Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Totally confused

Add Topic

Main area of concern is with CSA and how they can establish a new CS assessment based on a tax return that clearly does not honestly represent a full financial year?

HI to all.

First and foremost my apologies if this post seems simplistic…I'm new to all of it. My area of concern is with CSA and how they can establish a new CS assessment based on a tax return that clearly does not honestly represent a full financial year? My ex was "off the radar" for the last 6 months of 2008 and obtained Centrelink benefits at the start of 2009. Yes he has continued to work and obtain c/link payments (as well as have a partner and more children). NO he has never properly advised of his circumstances and income and for the better part has tried to avoid using his name and tax file number for anything. Since receiving the new assessment I have called CSA and gotten nowhere fast. According to them my ex has done everything right (this financial year) and that until I have proof of address, and employment etc for him….the assessment will stay as is til November next year (2010)??? Why is it 1) still up to me to dig up his filthy details so they (and Centrelink) can do their job when I have done so for the past 2 1/2 yrs and 2) how does six months of "non existence" become part of this new assessment and remain permissable?? I am at a loss to know what to do now as everything seems to be falling on deaf and predecisive ears.

It now stands that our 2 very young children livelihoods are not even worth 50 cents each a day in this new assessment. How does this stupid government or its representatives for that matter see any of this as fair when we repeatedly hear through the media "it only costs $1 a day to care for a child in poverty". Well sorry to all the kids in this country experiencing the same as my own..on behalf of our warped governing ways…that our own system can fail them in such a way. Its not a case of being money hungry, a payee or a payer….it should be a case of supporting the offspring and giving them a quality of life with all fairness in mind. Lets face it…can you buy one litre of milk for less than a dollar? NOPE!! In my home alone these kids go through more than a litre of milk a day…and Im sure its the same across the board…..so I'm curious to know how this support is suffice on top of everything else in our normal everyday living?
If a person is off the radar, then they wouldn't be getting Centrelink payments, to get such payments they have to be on some sort of radar, and I assure you that the CSA will be well aware if a CS parent is getting Centrelink payments, the systems communicate with each other (I think daily for the Centrelink process). In such a case the legislated payments will be either the minimum payment of $6.84 per week per child for up to 3 children, which is a daily rate of $0.98 (so nearly double your calculation), or $0 if they have 14% or more care of the child, in which case the care compensates for the monetary financial responsibility. It is a fact of life, especially so in the past year or so, that people are unable to work and the tests that have to be met are quite strict.

However when considering the worth of children, then other factors have to be taken into consideration, if the other parent is working then the new legislation rightly takes their income into consideration equally, rather than the older system which did this very unfairly saying that simply because a person is a parent that they deserve to have a greater cost of necessary self-support.

If the other parent, the recipient, is not working then it is highly likely that they will be getting many benefits from tax payers, a lot more than a like person who differs primarily because they are not a parent. Such a parent , receives the full amount of Family tax benefit, $4803.40 ($13.15 per day) for a child under 13, which may be increased by a further $3,482.10 (another $9.53 per day), for a child under 5. Such a parent will receive a special payment, parenting payment single, which is another $40 per fortnight (another $2.85 per day). There are others, but basically the generosity of the tax payer is something like $26.51, per day, from the above, that's over 53 times the amount you have said and enough to provide for 26 children in poverty.
MikeT said
to get such payments they have to be on some sort of radar, and I assure you that the CSA will be well aware if a CS parent is getting Centrelink payments, the systems communicate with each other (I think daily for the Centrelink process). In such a case the legislated payments will be either the minimum payment of $6.84 per week per child for up to 3 children, which is a daily rate of $0.98 (so nearly double your calculation), or $0 if they have 14% or more care of the child, in which case the care compensates for the monetary financial responsibility. It is a fact of life, especially so in the past year or so, that people are unable to work and the tests that have to be met are quite strict.

However when considering the worth of children, then other factors have to be taken into consideration, if the other parent is working then the new legislation rightly takes their income into consideration equally, rather than the older system which did this very unfairly saying that simply because a person is a parent that they deserve to have a greater cost of necessary self-support.

If the other parent, the recipient, is not working then it is highly likely that they will be getting many benefits from tax payers, a lot more than a like person who differs primarily because they are not a parent. Such a parent , receives the full amount of Family tax benefit, $4803.40 ($13.15 per day) for a child under 13, which may be increased by a further $3,482.10 (another $9.53 per day), for a child under 5. Such a parent will receive a special payment, parenting payment single, which is another $40 per fortnight (another $2.85 per day). There are others, but basically the generosity of the tax payer is something like $26.51, per day, from the above, that's over 53 times the amount you have said and enough to provide for 26 children in poverty.
Sorry I cant work out this segmenting quotes so you know where I am at but so you don't go jumping the gun when you don't know much of the detail……"If a person is off the radar, then they wouldn't be getting Centrelink payments"…he was off the radar because he was a new resident to the country. He was not entitled to any Centrelink payment until July 2008. He did not obtain any centrelink payments until January of this year (2009). But since his entry to the country was able to maintain employment and remain untraceable via TFN and bank accounts.

"In such a case the legislated payments will be either the minimum payment of $6.84 per week per child for up to 3 children" … the fact of the new assessment is the weekly rate is set at $6.82 on an overall calculation for two children not on single entity as you assume. SO no I have not gotten it wrong at all … and he is not incapable of working. He has no care of the children at all so should not be affected by that reduction at all. As for passing comment about "the taxpayer" … I have been one and will be back to being one very shortly. I understand all that a "taxpayer" funds and I guess if you knew how much this ex husband was abusing your tax paying funds… you wouldn't sound so subtly judgementmal in your comments. I am for equality and I am for fairness… that's all I ask in return.

So back to the main point of confusion… how does an assessment get based purely on 6-7 months of being "on the radar"?, how does a regular payment of $40.95 per month get depleted to $13.65 perfortnight for 2 children?, and how do I get a CSA worker to hear the whole story without prejudgement of ALL of the facts so that someone understands the situation?
rednutta said
My area of concern is with CSA and howthey canestablish a new CSassessment based on a tax return that clearly does not honestly represent a full financial year? My ex was "off the radar" for the last 6 months of 2008 and obtained Centrelink benefits at the start of 2009. Yes he has continued to work and obtain c/link payments (as well as have a partner and more children). NO he has never properly advised of his circumstances and income and for the better part has tried to avoid using his name and tax file number for anything.
I guess we can assume that a tax return will be completed shortly for the six months if he is in regular employment. The CSA can adjust the amount on the filing of that return and probably will. The amount being paid is fairly minimal but the system calculates based on a persons income or income earning potential and as you already know takes both parents incomes into account .. If you have additional evidence of income then provide it to the CSA. There has to be some evidence of income either via a tax return or other documented evidence. Investigations can be undertaken by the CSA where a party is acting to minimise income for purposes of simply avoiding CSA but its hard to make any real commentary without more information about earnings. I also assume you have used teh calculators to see what money is paid on what income.
rednutta said
Since receiving the new assessment I have called CSA and gotten nowhere fast. According to them my ex has done everything right (this financial year) and that until I have proof of address, and employment etc for him….the assessment will stay as is til November next year (2010)??? Why is it 1) still up to me to dig up his filthy details so they (and Centrelink) can do their job when I have done so for the past 2 1/2 yrs and 2) how does six months of "non existence" become part of this new assessment and remain permissible?? I am at a loss to know what to do now as everything seems to be falling on deaf and predecisive ears.
Nothing happens quickly unless there is supported advice of earnings. You can apply for a Change of Assessment where you believe income has been under reported and or earnings ability needs to be looked at more closely. In relation to Child Support the system is not a Government pays system but a parents pay system. Where one parent deliberately doesn't want to, either see the kids or pay any child support it is a tough and long haul and we can absolutely sympathise in trying to bring up two children on limited income… Certainly the CSA are one stop. There are other agencies, as you know, that can assist depending on your circumstances. You mentioned you were going to be a taxpayer shortly. I assume therefore that you are obtaining some Centerlink support currently. There are a range of CSA facilities including specialised and or personalised service and legal assistance but the other party needs to step up to the mark and assist in child support payments. There is a new initiative in CSA launching in a  week or so which lists many support groups. As soon as I am able to get all the final information we will show case that material.

Taken off the Ministers pre publishing material…

My family is separating  what now? is online support tool designed to help families experiencing separation navigate the complete Family Law System. The support tool includes information and referrals about the emotional, financial and legal issues separated parents may face, as well as specific information for grandparents and people affected by domestic violence.

My family is separating - what now? will provide families with a single entry point into the Family Law System following separation and provide a clear path for families to access relevant information, advice and support when experiencing separation.
rednutta said
It now stands that our 2 very young children livelihoods are not even worth 50 cents each a day in this new assessment.
I think, if I may say so , is that you mean to say that the funds you are receiving from your ex partner do not equate to 50c a day.
rednutta said
How does this stupid government or its representatives for that matter see any of this as fair when we repeatedly hear through the media "it only costs $1 a day to care for a child in poverty". Well sorry to all the kids in this country experiencing the same as my own..on behalf of our warped governing ways…that our own system can fail them in such a way. Its not a case of being money hungry, a payee or a payer….it should be a case of supporting the offspring and giving them a quality of life with all fairness in mind.
The issue is how much the taxpayers can fund. Looking at the latest social planning / mapping budgets and projections and the rapidly ageing population any Government will have its hands full. We are very fortunate in Australia to have so many Government and non Government funded services and support groups, church related and many other organisations that try to assist. Take a look at many other countries where their citizens have no support organisations, no public hospital medical care or any other support services. I know where I would like to be.

As a final note there is much we do not know about all the circumstances here so what thoughts we can provide are fairly minimal at best.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
rednutta said
Sorry I cant work out this segmenting quotes so you know where I am at but so you don't go jumping the gun when you don't know much of the detail……

Segmenting quotes, or doing individual short quotes, can be done in two ways, the first is to select the text to be quoted then click on the quote button and input the name of the person (e.g. rednutta, as used above). The second way is to place quote="whosaidit", enclosed in square brackets before the text to be quoted and then to follow the text with /quote, in square brackets. You can nest quotes (have a quote or quotes inside a quote).

Using the above paragraph as an example you could have something like :-

MikeT said
Segmenting quotes, or doing individual short quotes, can be done in two ways, the first is to select the text to be quoted then click on the quote button and input the name of the person
example said
(e.g. rednutta, as used above)
.
MikeT also said
The second way is to place quote="whosaidit", enclosed in square brackets before the text to be quoted and then to follow the text with /quote, in square brackets
MikeT notes said
(note that whosaidit would be replaced by the name of the person being quoted)
. You can nest quotes
MikeT notes2 said
(have a quote or quotes inside a quote)
.


"If a person is off the radar, then they wouldn't be getting Centrelink payments"…he was off the radar because he was a new resident to the country. He was not entitled to any Centrelink payment until July 2008. He did not obtain any centrelink payments until January of this year (2009). But since his entry to the country was able to maintain employment and remain untraceable via TFN and bank accounts.

rednutta said
"In such a case the legislated payments will be either the minimum payment of $6.84 per week per child for up to 3 children" … the fact of the new assessment is the weekly rate is set at $6.82 on an overall calculation for two children not on single entity as you assume.

Yes I did slip up and use how fixed annual rates are applied as opposed to minimum payments for those in receipt of income support. However as I said there is a great deal more on the table and my point was in relation to you knocking the government and appearing to say they only consider your child worth 50c a day, when the government ensures that your children get a lot more. Perhaps I should have quoted things :)

rednutta said
how does an assessment get based purely on 6-7 months of being "on the radar"?
If a tax return exists for the previous tax year, then unless there is a change of assessment (or what may be known as a departure i.e. a departure from the formula is made by the way of a change of assessment) that has to be used.

renutta said
how does a regular payment of $40.95 per month get depleted to $13.65 per fortnight for 2 children?
I think the answer could be that the $40.95 was the fixed annual rate, that is applied if a person's taxable income is below the maximum normal Parenting Payment Single. It does not apply if a person receives income support, so would stop when such an even occurs.

The other scenario, which I think you have ruled out as the other parent was off the radar, is that the taxable income was previously $20295 (this assuming a CS period that started in 2008 and for 2 children under 13) and no effective adjusted taxable income for yourself (i.e. less than $18252).

rednutta said
How do I get a CSA worker to hear the whole story without prejudgement of ALL of the facts so that someone understands the situation?
Take them out to dinner? Sorry, just kidding. My advice, when dealing with the CSA, is to never believe just one person, try putting what you have to put before a number, put what you want to put to them in writing. Check what the CSA guide says and perhaps even the legislation. However to be honest there is no sure-fire way, but saying that, you are far more likely to succeed if what you are after results in an increase in the amount transferred or collected, as it is this amount that is reported by the CSA to their boss FAHCSIA and upwards from there (this primarily because for a $1.00 collected or transferred 50c less is paid in FTB).
Secretary SPCA said
I guess we can assume that a tax return will be completed shortly for the six months if he is in regular employment. The CSA can adjust the amount on the filing of that return and probably will. The amount being paid is fairly minimal but the system calculates based on a persons income or income earning potential and as you already know takes both parents incomes into account.
Sir Thanks for your reply. The reality is at this point in time that CSA says this new assessment was based on the 2008/09 tax return he lodged. So far I have been told this will not change until I can prove differently of his circumstances. I know he is in regular work….what work I am not thoroughly clear of, as well as a full centrelink entitlement, as well as a defacto relationship with more kids in the mix. (I guess I should be thankful he hasnt used his brain to tell CSA he has more kids…but thats benefitting him on a whole new other story :P) Where he lives, where he works, what he does…..I really have no care for in such respect….but the avoidance of doing things the honest and right ways with things on the whole are quite disturbing to say the least. As for the calculators…yes I have experimented with them…lol no I'm not good at them at all. All I figure now is the best thing to do…ride the wave for the next 14 months with crap-all help on his behalf…and hope (when he thinks he's so smart and safe) that he submits a more honest tax return next year.

Secretary SPCA said
Nothing happens quickly unless there is supported advice of earnings. You can apply for a Change of Assessment where you believe income has been under reported and or earnings ability needs to be looked at more closely. In relation to Child Support the system is not a Government pays system but a parents pay system. Where one parent deliberately doesn't want to, either see the kids or pay any child support it is a tough and long haul and we can absolutely sympathise in trying to bring up two children on limited income… Certainly the CSA are one stop. There are other agencies, as you know, that can assist depending on your circumstances. You mentioned you were going to be a taxpayer shortly. I assume therefore that you are obtaining some Centerlink support currently. There are a range of CSA facilities including specialised and or personalised service and legal assistance but the other party needs to step up to the mark and assist in child support payments. There is a new initiative in CSA launching in a  week or so which lists many support groups.
Yes I am on a single parent pay from Centrelink. And I hate every moment of it. Having lived a life learning and knowing how to be self sufficient…the way things are at the moment I'm hanging on by the skin of my teeth. Getting more assistance elsewhere is in my opinion rather degrading to have to do…so I steer clear of it all together. I have friends who pull strings to bleed the system dry…and it is my belief that more needy people than myself or my friends/acquaintances should be getting this assistance. I study, dont drink, dont smoke and dont do drugs….I have one child in preschool and both in family day care one day a week. I do go without to keep my kids normal like any other..and to also keep them healthy. Sympathy (however thankful for other's understanding…would better be described as empathy) is not what is sought though. They are my kids and I was one of two people who wanted them…and I owe it to them to give them as much of a normal life as possible whilst their father hides behind such an undisciplined CS system.

Secretary SPCA said
We are very fortunate in Australia to have so many Government and non Government funded services and support groups, church related and many other organisations that try to assist. Take a look at many other countries where their citizens have no support organisations, no public hospital medical care or any other support services. I know where I would like to be.
I don't disagree with this at all….we are a fortunate country….but blessed with so many users and abusers of various structured systems (namely welfare) …that the support chains are choked to the max. I know how it is…and I'm trying to keep from being judged to do so. But I do understand the point you are trying to make :)
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets