Why IRD will continue to punish fathers over child support
IRD rejects call to review child support payments
A top Government adviser says child support payments should be paid directly to sole-parent beneficiaries, not kept by Inland Revenue to offset the costs of the benefits. Carl Davidson, who was named the new head of the Families Commission in July, said the move would encourage more absent parents to pay, and reduce child poverty in sole-parent families. But the idea, which would cost $185 million a year, was discussed and rejected in an Inland Revenue discussion paper on reforming child support this month.
The reason IRD will continue to punish solo fathers with their sexist, draconian, 10% penalty rates is because child support is revenue gathering for IRD. Of the $1.8 billion in outstanding Child Support only $560 million is actually owing, the rest, a staggering $1.2 billion is in bloody late fees! This is revenue gathering and the fury so many fathers feel in being forced to pay money to IRD, money that NEVER goes to the child if the Mother is on welfare is real and well summed up by Gordon Campbell...
What such situations reveal is the highly charged social climate in which child support operates – and the lack of consideration to these issues when the child support mechanisms were rammed into place 18 years ago, mainly as a way of cutting the cost of welfare. (One of the complaints commonly made about the system is that non-custodial parents are not paying child support to their children – they are paying the IRD to offset the cost of the DPB.)
Watching 18% of their income sucked away to the Government without one cent going to the child being supported is the main reason many solo Fathers simply don't comply and is the reason IRD will point blank refuse to lose a billion dollar revenue gathering scam.
As Carl Davidson points out, allowing solo Fathers to pay the money directly to the Mother rather than to IRD would make the situation fairer and more likely to comply with and reduce the problem Campbell points out with solo Fathers moving on with their lives to create a new family...
given the extent of marital breakdown, a more common reality is that the non-custodial parent can be rendered financially unable to start a new life, because of the level of payments required to be paid to the previous family. In such cases, a two tier system of first and second class children can be created – where the children of the first relationship have prior call on any resources, and the children of the subsequent relationship must make do with what is left over.
...it is clear that the current child support system simply creates resentment by those solo Fathers forced to comply with revenue gathering by IRD while causing tensions within the separated family units, allowing IRD to simply deny any possible changes means their incentive to revenue gather won't be blunted.
posted by Bomber @ 7:42 am
6 comments
6 Comments:
Well said Anon. Hear! Hear! And while we are handing out fuck em's how about a fuck em to all those women who get pregnant on purpose to men knowing the man doesn't want a child with that woman and who locks them into 19 years of loveless obligation making it impossible to start a family with someone they do love. I mean, while we are handing out fuck ems, let's do the full round.
The complexities of personal life can not be fairly handled by a blanket child support system which as Gordon Campbell points out is so inflexible it makes it difficult for Fathers to have more access to their children because it would take money away from the Mother.
Allowing IRD to use child support as a revenue gathering mechanism helps no one.
How about handing out a 'Fuk em to the Dad that had custody of a son while the mother had custody of a daughter, both of who had to suffer the needless bureacracy of a department collecting the EXACT same amount from each in LPC.
Fuk em, Fuk em, Fuk em....
The inisator of that Fuk em I venture to suggest is more keen about proving a point than she/he is about actual welfare of the chillun in question.
The thing that used to pis me off most was that it was clear that "recovery" of money/debt was the primary goal rather than a child's welfare.......to the extent that those that are honest and pay effectively subsidise the "dead beat dad's" AND the dead beat mothers. I have one such "dead beat mother" as a neice!
Her motivation for pregnancy and sex was economic and I'd suggest not uncommon. Of the four children, ALL were eventually fostered, and the youngest of the two are now in the care of those "fuk em!!! dead beat grandparents - who actually get 'custody' by default (tho' not in the legal sense) whilst the "dead beat mother" continues to collect her DPB....house and clothe her dysfunctional wife beating spouse, and continue to prick her forearm with any needle loaded with cheap and nasty drugs. Also not uncommon (it could just as well be alcohol or any other shit).
Dead Beat dad is a convenience!. IT's actually equal opportunity gender non-specific dead beat shit....and the sooner people realise that dysfunctions of various sorts can fuck up mothers just as readily as they can fuck up fathers, the better we'll all be.
Meantime..... 60 plus sis will look after the offspring of the dysfnctional daughter that keeps going back to the abusive Sgt at Arms asshole - but then "fuk her"! her own silly fault for having a daughter that is a fucked unit
When you don't put up my post bomber, it says you are scared of discussion.
You then allow a d4j type comment.
It is quite clear than your mysoginistic tendencies are once again coming to the fore.
Btw; the d4j comment above sums it up.
An abused women trapped in an abusive relationship.
Yet somehow anon blames the woman.
Is that how you feel too bomber.
Don't bother answering, when you don't post this comment, that will be answer enough.
When you don't put up my post bomber, it says you are scared of discussion.
You then allow a d4j type comment.
It is quite clear than your mysoginistic tendencies are once again coming to the fore.
Btw; the d4j comment above sums it up.
An abused women trapped in an abusive relationship.
Yet somehow anon blames the woman.
Is that how you feel too bomber.
Don't bother answering, when you don't post this comment, that will be answer enough.
YAWN - I didn't bother posting up your tedious man hate post Anon because I didn't really think it added anything to the point I was making whatsoever, which was that IRD's revenue gathering scam couldn't handle the complexities to child support and being forced to pay IRD rather than the money going to the child creates real anger for many solo fathers. Your hate man, hate man, hate man post ignores the very situation I highlighted, btw claiming I'm mysoginistic after posting...
Fuck em.
Fuck the gutless pricks who leave their wives in financial indebtedness because these so-called "men" decide they don't want the responsibility.
Fuck the men who care more for their new kids than their first kids.
Fuck the men who take out their anger and resentment of their former partners on their own children, because their former partners realise they don't want such a loser in their lives.
Fuck the men who require women to take out restraining orders, and seek protective help from men, who now want to kill them.
Pay your fucking support deadbeat dads, so us taxpayers don't have to raise our kids, and your kids too.
...is simply hilarious. Yes, all my posts damning Paula Bennett's hateful solo mother bashing policy makes me misogynistic, how dare I see another side of the debate. Perhaps you should push off back to the Hand Mirror now? Your inability to see the anger Child Support can generate for some men is part of the problem, not the solution anon. Gordon Campbell can see it, but I suppose that makes him a misogynist as well doesn't it Anon?
...and fuck the women who remarry, often into a far better financial climate and continue to suck the former husband dry of everything he's got, whilst poisoning the kids (for whom he tried to obtain, at least equal access rights) against their father!
I know of at least 3 cases where this is happening!
You've just opened an account in december and this is the first post you come rushing to? Way too obvious scalette
Post a Comment
<< Home