Child support rant.

Forums › Off topic › Child support rant.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 81

#1253668 9-Mar-2015 08:20

Looking at the Child Support calculator the options for a partner and any dependent children are still there and if I include a partner and dependent children then the payments decrease, not increase.

Where have you gotten your figures from? Maybe the latest changes aren't reflected in their calculator yet...

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#1253669 9-Mar-2015 08:27

frankv: What's the difference between the unemployment benefit for a single person and the DPB for a person with one child?

That tells you what the Govt thinks is the minimum amount required to raise a child.

Do you mean $90.39 a week??!! ($209.06 versus $299.45 net.) I wish they were that cheap!

Assuming any difference in cost is just that between the Job Seeker and Sole Parent benefits doesn't take into account the additional forms of support and higher levels of other support that those with children get. For example a 'single person' will not be entitled to receive Working for Families payments that a person with kids may be (depending on their income, and the cutout point for nil entitlement is well into middle income territory). Then there's childcare subsidy. Plus the rate of Accommodation Supplement takes into account whether there are (and the number of) children in the household.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1253670 9-Mar-2015 08:28

KiwiNZ:
frankv: What's the difference between the unemployment benefit for a single person and the DPB for a person with one child?

That tells you what the Govt thinks is the minimum amount required to raise a child.

Income support by way of benefit is a temporary backstop and there for not reflective of the true costs.

Whilst the Govt might wish this was the case, I don't think it is reality, especially in the case of the DPB... a single parent looking after a newborn child typically has no alternative but to look after the child themselves for the best part of two years... quite apart from the social implications, the costs of childcare for under-2yo are prohibitive for all but the highest paid.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1253671 9-Mar-2015 08:31

frankv:
KiwiNZ:
frankv: What's the difference between the unemployment benefit for a single person and the DPB for a person with one child?

That tells you what the Govt thinks is the minimum amount required to raise a child.

Income support by way of benefit is a temporary backstop and there for not reflective of the true costs.

Whilst the Govt might wish this was the case, I don't think it is reality, especially in the case of the DPB... a single parent looking after a newborn child typically has no alternative but to look after the child themselves for the best part of two years... quite apart from the social implications, the costs of childcare for under-2yo are prohibitive for all but the highest paid.

I absolutely agree, child care is a cost that is factored into the average cost of raising a child until 18.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1253675 9-Mar-2015 08:42

Inphinity: Yes, I do think it can cost over $300/week to raise a child. This will be greatly dependent on a lot of factors, some obvious such as location, some less obvious. If I were to be in a situation where I were expected to pay child support, I would have no issue with $300/week, provided my child was clearly being properly provided for. I don't necessarily think the changes are fair in all cases, but unfortunately it's a fairly complex issue that, for consistencies sake, is being handled by what is essentially a mathematical equation. I think it would be better to have a trained case worker assess both parties and make a genuinely fair decision, but I can't see it happening.

Remeber, the $300 is the OP's share, that makes it $600 per week, $2400 per month.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1253676 9-Mar-2015 08:44

surfisup1000: I guess if you live in auckland , $300 barely covers rent and with average house prices quickly approaching a million bucks your payments are only going to increase .

I dont know anyone who rents the house for the baby. Often, the parent is already there, the baby, child lives there too!

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1253699 9-Mar-2015 09:16

For those of you questioning whether it costs $300pw to raise a child...

Obviously, circumstances change as the child develops. However at present, we pay $280pw just for 40hrs childcare for our 2yr old son so that my wife can work.

...that's before any other expenses. Food, Clothing, Medical, Gear (Cot, Stroller, Carseat, etc.), Toys, Nappies, etc.

As I said, it will be different for different age groups, but I'd estimate that we're covering between $500-$600pw all up in costs. (though I am by no means suggesting that this is the minimum that we could be spending...)

lxsw20

3689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2174

Subscriber

#1253703 9-Mar-2015 09:22

The problem isn't does it cost $300 per week, it's does it cost $600 per week.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1253709 9-Mar-2015 09:27

OOI what guarantee is there that the person receiving the support is paying an equal amount?

It seems likely to me that they could just use the $300 or whatever it is to fund the child and none of their own money? Or not even use the $300 for the child?

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 81

#1253710 9-Mar-2015 09:28

lxsw20: The problem isn't does it cost $300 per week, it's does it cost $600 per week.

I think for the OP the problem is actually why child support is now costing 25% more. The figure itself is obviously relative to lifestyle.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1253711 9-Mar-2015 09:29

lxsw20: The problem isn't does it cost $300 per week, it's does it cost $600 per week.

I don't see raising children and it's associated costs as being a problem, a challenge yes not a problem.

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

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 506

#1253717 9-Mar-2015 09:39

I guess this makes it all more to administer, but it almost seems that child support figure should be decided by a yearly budget for which costs are set out and established.

I think it would be fair that any money that is paid via one parent shouild be matched by another, but what I feel actually happens is any excess child support $$ is most likely used like Alimony by the parent with custody

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1253733 9-Mar-2015 09:45

Geektastic: OOI what guarantee is there that the person receiving the support is paying an equal amount?

It seems likely to me that they could just use the $300 or whatever it is to fund the child and none of their own money? Or not even use the $300 for the child?

Say the mother is on DPB. She doesn't get child support paid by the father, the Govt does. Now, say it costs $600 per week to raise a child as per this thread. Father pays half, leaving the mum to foot the other $300 per week. The child doesnt have to pay rent, be clothed or fed as much as the Mumn or have as many incidentals, so you would then expect the cost of the Mum's living to exceed the child, which is clearly the case. Does she then recieve a DPB based on well over $600 per week for herself, plus the $300 that she will contribute to the $600 per week she will be spending on the child?

Sure, a stretch of numbers, or is it? Costs of a child will vary and you cannot include already existing costs. Its complex. But the Mum gets a low DPB, and pays that supposed $300 per week herself plus rent, food for herself, power for the house, and so on, doesnt add up.

There needs to be fair way, no idea what that could be. It needs to eb based on a fair cost, and not on what anyone earns.

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1253734 9-Mar-2015 09:46

To those of you who are saying 300 x 2 = 600, what split of time caring for the child are you assuming?

EDIT: i.e. Ignoring the $ amounts, what split of time caring for the child makes 50/50 payments "fair" in your eyes? Just curious.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1253741 9-Mar-2015 09:58

sidefx: To those of you who are saying 300 x 2 = 600, what split of time caring for the child are you assuming?

EDIT: i.e. Ignoring the $ amounts, what split of time caring for the child makes 50/50 payments "fair" in your eyes? Just curious.

Good point. There is a virtual labour cost there. But to those of us who have been on the negative end of the anti male Family Court system, there is a the exact opposite cost.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12