Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Rudd Government Windfall

G'day

I was wondering what if any impact the Rudd Government  $1000  per child rebate (gift) will have on C$.  I have zero nights.  So I have to pay Max support.  Will the extra 2000 the mother get have any impact - (she has no income)  She is on PP or Special Benefits.  
The policy guide is silent on this, as are those who claim to represent our views to government.  My view is that us payers/taxpayers should be seeking a CSA change of assessment under reason8 for the annual FTB pt A & B bonuses as well.  After all, it is not a means tested payment.  
newguy, I have asked csa and centrelink about this and both have said it does not affect anything.  Its not taxable, and will be paid so long as of October 14th (I think-when the gov't announced it) the father/mother was receiving FTB part a.

When 'Life' is hard and things are tough,

and you feel like you've had enough.

Remember always this one thing true,

Someone else depends on YOU.
I am about to respond to a reason 8 COA.  This will be included.  It seems they have overlooked it.
MY opinions is that it should be split according to the percentage of care.

It is not a monetary item covered by the research that determined the costs of children, so should rightly be classed, as big red says, something under a reason 8 Change of assessment.

However surely the government should see sense and look to reducing a mass influx of COA's, which the CSA would not be able to cope with in the time frames in which they are bound, thus resulting in subsequent extra time wasted for objections/complaints, when it could very easily determine if the recipient of the bonus is a CS recipient/payer and then apply a just an equitable portion to such parents.

 
Wouldnt the gov automatically split the bonus if both parents are receiving FTB part A. It is possible for both parents to be reicieving FTB part A for one child.

Rarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
I agree it will be split where both receive FTB.  But where they don't the concept of shared liability based on level of income has been perverted by the issue of bonuses.  

Well, if those who have the ears of the policy makers read this perhaps they may like to raise it as an issue.
Realistically how much income could you claw back from CS on an $1000 bonus. Im fairly certain the policy makers are targeting their bread and butter voters via giving the bonus' to FTB a recipients. They dont really give a &%$ about higher income earners.

Rarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
The bonus is split for care amount providing that you were receiving FTB when it was announced, as per taped recording via FTB line I also enquired as to my expected portion and it is being split.

don't forget the quantum of all the FTB bonuses is starting to rack up.  I count $2k and little bit for one child.  If you are already arguing "it aint fair', under reason 8 a little more helps the argument along.  It also shows how poorly thought out they have been.  I refer to payers with regular or nil care of course.
$1000 per child to a full payer is hardly going to make any difference anyway, a few bucks a month over the course of the year id say… not worth jumping up and down about, and as with all bonuses it will be split along the lines of FTB percentages…

and on another matter, all this handout will do is aid the hyper inflation that is surely coming our way very soon…..

you simply cannot print more money, to giveaway in handouts to us OR bailouts to crooked companies without it happening, its basic economics… printing more money causes inflation.. full stop, this handout is like applying a cotton swab onto a burst artery, and it is doomed to failure

cheerz

Last edit: by gooner


They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority

except Rudd and Swan aren't printing any money.  They are repaying the surplus of tax over expenditure, except they are tageting where it lands to people who are most likely to spend it at places like Harvey Norman, rather than save it.

My argument is that it comes from tax revenue paid by, among others CSA payers, so therefore some of it should be used to provide relief, even if it is a few bucks a fortnight.  
I hope you are all right in regards to the bonus being split according to care percentages!!!! Centerlink has informed me the opposite.  I was told that if you have less than 35% care you are enitled to $0 of that $1000.  My husband pays child support and according to centerlink has 31% care so therefore gets nothing for his 2 children, which to me is absurd.  I have 72% care of my child (ex doesn't pay support which is fine we are in agreement with that) and i have been told i get the full $1000.  Which will be handy as now we will have to divide that between 3 children for christmas, however my ex still has christmas presents to buy for my son too but then again he doesnt have to pay for anything else,  but why should my husbands ex get $3000 (she has another child) when she already gets child support and full government benefits????  Should we not get that 31%?

We are both full time workers and get a measly amount of family tax benefit anyway.  Dont get me wrong it all helps when you are paying for 3 kids.

If centerlink have informed me wrong and someone on this forum has more information please fill me in.  Thanks
I have to admit I maybe wrong as I have a high care percentage but when speaking to the person they reflected that it would be divided. I know laws have changes in regards to CSA etc and this may effect FTB percentages I'll try and clarify my statement in regards to percentages.
So are those who advocate on our behalfs going to raise the inequity here with the politicians.  I have.
I've just zipped quickly across to the web site and it does state " and payments " with regards to the 35% rule.

Although it states a percentage that you are considered to cover it does raise the question if you could degrease your CSA by that percentage of the $1000 per child or if that said percentage should come to you.

I guess the basic premises of giving this bonus is to stimulate the economy so they have selected a portion of the population that will spend the money possibly because they are cashed up who knows ?????
D4E said
Although it states a percentage that you are considered to cover it does raise the question if you could degrease your CSA by that percentage of the $1000 per child or if that said percentage should come to you.


  D4E, I know its a typo "if you could degrease your CSA" but I am laughing my head off.  It soulds so politically correct, "if you could DEGREASE your CSA" I think we'd all be better off! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

When 'Life' is hard and things are tough,

and you feel like you've had enough.

Remember always this one thing true,

Someone else depends on YOU.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets