Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Tie up the CSA with paperwork

Law maker

What if we started and investment company for payers where they paid their child support into a month early and then the company paid it to the ex when due. Whilst the funds are held for a month they could generate more funds that could be used to help pa

LifeInsight said
So where were you Conan when the hard work was being done?

Monster - People who make illinformed assumptions to quickly are those that generally cause problems.
Lad -  think your will find that Conan, like others from this site, were very heavily involved in the changes to the FLA 1975, in fact I would go as far and say they did rewrite the laws!


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
LOl monti which part was presumptous? I would take a logical guess and say that you are reffering to my statement that that csa is fair. Actually I dont think it is fair, I think my step son deserves more than $98 a week to cover all his needs, but I think it is fair because his father would not eat or have clothes on his back if it was double that. So I have thought to myself that adding it all up, he should be paying what csa says and both parents can have responsibility about paying for the child and that his dad will be able to attend to his sons needs finacially whilst he is here as best he can with the money he has. what I really think is that his parent were stupid and arrogant to have kids when they were teens and they didnt even have a career or could earn good money! At least by paying the cs he is supposed to the father is living up to his responsiblities in some way.


Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Monster said
LOl monti which part was presumptous? I would take a logical guess and say that you are reffering to my statement that that csa is fair. Actually I dont think it is fair, I think my step son deserves more than $98 a week to cover all his needs.

Perhaps your son does need that, however as like so many you appear to be jumping to the most unfair reasoning in today's society, the expectation that in this society, with both parents given very much the same opportunity to provide financially, that the parent with the lesser care has sole financial responsibility. The fact is that it is both parent's  responsibility, as such your $98 per week, is likely far greater, as the parent you are with has a financial responsibility as well.

What if the other parent were deceased? What would be done to ensure your step-son was provided for what you think your step-son deserves? Would your step-son deserve less in such a situation?

Do intact families magically get what is deserved and if not who do they blame for the situation being unfair, or is the situation then fair simply because it's an intact family?
Monster said
I dont understand why csa would say that some kids are cost $5000 a year and some kids are cost $10000 and some kids cost $546.
Well I think it's quite simple Monster, you can basically only afford to spend what you have, those that have more can afford to spend more and vice versa and that's very much the basis of the calculations. Also perhaps a moot point, but it's not actually the CSA who come up with the figures but the legislators or more correctly those that are sought to advise the legislators. The legislators simply endorse or not on your behalf (well purportedly anyway) not that the legislators in deciding who will advise has an impact. The CSA just enforce the figures put before them, it would surprise me little if the same misunderstanding as yours was prevalent within the CSA itself.
I am amazed….. SPCA (established 2002) and assuming FLWG sometime after that…. Go the SPCA and go the FLWG, as we state go DIDS and go LFAA

I have been battling CSA since 1994… and some of us well prior to that, and the situation has not changed.

The masses, ok… the reforms have made a difference and I also agree that the payee in many cases has been given a better deal and  in some cases so they should be. (as everyones case is different)

It not a royal "we" Conan as you put it…. But i can assure you that without the "grieving" father, the reforms, FLWG and the SPCA would be non existent… so i call it more a collective "we" as was my context.

Ok… so your situation is now perfect, until you lose your job, cant work anymore, you have a tiff with the ex and he/she decides you should pay more (just out of spite) - or one of a 1000 more reasons that will see CSA come knocking on your door… or worse they come filming over your back fence.

Tying CSA up in paperwork! Have you ever been through a COA? then and objection? then a refusal? then an objection? then court…. CSA loves to tie us up in paperwork - but we cant reciprocate?

It is a sad state of affairs when the masses give into the government and doesnt question its action… LOL actually No! ITS A DICTATORSHIP….

"Dads Army mentality" - well I hate to inform the powers that be on here, but it was Dads Army that got all the payers this far…. in the same way that it was the "moms army" that got all the payee rights over the past 15 years…. and my Dads Army theory - as it was put was about supporting payers…. Assisting them to get back on their feet.

you havent got the picture yet I think…. CSA has new powers that entitle them to stream into your life without permission, make up whatever they want as a "decision" and you just pay…….

I do hope that because there have been some changes here and there that payers are not going to start getting all touchy feely and politically correct with CSA…While we are talking about armies - Twas a tatic of the roman empire… give your adversary a small win, while you amass your troops then crush them in the final battle..

There are still thousands of us, who still see CSA acting outside due process, outside the law (in some cases) and outside the way a government agency should work -just because they can.

