Child support rant.

Forums › Off topic › Child support rant.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 12

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1253949 9-Mar-2015 12:52

Paul1977:
I was just about to say this. The weekly amount needs to be calculated from ALL expenses throughout the year and divided by 52 to give a true weekly expense.

If only there was a government department who oversaw this sort of thing, who's job it was to calculate this sort of thing and oversee some sort of "child support payment" scheme, then we wouldn't have to rely on internet arguments to figure it out :p

"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

#1253950 9-Mar-2015 12:56

Paul1977:
sidefx:
Athlonite:
unless you have sickly kids medical is not a weekly expenditure as for entertainment he spends 99% of his spare time at a skate bowl on his scooter otherwise movies and the like are also a non weekly expenditure although I'm happy to pay for it when he does ask which is rarely

There are many things that are not "weekly" expenditures, but they still come up from time to time so have to be accounted for.

I was just about to say this. The weekly amount needs to be calculated from ALL expenses throughout the year and divided by 52 to give a true weekly expense.

All/ Depends how "all" you mean.

Rent. How many people change houses when a child is involved, and re chnage when that involvement ceases or changes
Power. A child uses little. Maybe a light extra, meal takes the same time to cook.

My two example point is that many costs will incur anyway. Say I cooked 5 meals this week, keep it simple, meat and two vege. Thats say 5 spuds, a few peas (67 peas I estimate..... :-) ) 5 carrots. Washing powder doesnt change, power to cook tea is no different. Tea towel drying time is similar, albeit free.

I see many, and I dated a girl who was a solo mum. She made it work amd youd think she was doing pretty well but she was making it very efficient, no waste. We all know how much we can waste. I see others who are broke and are much better off but still broke.

I just like to apply the half share $300 to the kids, me, wife, doesnt add up.

No need to look at the super frugal side (she wasnt), nor the excess side , but it needs to be a fair share for both, not a money tree.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1253964 9-Mar-2015 13:01

tdgeek:
Paul1977:
sidefx:
Athlonite:
unless you have sickly kids medical is not a weekly expenditure as for entertainment he spends 99% of his spare time at a skate bowl on his scooter otherwise movies and the like are also a non weekly expenditure although I'm happy to pay for it when he does ask which is rarely

There are many things that are not "weekly" expenditures, but they still come up from time to time so have to be accounted for.

I was just about to say this. The weekly amount needs to be calculated from ALL expenses throughout the year and divided by 52 to give a true weekly expense.

All/ Depends how "all" you mean.

Rent. How many people change houses when a child is involved, and re chnage when that involvement ceases or changes
Power. A child uses little. Maybe a light extra, meal takes the same time to cook.

My two example point is that many costs will incur anyway. Say I cooked 5 meals this week, keep it simple, meat and two vege. Thats say 5 spuds, a few peas (67 peas I estimate..... :-) ) 5 carrots. Washing powder doesnt change, power to cook tea is no different. Tea towel drying time is similar, albeit free.

I see many, and I dated a girl who was a solo mum. She made it work amd youd think she was doing pretty well but she was making it very efficient, no waste. We all know how much we can waste. I see others who are broke and are much better off but still broke.

I just like to apply the half share $300 to the kids, me, wife, doesnt add up.

No need to look at the super frugal side (she wasnt), nor the excess side , but it needs to be a fair share for both, not a money tree.

from experience a lot of people change accommodation to take into account children especially if renting. A child directly (teenage excluded at this point) does not use a lot of power, they do however indirectly with cooking, heating washing etc. When teenage and young adults offspring are involved the power usage
climbs considerably as does the food, clothing, education, entertainment, medical and personal hygiene expenses etc.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1253983 9-Mar-2015 13:16

KiwiNZ:

from experience a lot of people change accommodation to take into account children especially if renting.

I've not seen that. Houses are 3 bedroom, some are 4/5, some are 2. I've not seen that type of behaviour. many couples buy/rent a 3 bedroom house, they need one

A child directly (teenage excluded at this point) does not use a lot of power, they do however indirectly with cooking, heating washing etc.

Technically yes, by such a small number. 5 tatoes in a pot take the same time as 4. Each tatoe takes say 15 minutes. Tickle more water, yes, but very small numbers. Heater, logfire, we don't add more watts or logs cos a child lives there now.

When teenage and young adults offspring are involved the power usage
climbs considerably as does the food, clothing, education, entertainment, medical and personal hygiene expenses etc.

It does. The cost is lower as the age is lower, the teens are the higher group, but there are still many costs that will be incurred anyway. IMO.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1253995 9-Mar-2015 13:30

jonathan18:
Geektastic: I don't know anything about DPB - I have never met anyone who gets benefits - but $600 a week seems like a lot for benefits when 40 hours on $12/hr or whatever minimum wage is comes to $480 gross..!

