keep the comments flowing.!
Regards
Scrap_The_CSA
Wow! Paul, John and David, tell us something we didn’t know.
If child “support” is not tax then why is it calculated against taxable income (before income tax is calculated).
As a general comment, taxation in New Zealand is as flawed as the child “
supporttax” system.How can Cullen, Swain and Co let Air NZ pay just 0.5% tax when I am required to pay at least 24%?
How can it be that the “onus of proof now rests with the taxpayer” is seen to be fair and reasonable? It is neither fair nor reasonable that Department of Inland Revenue can claim I have a debt with them and I must then disprove this. In the meantime, I must pay the alleged debt or be penalised (funny that).
Why is it that I am forced to pay “income tax” when the New Zealand taxation system is based on “a voluntary contribution [to the war efforts]” (circa 1908)?
Funny, but I have never felt that NZ tax is voluntary. Rather that the coercion is so almighty (the penalties are far too grave) that it is foolhardy to not comply.
Remember all of you (Helen, Michael, Paul, David et al) who would govern “for the people”, election time is coming and the people you govern will make there dissatisfaction felt.
Power to the people! Let all decadent politicians beware – the end of their time is nigh.
Comment by Mark Shipman — Fri 3rd September 2004 @ 9:10 am
please send me info or statute whereby taxation is stated as voluntary (circa 1908) this is new to me and may make an interesting addition to my arguments when I decide to make the high court case active
richard
Comment by ricahrd knight — Fri 3rd September 2004 @ 10:14 am
Re “voluntary contribution to the war efforts of King Edward” try here as a start:
http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/australia/oz/082700a.html
Comment by Mark Shipman — Fri 3rd September 2004 @ 2:19 pm
An Interesting article from CIO magazine IRD IT and the doctrine of voluntary compliance.
http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/0/2C5DD8516BECDB25CC256C4B000C7CA4?OpenDocument
Regards
Jim
Comment by NZCSReform — Fri 3rd September 2004 @ 9:20 pm
Many thanks for the CIO article rference. Frightening in some of it’s suggestions. It seems the man in the middle is still being set up to pay the bulk of the parliamentary superannuation, Aunty Helen’s “tiny” $380,000 annual salary, salaries for 80 members of parliament that are 150% excess to requirements, benefit recovery (aka child tax) and anything else the commies can find.
Comment by Mark Shipman — Wed 6th October 2004 @ 12:22 pm
Why doesnt the IRD be honest and instead of pretending that I only pay 18% of my wage for my daughter;that its more like ? 25% as that 18% of my gross wage then becomes a net figure I pay.It is not 18% of my gross wage at all.I am on the bones of my arse while my ex has married a taiwanese importer and they have 2 housews between them and my money probably pays for their holidays or his 4 trips to taiwan per year.
Comment by keith — Wed 8th February 2006 @ 7:12 pm