Child support rant.

Forums › Off topic › Child support rant.

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

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1254667 10-Mar-2015 15:04

Geektastic:
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.

I know, and mine certainly weren't vanity. As of then I have a full top denture.
All my family on my mothers side have bad teeth, it was just a matter of time. I could brush them 8 times a day from childhood and it would make no difference.
IRD didn't care that I couldn't eat, just that I had a bill (not that it made any difference to my payments either).

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1254669 10-Mar-2015 15:07

tilde:
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.

And even if you tell them immediately, it makes no difference.

tilde

44 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#1254689 10-Mar-2015 15:20

blakamin:
tilde:
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.

And even if you tell them immediately, it makes no difference.

i'm sorry to hear that happened to you, but according to the IRD website it makes a difference. i'm not sure why there is a discrepancy in that case? blaming a universal scheme for a singular issue that happened to you is not fair i think.

as for the problem with the dentist loan, surely you can see the reasoning behind IRD's stance? imagine if people started ringing up with excuses like being unable to pay the credit card bill, or not having food on the table? put it another way, if you had your children still living with you, and you had to pay for their living costs as well as your dentists bill, would that change your perspective?

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1254701 10-Mar-2015 15:46

tilde:
i'm sorry to hear that happened to you, but according to the IRD website it makes a difference. i'm not sure why there is a discrepancy in that case? blaming a universal scheme for a singular issue that happened to you is not fair i think.

It's just one of many things they've done to me in the last 3 years. I wasn't expecting anything different.

tilde: as for the problem with the dentist loan, surely you can see the reasoning behind IRD's stance? imagine if people started ringing up with excuses like being unable to pay the credit card bill, or not having food on the table? put it another way, if you had your children still living with you, and you had to pay for their living costs as well as your dentists bill, would that change your perspective?

No, I still needed teeth, and just added that to the end to give people an idea of the attitude of some of the staff we have to deal with. If it was covered by health care, it wouldn't be an issue, but since I couldn't wait 5 years, I had to pay. If they were still with me, I'd still have to pay for my teeth. Put it this way, I they were still living with me and I had to go to hospital with an infected head and blood poisoning, what would they do for food?
I could've probably paid for my teeth myself, IF I wasn't still paying a loan for the furniture my ex still has.

I'm blaming a universal scheme because everyone is different and this change was *meant* to make things "fair".
All it's done is screw over people more, without any way, time or staff, to give a toss about the individual and their possibility to even live, let alone live comfortably.

Here's another "f'rinstance"... I put away money every week so I can see my kids a few times a year... Because I'm now screwed over for the time I've been off work, and the time it takes for a review to be done, I won't have the money to bring them over for one of these trips. So IRD have stopped me seeing my kids, and more importantly stopped them seeing me! How's that good for them? Who's going to tell them they can't come? IRD surely aren't, And it's pretty hard to explain to an 11yo and a 6yo that they can't see their Dad without me just looking like another deadbeat. It's not a "Child Support" system, it's a "screw them over for as much as we can and damn the children" system.
Want to know why I think this about child support??? Read my geekzone blog. A lot of feelings in that, and I can't even bear to read it myself anymore. It tears me apart.

geoffwnz

1722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1579

ID Verified

#1254702 10-Mar-2015 15:49

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.

Well, in my case, the child is about to get a lower standard of living as I can no longer afford to do fun/interesting/educational things that I previously tried to do with her due to the changes sucking up basically everything I had left after paying the bills. She gets nothing like that from her mother so I have been trying to do as much as I can. So everyone loses in this case.

MotorDrive Rallying

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1254789 10-Mar-2015 17:08

tilde:

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.

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.

Sorry but IRD do not make immediate changes , if you loose your job or you have a major pay cut you have to re estimate your income which can take as long as they feel like dragging it out while all the time you have a bill racking up that they are charging late penalties on.

I am now paying more but how is that going to give my son a higher standard of living , does IRD monitor my ex and what she spends the money on that I am paying each week. For all I know all it does is allow her to to go to the pub more each week.

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

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1256161 11-Mar-2015 10:50

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.

Except that this additional 'income' then affects the custodial parents entitlement to accommodation allowances, childcare allowances etc.

Mike

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256216 11-Mar-2015 11:55

Looking at the IRD website, I see the age of qualification is also reducing next year which may help take some of the sting out for a few folk. After a quick review of my finances to see how I'm going to be able to actually pay the new amount, it turns out I will be able to afford it once I cancel the health insurance premiums for my wife and I.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537
Inactive user

#1256251 11-Mar-2015 12:27

Presso: So I do not know how many of you the new changes affect but for me the new changes pretty much suck.

To start with I have no problems paying child support and have been doing so for the past 14 1/2 years , What I do find troubling is that my child support now with the new changes will go up $60 per week to $300.00 per week for one child.

The new changes do not take into account any partners or thier children if you provide for them etc.

The new changes were supposed to make it fairer however I do not feel this is the case.

