United Future

Posted at 2010-03-06 09:57:22.14. Permalink.

Does anyone have any idea where things are at with progress on this issue? The Families Commission released there thoughts some 6 months ago and yet I haven't been able to track down any information on developments.
While I have no problem with the concept of paying child support, the system is hardly what I'd call fair (and its certainly stacked against the non-custodial parent). I personally feel genuinely sorry for low/middle income earners in the child support paying position. Not only is the living allowance pitiful, the child support payments themselves (which are calculated on a pre-tax basis) are financially crippling. The formulae assessment model also actively discourages encouraging people to improve themselves and grow there income (I worked out recently that for every $100 extra a middle income individual with 2 children on child support earns they receive only about 20% of it in the hand as a result of te tax child support increase (and that's before you pay GST!)).
My situation is equally ludicrous. My formulae assessment for the next 12 months will see me paying $2,126 child support a month to my ex. wife. I know from a recent administration review (and don't get me started on how much these people are out to get paying parents) that not only does this cover 100% of the costs of raising the children, it also covers 100% of my ex wifes costs!!!
Last time I checked they were actually our children, and while I don't mind paying the majority of the cost of raising the children (say 80%), its hardly fair that I should pay for 100%, and the fact that I also pay for 100% of ex wife's living expenses is a shameful endictment of the system. "Child support" should be to support the children. It is not for me to support my ex wife, her costs are her own, just as mine are mine.
Action in this regard cannot come soon enough from my perspective!

Posted at 2010-03-07 21:37:29.598. Permalink.

The short answer Brayden is that I presented proposals for change to the Cabinet at the end of last year. Cabinet has subsequently deferred these, so I am currently revising them with a view to re-presenting them to Cabinet in a little while.

Posted at 2010-03-08 19:47:16.528. Permalink.

Changes to the child support system are not going to occur in the distant future Brayden. Not when this government needs all the money it can gather from any kind of taxes to enable them to rob from the poor to supplement the wealthy.
You've only got to look at a pair of cold eyes behind a brilliant smile to know that if you're already struggling, you can look forward to struggling even more.

Posted at 2010-03-09 15:18:29.68. Permalink.

I'm not sure I agree in this instance Carol, while I certainly understand (and have some sympathy for) your cynasim, my sense from having reviewed a lot of the information that is in the public domain on this issue is that it points to a general recognition that the system is not really working in its current form.

High levels of child support debt and evidence of income sheltering are just two of the main indicators for this.

The paper produced by the families commission also makes for extremely good reading and talks about a lot of issues that are very relevant (e.g. lack of recognition of costs for the non-custodial parent etc). I look forward to seeing how the government intend to incorporate its conclusions going forward.

At the end of the day I intend to reserve judgement on this matter until we see what things are look like down the track. It's a very emotive topic and getting it right will be quite the balancing act. One thing for certain is that whatever the government do, not everyone will be happy (for every winner there is a loser). I just hope resolution
(whichever way it effects me) comes sooner rather than later, but I recognise the wheels of progress can turn quite slowly sometimes.

Posted at 2010-03-17 19:42:12.541. Permalink.

Hi Brayden
If an admin review officer set your income at 150% more than what you earned, would you be concerned?

Posted at 2010-03-23 15:11:50.647. Permalink.

Oh Dear
This doesn't seem right.....
Not only was I removed from my husband's liveable allowance but the review officer's decision was based on my earnings.
And that is exactly what the review officer's decision states

Posted at 2010-03-23 18:27:51.561. Permalink.

Hi Carol,
I completely agree with you. I don't think the system is working very well at all at the moment. My personal view of the living allowances is that they don't achieve what they should. They are very small (and it certainly doesn't help that the allowance is provided on a pre-tax basis in the calc). I also think they are unfair as the allowances for NCP's with a new partner and child often are significantly smaller than what the government says it an appropriate level of child support to be paying in the first place (its ironic that they say a NCP has to pay $X for child support, but the allowance that we give you as a deduction ($Y) is always significantly smaller). Also the allowances seem to be overturned half the time when the custodial parent objects through the administration review process so you end up with none (that's what happened to me - despite my partner being out of work at the time and being fully supported by me the admin review officer suggested that it theory she "could" support herself, so there's no allowance for you (begs the question as to why they even let people have them really).
While I have a huge number of issues with the existing system, I'm still prepared to go out on a limb and say this time the politians seem to have recognised the issues. How (and when) they deal with it is a source of huge interest for myself (and you by the looks of it ;-)).

Posted at 2010-03-29 22:54:23.067. Permalink.

Hi Brayden
I'm living in a country where child support admin review officers have more rights than Hitler ever had and I'm not supposed to be concerned?

Posted at 2010-05-01 14:11:54.681. Permalink.

Wow... so my child support calculation for 2010/11 is just in, and for 2 children my child support payments have increased from $2,003 per month to $2,126 per month. That's a 6.1% increase for my ex wife - not too bad really (for her) in this recessionary environment (it also makes being my ex wife the highest paying job she's ever had!). This is quite the joke really. Not only do I pay for 100% of the costs of raising the children, I also meet 100% of my ex wife's outgoings (and then some). Last time I checked, child support was to make a contribution to the costs of raising the children! (not 100% of them, and certainly not to pay for the custodial parents outgoings!). Where is the equity here!?! Any update Peter on when we can expect some action on this out of date / unfair system?

Posted at 2010-05-03 14:15:44.658. Permalink.

Hi Everyone

Was wondering about any changes myself.

For my two children my payments are $1890 per month.I have my two for 10 nights per month as well as many days but days are not important to the IRD only nights,taking them to their activities,providing breakfast ,lunch,dinners,paying health care,sports fees,sporting gear, not to mention all the fuel picking up and dropping off takes,these things don't count.I pay the same as if i had taken off to Australia and had no contact with them.
Now don't get me wrong paying to support my children,if my ex has them for the majority of the time is fine.The level of this is my issue,$14000 a year living allowance is ridiculous
I live in a two bedroom flat @ $250 a week which comes to $13000,this is all i can afford ,tho it had to be suitable for my children to stay,this gives me the princely sum of about $1400 for the rest of my allowance.
My ex lives in our old house,drives our car and didn't have to provide any thing for the kids,they had everything they needed.
I however had to buy everything for them to stay,as well as provide for them while they are with me.

Now you could be thinking i have a poor me attitude not so i just what a fairer way of providing for our two children

My ex has a new partner and good on her and i've tried to get a private agreement with her.However when i suggest this it's like i'm the devil himself for daring to suggest a drop in payments.

So here i sit in my flat,waiting for a fairer system.In the meantime i'll enjoy my time with my two children and keep telling them that we can go to the movies or wahtever cos Dad can't afford it.

Am i better of just going to Australia after all? maybe just to get ahead in life alittle?

Posted at 2010-05-03 15:22:44.613. Permalink.

Hi Ross,
Couldn't agree more, this is exactly the sort of inequity within the system that I've been talking about.
Fixing it can't come soon enough in my view, and who really knows what the answer is!?! It's a very complicated problem (and one things for sure they won't be able to make everyone happy!). At starting point would be a much fairer formulae assessment that doesn't cripple hard working parents and discourage them from achieving. Then maximum payment levels should be addressed (they are ridiculous at the moment). Thirdly (and I can't conceivably see this happening), but couples should be required to attempt to reach mutual agreement on payment levels through mediation with formulae assessment being an absolute last resort.
In answer to your question are you better off going to Australia, you'd have to say no as you can't put a price on having a great relationship with your kids. Its a huge shame that it comes at the cost of a massive ongoing financial burden, but if you're anything like me, I'd rather have my kids and this financial burden than not having my kids and having no financial burden. Still that doesn't stop me wishing someone would get the hurry up on and sort this out.
In my view it's a huge issue for a substantial portion of society, and whoever sorts it out (with a fair and equitable solutuion) is going to be very popular with a lot of people!

Posted at 2010-05-03 18:32:31.477. Permalink.

Hey Brayden

Obviously you are right, who would miss out on being part of your children growing up.

Though i almost did,spent along time over there and only came back because my ex wanted to come back.Had a business over there was doing well and now my lovely two bedroom flat in NZ.

About 2 years ago was at the airport about to get on a plane,just couldn't do it.Still think about it though.

Just want to do some stuff with the kids,when they are not with me ,i live off Mr Watties haven't had a beer in a month.

I have a good job,well paid the thing is after tax,child support,rent, power ,food,petrol,insurance etc i have virtually nothing,no savings (crazy)
1/3 of my income goes to my ex with her own income,working for families (what a joke that is)lifes great.

All i ask is that the IRD take into account her income and a bit of a lift in living allowance.

What do you guys think?

Posted at 2010-05-04 15:30:25.344. Permalink.

I totally agree Ross.
All we want is a bit of fairness. In my view the pendulum has swung way to far towards advantaging the the custodial parent (at significant cost to the the NCP). It's time some fairness was bought back into the equation (which is exactly the same reason I'm a huge supporter of the expected upcoming tax changes).
What is of most interest to me now is when (or if) it will even come???

Totally agree with your point on working for families too! (while I think in principal its a pretty good idea, in practice its implementation has been a bit of a disaster).

Posted at 2010-05-12 12:38:15.821. Permalink.

I am a NCP paying for two children one for 4 and one for 12 years.

I have over time learnt to live with paying the required rates of Child support from my income.

I notice that NCP dads that become a NCP late in the child’s life have severe problems when all of a sudden because Mum decides to terminate the family structure the Dad gets very badly mauled by the change in financial commitments when already in a financially tight commitment which most likely lead to the family disharmony in the first place.

I think NCP should have at least a year’s relief from full CP payment rates... much the same way a business starting does with some taxes.

Secondly I have one child cared for by mum (A) on the DPB and the other by a casual working Mum (B).

Child (B) is much better off as my payment is made to her household. Child (A) is worse off because mum has a lot of difficulty providing for two kids on the DPB. Why can't my payment go directly to parent of child (A) on my request??
It would do so much better.

I already pay taxes to look after people on benefits in my PAYE... then pay CS which is sent straight to subsidising the DPB. Why? It wasn't my choice that Mum A went on the DPB. So why assume I am responsible to subsidise the government DPB when I really want to pay for the child support?

Problem is there is no de-regulation of Child support.