Pity: Would hate to see FLWG forums become a "delete that post because we dont want to upset big brother"

Oh…. and Conan for all the sprouting about Sun Tzu, Lea Iacocca - one would think the best book to read would be George Orwell's 1984…………more relvant subject matter and a literary classic

Monster wrote: "Do you really think that csa decisions should take as long as FMC court decisions, so a person is forced to pay a huge repayment or overpayment because of a time delay in the assement process because csa are overworked. "

Of course not Monster - Nor do i think that someone should pay an extraordinary amount of CS just because CSA  doesnt have the resources to play by the rules and simply "plucks a figure out of the air" or uses "circumstancial evidence" outside rule of law and any other agency ruling e.g. Tax office to come up with a figure that simply meets what they promised the other party they would get…..Swing and roundabouts Monster…. what we lose on one we make up on the other

Last edit: by nxus

Oh do tell…. am finding that I am sort of brow beaten at present by those with big red images under their names (left hand columns)… Even about my use of capitals….

What I am reading is by far more scary, if you go between the lines. there appears to be a dont rock the boat attitude on this oh! so! public of "public forums".
I have no problem with working with the powers that be (CSA, etc…) but the problem is that they don't listen….

They might listen to SPCA, FLWG, DIDS in certain cases etc… which is great for the masses and qudos to the masses….. But its a bit like unionism in the 80's - when a single worker got the sack, well we can't help… Pay Rise! then STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE…

Great… doent help the guy who lost his job, he is unemployed and not entitled to the pay rise.

Its abit like our musing over grander support schemes…. got hazed in a big way…. basically blasted out if the water, but no one actually read what we posted and it was only those who saw both sides of the fence that actually got the undelying premise of  "fair and equitable" rather than the "promotion of a scam".

Its good to see that people like MikeT still identify that there are those who still feel the sting of CSA for no reason.

Yes its interesting to read some of the responses on here… Especially about those who "wrote the reforms" and where were YOU when it all went down… Well I was at every local meeting of the parliamentary raodshow that went around the country, I was at parliament house and questioned intensely Matt Miller and the AG when the LFAA had its conference,  I sat in both Joe Hockey office and Alby Schultz office pouring my heart out re treatment by CSA, my case appears in 2 parliamentary reports…….. But do people know my name.. NOOOOOOOooooo! of course not.

Why not? because i dont grandstand… I just do.
Very good point Conan being the reverse to the Aussie Tall Poppy Syndrome, that is WE want to be part of the group known for making improvement but not the group who made the flop.

I agree with nxus only on the point of there are people in CSA who can only justify their job, because it is their job, by rooting out non payers and avoiders of C$A.

The problem being, the most successful non payers and avoiders of C$A are those in business who have structured their businesses to minimise TAX the way they have and this minimises C$A.

Us, income smaller people do not get to need to minimise tax in the same way because as Agog said the cost is greater than the benefits.

I think 1 of the targets of CSA, at the present, is the smaller people who have an entity (partnership, company, business or like) that relies on a single persons income producing abilities for the income of the entity. That is, what the Tax Dept call "Personal Services Income" (PSI), there are exemption abilities from this PSI status on curtain conditions like not more than 80% of that entities income can come from 1 entity. This PSI status changes how the income for the entity is Taxed by turning all the income into your income thereby reducing the cost deductibility of curtain costs like the % of ph, rates for home offices, electricity and the like.

If it can be proven your PSI for the entity is such YOU should be totally liable for the income of the entity then what effect does that have on your CSA? It will send it through the roof in most cases due to the records needed to prove the costs and the a loss of items Deductable cause  about 50 to 70% of the deductable items the entity can claim verses what you can claim as Tax Deductable items to be un-claimable.  

Until ATO or CSA have done a full audit on the entity to qualify or identify the % of income your entity achieves from each income source they cannot be sure you are making a proper declaration of your income. What was the PPS scheme of old was were a lot of employers were able to minimise wages because the worker became a subcontractor, this still occurs today but in different ways with added benefits to the employer like no super payments, less workers comp payments and less State Tax on wage payments.

If more C$A payers could see their $'s paid were being spent on the children and not by the payee on the payee then more would be less upset at how much we payers pay. If I could pay directly for items my son and daughter need then I would gladly pay as would most fathers. But sadly Judges refuse me an ability to support my children because they would have to admit what they would have to admit to allow me to do that.

Sadly it is the few on % who cause the rest of us to deal with the intrusive behave of those C$A workers whose job it is to root out C$A avoiders.

