Dunne Dumps on Dads
Well, my prediction has come true (See //menz.org.nz/2009/peter-dunne’s-christmas-present/)
Have a read of the full text of this article and start planning what ACTION you are committed to make child tax reform an issue that wont go away.
Yes you can blog and write letters to ministers who do nothing to improve your slavery or you can get on the streets and take ACTION.
The matrix of Family Law will only get better when the members of Cabinet, those who decide the law changes, are forced to make positive change by the ACTION of the child tax slaves.
Its a new year and ACTION is comming : That could be stopping traffic on the Wellington Motorway, occupying IRD offices in Wellington, living in a tent city outside Dunnes home……. .
If you want change get ready for ACTION.
Regards
Scrap
Dear Ms.Dunne.
My oldest child has left his mothers home at age 17, he just couldn’t put up with living with her any more. For nearly a year now I have been supporting him from my country of exile from the femnazi, without assistance from his mother.
I pay child support plus an allowance for our other child (directly into his personal account). I’m not certain whether or not they are still legally my children. Apparently this can be changed without any consultation with me their biological father (I have long since lost respect for nz law). So much for being the primary caregiver for most of their lives.
After years of paying child support whilst actually being the primary caregiver I have very few assests or savings. Also I have now been inexplicably terminated from two very well paying positions in circumstances bsolutely reeking of the feminist inquisition. It’s now seems that I am not to be permitted to work. Glowing performance evaluations and letters recommending accelerated promotion count for nothing these days. What to do with my knowledge and energy?
You shouldn’t have too much difficulty accessing records as my ex was an IRD Manager.
Totally without any love or respect for you.
Your Timebomb.
Comment by Peter — Sun 27th December 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Yes femnazi goons, I do realise that you read this.
Comment by Peter — Sun 27th December 2009 @ 5:57 pm
New Zealand has no desire to treat Fathers/Men with respect nor fairne$$. EMIGRATE! Become a taxpayer to a better slave master and one day it might only cost $1 a day to feed your hungry child back in New Zealand. Knee them in their money-sacks!
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 28th December 2009 @ 7:37 am
child support…1 of the govt’s many money making scams…most of what i read was utter crap…looks like alot of blame and finger pointing to me..now watch child support go up…that’ll cure the hardship…govt should stop riding on the backs of kids to collect revenue…and stop creating debt on ppl might be a good place to start…children suffer hardship when CS isnt paid?..haha…what a crock of shit…how so id like to know?..All child support paid when child carer is on a benefit goes to the govt coffers and so do penalties…i bet the govt make more money out of child support than what entitled parents get…that would be interesting to find out…the article goes on about poor kids this..poor kids that…its not about kids…its about money…ive always looked after my kids…always supported them…always paid my child support as well…why the fuck i pay CS ill never know…paying cs puts myself and my kids in hardship as theres less money in the house for them…hope u read this dunne…wanker
Comment by ford — Mon 28th December 2009 @ 9:04 am
Action?
Suffer the little children to come unto me… and take the millstones to tie around the necks of those who would stop them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239217/Youve-bankrupted-dad-13-year-old-girl-sue-Child-Support-Agency-legal-battle-left-father-crippling-debts.html
A small girl is taking on the UK C$A for child abuse.
Comment by amfortas — Thu 31st December 2009 @ 11:09 pm
Dunne makes unsubstantiated claims:
“The thing we often forget in the child-support debate is that it’s not really about the parents — it’s about the kids, and if the payments aren’t being made, then the children are suffering,” Dunne said.
Where is his evidence that the children are suffering? He doesn’t provide any. It’s an assumption based on ideology.
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th January 2010 @ 2:44 pm
Keep in mind that about 75% of separations are initiated by the mother. Of the remaining 1 in 4, more than half are mutual. Separation is only rarely the choice of the father.
Feminists groups try to imply that all these women are abused or oppressed by their husbands. Wide ranging studies show that in fact men and women are abused in roughly equal numbers in side a relationship. In any case studies show that this is very rarely given as a reason for why the relationship failed. I have posted those figures on this site previously.
What all this tells us is that 3 out of 4 separations are a life style choice by the mother against the wishes of the father.
The current ideological assumption is that it is the state’s role to make sure this lifestyle choice of the mother is funded by the father.
Let me repeat that. In 3 out of 4 cases the mother has broken up the family as her own lifestyle choice.
Should the state make sure this lifestyle choice is funded?
If so, should it be funded by the father or the state or both?
