Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Whats the point of earning more

Add Topic
Im been a CSA payer for the past six years and my x moved far enough away so that she could have 100% care and have subjected the children to extreme PA that I will never have care. 



When she left, she got 70 of the proceeds  after all she had care of two children.   She moved to a town that insured she never has to worry about Centrelink requiring her to look for a job and will be on some form of welfare for now on. (Her Mother and sister have made welfare a lifestyle choose having never worked)


With the money from the settlement, she was able to buy a house and thus has no rent.   Being on the welfare gives her reduce rate and other concessions.
When she left and file her case with C$ I was assets @ $170 a week for two children and that was about 23% of my after tax pay.  Move ahead I worked hard got a promotion and now my C$ is $275 a week or 27% of my after tax pay.    I can go on to another job but after but it will mean I will pay $362 a week or 29% or my pay.



I often question where C$ goes as the mother has been reported to Children Protection for not provided meals to the boys by their schools.   Children Protection answer, well lets contact the mother give her 3 weeks notice and then go to the house and investigate.



I know Im having a bit of a rant but I dont see the point of earning more money.  I think C$ should be cap at a lower rate say 80-100% of the youth allowance (living @ home) per child.  If the government believes this is a reasonable amount than it should believe the same for CS.
Unless you are claiming that you actually end up with less in your hand after child support, I would say that the point of earning more is that you get more money.

A stated purpose of child support is that children share in the change of circumstances of their parents.  In theory, that is supposed to put the paying parent in a position approximately equivalent to that they would be in if they had custody of the child.  The stated intention is that children should not be forced into pauperdom because the money earner of the family has been removed from the household.

There are many arguments about whether or not the theory actually works in practice.  However, while the purpose of child support remains as stated, there is no chance of child support ever being set at 80% of the youth allowance as you suggest, as that would allow parents like yourself to earn good money for yourself but make minimal contributions from that good money towards the maintenance of your child.

Eclipse said
Unless you are claiming that you actually end up with less in your hand after child support, I would say that the point of earning more is that you get more money.

A stated purpose of child support is that children share in the change of circumstances of their parents.  In theory, that is supposed to put the paying parent in a position approximately equivalent to that they would be in if they had custody of the child.  The stated intention is that children should not be forced into pauperdom because the money earner of the family has been removed from the household.

There are many arguments about whether or not the theory actually works in practice.  However, while the purpose of child support remains as stated, there is no chance of child support ever being set at 80% of the youth allowance as you suggest, as that would allow parents like yourself to earn good money for yourself but make minimal contributions from that good money towards the maintenance of your child.


 
The OP makes a good point: at a time when the political climate is about reducing taxation and redistributing income from mining and carbon taxes, one specific group - separated fathers - is being targetted is such a way as to cause some members of that group to question the value of improving their lot. There's no point in getting on your pseudo-moral high horse about "minimal contributions" if too much is being taken to make it worth the while of the payer. Especially if the payee chooses not to work and has the capacity to do so.

Let's have a look at newguy's situation, based on the figures he gave.

In the initial case, he would have been earning about $740 per week.
After his promotion, which was significant, his gross went up to about $1020 per week, a handsome increase of about $280. Good work, newguy, you've now got more responsibility and we reckon that's worth paying $280 for. But hold on, the ATO wants about $84 out of that, which is cool but now the CSA wants an extra $105 to give to the woman who shot through and now he's got just $91 left, or about $15 less than he has to give her for doing nothing extra at all!
If he takes on his possible new job, his gross increases to about $1250, another $230, out of which comes his tax, at about $69 and here comes the CSA again, wanting $87, leaving him just $74, or $13 less than she gets for doing nothing at all.

Let's also not forget that if she encouraged the relationship between him and his children, instead of preventing it, she stands to lose considerable portions of that money. She has an incentive to minimise his time with his children, which the CS Acts create and the CSA, by its existence, encourages.

Can you see how this might act as a disincentive?
craigo once again youve hit the nail on the head.

to new guy its a sad state of affairs your in. im sure you miss your kids and they miss you.

as for the advance in your career and earning more money its a hard one… can you take a salary sacrifice and get a car? but when you sign up for your agreement have no mention of the car. this will need some trust of both you and your prospective employer but it might eleviate the CSA you might have to pay? maybe some veterans on the subject might be able come up with other ideas?
newguy.  

Unfortunately Craigo is on a mission to batter me into submission because of a discussion in another topic.  I won't add to his attempt to hijack your topic.

The point I was making is that you can look at it two ways.  You can look at it as getting more money in your hand at the end of the day, or you can look at it as getting less of every extra dollar you earn.  

I am not going to babble on about any of that 'galss half full/glass half empty' nonsense, however I would place more weight on what I get than I what I don't get.  Does it really matter how much the tax man or someone else gets?  The issue, for me, is how much I get, rather than how much I could get if things were different.

or you can look at it this way instead of taking a promotion and normally being paid 100% for your worth your only getting 80% or maybe less.
AdelaideD said
or you can look at it this way instead of taking a promotion and normally being paid 100% for your worth your only getting 80% or maybe less.
 
Precisely, except that you'll be paid considerably less than that.

Eclipse, when I suggested a small levy to pay for the current cost of child support, you opposed it on the grounds of not wanting to pay so some other person can have no responsibility to do so.

In this thread, you are trying to justify taking money from separated fathers so some other person (their ex-partner) can avoid having to pay. That's a fundamental contradiction.
Craigo.  If parents have responsibility for 100% care and 100% of the costs of the children, those responsibilities should be broken down between them.  If one parent provides 100% of the care, it is not unreasonable to expect the other parent to pay 100% of the costs of that care.  That is not paying somebody something to allow them to avoid anything - it is called a trade off.  In principle, I have no issue with that.

That trade off of responsibilities between parents is nothing at all like an extra tax on taxpayers so one parent can be free of their responsibilities in relation to their child.
Eclipse said
Craigo.  If parents have responsibility for 100% care and 100% of the costs of the children, those responsibilities should be broken down between them.  If one parent provides 100% of the care, it is not unreasonable to expect the other parent to pay 100% of the costs of that care.  That is not paying somebody something to allow them to avoid anything - it is called a trade off.  In principle, I have no issue with that.
  Oh yes, it is indeed paying somebody to allow them to avoid something, when the payee is too comfortable to earn her own living because child support is very high due to the payers salary and increases nicely every year because of payer's job conditions. Clearly the situation would be a lot more balanced if payee would work.
babushka is right on the button.
Eclipse said
Craigo.  If parents have responsibility for 100% care and 100% of the costs of the children, those responsibilities should be broken down between them.  If one parent provides 100% of the care, it is not unreasonable to expect the other parent to pay 100% of the costs of that care.  That is not paying somebody something to allow them to avoid anything - it is called a trade off.  In principle, I have no issue with that.

That trade off of responsibilities between parents is nothing at all like an extra tax on taxpayers so one parent can be free of their responsibilities in relation to their child.
 
I reckon alot of single parents that do work would give it up pretty quick and live totally of the pension if that was the deal. Alot of the time, one parent has 100% care because they unfairly restrict access to the other parent!! Eclipse that scenario you propose would only increase that sort of behavior, really your posts show little concern for the effects CSA legislation has on the children….You must work for the CSA

My OH pays his CS but has no control over how that money is spent. His ex wife lives a jet setting lifestyle while his kids go with out basic necessities. My OH would be happy to have 100% care of his kids and would be happy to pay 100% of the costs for the privilege of being able to be with them. Reason his ex won't hand them over is because she doesn't want to lose her CS, and would potentially have to pay. The child support system turns children into financial weapons.

I was a single Mum, worked hard and happily raised my kids pretty much without child support. My children are happy, successful & emotionality stable, unlike my OH's children who are victims of a war wagged by the CSA.
Frenzy said
really your posts show little concern for the effects CSA legislation has on the children….
Precisely.
The child support Agency nearly cost me and my daughter our lives. For a short time I got $30 worth of CS a month for her. The CSA stuffed up and gave her father the name of the town we lived in. He was/still is a heroin addict and is under police suspicion for 2 murders.

Several years ago, the CSA rang me up and told me that for several months they had been getting disturbing letters from my ex. He was threatening to kill my daughter and me if they kept taking the money out of his dole. The CSA operators exact words were 'we fear for your life'. Morons should have thought about that before letting my details slip and taking 5 months to inform me off the threats.

Only reason I ever applied for CS was while I was off work injured I needed to get Family tax Benefit, so was forced into a CS claim. Needless to say, those few months were my only experience of being a CSA customer. As soon as I told them I'd be notifying the Federal police about them giving up my address..they agreed to stop my assessment:lol: Thankfully never heard from them again…..well until now cause of my OH's dramas with them.
Eclipse said
Craigo.  If parents have responsibility for 100% care and 100% of the costs of the children, those responsibilities should be broken down between them.  If one parent provides 100% of the care, it is not unreasonable to expect the other parent to pay 100% of the costs of that care.  That is not paying somebody something to allow them to avoid anything - it is called a trade off.  In principle, I have no issue with that.

That trade off of responsibilities between parents is nothing at all like an extra tax on taxpayers so one parent can be free of their responsibilities in relation to their child.
 
The Act requires BOTH parents to contribute to the financial welfare of the child based on their circumstances. It doesn't provide for the payee to be supported by the payer. that is called spousal maintenance and has no place in the CSP.

At present, however, the payee gets about 1/3 of all extra income the payer earns, but can earn up to about $15000 without in any way affecting how much he has to pay. He is penalised for working more, while she is not.

Further, the Act provides an incentive for payees to limit the amount of time children spend with paying parents and a disincentive for those paying parents not in work tio find it.

Why are you so determined to punish separated low-income fathers and their children?
feminist in the forum?
It may be convenient to try to isolate one aspect of parental responsibilities and pretend that the others are somehow not inter-related, but the point I was making is that the Family Law provides that both parents have joint responsibility for their children.  

Joint responsibility does not mean one has more or less responsibility than the other. It means BOTH parents are responsible for 100% of the parental responsibilities.  

Like any other responsibility, the costs of the child are expected to be met by both the parents jointly.  The child support formula calculates who should pay what according to their respective capacities and taking into account the circumstances of the parents.  

Frenzy:  What effect does the legislation have on children that is not a result of the actions of their parents?

AdelaideD said
babushka is right on the button.
  Thanks, AdelaideD :-) Oh, and judging by Eclipse's last post, he/she clearly has lost the plot completely. My humble prediction is that very shortly nobody will answer his/her posts anymore, so he/she might as well go back to watching Twilight movies :-)
hahaha!
Eclipse said
.

Frenzy:  What effect does the legislation have on children that is not a result of the actions of their parents?


 
Eclipse - The 'actions' of the parents is often a direct result the legislation and the incompetent way it is administered. The rest of your post sounds like it has been copied from some CSA handbook. In theory it sounds all wonderful but in practice it rarely works and harms those it perpetrates to protect (children).
AdelaideD said
hahaha!

This is the second stupid post you have made. You might have the courtesy to read the first forums on this site where it says No 'One Liners'.
Your post is a joke and for those of us that receive forum updates by emails  nonsensical.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets