Child support rant.

Forums › Off topic › Child support rant.

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

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254251 9-Mar-2015 18:29

And it was 14k till recently .

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254253 9-Mar-2015 18:33

Presso:
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.

So what happens if your partner starts contracting on $1200/day for a big corporate? Is that taken into account or considered irrelevant? And does it matter if you are married?

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254273 9-Mar-2015 18:42

Geektastic:
Presso:
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.

So what happens if your partner starts contracting on $1200/day for a big corporate? Is that taken into account or considered irrelevant? And does it matter if you are married?

No, I don't think it did. When my 16yo came here to live last year I never bothered to apply for CS as her mum isn't financial, and although I am married in 2008, I never added my wife to the equation which I think would have reduced my CS, for the same reason.

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1254280 9-Mar-2015 19:00

So looking at my assessment more deeply I discovered the following.

"Your child support income represents 91.86% of the combined child support income of $78,248.00 with (my ex's name here)"

This means that she contributes 8.14% , this is according to the new assessment.

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

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 554

#1254331 9-Mar-2015 20:15

I used to pay $2200 a month. $300 a week sounds pleasant.

Dratsab

3951 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1694

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254355 9-Mar-2015 21:01

For me (2 kids) it'll mean an extra $103 per fortnight. I simply can't afford that unless I stop paying the mortgage.

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254390 9-Mar-2015 22:28

I just used the new IRD Calculator with a friend of mine going through a divorce and all the numbers we crunched ended up SIGNIFICANTLY less than $300 a week. Am I missing something?

Samsung

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

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254395 9-Mar-2015 22:48

networkn: I just used the new IRD Calculator with a friend of mine going through a divorce and all the numbers we crunched ended up SIGNIFICANTLY less than $300 a week. Am I missing something?

You may be - but rest assured the IRD won't...!

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254396 9-Mar-2015 22:49

Having read this I am

(a) Glad my wife has done the menopause

(b) Going to buy shares in Durex

alexx

867 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 291

#1254408 9-Mar-2015 23:39

I guess it depends on the stage in the child's life.

I remember when I stopped paying child support when the children were around 18 and those same kids came to live with me while they went to University, I saved a huge amount of money by supporting them directly compared to what I was paying.

#include <standard.disclaimer>

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1254420 10-Mar-2015 05:32

Yup , I have said to my ex many times I would be over the moon if my son came down and lived with me.

This is a very emotional subject and I have seen and spoken to many many angry people at the new changes that are taking place.

You would think for the $160 million it is costing to change this over there would have been a much more flexible system put in place.

I have no problems at all paying child support and there is nothing I have not done or would do for my son however I have to be able to live to. If I was only paying $200 a week I would not be complaining however $300 is pretty much going to cripple us now.

I have applied for an administrative review however this takes up to 8 weeks and I am not holding out any hope.

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

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1254424 10-Mar-2015 06:51

Presso: Yup , I have said to my ex many times I would be over the moon if my son came down and lived with me.

This is a very emotional subject and I have seen and spoken to many many angry people at the new changes that are taking place.

You would think for the $160 million it is costing to change this over there would have been a much more flexible system put in place.

I have no problems at all paying child support and there is nothing I have not done or would do for my son however I have to be able to live to. If I was only paying $200 a week I would not be complaining however $300 is pretty much going to cripple us now.

I have applied for an administrative review however this takes up to 8 weeks and I am not holding out any hope.

I genuinely wish you good luck with your review. There needs to be an ability for IRD in cases of genuine hardship to provide relief just the same as a recipient of Sole Parent Support can receive extra help with genuine hardship.

IRD are not as compassionate as MSD their brief does not require it, however I have seen many applications for hardship relieve be successful.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1254627 10-Mar-2015 14:06

KiwiNZ: one thing not being taken into account here is if the noncustodial parent suffers a change in financial circumstance and or hardship they can apply for a reduction in Child support down to as low as the minimum $10 per week.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a joke.

I lost my job 3 weeks ago (along with 3 other people when a contract fell through).
I was casual. I got no pay out.
I lived week to week.
I'm hitting my overdraft and can't even afford food right now.
I rang IRD that day.
They will kindly put my payments into "overdue" with no interest, until I find another job.

No reduction. I still have to pay the full amount.

I have had 7 weeks without pay in the last financial year, did that change anything? Of course it bloody didn't.

EDIT: Just rang them, they've charged me a late fee too. Nice of them isn't it.

Oh, and the financial year before, I got a loan to have major dental work done. When I was quizzed by IRD what the loan was for, I was asked "Why do you need teeth? That's not an important expense. "

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1254645 10-Mar-2015 14:44

blakamin:
KiwiNZ: one thing not being taken into account here is if the noncustodial parent suffers a change in financial circumstance and or hardship they can apply for a reduction in Child support down to as low as the minimum $10 per week.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a joke.

I lost my job 3 weeks ago (along with 3 other people when a contract fell through).
I was casual. I got no pay out.
I lived week to week.
I'm hitting my overdraft and can't even afford food right now.
I rang IRD that day.
They will kindly put my payments into "overdue" with no interest, until I find another job.

No reduction. I still have to pay the full amount.

I have had 7 weeks without pay in the last financial year, did that change anything? Of course it bloody didn't.

EDIT: Just rang them, they've charged me a late fee too. Nice of them isn't it.

Oh, and the financial year before, I got a loan to have major dental work done. When I was quizzed by IRD what the loan was for, I was asked "Why do you need teeth? That's not an important expense. "

Bummer.

That teeth thing is weird. Why are dental things not part of the health service? I can understand that 'vanity dentistry' wouldn't be, but surely basic dentistry is an important part of general health? People with heart conditions, for example, can get fatal infections via bad teeth. Odd that the health service would fix the heart at great expense but not the teeth at far lesser expense.

tilde

44 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#1254647 10-Mar-2015 14:48

i don't post often, but i'm amazed at the emotions and misinformation that is floating around in this thread around the child support scheme changes. i'll try and address those points that i remember, but i'm not perfect so someone please correct me if i'm wrong.

1. $300 being a half share
what what what? that's not correct, the OP has openly posted that he only gets his child every school holidays. assuming that's ~10 weeks/52 weeks, that is 19% of the child care percentage. that is the reason why he has been lumped with a $300 payment, because he only looks after his child ~20% of the time.

2. the IRD sucks up any $ over and above the DPB payment.
that is incorrect. any child support payment over and above the minimum amount goes to the custodial parent. in fact, for the majority of non-custodial parents (NCP), their child support payments are below the minimum amount so the govt tops it up and pays the DPB to the custodial parent.

3. the payment percentage is different between sexes.
that is incorrect. the IRD website clearly states that the percentage is based on a formula, nothing of which notes the sex of the parent. yes, more commonly it is the mother who is the custodial, and the father who is the NCP. but the formula works the same if the roles are reversed.

4. each additional child is a doubling/tripling of the cost.
this comment really WTF my gears. the IRD website clearly states the first child is 18%, the second 13% and it goes downward on a sliding scale. in fact after the 4th child there is no additional cost and reflects the real situation where living costs get bundled together as more people are involved.

5. partners/additional child(ren) are no longer part of the equation.
i can see the IRD stance on this. in effect, parents are responsible for their own offspring, and not those of a new relationship. So what they are saying is Parent A is responsible for their own child, and Parent B is responsible for theirs. If they are now in a relationship then it shouldn't matter that Parent B has 3 kids and Parent A only has one because there is Parent A2 and Parent B2 that should be counted.

6. child(ren) living costs should be pegged to a standardised cost, not to income.
the IRD stance is simple. if you as a parent earn more, it is highly likely that you would give them a higher standard of living then someone who earns less. that is why individual income is part of the equation after taking into account living costs.

7. IRD does not take into account lost pay, redundancies etc.
IRD states that if any circumstances change, you should get in touch immediately as that affects your calculation and child payments. if you choose not to do that until end of financial/calendar year, sorry but that gets no sympathies from me.

i feel for those who are severely affected by the changes, and i agree with KiwiNZ that the formula doesn't cover all people, all of the time. but it works for most people, and i believe IRD consulted many experts with regards to how the new formula should be covered.

ps. in case anyone accuses me of being in the other camp, let me say that i have my child 3/7 days a week, and yet i pay over $150/week of child support for that extra one day. and you know what, i'd readily pay more if it means my child has a higher standard of living.

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