Keep in mind that as a developed country all people have access to welfare and no one is going hungry or homeless or missing out on an education as a result of a separation. I am sure we all agree that a basic safety net and free education are always guaranteed by the state regardless of one’s personal circumstances. That has nothing to do with whether parents are divorced or not. Hence poverty is not the issue.
What is at issue is what kind of a life style should people lead as a result of their decisions. Should a mother that left and took the children find life hard? Should the father who lost the children through no choice or fault of his find life hard?
In simple terms the current ideological thinking is that the father should find life hard.
Keep in mind that most separated people are not wealthy enough to fully fund two households – yet that is required to have children stay overnight even a very small amount of the year. Hence contrary to the ideological beliefs of the government, both households are going to have a sharp reduction in their life style as a result of this decision of the mothers. This is why I talk about who should find life hard.
The real question is who is responsible for the life style choices of mothers?
When Dunne and others talk about the decisions of the parents should not effect the children they should be corrected. It is a life style choice of the mother’s in 3 out of 4 cases. It is not a decision that the father made. In most cases the father would prefer to live unhappily married than loose his children, home and income.
So let’s talk about who should be responsible for the decisions of the mothers.
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th January 2010 @ 3:19 pm
Now the PC brigade would say that the children should not bear the consequences.
This is a silly statement.
Name me one parenting decision that does not have consequences for the children? Go on, Just one. Millions of parents make several of the these decisions everyday. So why can’t you name me just one?
The reason is that they are PARENTING decisions. By definition they effect the children. Look it up.
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th January 2010 @ 3:23 pm
The concept of taking money from a parent supposedly for a child’s benefit is a PARENTING decision. So even if the NZ system was radically overhauled so that the money was actually used on the children it would still mean the state was making a parenting decision.
Should the state be making parenting decisions?
Which ones?
Why this one?
The problem with the state making parenting decisions is that mostly in the long run the children end up worse off.
There are very few exceptions to this. The only ones I can think of are where the state defines the very basics a child needs to grow into an adult. E.g. food, shelter and an education. These are all covered by a basic welfare system and being able to make parents liable for negligence.
Such things are guaranteed by the state regardless of your parent’s circumstances. So where is the need for the state to intervene in the parenting choices of separated couples?
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th January 2010 @ 3:47 pm
The ideology is to quote Dunne: “…if the payments aren’t being made, then the children are suffering”.
Certainly under the current system this simply is not true.
There is $1.7 billion of “debt” and $1.2 billion is penalties. 70% of all “debts” were never intended for the children. They are fines for the tax man to collect.
“More than $850m is owed by parents who are no longer required to pay child support but have outstanding debt and a further $860m is owed by parents currently behind on their payments.”
So half is for children who are now over the age of 19 or are living with the “liable” parent.
In other words the most that could possibly be directed to suffering children is about 15% of the debt.
Now keep in mind that more than half of this money actually goes to the government to offset the DPB. So that money was also never intended for the children.
OK so in fact at the most 7% of all debts might theoretically go towards children.
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th January 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Now before you get worried about that 7% you need to understand that in NZ we do not have a child support system.
What we have is a child tax.
There is no intention or case or cause for any of this money to be spent on children. The mother claiming the money can have it go directly from the IRD into her Mercedes Car lease agreement. The law explicitly states that the money does not have to go towards the children or even towards the mother’s bank account. There is not a single thing in the legislation that limits the use or purpose of this money. The calculation of the payments have not the slightest relevance to raising a child.
In other words there is absolutely no accountability that a single child would miss out on a single luxury as a result of whether this 7% was paid or not.
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th January 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Another fundamental flaw in the system is the assumption that a separated parent would only pay towards the care of a child that they are forced to pay and not even then. These are people’s own children that they have a bond with and in almost all cases care for at least some of the time. This is a ludiricous assuption deviod of any basic common sense.
In fact studies show the opposite. They show that the more a separated parent is involved with the care of a child the more they are willing to pay for that child. Well gosh who would have thought it?!! It is so blatantly obvious that the over riding assumption of the system is flawed.
In other words if a mother is finding it hard to pay for the care of the children then that can most easily and equitably be addressed by getting the father to do more of the caring for the children.
This just so happens to be very much in the child’s interests for a whole host of reasons.
Which really makes you wonder why we have a system that promotes the opposite arrangement. Child Support systems work as a disincentive to share the care of the children. Yet we all know that is what almost all kids want and it has by far the best outcomes for children.
If Dunne and Co really want to take the moral ground that it is about the children then they would be designing a system where both parents are significantly better off financially if they share the care of the children.
Instead Dunne makes this claim:
“Dunne said he understood that argument but parents’ obligations to look after their children over-rode all arguments against paying child support.”
This is double speak.
The system works and is designed to work as a barrier for separated parents to “look after their children”. The system is designed as an incentive for mothers to prevent fathers to “look after their children”. Studies have shown that where more fathers are allowed to “look after their children” they they are more willing to pay child support.
Dunne is fundamentally flawed by his ideology.
However the sad truth is that Dunne is less blinded by NZ ideology than most others in positions of power and influence.
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th January 2010 @ 4:27 pm
The current system is so flawed it has created a self fore-filling prophecy. Children are denied their fathers in incredible numbers. The system is designed and implemented in such a way that the costs to being a father are unsustainable. This leads to more and more loving fathers simply giving up and buggering off. A loving caring involved father is turned into an absentee parent that avoids paying child tax. The entire system is geared to produce this outcome.
The system has created an entire underclass of people that would have contributed
Comment by Dave — Tue 5th January 2010 @ 4:33 pm
For God’s sake MEN.
James writes a great aticle to encourage MEN to STAND and you all begin the ineffective debate over again thats been going on since the so called Child Support Act took effect some 40/50 years ago – Yes I know it was called something else then.
Where are the MEN STANDING up and actually doing some of the stuff suggested by those who have gone to the mainly unsupported front line.
Talk feast merely provides ways fwd for the FemiNazi
How the hell can Peter Dunne or anybody other power broker make real change while they are forced to negotiate with those who want to destroy our FAMILIES because there is NO POWER in the so called NZ Mens Movement
Hot Air does not equal POWER
James has made some excellent suggestions STAND with HIM
Onward – Together in CHRIST – Jim – JimBWarrior
Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 7th January 2010 @ 1:25 am
It was called the Liable Parent Scheme Jim, and operated by the then Dept of Social Security. It commenced in the 80’s and was preceded by staff ringing to attempt to obtain payments. I was a disaster as some one said the department was much better at doleing out money than collecting it! At it’s conclusion Bay Corp purchased the debt.
Comment by Keen Skier — Thu 7th January 2010 @ 9:04 am
Men where forced to pay something equivalent to so called Child Support when they returned from the second world war to find Mum had buggered off to live with another Man and taken the Kids.
Don’t kid yourselves CSA has been well designed to screw Liable Parents for many generations in some form or another.
Probably the Romans sent a portion of the warriors pay to Mum wether she was honouring Dad or NOT
Onward – Together in CHRIST – Jim – JimBWarrior
Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 7th January 2010 @ 9:18 am
Yes I agree that protesting ACTION is called for.
We also need to communicate and articulate what is wrong with the current system and what should replace it. Don’t under estimate the power of communication my friend. We need both things.
My contention is that the whole ideology is fundamentally flawed.
Comment by Dave — Thu 7th January 2010 @ 11:22 am
Here’s a form of action that makes complete sense to me. Thankfully increasing numbers of men are doing as the author recommends. Some will say this is caving in to the feminists who have a long public record of wanting to destroy the nuclear family seeing it ideologically as a ‘patriarchal’ institution.
They will say that avoiding marriage and having children only gives feminists what they’ve been after. But read the article in it’s entirety to see it’s not that at all.
The article is quite long (about 10 minutes reading).
So get yourself a cup of coffee, or something stronger if you like as the author pulls no punches) and settle in to contemplate what he’s saying.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 7th January 2010 @ 2:14 pm
A one sided view of the scheme.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Thu 7th January 2010 @ 9:11 pm
I read that skeptik, thanks. I find all the articles by Dr Tara Palmatier very helpful on that site
The problem is that only 10% of men divorcing actually go to court and are affected by these family court decisions. That is 5% of men (assuming 50% divorce), 95% are happily married or do not go to court and work it out with spouses. Those 95% may read of the terrible experience, BUT DO NOT EXPERIENCE IT FOR THEMSELVES.
As has been said previously , the big names and famous people who go to these secret courts get lots of publicity and you can be sure that the outcomes are not the same as ours. The 95% will read about these big name cases and think that this is not so bad, BUT IT IS !
Our number is small but growing, and we have gone through such INJUSTICE. I think that the male pill is the best potential way of protesting, but you can be sure that this will be delayed in some ways at feminst behest
Comment by martin swash — Fri 8th January 2010 @ 1:35 am
Reply to Skeptik..
‘feminists who have a long public record of wanting to destroy the nuclear family seeing it ideologically as a ‘patriarchal’ institution’
…..Hate to say this….But there is quite a lot
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 8th January 2010 @ 8:37 am
…….Ouch….!!! Bugger,hit it the wrong key again…
…To finish of my comment …..But there is a lot Truth in Feminists in New Zealand trying to destroy the Family unit….My Lady Barrister Friend suggested I do a Google search on Famous Feminists quotes…Which I did….That was extremely scary reading…..
I can remember quite clearly in 1989,a lady employee who was a staunch Feminist, said to my face ‘Men are not needed anymore as in the ‘family’ unit,what all (note the word ‘all’) Woman need is a Man’s sperm and then He can F@#K Off’….
Is this the mindset thinking of Western European Woman of the future of Western European Civilization.???..If it is …I don’t want to be around…….
Kind Regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 8th January 2010 @ 8:51 am
……Just a quote from a famous Feminist…….And this is no joke…this lady actually quoted this to the media…..
“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” — Robin Morgan
‘Tongue in cheek’….I am so glad to feel so Liberated by Feminism…
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 8th January 2010 @ 3:17 pm
Some Questions I have re child support and hope every non custodial parent will agree with me…………
1.If child support is calculated on the non custodial capacity to earn, then why is’nt his living allowance caluculated using his “capacity to earn”
2.The same government pays “working for familes tax credits” until age of 18 only as the Govt believes that a child becomes financially independent by then, THEN WHY the same government forces the non ciustodial parent to pay child suppoet until age of 19.
3. If the govermnet puts X% as the amount to pay child support e.g 18% for one child then equally it should allow 18% of the child living with the Non custodial Parent.
We are nearly in the new financially year, Do you think there will be a change in the child support system to make it fairer. I call
Mr Dunne office to check the progress, I was told that “the change is not regared as urgent” thus has been placed on the waitig list.
The familes Commission has prepared document it costs $250,000.00 to raise a child……YAY…..this document and figures gives the Govt a very clear idea just, how much it costs to raise a child and if this is true that it cost $250,000.00 to raise a child then YAY….
-working for familes should increase
-all benefits should increase
-child subsidy should increase
-Child living with the NCP should be allowed $250,000.00
AND
ABOVE ALL THE MINIMUM WAGES SHOULD INCREASE AS NOW IT IS IN “BLACK AND WHITE’ EXACTLY HOW MUCH IS COSTS TO RAISE A CHILD?
I am so disappointed that next year I will not vote at all. no one cares about men in this country.
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 4:10 pm
End of Year Square up
I called IRD the other day to check if will be squaring up my end of year child support deductions… Iwas told “NO” unless i had made an assessment and my income dropped by 15%.
The same IRD squares up my Income Tax at the end of the year and will not square up my child support deductions, when asked “why” I was bluntly told it the law…
I beleive all child support deductions need to be squared up so its fair on both sides. and there should not be any limit that estimations can only be done if you earn less than 15%. the the struggkibg Non custodial parent, every cent counts.
and another question:
If i pay my child support late I am charged late payment penalties and Interest…is this also passed to the non custodial parent
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 4:16 pm
In reply to your last point; no.
That is why it should not be called a child support payment as it clearly is a tax.
Support would mean the custodial parent gets paid at set times, which they don’t. Late payment penalties go straight to the government coffers, just like payments made when the custodial parent is on DHB.
Comment by noconfidence — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 8:43 pm
I suspect many men will vote with their feet….. and emigrate to places where they don’t have to pay it. A shame that it gets to this and I fully hold the government to blame for this.
Comment by noconfidence — Tue 19th January 2010 @ 8:46 pm
The formula components for the 2010/2011 child support year:
Minimum formula assessment annual rate: $815
Maximum assessable income: $120,463
Living allowances:
– Single person with no dependents $14,158
– Partnered with no dependents $19,379
– Single/ Partnered with one dependent $27,417
– Single/ Partnered with two dependents $30,234
– Single/ Partnered with three dependents $33,051
– Single/ Partnered with four dependents $35,868
I wonder how long wil it take the Government to cahnge the law and be fair
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Fri 22nd January 2010 @ 3:24 pm
Now lets compare
Living allowances
– Single person with no dependents
31/03/09—$13,964.00 31/03/10— $14,158
– Partnered with no dependents
31/03/09—$18,858.00 31/03/10—$19,379
– Single/ Partnered with one dependent
31/03/09—$26,425.00 31/03/10—$27,417
– Single/ Partnered with two dependents
31/03/09—$29,096.00 31/03/10 —$30,234
– Single/ Partnered with three dependents
31/03/09—$31,767.00 31/03/10—$33,051
– Single/ Partnered with four dependents
31/03/09—$34,438.00 31/03/10—$35,868
Comment by Disappointed NCP — Fri 22nd January 2010 @ 3:28 pm