Do you think it costs $300 a week to raise a child ??.

We are not rich by any means and there is nothing I would not do for my son , I just however feel like I am being taken by a ride by ird.

The real question should be does it cost $600 a week to raise a child, as there should be equal input by both parents.

No it should not be means tested, as someone else has stated it costs the same to raise a child.

No the mother should not be requesting extras.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256258 11-Mar-2015 12:35

dickytim:
Presso: So I do not know how many of you the new changes affect but for me the new changes pretty much suck.

To start with I have no problems paying child support and have been doing so for the past 14 1/2 years , What I do find troubling is that my child support now with the new changes will go up $60 per week to $300.00 per week for one child.

The new changes do not take into account any partners or thier children if you provide for them etc.

The new changes were supposed to make it fairer however I do not feel this is the case.

Do you think it costs $300 a week to raise a child ??.

We are not rich by any means and there is nothing I would not do for my son , I just however feel like I am being taken by a ride by ird.

The real question should be does it cost $600 a week to raise a child, as there should be equal input by both parents.

No it should not be means tested, as someone else has stated it costs the same to raise a child.

No the mother should not be requesting extras.

Personally I think there should be no means testing either, but it should be regionally adjusted. There should be a "minimum" which is what the parent is required to pay, and then it should be up to the parents to agree any additional on top (perhaps with some guidelines). It's a really difficult thing because I know cases where both parents have been difficult
because of issues between the two of them. I don't think it's possible to cater for every situation, but I equally don't believe that the mother/fathers word should be taken over actual evidence of income if it's means tested.

Some of the stories here are fairly hair raising though obviously just one side. I'd encourage those people to meet with an MP, and present their issues in a non emotional way. I think the system may need to be modified somewhat.

It's also made harder by the fact that some relationship breakdowns are a result of marital affairs so sometimes that one party gets crapped on by the marriage THEN gets crapped on by the system. Seems unfair for sure.

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1256308 11-Mar-2015 13:40

dickytim:
The real question should be does it cost $600 a week to raise a child, as there should be equal input by both parents.

In the majority of cases, I'd guess a 50/50 split (i.e. equal input) does not make sense though. Among other reasons, because:

1. The custodial parent is caring for the child for more time (often significantly more) than the non-custodial parent.
2. The custodial parent generally has the child during the week, and therefore have to pay childcare costs, etc while at work.

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

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.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256309 11-Mar-2015 13:42

sidefx:
dickytim:
The real question should be does it cost $600 a week to raise a child, as there should be equal input by both parents.

In the majority of cases, I'd guess a 50/50 split (i.e. equal input) does not make sense though. Among other reasons, because:

1. The custodial parent is caring for the child for more time (often significantly more) than the non-custodial parent.
2. The custodial parent generally has the child during the week, and therefore have to pay childcare costs, etc while at work.

Well of course that doesn't take into account the fact that one parent isn't getting to spend as much time with their kids, and whilst that's hard to put into a dollar value, just because one parent has more custody doesn't mean it's all bad for them!

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1256310 11-Mar-2015 13:47

networkn:
Well of course that doesn't take into account the fact that one parent isn't getting to spend as much time with their kids, and whilst that's hard to put into a dollar value, just because one parent has more custody doesn't mean it's all bad for them!

Even that is no necessarily true, as often the custodial parent will have then child during the week (i.e. at work most of the time) while the non-custodial gets weekends.

It really is nowhere near as simple as many people are making out - much of the argument in the thread seems to be:

"$300 + $300 = $600, Ridiculous!" and "All children cost the same to raise, which should be the bare minimum"

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

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1256319 11-Mar-2015 13:55

networkn:
Some of the stories here are fairly hair raising though obviously just one side. I'd encourage those people to meet with an MP, and present their issues in a non emotional way. I think the system may need to be modified somewhat.

This I think is the best advice in the whole thread. There are a lot of emotional stories in the thread, and I don't disagree that a lot of them sound unreasonable.

Ultimately though, child support payments are overseen by a government department, who presumably have access to a lot more information, research, etc than the majority of us when setting these policies, and are likely to be more impartial. They are also accountable to the government whom we vote for, and who has a face in the form of your local MP...

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

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1256325 11-Mar-2015 13:55

I just tried the new child support liability (IRD term) calculator on the IRD site. It wasn't easy to find and isn't the calculator you link to form the main child support page.

I entered all the relevant details and then left everything fixed except for my ex's income, which I don't know.

Some things I noticed: -

- Increasing my ex's income reduces my liability: -
- My partner's son, who lives with us doesn't count as a dependent, because he isn't legally my child.
- My having partner isn't a factor in the new calculator.
- The nights I have my kids don't factor in, because they are less than 104 nights per year.
- My partner's income is not factored into the new calculator.
- My ex's income is factored into the new calculator.
- My child support liability reduces under the new rules.
- Increasing my ex's income, reduces my liability.

Mike

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