Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

More deleted posts

I expect this post will be deleted too - but come on - deleting posts that you don't agree with moderators  - or ones that hit a sore spot.  And you hotly defend the fact that this forum isn't biased!  I don't think so.

This has come up time and time again and it is never adequately addressed.  On what basis were my posts in the topic about education expenses against forum rules deleted?  But no, noone has the time to waste telling me that or informing me they have been deleted and why because this is a voluntary site and the moderators don't have time and if I were to donate maybe they would!

Surely it can't be due to bias on the part of the moderator(s).  No! Surely not.  I must have broken some rule or another!



Seriously though, if you are going to delete posts at least have the courtesy to say in the thread that a post has been deleted - don't just disappear them within minutes of them being posted, like I expect this one will be.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
larissap, I read your post that was deleted this morning. I don't know why was deleted. However that post did make assumptions about legislation, family tax benefit rules & tax law that were not backed up with references and anyone who has a basic understanding of those particular things could clearly see your assumptions were incorrect. It does not matter what our individual opinion is, but the laws are what they are (whether we like it or not) and giving people misleading/incorrect/nonfactual information on those laws, is not helpful. 

If you want to discuss how unfair things are or how things should be, great start a thread on it. One thing you will find is that most here will agree it currently doesn't work. But please if you are going to give advice & say this legislation/rule extra says or means this or that - check what you are saying is actual fact.
Frenzy - I didn't think I was making any assumptions.  It is a fact that CSA is payed on a basis of how many nights a parent has a child.  Many other factors too but one of the big factors is the shared care amount.  Just a I said and Mike T agreed, if the payee has the child 314 - 365 nights a year CSA is paid at 100%,  if the payee has the child from 238 - 313 nights is it paid at 24% lower than 100%.  I don't know the other figures.  FT is reduced if the payer has the child over a certain percentage.  the payment of the schoolkids bonus is reduced to payee and an amount payed to payer if there is a shared care paymen and not 100% CSA.

I don't need to know legislation or anything else to know these facts - they are available on the CSA and ATO site (except maybe the schoolkids bonus which I am getting from Iten's post as I don't get any).

I am not misleading anyone with these facts.  I then gave an OPINION which is what was asked for, that if CSA is reduced because the parents are sharing the care and therefore the costs it is logical that it is all costs that are shared, not just some.  Education being one of the costs, and it can be quite high even for public schools.

I was not 'giving advice' I was stating an opinion and made that quite clear.  I suspect that the 3 posts I have posted on this subject stating these facts and giving my opinion were deleted because they are valid.  They certainly did not break any rules that other posters don't break all the time or break any rules I am aware of.

I don't know why all three were deleted and can only guess.  But even if your comment is correct - that I was giving misleading advice - common courtesy is to let someone know their post will be deleted and why.  And in fact there are many other posts left up that clearly break site rules.

I am fed up of people declaring this site to be unbiased and factual when it is no such thing.  I don't know who does the deleting, whether it is one rogue moderator or all of them, but someone should do something or rename this site to something more appropriate for the advice it will and won't give and the opinions it will and won't allow.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
I don't know anything about the moderating, so not going into that. All I can say is how your post came across whether you intentioned it to be that way or not.

Frenzy - I didn't think I was making any assumptions.
What you said this morning was, the family tax benefit rules, legislation & tax law support parents who share care SHARING ALL expenses. You also said there is no information stating what expenses are/are not covered.

Ordinary expenses are considered by CSA as covered by the monthly payments a payer makes to a payee (thus already being shared), irrespective of care levels. This is why there are generally no grounds for a payee to have a COA increase granted based on ordinary expenses such as public education, food, clothing or standard medical care it does not matter if they have shared care or not. For CSA to be able to force a parent to share an expense a parent must prove that expense is out of the ordinary & special circumstances warrant it.  This information can be found on the child support agency website (I am trying to load it to get the link but getting an error message).

Larissap you are right, in that a payer may have a reduction in their monthly child support by going from say 10% care to 50% - one may lose FTB one may gain, I don't have an issue with you saying that, but where is the actual law you asserted this morning that states parents should now share all costs? Can you provide a reference it? Depending on income, if one parent has to pay the other monthly CS after an change to a shared care %, the payer will still be considered by CSA as contributing monthly to all ordinary expenses incurred by the payee.
Frenzy said
I don't know anything about the moderating, so not going into that. All I can say is how your post came across whether you intentioned it to be that way or not.

Frenzy - I didn't think I was making any assumptions.
What you said this morning was, the family tax benefit rules, legislation & tax law support parents who share care SHARING ALL expenses. You also said there is no information stating what expenses are/are not covered.

Ordinary expenses are considered by CSA as covered by the monthly payments a payer makes to a payee (thus already being shared), irrespective of care levels. This is why there are generally no grounds for a payee to have a COA increase granted based on ordinary expenses such as public education, food, clothing or standard medical care it does not matter if they have shared care or not. For CSA to be able to force a parent to share an expense a parent must prove that expense is out of the ordinary & special circumstances warrant it.  This information can be found on the child support agency website (I am trying to load it to get the link but getting an error message).

Larissap you are right, in that a payer may have a reduction in their monthly child support by going from say 10% care to 50% - one may lose FTB one may gain, I don't have an issue with you saying that, but where is the actual law you asserted this morning that states parents should now share all costs? Can you provide a reference it? Depending on income, if one parent has to pay the other monthly CS after an change to a shared care %, the payer will still be considered by CSA as contributing monthly to all ordinary expenses incurred by the payee.
  I never said there was a law saying that expenses had to be shared.  What I recall saying is that if payments are reduced dependent on the care level because expenses are shared, then it is logical to assume they mean all expenses, not just some.

So if  parent has a child only on weekends and during school holidays they never actually receive the notes home from the school or have to buy school clothes, or pay the fees for band practice or music at school, or camp or all the numerous school costs.  Those costs can be huge, which is what Iten said.  If a payer is receiving a portion of the schoolkids payment then the ATO must assume he is also paying a share of the school costs, to me that is logical.  It is all about formulas and figures and not one of them take into account the actual situation.

I don't know how to explain it any better, it is quite clear to me that CSA goes down as the non residential parent has the children more, as does Family Tax and the Schoolkids allowance (all legislated, in CSA rules, the ATO rules or whatever) therefore the Government is assuming/legislating or whatever terminology you want to use, that the costs are shared too and I believe that should include large ticket school costs.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
I don't know how to explain it any better, it is quite clear to me that CSA goes down as the non residential parent has the children more, as does Family Tax and the Schoolkids allowance (all legislated, in CSA rules, the ATO rules or whatever) therefore the Government is assuming/legislating or whatever terminology you want to use, that the costs are shared too and I believe that should include large ticket school costs.
I am understanding what you are saying, but your "logic" on how it's legislated, defies reality. The only government dept that can force one parent to pay another for children is the Child Support Agency. The Child Support Agency does not have have written enacted legislation in place to make shared care payers pay for ordinary expenses, other then as I explained last post.

The FTB is in inline with CSA legislation in that if a payer is paying monthly support then they are considered as covering ordinary expenses, including eduction, so therefor if they meet a certain care %, they are entitled to a % family tax benefit & any other payments that use a parents FTB criteria to determine eligibility. The ATO have little to do it, so not sure why your on about them, sorry.

If government wants something to be a certain way they amend or enact Acts/Regulations to make it so, they don't sit around assuming. My personal opinion is the Federal Government is probably well aware the way the whole thing is legislated makes the outcome often unjust for many many reasons. However they are more interested in clawing back FTB, extorting more money from payers & they have deliberately legislated it so it is this way.
larissap said
This has come up time and time again and it is never adequately addressed. On what basis were my posts in the topic about education expenses against forum rules deleted? But no, noone has the time to waste telling me that or informing me they have been deleted and why because this is a voluntary site and the moderators don't have time and if I were to donate maybe they would!
Quite right, no one probably has the time to respond (you rightly point out - TIME TO WASTE) and then you make a smart comment about donations. Is this site a charity? Hands out!!!! you want another freebie? more web time?
larissap said
Surely it can't be due to bias on the part of the moderator(s). No! Surely not. I must have broken some rule or another!
Being very smart. Insulting all the mods. There was a posting from the mods about self opinionated smart alec types on this site - you have obviously broken that rule.
larissap said
Seriously though, if you are going to delete posts at least have the courtesy to say in the thread that a post has been deleted - don't just disappear them within minutes of them being posted, like I expect this one will be.
This is your site signature
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference
Perhaps you should read it?


Larissap I have to agree with you. If you or anyone else has written what they think is correct, but might be wrong, why isn't it corrected by the moderators instead of being deleted.
I have asked several questions on this forum that haven't been answered and had posts deleted for voicing my opinion on a matter.

The public come here to get help and questions answered.

Conan Larissap signature reads pretty good to, I understand what is meant by it, perhaps you don't.

How come Conan you don't answer questions on this site instead of just criticising people all the time.
Back to the original question, it is my OPINION that educational costs should be shared if the payer is on less than 100% CSA due to shared care.  Of course you can never ever make anyone do that, but that doesn't change my opinion.
No under the present legislation you can't.

If the Government intended that parents shared all expenses based on care levels, plus pay ongoing monthly support they would have avenues written into legislation to make people share those expenses. Same avenues could be used that are used now to get the monthly child support out of payers who are unwilling to pay. Hence, this is one of the reasons why I don't believe the government currently gives a two hoots whether everything is equatable in CS/FTB land or not.

Oh and I am not trying to get you to change you opinion or agree in relation to the original topic. By posting here I was only attempting to point out that your post this morning was misleading as what you said in relation to 'legislation, ATO rules & FTB rules' didn't come across as your opinion on how it should be, rather it came across as you were asserting facts on how the legislation actually is. I am not saying you meant it to come across that way either, just that it did. It can be very hard for any of us at times to word things so that they come across to others as we intend. 
taylor said
Larissap I have to agree with you. If you or anyone else has written what they think is correct, but might be wrong, why isn't it corrected by the moderators instead of being deleted.
Ad nauseam response from me. Its called resources = TIME. If the site had paid full time moderators then things would undoubtedly be different.

Here is an interesting site link
Donate money page - flwg.com.au

taylor said
I have asked several questions on this forum that haven't been answered
Sorry but this is boo hoo. How disgusting that you probably stuck your hand out and no one put anything in it. This really is becoming a disease in our society- take but don't give!
I too have had many posts deleted, and I am STILL waiting for two PM's to be responded to which I believe is complete discourtesy. (Oh I correct that statment, I was responded to initially with a statment along the lines of "I dont have time to respond to you")  O_o

I am happy to be a moderator as I have time to spare. Many complain they do not have time, but I do, so why not let me help?  :)

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Gecko said
I too have had many posts deleted, and I am STILL waiting for two PM's to be responded to which I believe is complete discourtesy. (Oh I correct that statment, I was responded to initially with a statment along the lines of "I dont have time to respond to you")  
Another smart alec statement with Geckos usual misspellings.
Gecko said
I am happy to be a moderator as I have time to spare. Many complain they do not have time, but I do, so why not let me help?  :)
Because you cannot use the site dictionary?
Seriously I think you have more chance of becoming the next female PM than a site moderator.

Conan pull your head in, if you dont have the time to answer the publics questions, why do you bother being part of this site.
So what if Gecko cant spell, English grammar is not my strong point, have a dig at me as well.
taylor said
Conan pull your head in, if you dont have the time to answer the publics questions, why do you bother being part of this site.
taylor you are a relative newbie and if you ever bothered you would find I make as many constructive posts and I do anti bs posts.
taylor said
So what if Gecko cant spell, English grammar is not my strong point, have a dig at me as well.
So Gecko cannot be bothered to use the dictionary provided, is it laziness or stupidity? Instead of just launching into a debate just 10 minutes of work on her part learning how to use the tools provided would solve the problem.
Obviously you also have a reading and comprehension problem because you are unaware of the name of the forum you are posting in and what goes on in it.

I am glad that this is in the LET OFF STEAM Venting area and Hyde Park Corner section rather than another area.

Now, if you could all just go back to your relevant corners, agree to disagree, we can get back to our regularly scheduled programs, and that is working towards the common good of trying to make sense of the Australian Family law System, Child Support Agency, Family Relationships Centres and all the other assorted areas that attempt to get some semblance of order with regard to our collective children, and their best interests.
Boots said
I am glad that this is in the LET OFF STEAM Venting area and Hyde Park Cornersection rather than another area.
Boots you really shouldn't deprive the idiots of posting in this particular forum and therefore stopping me poking a stick up their proverbials.
Well clearly people with opinions differing from the moderators are not allowed to post on this website.

I had another post deleted on a totally different subject.  The one about parental alianation where the Mitch was not allowed to see his children.  I can only surmise because I had an opinion that as Mitch talked about the other woman that there may be have been an affair and the children might quite rightly have been angry at their father.'

I used an example of my friend's children and in particular her 15 year old daughter.  Guess noone is supposed to state an alternate opinion and that maybe the mother was not alianating the children but that they were angry in their own right.

If moderators are going to ban me from posting on this site I would rather you delete my account and disable my access than surreptitiously delete any posts you don't like the sound of or that might offer an opinion that does not put the father/payer in a good light.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
larissap said
Well clearly people with opinions differing from the moderators are not allowed to post on this website.
That as you well know is absolute nonsense.
larissap said
If moderators are going to ban me from posting on this site I would rather you delete my account and disable my access than surreptitiously delete any posts you don't like the sound of or that might offer an opinion that does not put the father/payer in a good light.
How many times has admin written that accounts are not deleted, all you have to do is is un tick the receive emails box in your account! Were you having a seniors moment when you wrote the above?

larissap said
Well clearly people with opinions differing from the moderators are not allowed to post on this website.

I had another post deleted on a totally different subject.  The one about parental alianation where the Mitch was not allowed to see his children.  I can only surmise because I had an opinion that as Mitch talked about the other woman that there may be have been an affair and the children might quite rightly have been angry at their father.'

I used an example of my friend's children and in particular her 15 year old daughter.  Guess noone is supposed to state an alternate opinion and that maybe the mother was not alianating the children but that they were angry in their own right.

If moderators are going to ban me from posting on this site I would rather you delete my account and disable my access than surreptitiously delete any posts you don't like the sound of or that might offer an opinion that does not put the father/payer in a good light.
  mmmm - you and me both dear. This is getting beyond ridiculous! All I did was give some advice re getting through this and helping him move forward with a relationship with his children……I would love to know the justificatio0n of the deletion. Cant be the spelling as I double spell checked it lol

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Gecko said
mmmm - you and me both dear. This is getting beyond ridiculous! All I did was give some advice re getting through this and helping him move forward with a relationship with his children……I would love to know the justificatio0n of the deletion. Cant be the spelling as I double spell checked it lol
Perhaps because it contained silly abbreviations like mmmm and lol? Didn't Cameron get into trouble using lol?
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets