Child Support Calculator

Advice regarding local MP advocacy

Add Topic
Hi everyone,

I'm hoping to gather some advice from forum members who may have experience with seeking the employ of their local federal member in the hope of some decency and common sense being forced upon the drones of CSA.

The issue to be discussed is the ADF Reserves versus CSA idiocy saga. My local member is Joel Fitzgibbon who served a partial term as Defence Minister. I'll be pitching it to my local member almost solely from the 'tax exempt/excluded by the Guide/excluded by the Act point of view, but I'll also make mention of the fact that for every reservist who discharges (using Infantry as an example) because of CSA docking that income stream it costs the tax payer (that's you unless of course you're a welfare recipient) about 100K of training liability for no return. Cost versus benefit and so forth.

CSA maintain that reserve income is blanketed by the 'financial resource' banner, however the intent of the tax exemption status was to avoid that exact type of situation and the ADF legal types maintain that that is correct, in stark contrast with CSA.

Can anyone offer any advice or guidance on the best way to approach the above during my appointment with said MP? Should I push the issue based only on the tax exemption status? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.
Sleepy said
Hi everyone,

I'm hoping to gather some advice from forum members who may have experience with seeking the employ of their local federal member in the hope of some decency and common sense being forced upon the drones of CSA.

The issue to be discussed is the ADF Reserves versus CSA idiocy saga. My local member is Joel Fitzgibbon who served a partial term as Defence Minister. I'll be pitching it to my local member almost solely from the 'tax exempt/excluded by the Guide/excluded by the Act point of view, but I'll also make mention of the fact that for every reservist who discharges (using Infantry as an example) because of CSA docking that income stream it costs the tax payer (that's you unless of course you're a welfare recipient) about 100K of training liability for no return. Cost versus benefit and so forth.

CSA maintain that reserve income is blanketed by the 'financial resource' banner, however the intent of the tax exemption status was to avoid that exact type of situation and the ADF legal types maintain that that is correct, in stark contrast with CSA.

Can anyone offer any advice or guidance on the best way to approach the above during my appointment with said MP? Should I push the issue based only on the tax exemption status? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.
 
Fitzgibbon, being an ALP drone, is committed to the CSA recovering as much from separated fathers as possible. I'd not bother, frankly.
Child support is not tax so your argument has no ground. Regardless of any financial circumstances you a required by law to support your children. Anything you try will bring you back to this point of law.

Your reserve income could be classed as an extra job where I think C$A can give a three year exemption on it.

In any case the C$A can only access this income as part of a COA from the payee and they have to have grounds that the extra funds are needed.

C$A generally favour the payee as they save tax $$$ if they can increase your liability to claw back FTB.

Perhaps complain about this last point but don't bother with the rest.
Fitzgibbon cared for the troops, particularly the dead ones and their families and units. That's more than can be said for the two Defence Ministers since.

Fairgo, I already pay nearly $400pw in CS and according to the CSA calculator that'll increase to about $450-$460pw after my impending tax return. My kids don't go without nor would I want them to. I can't apply to have it (reserve income) exempted under s.44 because I was already earning that income, although to a slightly lesser extent.

Bear with me on this one purely as a hyperthetical; I could be declared bankrupt tomorrow and owe a creditor $1 million AUD. Until I earned over 43K I wouldn't be required to make amends. If I earned 50K from reserve service it wouldn't be considered as counting toward that amount. CSA is the only organisation in the country who have decided that a tax exempt income forms part of a taxable income.

This has been to the SSAT with the result favouring CSA/payees but has not yet reached a Federel Magistrate's court, so it's open for testing as far as I'm concerned.

I will point out that I don't pay CS on my reserve income at the moment but my ex knows this. She has the capacity to initiate a COA at any time and I really don't like having that held over me as a threat. The ADF is all I've got left (because she doesn't let me see my kids) and I don't want it taken from me. I've been punished sufficiently by the FLA without CSA weighing into the situation.

Surely someone would be willing to crunch the numbers and realise that for every reservist who discharges it costs you the taxpayer a whole lot more than any FTB clawback?
Evidence for and noted by whom?

I moved into a shared house to save money so that I can buy a child suitable one sooner. They're too young for overnight stays at the moment anyway.

Her solicitor sent me a very strongly worded letter all but demanding that I agree to the sale of the house. I agreed as per my ex's wishes.