Totally agree, I am not in the PSI % and I am not an employee of a business run by my new partner/girlfriend/family members… and my structure has not changed for 8 years, I am totally open with all the relevant government agencies.. but i go through the intrusion (and worst of all interpretation) of CSA - EVERY YEAR.

I whole heartedly support getting those on big $ being made to pay when they currently pay nothingm or very little…… But CSA are still only going after the small fish in order to "set a prescedent" to establish the ruling under law to go after the big fish….. so the small fish end up dead in the water.  Why not go after the "big fish" because it would take longer and cost more….

So start with those where we know nothing is really amiss, but we miight find something that justifies our position, the greater the justification the more we can lobby government to "give CSA the power"… And i can assure you - it is the little fish who are on this site…. Looking at the media on this topic - it all states about "payer" living the life of luxury and paying $6 a week CS…. But i dont see too much on cases where CSA have actually caught anyone like this…

But i do hear plenty on cases where payers  arent living the life of Rielly and who ARE paying a decent amount of CS - and CSA is relentlessly going ofter these people. We are just the bait used to go after the big fish… the more they can test a scenario with a little guy, the more they can justify it when it come to the bigger fish.

But, For all the people "minimising CS payments" - there are a lot more that are "maximising payee benefit" through "get as much as I can" and use of CS for purposes other than the child…….  

I also agree that we should be told the definite expense of the child school fees, rental agreements, food bills etc for our kids and we should be able to pay these directly or have the other party verify that the payment was made using the CS provided.
I hear what your saying by "the more they can test a scenario with a little guy, the more they can justify it when it come to the bigger fish." But I find it hard to beleive because the bigger fish, as you put it, are able to employ Bigger Law that totally undoes the Law applied to us little fish.

That the Law worked on us little fish only means their job is justified not the Law, the Law will only become justified when the arguments of the Bigger Fish are heard and stand.

By then it is tooooooo late for us little guys due to the time limits imposed on our cases. As is so often shown in the FamCA. Just because Big Fish win their cases, it does not mean that Law will be heard by the Judge or C$A when faced with a little fish like us SRL's, it only means when presented by Counsel it will be heard and complied with.

For the Big Fish to win the Law must be there, they can not make it up.
No you are missing my point…. CSA establishes precedent through trying cases not under the legisaltion, they use the powers of the court system to interpret a situation that cannot be "fully" established under law…. once they have the "precendent" they can then apply it across the board.. Its not about the law… its about ease of establishment of the precendent.

So how do they do this… they cant take you to court unless you breach the law… but they can push you hard enough to to them to court… Hence the reason for bamboozling and confusing a payers - then the fun really begins.

In the same way they were testing whether a person caring (as a father would) for a child that was not theirs (in subsequent DNA test) was grounds to establish that CS should be paid…. They were part way there until guys started suiciding.

So which group (little or big) do you think they are going to go after in order to establish precendent…. How many times have we heard that a ruling "in case x" from the FLCoA has established the grounds for CTE? and CTE in 2004 CTE became a new section on the COA…….. well its happening all over again with CTP - and they are looking for test cases……….trolling through lives to find that one or two cases that they can take to court and win easily to establish the precedent.

Read the words of the act and publications… Capacity to Pay is a program only…. it has not been included against the Assessment Act under COA… only Capacity to Earn has……. so from this what do you thin CSA are trying to do invoking Capacity to Pay….

they are trying to establish as many cases where they have "found" a payer has a greater capaity to pay, they dont want to do this via the big fish because the big fish will fight back…. they want to do it via the small fish and get the Capacity to Pay as Section 9,10, 11 etc… on the COA form….
nxus, most regulators in Government carefully weigh up the merits of a case before seeking to go outside the merits tribunals.  This is because if a decision goes against them, they are also stuck with a precedent they cannot live with.

My suggestion to anyone caught up in a CSA witchhunt is to respond in kind.  Australia has some really good checks and balances.  You just need to be patient and access them to keep things in balance.  For example, if CSA challenges your income, you challenge them on care levels (if that is plausible).  If they take your tax return, you complain that put you in hardhip.  If they commence a COA, you refuse to lodge your financial circs and lodge a complaint under IPP1.  Get the drift?   
It seems that the government wants people to use the system and take advantage of all the legal possibilities to organise their tax affairs. Its also to be expected that the forms, paperwork, processes, guidelines, regulations, legislation, courts, tribunals are all part of the system that the governments have provided to all Australians to use.

Its not matter of tying CSA with paperwork. Its a simple matter of doing what the government expects everyone to do.

As leaders in the world this country constantly displays its grasp on the human condition and how best to build legislation and systems for its people. We should be proud - I know they are.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets