Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Search – Forums

Your search gave 5 results:

Post #49565 by fair_go on May 25th 2013, 12:40 AM (in topic “Letter to the Minister”)

Letter to the Minister:

Good on you for trying to fix this nonsensical system Sleepy.

I also don't understand why the CSA is such a shady organisation. The only figures ever released, are how much money they collected "for kids" ,how much money "deadbeat dads" have in arrears, and how much money the government is allocating to track down and prosecute these "deadbeat dads".
Why can't the CSA have all their figures open for public scrutiny, like a public company legally has to annually report full financials to the ASX. Then we tax payers can see how our money is being spent. If your figures are correct, and it costs the CSA $2.80 for every $1.00 collected, then what is the real point of the agency?

The CSA is not a secret intelligence organisation, yet they behave like one.

Even the way they operate, like the COA reason 8. If you are self employed, where is the simple fact sheet to inform the payer exactly how they determine their child support income? Why couldn't any accountant give you an accurate COA figure when they do your tax return? In fact, why couldn't your accountant lodge your COA like they lodge your tax return?

Surely there must be a clear cut method of determining income for child support purposes. The ATO have a clear cut taxation policy, that all accountants understand, yet it seems the CSA don't. Hence they call you, interview you to get all sorts of information about income, both real and imaginary(depreciation), then come up with a ruling, which basically means plucking a figure out with no accountability.

This is unacceptable. The CSA really should have a concise way of determining income, that any accountant can work out, like the ATO do.

Finally, why can a parent who worked part time during the relationship continue working part time until the children turn 18 and still claim child support and not come under capacity to earn provisions, yet a parent who worked full time during the relationship has to keep working full time until the children turn 18, with the threat of capacity to earn preventing them from working less hours.
Surely they both have capacity to earn, yet one is exempt.

Just some examples of why the CSA is unfair and perceived to be biased.

Go to post

Post #41458 by fair_go on February 1st 2012, 7:36 PM (in topic “Ex refusing to work - I'm a bit wary of C$A's CoAs...”)

Ex refusing to work - I'm a bit wary of C$A's CoAs...:

Thanks Babushka.

This rule is unfair, especially in a shared care situation, since it gives one parent a lifestyle choice to work either full or part time , while totally removing that choice from the other parent, yet they are caring equally for their children.

To compound this unfair situation, the parent forced to keep working full time, is also forced to financially subsidise the other parent's lifestyle choice. This is a total disincentive for both parents to strive to get ahead financially.

What does this have to do with child support? This is spousal support if anything.

Can the Secretary of the SPCA, when you liase with the relevant government minister, and CSA CEO, bring this to their attention?

Go to post

Post #41338 by fair_go on January 31st 2012, 11:07 AM (in topic “Ex refusing to work - I'm a bit wary of C$A's CoAs...”)

Ex refusing to work - I'm a bit wary of C$A's CoAs...:

Yes, I've had a similar experience, also having 50/50 care.

According to one SCO a couple of years ago, after much lobbying by powerful vested interests, the legislation was kept that stated anybody working part time at the time of separation, is entitled to maintain that work arrangement indefinitely, and are therefore considered exempt from capacity to earn provisions.

Meaning, the payer is obliged to keep paying the part time working payee, regardless of their capacity to work full time.

This situation is obviously unfair to the payer, and the SCO agreed on this, but cited the legislation as reason they could do nothing about it.

Logic would suggest, if the government wants to give certain citizens entitlements to only work part time, the financial burden of those entitlements should not be placed on ex spouses.

Can someone confirm this legislation exists? The SCO's quote legislation, but never provide a link or a copy of the legislation, making this whole COA process pretty murky.

Last edit: by fair_go

Go to post

Post #1593 by fair_go on August 8th 2007, 4:41 PM (in topic “Preparing Court Orders from a master template or list”)

Preparing Court Orders from a master template or list :

I would like to read the restricted draft version of the commentaries with a view to passing a constructive comment, how do I go about it?



Go to post

Enter the words you wish your result to include, with spaces between them.

Advanced…

The template search will find all entries matching the criteria. For example, a search with a criteria of ‘Manhattan’ in the field named ‘Description’ (assuming there is one) would find any entries containing the substring ‘Manhattan’ in the ‘Description’ field.

If there are additional categories available underneath a category then there will be a clickable ‘plus’ icon shown to the left of it. Choose your selection by clicking the label (you will see it get highlighted). Hold the ctrl key to expand all child categories also.

Recent Tweets