Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Amount of CS people pay



The amount of CS we generally pay for our kids depend on our income right?

Well I disagree as I think it should depend on the actual cost of raising a kid.

Agencies can determine how much it costs to raise a kid and then determine how much
each parent should pay which would also depend on the amount of time each parent sees
its kid.

For example,

We may know that the total basic expenses for raising a single child A are 30,000 per year and that
parent A has 100% responsibility of this child.

Therefore this is the basic liability of parent A each year which would not involve anyone paying CS. Extra things would be considered optional extras subject to the choice of the parent out of it's own pocket.

If the responsibility was shared 50/50 then parent B should pay approx 15,000 per year and spend approx 182 days a year with the kid.
If this parent wants to spend extra on this kid during it's responsible time then this is the separate business of this parent.
 
I dont believe CS payments should depend on calculating a % of the total income of each parent as I believe this is how jealously and manipulation of the system out of spite occurs.

They should depend on a widely regarded system which takes into account the costs of raising a kid on an actual basic level of needs.



Ever heard of actuarial calculations? I suspect not. I think you should stop posting and start reading.
istvan - you need to take a reality check - your posts are becoming more and more irrational and down right delusional

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
Istvan maybe you need to tell your parents what you have done. Or speak to someone face to face, so that you can understand your real situation, not the situation you think you are in or want to be in.. It is a shame that you didnt come here before you made a baby with a career baby Mumma. The deed is done and you need to grow up quickly and do what is best for your child and yourself and the baby Mumma.
At the risk of trying to rationalise with an irrational person….

What would be your solution should the parent be on a low income?
Then the $15,000 becomes an impossible ask…

No solution is perfect, even the one we have now..


I think there should be a CS cut of which includes this pre-determined amount of for example 30,000 per annum per child.

So if someone earns a huge income of 200,000 then the most they would pay would be pro rata to my explanation above.

If they earn an income so low they are unable to satisfy the 15,000 then perhaps they need to think about seeing their kid less or find other ways of increasing their income to pay for the privilege of seeing it.

I think If they have such a low income it is not possible then there would have to be other special considerations to apply.
Istvan1985 said


I think there should be a CS cut of which includes this pre-determined amount of for example 30,000 per annum per child.

So if someone earns a huge income of 200,000 then the most they would pay would be pro rata to my explanation above.

If they earn an income so low they are unable to satisfy the 15,000 then perhaps they need to think about seeing their kid less or find other ways of increasing their income to pay for the privilege of seeing it.

I think If they have such a low income it is not possible then there would have to be other special considerations to apply.

Istvan1985- you are an idiot. Are children just for financial gain for you? Children deserve to know both parents (except in case of abuse etc). They shouldn't be used as a bartering tool to get more money. I really wish my son had a decent father who didn't treat his child like a possession or a 'pay per view' item.
Children are not for financial gain for me.

I think all children have a right to one or two parents gender irrelevant.

I think most of the problems we have are issues between parents, co-parents and not parents and children.

I grew up with two parents who fought 24/7 and really wish I had the opportunity to grow up with
just one parent as my friend did and seemed to have a much more stable family.

Single parents don't fight as they don't have to make shared decisions about children.


Single parents have a great opportunity to form a special kind of bond with children which doesn't occur eith dual parents.

Also children of single parents often become independant adults themselves.

Family structure is a complex thing but I believe anyone who thinks children require both a mum and a dad and nothing else is possible or appropriate is kidding themselves.

Two parents can be better sometimes too. It really depends on each case and it the parents get along or not.
Istvan1985 said
Children are not for financial gain for me.

I think all children have a right to one or two parents gender irrelevant.

I think most of the problems we have are issues between parents, co-parents and not parents and children.

I grew up with two parents who fought 24/7 and really wish I had the opportunity to grow up with
just one parent as my friend did and seemed to have a much more stable family.

Single parents don't fight as they don't have to make shared decisions about children.

Single parents have a great opportunity to form a special kind of bond with children which doesn't occur eith dual parents.

Also children of single parents often become independant adults themselves.

Family structure is a complex thing but I believe anyone who thinks children require both a mum and a dad and nothing else is possible or appropriate is kidding themselves.

Two parents can be better sometimes too. It really depends on each case and it the parents get along or not.

Really? You think single parenting is stable? I grew up with separated parents and it was anything but stable. You were observing your friends situation from the outside. In my situation, it was my father taking cheap shots at my mum all the time, he still does almost 20yrs later.  Think about how stable your life would be if you had to fly across the country frequently to see the other parent. It was also a case of financial instability. Constantly moving and struggling to pay the bills. Single parents still have to make joint decisions. Haven't you read all the posts on this forum about fights between separated parents in regards to schooling, doctors, moving etc?
I think single parent families often have more stable family relationships but it is true they always have less money.

Two incomes means a better ability to pay bills and for anything really and this is a fact.

I don't advocate children being a pay-per view item and I really think you misunderstood my previous interpretation on CS.

If single parenting is so bad why do so many women willingly choose to do it? (I.e. Seek to get pregnant without a father).

Many women don't want a man or partner around as they don't want anyone to make joint decisions over how to raise a kid. They either

want to focus on building a relationship with their kid/s or think men are a bad influence and may cause problems.

I think a good single parents can be HEAPS better than two fighting parents.

But two loving comitted parents can be just as good or better too. But I also think this is very rare.

If single parenting is so bad why do so many women willingly choose to do it? (I.e. Seek to get pregnant without a father).
How do you come to the conclusion that so many single Mums willingly choose for it to be that way?  I don't know any single mothers that have not gone out and gotten knocked up by an annoymous donor with a turkey baster just because they don't want their child to have a father.

I was a single mother, my daughters father developed a mental illness due to drug use and the court decided it was in her best interest not to have a relationship with him. It was only the lessor or 2 evils for her to grow up in a single parent household, had you grown up in a single mother household you'd be probably be wishing you had a Dad in your life (even just a weekend Dad). The grass is not always greener on the other side. At the end of the day, even though I raised my daughter well and we are very close and she is a very strong confident successful young lady now, there is so much she has missed out on not having a fathers influence/love ect for 20 years. 

I am with a man now who has kids and is separated - sure there is hostile relationship with his ex - but his kids still idiolise him and derive alot of psychological/emotional/financial benfit from him still being part of their lives, even though their parents are split.
 They either

want to focus on building a relationship with their kid/s or think men are a bad influence and may cause problems.
If that's the case then they need counseling and possibly de-sexing. Sure there are individuals (both male and female) that are bad parents but anyone who thinks one gender as a whole is a bad influence is probably not psychologically stable, so how will they provide a mentally healthy environment for a child?. But hey if your only a private turkey baster sperm donor why would you care if your child's mother has psych issues?
Istvan1985 said
I think single parent families often have more stable family relationships but it is true they always have less money.

Two incomes means a better ability to pay bills and for anything really and this is a fact.

I don't advocate children being a pay-per view item and I really think you misunderstood my previous interpretation on CS.

If single parenting is so bad why do so many women willingly choose to do it? (I.e. Seek to get pregnant without a father).

Many women don't want a man or partner around as they don't want anyone to make joint decisions over how to raise a kid. They either

want to focus on building a relationship with their kid/s or think men are a bad influence and may cause problems.

I think a good single parents can be HEAPS better than two fighting parents.

But two loving comitted parents can be just as good or better too. But I also think this is very rare.



I think you must be hanging with the wrong crowd if you know a lot of women who willingly fall pregnant without a partner.
In my case, my ex and family has recently decided to reject our child due to DS being special needs. I can tell my life would be a lot easier if I had a good partner/ co parent. Right now, I have pneumonia and should be in hospital but instead am at home trying to look after a toddler with no support.

Single vs separated parents

DSnME said
Istvan1985 said
Children are not for financial gain for me.

I think all children have a right to one or two parents gender irrelevant.

I think most of the problems we have are issues between parents, co-parents and not parents and children.

I grew up with two parents who fought 24/7 and really wish I had the opportunity to grow up with
just one parent as my friend did and seemed to have a much more stable family.

Single parents don't fight as they don't have to make shared decisions about children.

Single parents have a great opportunity to form a special kind of bond with children which doesn't occur eith dual parents.

Also children of single parents often become independant adults *faster* themselves.


Family structure is a complex thing but I believe anyone who thinks children require both a mum and a dad and nothing else is possible or appropriate is kidding themselves.

Two parents can be better sometimes too. It really depends on each case and it the parents get along or not.


Really? You think single parenting is stable? I grew up with separated parents and it was anything but stable. You were observing your friends situation from the outside. In my situation, it was my father taking cheap shots at my mum all the time, he still does almost 20yrs later.  Think about how stable your life would be if you had to fly across the country frequently to see the other parent. It was also a case of financial instability. Constantly moving and struggling to pay the bills. Single parents still have to make joint decisions. Haven't you read all the posts on this forum about fights between separated parents in regards to schooling, doctors, moving etc?

There's a big difference between non-cohabited co-parents and single parents with sole responsibility.
Non-cohabited co-parents are like two single parents but still often argue over children. Single parents with sole responsibility don't have to compromise with any other parent over a kid. What I was saying was I think these kids who have great relationships with the single parent may fare just as well or better as many two parent family kids.

Also, I think divorse leading to a single parent family is probably the worse outcome for a kid. Especially if the other parent works all the time and doesn't see it much after.

So I think single parent kids who don't go through divorse may fare quite well in life if their single parent relationship is strong.

I went through divorse as a kid (4 years) and then an adopted step father and mother. We always had money but no quality
relationships as my parents always worked.

So I think the fights you speak of refer to non-cohabited co-parents which differ from single parents even if the single parents see their kid 180 days a year it's still different as parents judge one another over children.
Single parents with sole responsibility don't have to compromise with any other parent over a kid. What I was saying was I think these kids who have great relationships with the single parent may fare just as well or better as many two parent family kids.

So Ivsvan your solution to problems/issues between biological parents - is to promote fathers bowing out of the picture (being sperm donors with no legal responsibility) because a child might grow up with less conflict when a mother has sole responsibility. Your starting to come across as some radical fem-nazi in disguise trying to promote a fatherless society.

As I said previously I had sole responsibility for my daughter, we were close - it was still far from ideal for her for many reasons. Emotional reasons that you wouldn't have the capacity to comprehend.   
Istvan, the main flaw in your argument (and there are many) is that you seem to believe the amount a parent pays to support their child should be in proportion to how much time they (the parent) chooses to spend with their child. By this measure a parent who chooses to have no contact should pay nothing. What if a parent chooses to have no contact however the child requests contact? Is the parent then liable for costs even though the "kid" initiated the contact? How would you deal with current cases where care is agreed however due to alienation the child chooses to have no contact?

This is precisely the reason why formal regulated child support is in place (even though there is general consensus that the formulas use are wrong). Too many dead beat parents have absconded from the financial responsibility of supporting their children that both places a huge financial burden on the parent providing the care and how that reduction in adequate finacial resources directly affects the quality of life of the child.

In the interest of the child both parents should contribute equally & fairly (and there are many interpretations of this word in relation to CS) however I personally don't agree with the formula used to calculate CS payments (I'm in the situation where I earn $35k more than my ex but after taking out & adding in tax, Cs & FTB for both of us she ends up with $300 pa more than I.

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant."

 
Children are not used for financial gain.
Really ?
Some one actually said that.
The magic numbers are 51 days and 127 days.

Why is the cost of raising a child proportional to the income?
There is a cost of essentials and the rest is luxuries.
CS Payee wants the benefits of being "attached" to Payer but has not the not "cost".
Yes jr. misses out but some times it is often not the Payers choice.

I do acknowledge that CS feels like a punishment for not being allowed to see the kids.

Kids deserve parents that are working for them.
Those sort of parents are usually under the same roof, there is a smaller number that work together from different domiciles, but usually if they are not in the same house that are not working together. Single parenting should primarily be a misfortune not a vehicle of retribution , greed and selfishness



Frenzy said
Single parents with sole responsibility don't have to compromise with any other parent over a kid. What I was saying was I think these kids who have great relationships with the single parent may fare just as well or better as many two parent family kids.

