Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Bonus payments - not again

Well here we go again. More bonus payments

The Single Income Family Bonus is a payment of $950 per family to provide additional assistance to families with one main income earner.
Is someone one PPS a single income earner?

The Back to School Bonus is a payment of $950 per eligible child to assist families with the costs of school for their children.
I guess you get this one if you get FT benefits A

Now comes the Rant… I am a tax payer on about 55K a year I work for my money and pay of almost 16K in taxes last year. Last December a personon CLpaymentget$1000 for each child and plus more if you qualified. Now CL customer of are on welfarewill get anotherone off lump sum. I think we should help people who work and pay taxes on a low wage but I'm tired of lazy S…. getting something for nothing. Is this fair. I'm denied care of my children and given their distance will never have them 14% of the time. But that is not hear nor there so I will not benefits for FTB.

Why can't the Rudd government give the money back to those who pay taxes. I know those on low income need the money but I an sick and tied of those who of work a getting nothing.

Mr RUDD this did not work in the US and will not work in Australia.

End of Rant
Read it again workers on your income will get $950 too I do agree it won't work though.

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

" The Government estimate almost 10 million Australians will be eligible for the bonuses.

A cash payment of $950 will also be given to single-income families, farmers facing hardship, parents with children heading back to school and students and unemployed people returning to study. "

From ABC News.

I think newguy is right it will be based on FTB, I also read that it only applies to those who have their tax returns completed for 2007/2008.

The sad part is the realisation that we are mainly a consumer society and the realisation that the best way to kick start the economy is to encourage internal spending, there is nothing we can do about export problems and the slow down of other countries economy's but internally promoting development programs that really should have been done ten years ago could well see a stay off of continual recession.

If reliant on the monetary handouts alone I don't think this would work but with the other job stimulus added in I think it may have a chance.

There will be many knockers and those who state that it's an overkill but when you look at what other governments around the world are doing this isn't too bad reflectively.

Poor people and struggling families will be more prone to spend the money out of need as well as impulse buying, this is a lot of money for them and they will also feel better about themselves physiologically allowing them to be in a happier state of mind.

Consumer confidence has it's base in lower social order and if consumption on this level continues then encouragement is given to higher businesses and so forth up the line and although belts will have to be tightened to reduce the ferocity of this will stay panic in hope things pick up till other aspects of the package kicks in encouraging employment.

The face of it all looks like just a give away of cash but you can see if you scratch harder it will stimulate growth from the base, to give a reduction in income tax for people and companies will simply reduce government income and benefit those who are better set to weather the storm especially if you consider this stimulus package will work it's way up to them eventually.

Going back to one issue in regards to the give away to those families who are one income under the $80 000 or so newyguy, there are a lot of men out there paying CSA to their childrens other parent who lives in a one income family who themselves may be partnered, it seems that those on benefits will miss out this time around and those in this situation will get another bonus on top of that received last year.

All governments are more than aware that this money rarely is spent to advantage the children but it certainly gives it a very moral aspect to state it is to assist children.

  
well I manged to get my income down to $101,000 last year after squeezing every last deduction that I legally could.  ex earns $78k, has sole care so gets $950 for being a tax payer, $950 for FTB part B and $950 because child returned to school.  Add this to the annual FTB (A and B) bonuses and the earlier $1,000 and its a fair sum - $4800 approx.  

Given the underlying principles of the CSA scheme, I think it would be just and equitable to have my CS liability reduced by $2400 pa.    
Although I do agree that this should be considered and a reducing gets included as long as it was tax exempt and not added to annual income which would be doubtful but be careful what you wish for, if the government did consider this it would probably add it back to this years income which may push some into the next tax thresh hold or increase CSA under capacity to earn. Simplicity is the government is giving money to those it thinks will spend it demographics might come into it but gender is of little concern as long as people spend money.

 
Sorry D4E you don't make sense.  Perhaps you might like to clarify your thoughts.
It would be possible that CSA would judge it as an increase of income if the payer was to receive anything of the bonus, although for high income earners it may not make a difference but for lower income earners it may effectively be used against them in a dogs trick.

The reason behind the cash payment isn't directly to improve the finances of the parent with the most care, child or mother but rather to stimulate spending, I would suggest that the government is trying to increase spending and increasing volume of tax paid by this spending.

It would be interesting to see how much of that money gets recouped by the government through sales tax, payroll tax, business tax and such.

 
Bigred said
well I manged to get my income down to $101,000 last year after squeezing every last deduction that I legally could.  ex earns $78k, has sole care so gets $950 for being a tax payer, $950 for FTB part B and $950 because child returned to school.  Add this to the annual FTB (A and B) bonuses and the earlier $1,000 and its a fair sum - $4800 approx.  

Given the underlying principles of the CSA scheme, I think it would be just and equitable to have my CS liability reduced by $2400 pa.    

Erm, a lot of people would only dream of the income you were assessed at, and im assuming that by squeezing every last deduction you actually earnt a fair bit more

Id be happy enough with your income if i were you and i would realise just how lucky i was

I almost wished you had not posted the 100k figure cos now i cant understand all your anti child support payments posts
sorry

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

No doubt bigred works for it though gooner and I have to admit in many ways due to his X being on a high income I can understand that it would be difficult to see how all the CSA that is paid goes to the children, in a lot of cases this is a major issue.

Mind you even people who earn over what Bigred does are still entitled to a portions whats with that ????
D4E said
No doubt bigred works for it though gooner and I have to admit in many ways due to his X being on a high income I can understand that it would be difficult to see how all the CSA that is paid goes to the children, in a lot of cases this is a major issue.

Mind you even people who earn over what Bigred does are still entitled to a portions whats with that ????
  Im not saying people do not work for their money, what i am saying is thata LOT ofpeople would bestrugglingmorethat they sre to meet their legal requirementsand IMO someone on 100k has nothing to moan about when it comes to bonus payments not coming off CSA assessments…

30k, 40k, 50k, 60k… moan away……but seriously… is $2400 really going to make a difference on 100k AFTER deducations, i think not.

If i was on 100k i would be happy to pay some for my kids…after all, thats what life is about isnt it… our children

cheerz

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

I understand what your saying gooner and for someone who is in this position it's not a big deal though I tend to generalise and include even those on a high income in the same position as those on a low income, a little bit like one rule for all.

So those who are in a position where it will make a difference to them and the time with their children will be as equally deserving of half of this bonus especially when it comes to paying for school children, in some cases the fathers pay for all the schooling and others it's the Child Support that pays for all the schooling.

With a divorce rate coming closer to 50% there is no publicity or reporting that looks at this in regards to what entitlement to the payment fathers have.

I understand there is more than money attached to what we do as parents and sometimes there may be an over concentration in some people about money and it's personal effects on them, I know in some cases the attachment to this is due to the family court failing the children and not allowing contact with the paying parent or one parent absconding with the children, this is just a mechanism that helps deal with pain and the injustice received on a personal level.

The issue then becomes about comparative fairness to the payer and to this point there does need to be discussion and it's not so much about the money but once again those fathers who do need this assistance just to be able to do something special with their children need consideration.

In the same breath it's just Rudd giving money to a demographic that will spend it in the opinion of his advisors, then they just add a tag to win popularity and fight the moral fight on against the opposition, spindoctoring to get their way.

And once again we are forgotten deemed unimportant………….. Whats new right.

    
Gooner you need to think about relativities and principals before engaging with the keyboard.  I pay a substantial amount of child support.  I also pay more tax than a lot of payers earn.  Tax, CSa and super combined well over half my income walks out the door before it even arrives.  Get my point yet?  The current CSA scheme is based on the relativities between parents' incomes - which I fully support.  The underlying principle being that what you pay is determined by your financial resources.  

So what Rudd has done is changed the relativities and undermined the principle of the scheme.

… and I have no problems with paying the correct amount of CS - no more and no less.  Get that straight before you engage your keyboard again.     
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets