Child support rant.

Forums › Off topic › Child support rant.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1256398 11-Mar-2015 15:43

geoffwnz:
networkn: I am curious to know what your support payments would look like if the custodial parent made significantly more than the non custodial parent?

Try it out on the liability calculator. It doesn't identify you or save your data (probably) so you can plug in figures and see what happens hypothetically.

I think the one linked earlier is not the correct one though. I assume it should be this one?

http://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/keyword/childsupport/calculator-child-support-liability-entitlement.html

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1256399 11-Mar-2015 15:46

Geektastic:

Surely it should be every day?

That is what they make you do for the 'available for personal use' calculations for company vehicles, so why can't they have that level of accuracy for childcare?

The care has to be greater than x number of days per year for it to be taken into account. It is around 1/3 or 120 days, but as I said I cannot remember the exact figure, my old brain is letting me down.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256401 11-Mar-2015 15:49

sidefx:
geoffwnz:
networkn: I am curious to know what your support payments would look like if the custodial parent made significantly more than the non custodial parent?

Try it out on the liability calculator. It doesn't identify you or save your data (probably) so you can plug in figures and see what happens hypothetically.

I think the one linked earlier is not the correct one though. I assume it should be this one?

http://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/keyword/childsupport/calculator-child-support-liability-entitlement.html

I probably misunderstood the terminology they use but just to amuse myself I made up one parent on $250,000 and the parent with the child on $50,000. The first parent has the child 2 nights a week.

It told me I may not be required to pay or receive child support!

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256404 11-Mar-2015 15:51

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:

Surely it should be every day?

That is what they make you do for the 'available for personal use' calculations for company vehicles, so why can't they have that level of accuracy for childcare?

The care has to be greater than x number of days per year for it to be taken into account. It is around 1/3 or 120 days, but as I said I cannot remember the exact figure, my old brain is letting me down.

This seems unfair. If they can make you count the days your company car is available and work out your tax on that, surely they can be that accurate for child care too.

EG if you pay $300 a month based on say 2 nights a week of care and then all of a sudden your ex is ill or whatever and you get the child for a month, you should pay nil. etc

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1256421 11-Mar-2015 16:22

Geektastic:
I probably misunderstood the terminology they use but just to amuse myself I made up one parent on $250,000 and the parent with the child on $50,000. The first parent has the child 2 nights a week.

It told me I may not be required to pay or receive child support!

Yes, I suspect you've not used the right terminology. For the scenario you reference above the payments it shows me are $896 per month.

If I flip the salaries around (parent with child = $250 000 and other parent 50000) then I get the "Nil Assessment" result

Going for "something in between' I get $112 per month when custodial parent earns $150000 and has child for 5 nights and other parent earns $80000.

EDIT: Fixed the one above which was the wrong way around, and a couple more examples:

custodial parent earns $20000 and has child for 5 nights and other parent earns $80000 = $600 per month

custodial parent earns $50000 and has child for 5 nights and other parent earns $70000 = $388 per month

None of these sound unreasonable...

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1256426 11-Mar-2015 16:28

Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:

Surely it should be every day?

That is what they make you do for the 'available for personal use' calculations for company vehicles, so why can't they have that level of accuracy for childcare?

The care has to be greater than x number of days per year for it to be taken into account. It is around 1/3 or 120 days, but as I said I cannot remember the exact figure, my old brain is letting me down.

This seems unfair. If they can make you count the days your company car is available and work out your tax on that, surely they can be that accurate for child care too.

EG if you pay $300 a month based on say 2 nights a week of care and then all of a sudden your ex is ill or whatever and you get the child for a month, you should pay nil. etc

Its to do with averages. Child Support is not like taxation, it cannot be assessed on a weekly or fortnightly bases, that would be a nightmare and very costly exercise.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 81

#1256428 11-Mar-2015 16:30

After a decent amount of reading, here's a recap of the new calculation.

both parents incomes are taken into account (minus the living allowance)
the amount of care (ie percentage of nights of care per year) is taken into account if you're above the minimum threshold of 27%. There are 6 percentage steps that will increase the effect on the calculation
the cost of raising the child/children is now taken into account. The rather interesting table that shows these costs is here

The changes from the old calculation are:

only the liable parents wage is taken into account
the new partner is no longer taken into account
the living allowance has decreased
the amount of care percentage minimum threshold has reduced

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1256435 11-Mar-2015 16:37

Geektastic:
Presso: OK so my child support is going up by $60 per week and as stated that will be around the $300 per week mark.

Does this mean that when my son comes to stay with me he will have decent shoes and clothes now ?? , I doubt it, my ex always sends my son with next to nothing (I also pay all the travel) because she knows I will go out and by him at least two pairs of new shoes and clothes.

Its not my choice that I am not the main custodial parent (I would be over the moon if I was) and at the time of separation she automatically had custody and I would have had to go through the courts to get it which there is no way in hell I could have afforded to do.

The whole what happens to the kids during a separation is very very one sided however that's a different conversation for a different thread.

Do you get a discount on your payments for the days he stays with you?

No I do not get a discount as he is only here for the school holidays which does not meet their threshold.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 81

#1256454 11-Mar-2015 16:50

tigercorp: After a decent amount of reading, here's a recap of the new calculation.

the cost of raising the child/children is now taken into account. The rather interesting table that shows these costs is here

Using those tables its unclear whether its by household or individual. I suspect its household. Anyway, for 1 child over 13 it costs

- when you're earning $70k then its $14,200 per year or $273 per week

- when your're earning $90k then its $16,460 per year or $315 per week

I'd love to know how those tables were calculated. And I imagine this is where the majority of widely reported liability increases are coming from.

MikeAqua

8030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

#1256457 11-Mar-2015 16:53

What I don't understand is why teenagers are considered more expensive.

Younger children may require child care/after school care/holiday care. Teenagers don't.

Sure you can spend a lot more money on them, if you indulge their every whim and desire for the latest electronic bling and label clothing. But you don't have to.

Mike

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 81

#1256464 11-Mar-2015 16:57

MikeAqua: What I don't understand is why teenagers are considered more expensive.

Younger children may require child care/after school care/holiday care. Teenagers don't.

Sure you can spend a lot more money on them, if you indulge their every whim and desire for the latest electronic bling and label clothing. But you don't have to.

I imagine its based on easily reported and consistent metrics like food bills, power consumption, rent and education. But without them linking back to the relevant Stats NZ info, who really knows?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1256470 11-Mar-2015 17:06

MikeAqua: What I don't understand is why teenagers are considered more expensive.

Younger children may require child care/after school care/holiday care. Teenagers don't.

Sure you can spend a lot more money on them, if you indulge their every whim and desire for the latest electronic bling and label clothing. But you don't have to.

Well education is more expensive
Teenagers especially boys consume a lot of food.
Clothing expenses climb considerably again especially with boys.
Girls due to certain changes have additional cost occurring.
Things like deodorants, shaving gear and other essentials.
Sporting apparel and equipment is expensive.

From our experience our costs climbed considerably when our boys hit teenage years and they certainly were not getting the latest labels or electronic gear.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256478 11-Mar-2015 17:14

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:

Surely it should be every day?

That is what they make you do for the 'available for personal use' calculations for company vehicles, so why can't they have that level of accuracy for childcare?

The care has to be greater than x number of days per year for it to be taken into account. It is around 1/3 or 120 days, but as I said I cannot remember the exact figure, my old brain is letting me down.

This seems unfair. If they can make you count the days your company car is available and work out your tax on that, surely they can be that accurate for child care too.

EG if you pay $300 a month based on say 2 nights a week of care and then all of a sudden your ex is ill or whatever and you get the child for a month, you should pay nil. etc

Its to do with averages. Child Support is not like taxation, it cannot be assessed on a weekly or fortnightly bases, that would be a nightmare and very costly exercise.

It's equally nightmarish and expensive for tax but that does not seem to stop them!

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256480 11-Mar-2015 17:15

MikeAqua: What I don't understand is why teenagers are considered more expensive.

Younger children may require child care/after school care/holiday care. Teenagers don't.

Sure you can spend a lot more money on them, if you indulge their every whim and desire for the latest electronic bling and label clothing. But you don't have to.

They may require LESS care but I am fairly sure my parents were not happy leaving any of us unattended for very long until we were at least 16.

MikeAqua

8030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

#1256525 11-Mar-2015 18:02

According to the webpage the income brackets are from StatsNZ. No mention of where the expenditure assumptions come from.

BTW I wouldn't have too much faith in Stats_NZ surveys of the general population: -
- They compel people to do them and don't pay them for their time, which has implications for accuracy;
- For anything other than the census they have quite marginal sample numbers;
- Surveys are often category based (e.g. income bracket rather than exact annual income), which makes them pseudo-empirical and potentially invalidates things like means and medians.

Mike

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12