Child support rant.

Forums › Off topic › Child support rant.

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

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1256331 11-Mar-2015 14:09

networkn:
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!

If a non custodial parent is not spending time with the child(ren) it does not and should not reduce the liability. I my experience many, and its a big percentage, non custodial parents chose not to see their child(ren). There are some of course wish to
and for various reasons do not have access to their child(ren) and that is sad for all concerned.
It is also a fact that children are often a pawns in an adult game of tit for tat spite and again that is very sad and again does not reduce liability.

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

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1256336 11-Mar-2015 14:22

MikeAqua: 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.

Based on those calculations it seems that the calculator really favours cheating ex strumpet wives who take custody of your kids and go onto DPB, they have little to no income and then the father who does work ends up paying both child support and courts costs just to get time with his kids, let alone custody.

also favours above cheating strumpet wife when she marries a well off guy and becomes a kept woman (unemployed).

Sounds like the calculator was designed by muppets with no handle on the real world....(ie government people).

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256337 11-Mar-2015 14:24

KiwiNZ:
networkn:
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!

If a non custodial parent is not spending time with the child(ren) it does not and should not reduce the liability. I my experience many, and its a big percentage, non custodial parents chose not to see their child(ren). There are some of course wish to
and for various reasons do not have access to their child(ren) and that is sad for all concerned.
It is also a fact that children are often a pawns in an adult game of tit for tat spite and again that is very sad and again does not reduce liability.

Yes hence why I said it would be hard to put a dollar value on it. Sadly like most schemes of this nature, it's targeted to the lowest common denominator. I found it hard sometimes when my wife was home with the kids during the day. Whilst it was hard work I have no illusions about it, she got to experience a lot of stuff I missed out on.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1256340 11-Mar-2015 14:29

To put another perspective on it From a time not so long ago the average time spent on Sole Parent Support was approx. 2.5 years, the average age was approx. 32. I cannot recall the number of males on Sole Parent Support but is was a significant percentage.

The number that required support due to escaping violent relationships was upsettingly high.

To say that one can get rich or live will on Income Support is an urban myth.

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

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1256342 11-Mar-2015 14:31

heylinb4nz:

Based on those calculations it seems that the calculator really favours cheating ex strumpet wives who take custody of your kids and go onto DPB, they have little to no income and then the father who does work ends up paying both child support and courts costs just to get time with his kids, let alone custody.

also favours above cheating strumpet wife when she marries a well off guy and becomes a kept woman (unemployed).

Sounds like the calculator was designed by muppets with no handle on the real world....(ie government people).

EDIT: So you're advocating the government punishing people for having extra-marital affairs?

Actually it (mostly) sounds perfectly reasonable to me:

- Increasing my ex's income reduces my liability:
* As it should
- My partner's son, who lives with us doesn't count as a dependent, because he isn't legally my child.
* Why should he - if the system is working your partner would be receiving child support from his biological parent?
- My having partner isn't a factor in the new calculator.
* Why should it?
- The nights I have my kids don't factor in, because they are less than 104 nights per year.
* I do think perhaps there should be some small allowance for this - though it does mean the custodial parent is caring for the child significantly more
- My partner's income is not factored into the new calculator.
* Why should it?
- My ex's income is factored into the new calculator.
* As it should be
- My child support liability reduces under the new rules.
* At odds with what most of the thread says
- Increasing my ex's income, reduces my liability.
* As it should

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

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256343 11-Mar-2015 14:31

KiwiNZ: To put another perspective on it From a time not so long ago the average time spent on Sole Parent Support was approx. 2.5 years, the average age was approx. 32. I cannot recall the number of males on Sole Parent Support but is was a significant percentage.

The number that required support due to escaping violent relationships was upsettingly high.

To say that one can get rich or live will on Income Support is an urban myth.

I don't doubt it, but the Government isn't intending it's financial support packages to be "lived" on, it's supposed to be a temporary assistance arrangement by which you "survive" on, whilst you find yourself gainful employment.

Lego

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1256351 11-Mar-2015 14:36

networkn:
KiwiNZ: To put another perspective on it From a time not so long ago the average time spent on Sole Parent Support was approx. 2.5 years, the average age was approx. 32. I cannot recall the number of males on Sole Parent Support but is was a significant percentage.

The number that required support due to escaping violent relationships was upsettingly high.

To say that one can get rich or live will on Income Support is an urban myth.

I don't doubt it, but the Government isn't intending it's financial support packages to be "lived" on, it's supposed to be a temporary assistance arrangement by which you "survive" on, whilst you find yourself gainful employment.

Sounds good in theory but for Sole Parents it is very hard, one hurdle is child care. Child care costs are horrific also in the case of after school care that is hard to find and again very expensive, this and other reasons are a deal breaker in a Sole parent returning to the workforce.

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

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1256360 11-Mar-2015 15:05

sidefx:

Actually it (mostly) sounds perfectly reasonable to me:

- My partner's son, who lives with us doesn't count as a dependent, because he isn't legally my child.
* Why should he - if the system is working your partner would be receiving child support from his biological parent?
+ Agree. Although if I adopted him, (hypothetically, I'm not that cynical) I would be liable for less child support, although my financial circumstances would not have changed.

- My having a partner isn't a factor in the new calculator.
* Why should it?
+ She earns money too, and this affects my circumstances.

- The nights I have my kids don't factor in, because they are less than 104 nights per year.
* I do think perhaps there should be some small allowance for this - though it does mean the custodial parent is caring for the child significantly more
+ Also as the non-custodial parent I cover travel costs.

- My partner's income is not factored into the new calculator.
* Why should it?
+ Maybe it should. I know someone on a minimum wage paying child support to his ex. She is due to re-marrying , extremely well off. The amount he pays cripples him, but is small change to her. IU think she insists on it out of spite. She tried to stop his kids saying with him because he rents a cheap unit in an undesirable area - all he can afford after paying her child support.

- My ex's income is factored into the new calculator.
* As it should be
+ Agree

- My child support liability reduces under the new rules.
* At odds with what most of the thread says
+ Agree but that is how the numbers work out. I was surprised by this. I don't think it is actually that fair, considering our household circumstances and my ex's but who am I to question the govt's wisdom. More money in my pocket. I can directly make sure my kids don't miss out on anything.

Mike

sidefx

3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

#1256368 11-Mar-2015 15:19

MikeAqua:

See below

- My having a partner isn't a factor in the new calculator.
* Why should it?
+ She earns money too, and this affects my circumstances.
>> Why should some of her money go towards supporting your children?

- The nights I have my kids don't factor in, because they are less than 104 nights per year.
* I do think perhaps there should be some small allowance for this - though it does mean the custodial parent is caring for the child significantly more
+ Also as the non-custodial parent I cover travel costs.
>> I don't disagree this is difficult, but I don't think it would be very fair to expect the custodial parent to cover this either.

- My partner's income is not factored into the new calculator.
* Why should it?
+ Maybe it should. I know someone on a minimum wage paying child support to his ex. She is due to re-marrying , extremely well off. The amount he pays cripples him, but is small change to her. IU think she insists on it out of spite. She tried to stop his kids saying with him because he rents a cheap unit in an undesirable area - all he can afford after paying her child support.
>> Indeed that does not sound like a nice situation. However I'd guess the cases where solo parents meet someone and become a "kept woman" as someone above claimed, are low. Also similar to (1) above, why should some of her new partners money goes towards supporting your children? These policies should be based on what's *most likely* to benefit the child.

- My ex's income is factored into the new calculator.
* As it should be
+ Agree

- My child support liability reduces under the new rules.
* At odds with what most of the thread says
+ [...] I can directly make sure my kids don't miss out on anything.
>> Absolutely

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

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256374 11-Mar-2015 15:25

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

geoffwnz

1722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1579

ID Verified

#1256383 11-Mar-2015 15:30

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.

MotorDrive Rallying

Lenovo

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

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1256391 11-Mar-2015 15:34

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.

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

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256393 11-Mar-2015 15:38

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?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1256395 11-Mar-2015 15:41

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?

Yes if the the care is a certain number of days and I apologise I cannot remember the threshold at this time. I recall figure of 1/3 but that may well be wrong

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

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256397 11-Mar-2015 15:43

KiwiNZ:
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?

Yes if the the care is a certain number of days and I apologise I cannot remember the threshold at this time. I recall figure of 1/3 but that may well be wrong

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?

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