I haven't seen them since Christmas because my ex wanted her money from the property settlement and spousal maintenance before we begin mediation. She now has that money and I've already organised to have the kids for regular frequent day visits with myself and family members closer to their home.

I've passed a return to Australia psych screen (yes, a psychological assessment conducted by a clinical psychologist) since separation. In simple terms, I'm of perfectly sound mind.

This is a valid question on an untested point of law.

Mods/admins, can you please get rid of this serial pest?
Evidence noted by me and others on this forum and the countless people you are contacting IRL in your vain attempt to get out of financially supporting your children while blaming everything under the sun on your ex.

You havent seen your children because you are too busy scheming ways to get back at your ex. You havent mentioned a court order that stops you from seeing them, you've only mentioned moving a long way away from them and running off to join the army so you can be exempt from paying child support. Nice one DAD!

You didnt have to agree to the sale of your house either. Its all up to you mate. Unfortunately yours is a very common story. Boo-Hoo to you.

The truth hurts eh?
No, I'd say that the fact that you're still consuming oxygen hurts. Go back to smoking ciggies out the front of Centrelink and stop your pointless and unwanted interjection. Get a job while you're at it.
Samba, obviously you missed the line where Sleepy says that he is seeing his children. He doesn't have court orders because the ex was refusing mediation on child issues because she wanted money first. In my opinion, she didn't have the best interests of the children in mind.

And I think Sleepy is raising a valid issue re the difference between the ATO saying that Reserve money is not part of the taxable income and yet CSA are saying otherwise. How is it then, that various monies paid by Centrelink are classed by ATO AND CSA as not part of the taxable income. Surely it is still income.
I pay every cent of my CS and I'm always on time. I've calmed down enough to understand that I was always going to get wiped out in the property settlement. A legacy of Mr Whitlam.

This isn't even about my ex. It's about CSA expanding the intent of the Act beyond that which it was supposed to affect. It's also about CSA acting against a section of the Tax Act and ADF pay and conditions which are determined by acts of parliament.

Your gripe is with your ex, not me. Take it out on him because everything you post in threads I start is counterproductive, obstructionist and downright annoying. Deal with it elsewhere.
Oh yeah, go the selective censorship!!!!

I shall repeat
No, I'd say that the fact that you're still consuming oxygen hurts. Go back to smoking ciggies out the front of Centrelink and stop your pointless and unwanted interjection. Get a job while you're at it.

No sleepy, lets not deflect your bizarre and documented behaviour with assumptions and stereotypes. 
Oh well, since you asked, yes I was on centrelink for a time, it was completely avoidable, but my ex chose to behave just like you, withholding financial support to the children and absconding, claiming I was with holding them. Lucky for me, I am quite determined and strong. I self represented in court, put myself through uni and now have a great and flexible job and two well adjusted children.
Anyhoo, back to you love, what are you going to do about this mess you are in aside play the victim and blame everyone else?
Take the hint Samba. Your posts are being deleted for a reason. A very good reason. It'd benefit all concerned if you could limit yourself to 'read only' status, or even better if you could leave this site indefinitely.
Samba.. Ok I was going to leave this but I have to say something… ( delete if needed) I get no child support, no help, nothing from the ex, I'm not half as bitter as you.
You my dear really need to pull your head in and stop putting all your problems on everyone. You are a very bitter, nasty person. Have you stopped to think that some men/ fathers are good. I really hope you get deleted. You seem to attack everyone, when they are here for help. And I'm sick of reading the rubbish you dribble on with….
Oh yeah, lets focus on me, its easy because it takes the focus off the real point. Something that I've noticed you lot do quite a lot of when challenged - not exactly a real conversation then is it?

I'm responding because I think this man needs serious help - he is hell bent on revenge, he is being encouraged by some members on this site who are steeped in hatred. He does not have the best interests of his children in mind.

You can derail, ridicule me etc etc as much as you like, it still doesnt detract from the fact that in every post this person has made over the last few months his focus is coming from a victim seeking revenge pov, when the things he has written tell a very different story.

All he wants to do is screw the ex over and make excuses, meanwhile the kids get screwed up. I have no empathy for people like that at all.
Again, you're not wanted here Samba. Go away.
Sleepy said
Again, you're not wanted here Samba. Go away.
  Why do so many on this forum resort to this?

Is no-one allowed to have a differing opinon?

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Gecko,

The issue is that Samba once again provided no useful input to this thread but insisted on posting. Her input was nothing more than an attack on my character. If she'd offered an opinion regarding the actual thread topic then perhaps she'd have been afforded further opportunity to post without having her contribution deleted.

If you read the material concerning 'gum flappers' then you'll find that yourself and Samba easily meet the criteria with just about all of your posts, and certainly every response to my posts. The rules are there to be adhered to, hence the deletion.
Please, now you start on me. Give it up! Focus your energy on your children, your life and stop wasting your time and the forums time with trying to change something that cannot be changed. Maybe you should look at getting into politics, then you change things to way you see they should be.

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
To refer to the original question here, I don't think it makes sense to say that a certain income is tax free so it should also be CS free as well.  There is no logical connection between the two.

For example, if I won millions of dollars in the lottery I would not have to pay tax on it.  Does that then mean that CSA should not be allowed to consider that windfall as part of my financial resources?

Your other point about loss of training dollars if reservists leave over CS issues also is not one I would cling to.  What about other fields of employment where there is expensive training involved?  Does it make logical sense that just because alot of money is spent training someone that their CS liability should be lower?
Hi April,

Fair points. I think that if it gets any traction it'll be based on the tax exemption status only. I've yet to find a legislative reference for the tax exemption status other than the ADF Pay & Conditions manual and the Tax Act however any doctrine relating to matters military are notoriously difficult not only to navigate but also to find them in the first place.

I suppose the crux of the issue isn't so much the CS it might attract because compared with my mining salary it's little more than peanuts, but the fact is that I can't comprehend how/why CSA can garnishee reserve pay but no other organisation in the country can, courts included. I would object to my CS liability being increased because of reserve pay in the event that I gave it away to spend time with my kids (which will happen once they're older) and then CSA would hang me for capacity to earn. Even bankrupts can earn reserve pay without penalty as a point of interest.

Another interesting point is that anyone in receipt of a government pension or benefit can earn as much as the reserve system can afford them without it reducing their pension or benefit, payees included, which is why I've been left wondering whether this issue should be resolved at ministerial level rather than me having to take it to court.

It's not just about me either. The ADF has upwards of 20,000 reservists. Considering the divorce rate in Australia at the moment I can only assume that it's not just me this might affect.
April said
To refer to the original question here, I don't think it makes sense to say that a certain income is tax free so it should also be CS free as well. There is no logical connection between the two.

For example, if I won millions of dollars in the lottery I would not have to pay tax on it. Does that then mean that CSA should not be allowed to consider that windfall as part of my financial resources?

Your other point about loss of training dollars if reservists leave over CS issues also is not one I would cling to. What about other fields of employment where there is expensive training involved? Does it make logical sense that just because alot of money is spent training someone that their CS liability should be lower?
Thanks for these points April. The key point here is that Child Support over the years has slowly eroded all deductible and below the line items and sacrifice deductions in the group certificate unlike the ATO who allow those items for taxation returns. We have written much on the site about taxable income v CSA income. Mike T particularly has raised deductibility and we have looked at Self Employed practices and dealing with depreciation of various assets.

At the end of the day the CSA formula adds back almost everything including share losses and the ATO allow you to deduct most items related to your work.
sleepy said
CSA maintain that reserve income is blanketed by the 'financial resource' banner, however the intent of the tax exemption status was to avoid that exact type of situation and the ADF legal types maintain that that is correct, in stark contrast with CSA.
That's how the formula works and tax exempt status for ATO is not tax exempt for CSA. The formula change has been on going since the major revamp in 2007 - 2009 and amendments in 2010.

Fairgo already mentioned there are some options where you have increased income through a second job but the option is only open for a short period, some three years and is not fully deductible and there is a formula as to how it is applied. Depending on what sort of time you have with teh kids you would get a 25% discount for care after 52 nights or 14% care so there are some breaks that offset other items like the loss of FTB in the two bottom care bands.

What are you suggesting should be applied here and what sort of deductibility for the ADF Reserve are you talking about? Should this extend to "retained fire-fighters" and all other service related secondary employment?



Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
Was my post helpful? If not, feedback
If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets