+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 241
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,763
    Thanks
    1,903
    Thanked
    2,789
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts

    Default *Spin off* How would you like to see the CS system organised?

    50/50 is all well and good in theory, and would work if both parties had similar opportunities to earn similar income. But in reality, one party (usually the mother) is at a distinct disadvantage and doesn't or can't earn anywhere near as much. (In my case it is DD's dad who earns much less than me. So I don't get any CS, nor do I ask for it. Few custodial parents are in the same situation as
    me though)

    I'm surprised people are so concerned about the payer being homeless if he/she is on Centrelink and has to pay a lot. Usually when the custodial parent is on Centrelink and spends it all supporting the child and faces homelessness, the refrain is "well get a job then". I don't see why the non-custodial parent gets a break for having a low income but the custodial parent doesn't.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to shelle65 For This Useful Post:

    Stiflers Mom (01-09-2012)

  3. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,598
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked
    3,370
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shelle65 View Post
    50/50 is all well and good in theory, and would work if both parties had similar opportunities to earn similar income. But in reality, one party (usually the mother) is at a distinct disadvantage and doesn't or can't earn anywhere near as much. (In my case it is DD's dad who earns much less than me. So I don't get any CS, nor do I ask for it. Few custodial parents are in the same situation as
    me though)

    I'm surprised people are so concerned about the payer being homeless if he/she is on Centrelink and has to pay a lot. Usually when the custodial parent is on Centrelink and spends it all supporting the child and faces homelessness, the refrain is "well get a job then". I don't see why the non-custodial parent gets a break for having a low income but the custodial parent doesn't.
    Actually, my concern was for the people who weren't on centerlink. I didn't even take the centerlink ones into account.
    I work. I earn 2000 dollars a month. There is no way in all hell I can afford rent on my own place, with a room for my children to come and stay when I have visitation with them, and half of someone elses rent, or more than half, since your post implied the non custodial should be paying more than 50/50. And then 50/50 on everything else.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    910
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked
    194
    Reviews
    4
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts

    Default *Spin off* How would you like to see the CS system organised?

    It's a crappy system. I get $14.18 a fortnight and it costs me $80 a fortnight without feeding or putting a roof over ds'. Thats full custody, For the wankers that work cash in hand I think there has to be a higher minimum

  5. #24
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    804
    Thanks
    222
    Thanked
    292
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennaisme View Post
    Thing is that the money is for the child, not for the mother.
    So, if it's for the child, if the payer isn't paying some of the bills, then the child would be sitting in darkness, with no access to heat, internet, foxtel, etc etc. I hope this is making sense. I'm really tired. I don't think the payer needs to see the bill, they're paying, but maybe take an average of three months, roughly.
    So if the power bill for 3 months is 600 dollars over winter, then the payer would pay at LEAST, 150 dollars for the power bill.
    The internet bill would be 300 for three months, so the payer would pay roughly 75 dollars for the three months.
    The rent would be maybe 2400 for a two bedroom house, then the payer would pay 600 for the three months.
    Say the food bill is 1200 every three months, then the payer would pay 600. Working on the food bill being 200 p/f for school aged children, if it's one child.
    Then add on top the school fees, uniforms, books, extra curriculars, etc, which are halved between the parents, so we'll say that all of that comes to 200 p/m, so payer pays 100
    At the least, the payer would be paying 1525 every three months, not including everything else, which is 508 p/m

    I think this would be a fair system, tbh.
    Do mean if the mother had fulltime care of the child and the father none.
    If the father had say 40% care of the child then would the mother be required to pay the father a % of his bills/mortgage/food/internet etc etc ?

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,598
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked
    3,370
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Dragon View Post
    Do mean if the mother had fulltime care of the child and the father none.
    If the father had say 40% care of the child then would the mother be required to pay the father a % of his bills/mortgage/food/internet etc etc ?
    I was basing it off of if the general father having custody of the kids every second weekend, etc. There's a lot of difficulty to it, but I think if that were a base rate, then people wouldn't dodge CS, 'cause the sum would be a blanket one, whether you're on centerlink or not. As always, extenuating circumstances so if the payer has legitimate reason for not being able to pay, etc etc etc.

    It's still a darn sight better than it is now

    Edit: If the parents have 50/50 custody, then no, I don't think utilities should be split. I think the bills that are strictly for the child(so school, etc) should be, but I think that's the way it should always be.. If it's 40/50, then lessen the % that the utilities are paid by to maybe 20% or something, rather than 25.
    Last edited by Jennaisme; 31-08-2012 at 22:35.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    617
    Thanks
    230
    Thanked
    75
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts

    Default Re: *Spin off* How would you like to see the CS system organised?

    I get $32 month for my oldest daughter used to be $150 which I was happy with. Changed because he got a different accountant who wasnt afraid to bend the tax rules til they almost broke. I could do a change in assessment but then id have to deal with the possibility he would want to see her. He is a violent man who I want no where near my baby.

    They need to do something with the system but whatever changes they make one party will always be unhappy

    Sent from my GT-S5830T using BubHub

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,451
    Thanks
    6,442
    Thanked
    18,031
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shelle65 View Post
    Usually when the custodial parent is on Centrelink and spends it all supporting the child and faces homelessness, the refrain is "well get a job then". .
    What I notice, is society complains about single mums being on CL, how it's a drain on the tax payer get a job blah blah. But then seems ok with fathers that pay minimal to no CS. Maybe if the fathers were supporting their kids properly, they wouldn't need as much govt assistance... and better still, with CS it might actually help offset the costs of CC they are lumped with so they CAN get a job

    Since so many talk about the tax payer footing the bill, how about the father provides for his child rather than leaving it to the govt???

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    feelinglucky (01-09-2012),Stiflers Mom (01-09-2012)

  10. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    804
    Thanks
    222
    Thanked
    292
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    //////
    Last edited by Blue Dragon; 05-11-2012 at 17:20.

  11. #29
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    804
    Thanks
    222
    Thanked
    292
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    What I notice, is society complains about single mums being on CL, how it's a drain on the tax payer get a job blah blah. But then seems ok with fathers that pay minimal to no CS. Maybe if the fathers were supporting their kids properly, they wouldn't need as much govt assistance... and better still, with CS it might actually help offset the costs of CC they are lumped with so they CAN get a job

    Since so many talk about the tax payer footing the bill, how about the father provides for his child rather than leaving it to the govt???
    I think the goverment needs to come down harder on those parents who aren't providing anything, If i didn't pay a speeding fine for a few months the sheriff would be at my door taking possesions and possibly arresting me, they dont do that with CSA debt.

  12. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,598
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked
    3,370
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Dragon View Post
    Heres a hypothetical as to why i disagree on basing it on wages earned.

    parent A has children 5 days a week, works fulltime and earns 85k
    Parent A also pays for everything child related.

    Parent B has the children 2 days a week, chooses not to work at all so earns $0 Parent B deadset refuses to help pay for anything.

    Parent B goes to CSA and puts in a claim and because parent A earns more they have to pay parent B $250 a week.

    How is that fair ?? Parent A has to pay Parent B even though Parent A is already covering all of the childrens costs and has majority of care.
    Parent B gets away with it because its based on wages, CSA don't care who pays for what just what number the computer spits out at them.
    It's not and I never said it was. I disagree with it being based on wages. I think the primary carer should be paid the 25% and 50% thing, regardless of what they earn. It's for the kids, not the carer. Though if both work and the primry carer earns a lot more than the non primary one, could be a bit trickier.


 

Similar Threads

  1. The Organised Housewife's 20 day challenge!
    By Littlemissmetal in forum House & Gardens
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-09-2012, 09:59
  2. Photos of areas have organised/decluttered etc
    By Happy2be3 in forum House & Gardens
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 20-06-2012, 09:01
  3. Quesiton for the super organised Mums (& Dads)
    By OurLittleBlessing in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 26-03-2012, 08:14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

FEATURED SUPPORTER
Maternity ClothesLooking to buy maternity clothes? :: Check the bubhub directory of local & online maternity clothes shops :: Find ...
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Purple under eyesGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Purple under eyesGeneral Child Health Issues
Sports for autistic childrenGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Melbourne student midwifeSeeking a Midwife or Doula?
TinderGeneral Chat

ADVERTISEMENT