Never miss a chance to prove the quality of your provenance and those in the circles you mix with! Luckily, there are people like me who didn't receive a private school education and have received social security benefits during times of need to help you understand what life may be like for the great unwashed.

It will be rare for someone receiving the minimum wage ($13.75, going up to $14.25 from 1 April) to be solely receiving this amount. First, many minimum wage jobs are not 40 hour s a week - many people in these sectors paying minimum wage will be having to work more than one job and/or may be not making it to a 'full-time equivalent'. Some will be on casual 'on-call' agreements, adding even more to financial instability and insecurity.

And a majority of low-income households will be receiving some level of financial help from the Government - paid for (sarcasm alert) by that Communist state-sanctioned theft from "us" (wealthy and deserving folk who work hard) and redistributed to "them" (the lazy bludgers who really should get a job and learn how to keep it in their collective pants).

This is particularly the case for those with children, and can include:

* the minimum family tax credit
* families tax credit
* in-work tax credit
* Accommodation Supplement (or income-related rents for those in HNZ houses)
* other social security payments such as Childcare Subsidy, Disability Alowance...

I suppose that explains why our tax bills are so high.

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#1254041 9-Mar-2015 14:13

Athlonite:
sidefx: Sounds like a number of people are pretty intent on make their children live on the absolute minimum possible?

My own "back-of-napkin" calculations went something like:

Rent - $130 (Need a house with an extra room - yeah in my experience an extra room adds a decent wack to rent)
Food - $50 (Yeah, kids eat a lot)
Transport - $25
School - $25
Household bills - $15 (Yes kids use power\water\phone\etc)
Clothing\Shoes - $25
Entertainment\Pocket Money - $15

Adding up to $285. Add in stuff I've forgotte, unexpected costs and some variation I don't think $300 is unreasonable... Don't start with the whole 50/50 thing please because I'd guess 5:2 or less is the most common split for caring for said child.

/me dons fireproof suit

why would you be paying a school $25 a week and clothing and shoes another $25 a week that's ridiculous what do you buy crap cloths/shoes that fall apart in a day and $15 dollars for pocket money[];

Well to state the obvious they start small and get larger over time .; ) +school mandated computing devices, school trips.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1254071 9-Mar-2015 15:01

There seems to be an assumption here that child, support payments are based on the money needed to raise a child. It if were the child support would be a flat rate per child. The cost for raising a child is not related to the non-custodial parent's income. But child support is mathematically derived from income. To me, this leaves two possible conclusions: -

- A child's needs are met at the maximum rate of support, and children whose custodial parent receive less than this are under supported; or
- The child support paid by non-custodial parents above some income levels, exceeds what is needed to raise the child.

Either way govt is endorsing a lower standard of living for the children of lower income non-custodial parents. Now why would they do that?

Well .... when a custodial parent is on the full DPB or similar, the non-custodial parent pays child support to the government. Therefore it is in the interests of the crown to set the maximum rate very high.

A guy I used to work with had one child with his ex-girlfriend. She had in total three kids from three dads. All three guys were single and on good incomes. The first kid is the most expensive under child support, so the government would have been 3 times the max rate for one child. Probably collecting more than they paid out to that particular Mum.

Mike

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254076 9-Mar-2015 15:23

MikeAqua: There seems to be an assumption here that child, support payments are based on the money needed to raise a child. It if were the child support would be a flat rate per child. The cost for raising a child is not related to the non-custodial parent's income. But child support is mathematically derived from income. To me, this leaves two possible conclusions: -

- A child's needs are met at the maximum rate of support, and children whose custodial parent receive less than this are under supported; or
- The child support paid by non-custodial parents above some income levels, exceeds what is needed to raise the child.

Either way govt is endorsing a lower standard of living for the children of lower income non-custodial parents. Now why would they do that?

Well .... when a custodial parent is on the full DPB or similar, the non-custodial parent pays child support to the government. Therefore it is in the interests of the crown to set the maximum rate very high.

A guy I used to work with had one child with his ex-girlfriend. She had in total three kids from three dads. All three guys were single and on good incomes. The first kid is the most expensive under child support, so the government would have been 3 times the max rate for one child. Probably collecting more than they paid out to that particular Mum.

Its a good scheme. Dad can pay too much or far too much. Mum wont get any if on DPB. Thats a good scheme, fails both parents

Whats wrong woth a fair cost of raising a child? The real costs not the artificial costs. Age range costs. Allowance for the mum who is at home with the kids. Allowance for the Dad who is stuck at work 40 to 50 hours a week. Make this a real life situation, and not a amortisation of every conceivable expense.

Above all, an allowance that this is a child support function, not a Consolidated Fund black hole

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254078 9-Mar-2015 15:25

tdgeek:
MikeAqua: There seems to be an assumption here that child, support payments are based on the money needed to raise a child. It if were the child support would be a flat rate per child. The cost for raising a child is not related to the non-custodial parent's income. But child support is mathematically derived from income. To me, this leaves two possible conclusions: -

- A child's needs are met at the maximum rate of support, and children whose custodial parent receive less than this are under supported; or
- The child support paid by non-custodial parents above some income levels, exceeds what is needed to raise the child.

Either way govt is endorsing a lower standard of living for the children of lower income non-custodial parents. Now why would they do that?

Well .... when a custodial parent is on the full DPB or similar, the non-custodial parent pays child support to the government. Therefore it is in the interests of the crown to set the maximum rate very high.

A guy I used to work with had one child with his ex-girlfriend. She had in total three kids from three dads. All three guys were single and on good incomes. The first kid is the most expensive under child support, so the government would have been 3 times the max rate for one child. Probably collecting more than they paid out to that particular Mum.

Its a good scheme. Dad can pay too much or far too much. Mum wont get any if on DPB. Thats a good scheme, fails both parents

Whats wrong woth a fair cost of raising a child? The real costs not the artificial costs. Age range costs. Allowance for the mum who is at home with the kids. Allowance for the Dad who is stuck at work 40 to 50 hours a week. Make this a real life situation, and not a amortisation of every conceivable expense.

Above all, an allowance that this is a child support function, not a Consolidated Fund black hole

Easier said that done, though I do agree the current system doesn't seem quite right.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254109 9-Mar-2015 15:40

networkn:
tdgeek:
MikeAqua: There seems to be an assumption here that child, support payments are based on the money needed to raise a child. It if were the child support would be a flat rate per child. The cost for raising a child is not related to the non-custodial parent's income. But child support is mathematically derived from income. To me, this leaves two possible conclusions: -

- A child's needs are met at the maximum rate of support, and children whose custodial parent receive less than this are under supported; or
- The child support paid by non-custodial parents above some income levels, exceeds what is needed to raise the child.

Either way govt is endorsing a lower standard of living for the children of lower income non-custodial parents. Now why would they do that?

Well .... when a custodial parent is on the full DPB or similar, the non-custodial parent pays child support to the government. Therefore it is in the interests of the crown to set the maximum rate very high.

A guy I used to work with had one child with his ex-girlfriend. She had in total three kids from three dads. All three guys were single and on good incomes. The first kid is the most expensive under child support, so the government would have been 3 times the max rate for one child. Probably collecting more than they paid out to that particular Mum.

Its a good scheme. Dad can pay too much or far too much. Mum wont get any if on DPB. Thats a good scheme, fails both parents

Whats wrong woth a fair cost of raising a child? The real costs not the artificial costs. Age range costs. Allowance for the mum who is at home with the kids. Allowance for the Dad who is stuck at work 40 to 50 hours a week. Make this a real life situation, and not a amortisation of every conceivable expense.

Above all, an allowance that this is a child support function, not a Consolidated Fund black hole

Easier said that done, though I do agree the current system doesn't seem quite right.

Agree. But rate per age or age group seems fairer, collated by a group of adults, parents. That will make the paperwork easier. Will encourage the Dad to spend more $ as he can, encourage the ex to be more reasonable as its not a money tree. (Not applicable to all off course). But it wopnt haopopen as its a govt source of net income, or its required to fund the burecarcy of red tape.

Child, Boy, age 7, cost is $x. Ratio is Dad:Mum. (Worker/Caregiver) is x. Sorted.

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#1254111 9-Mar-2015 15:42

networkn:

That one looks like an incentive for win-win mutual agreement.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1254220 9-Mar-2015 17:57

Of course I am not the only one affected and I am only recounting what is happening to me.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/67122693/hike-in-child-support-bill-is-unfair-picton-mum-says

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

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254235 9-Mar-2015 18:11

Presso: Of course I am not the only one affected and I am only recounting what is happening to me.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/67122693/hike-in-child-support-bill-is-unfair-picton-mum-says

A living allowance of $17,500 (I presume after tax?) is sweet FA.

Children certainly appear to fail any cost/benefit analysis I can think of!

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1254239 9-Mar-2015 18:14

Geektastic:
Presso: Of course I am not the only one affected and I am only recounting what is happening to me.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/67122693/hike-in-child-support-bill-is-unfair-picton-mum-says

A living allowance of $17,500 (I presume after tax?) is sweet FA.

Children certainly appear to fail any cost/benefit analysis I can think of!

No the $17,500.00 is gross.

That is the living allowance for both myself and partner, in saying that my partner does not count for anything any more. It used to be my partner counted for an extra $3000.00 per year but that is not the case any more.

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

plod

272 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 66

#1254250 9-Mar-2015 18:28

As a father of two teenage boys, there is no way their cost me an extra 300 each on top of my expenses I would have without them.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 12