Comments on: Child support advice for Federal Cabinet

By: M

Thu, 06 Jan 2011 23:47:52 +0000

One of the big problems is that poorly educated and highly biased people in the CSA are given unlimited discretionary power to make decisions. In my current situation I have been unable to source work, and all my finances have been depleted through frivolous court action by my former partner. I am now left with nothing to support myself or my son. None the less the CSA have determined my salary to be $50k per year for the next three years. Despite having 42% care of my child and my ex having over 230% more income than I, I am still required to pay her the equivalent of 25% of my gross income. My story if you believe it for what it is can only point at what a total failure the CSA is.

By: Dee De Wit

Dee De Wit — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:25:58 +0000

How morally and socially retarded it is to call women who become pregnant to men (clearly not protecting their dicks with a condom in the first place)â€˜slags’.
Women have spent the better part of 50 000 years slaving to bring up children, most often from the time they were old enough to be permitted by their culture to have sex, or to have been married off by someone else: usually their father. Knocked-up from the first self-interested thrust… and that’s not even counting the amount of women who would have gone to the grave without an orgasm due the propensity of men to satisfy themselves primarily during the act.
Nowadays, on top of having to do roughly 85% of the child’s rearing and contribute 70% of their dollars (whilst daddy gets the good times on the weekend and the ability to maintain a lifestyle conducive to finding other sexual partners), they have to put up with the vexatious venality of a moron like ‘Vicky’ to boot.
You’re clearly not female, â€˜Vicky’: if you are, you oughtta consider giving up your right to your cunt; it’s rather pathetic of you to be putting the boot into a gender who’ve only recently managed to climb out of the dark ages of sexual and social servitude…thanks only to the ‘female’ pill.

By: VICKYC

VICKYC — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:51:09 +0000

The Child Support Agency should assess the nett income only Not the Gross. Its double dipping how can you make someone pay on a gross income that takes half their income in tax and 18% for bastard children which is really 36% based on gross.Single slag women who have babies without your permission and then do a runner should not have a lifetime financial claim on a man. Wear a condom guys or get a vasectomy. Your bank account and future relationships depend on it.

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 26 May 2005 21:01:41 +0000

CSA COSTS
The tax payer should foot the bill for child support payments. It will cost the taxpayer almost one third less to simply pay the custodial parent directly out of government funds – that is until shared parenting becomes the norm.
The PIR Independent Research Group report “Child Support the Financial Cost to the Taxpayer” (September 2004) confirms that the CSA is a financial failure – “a costly endeavor with no tangible benefits for children or their parents”.
Children of separated parents now receive less per child than prior to the creation of the $240 million a year CSA bureaucracy with its 3,000 staff.
For every dollar the CSA collects it costs $5.58 in administration costs, welfare and lost taxation revenue.
The cost of the scheme in administration, increased welfare and lost productivity was estimated at $5,000 million for 2002/03.
The number of payers earning less than half the national average wage is 45%.
70% of all the unemployed males in Australia over the age of 20 are child support payers.
At least 39% of CSA payers are either unemployed, sporadically employed or on disability pensions.
An estimated 80% of payees are reliant on social welfare.

By: spog

spog — Thu, 26 May 2005 20:27:54 +0000

I’ve often thought that because child support goes from one household to the other, and the recipient can do what they will with it (there are no imposed constraints on spending decisions in normal child support cases), it should be deducted from the income of the payer, and counted as the income of the recipient. This could be for all purposes – tax, welfare, etc. It’s already done that way to a limited extent for some parts of the tax-transfer system – why not make it consistent. This would be a different way of tackling the net-of-tax idea that Graham raised.