So Ivsvan your solution to problems/issues between biological parents - is to promote fathers bowing out of the picture (being sperm donors with no legal responsibility) because a child might grow up with less conflict when a mother has sole responsibility. Your starting to come across as some radical fem-nazi in disguise trying to promote a fatherless society.

As I said previously I had sole responsibility for my daughter, we were close - it was still far from ideal for her for many reasons. Emotional reasons that you wouldn't have the capacity to comprehend.


This is not my promoted solution. Rather just one avenue individuals may go down from time to time just like the few other ways a child may be conceived in the modern age. As i have learned donor insemination agreements are emerging legal agreements which allow two
people who are not in a relationship to have a kid with one parent abolishing it's parental rights.

Ideally I believe in promoting a new age family structure style involving two parents called theory of interdependence in which two married parents would raise a child who lives inside a commercial/residential combination while both the married parents live in separate houses (i.e. Non-cohabitation).

This involves the family unit residing inside three smaller residences instead of a single larger one. The allocated nurturing parent would reside 24 hours inside the commercial/residential residence early on in the kids life before moving inside its own place early on in the child's life.

If I ever have a child of my own I will settle for a marriage inside this interdependent framework or adopt as a single father.
Both could be a potentially great outcome I think.

Realistically the interdependent framework is probably not possible for me unless I become cashed up somehow. Mainstream society
has not become intelligent enough to understand the advantages of this relationship style and I think most of upper class society doesn't understand it and no one is promoting it.

It would involve me buying a commercial business and then fitting out the office suite with a living area, bathroom, personal and bedroom sleeping quarters for both the child and nurture parent.

It would also involve me and a partner running some form of business from it (but we would work in separate departments).

I want to promote this framework during my lifetime as I believe it could reduce rate of divorce for many complex reasons but
in a nutshell the framework teaches people how to relate in a way which is independent.

The thing I want to avoid at all costs is marriage in the traditional co-habitation sense. I see my options as either single parenting or the interdependent framework which is totally different again.

There are advantages of having a child and it can bring you great happiness if you understand relationships and can get on with another partner independently or don't have one.

Well umm good luck with it all……….if you think that married couples living separately but co- raising a child will promote some kind of divorce & conflict fee eutopia then clearly you are nuts. There are way more issues in relationships and child raising then whether or not parents ever live under the one roof.

As for surrogacy/donor insemination laws ect yes they are there but they only apply to a select few (ie those who cannot conceive naturally).

There is recent research out in to the outcomes of children (now adults) who were conceived by donor sperm ect…the research highlights the anger, sadness and psychological distress a large % of these individuals have endured because of the way they were conceived. Your dream of eutopia has in reality proven a nightmare for many.

You are clearly not of sound mind or are on some kind of hallucinogenic substance.   
Frenzy said
Well umm good luck with it all……….if you think that married couples living separately but co- raising a child will promote some kind of divorce & conflict fee eutopia then clearly you are nuts. There are way more issues in relationships and child raising then whether or not parents ever live under the one roof.

As for surrogacy/donor insemination laws ect yes they are there but they only apply to a select few (ie those who cannot conceive naturally).

There is recent research out in to the outcomes of children (now adults) who were conceived by donor sperm ect…the research highlights the anger, sadness and psychological distress a large % of these individuals have endured because of the way they were conceived. Your dream of eutopia has in reality proven a nightmare for many.

You are clearly not of sound mind or are on some kind of hallucinogenic substance.

The framework I just spoke of does not involve "co-raising" but rather married couples raising a child together who do not co-habitate.
Imagine you have your own resistance where you live and then you raise a child together with a partner who has it's own separate residence. Next your kid lives inside the office suite of your business where you both work together. That's for model for an interdependent relationship between you and your partner which is simply not possible in the normal cohabitation sense. The model creates a dynamic for your relationship which is much more independent and teaches you how to always put your own feelings before the feelings of your partner (mutually).




I keep looking but I can't find the hidden cameras.

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant."

 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets