All payers of the Child Support Scheme come under the 'capacity to pay' umbrella. If one is paying child support at a rate assessed by the CSA and their income drops without a reason accepted by the CSA, then the CSA may determine the rate of child support is to remain. The CSA may also investigate a person they believe has a "greater capacity to financially support their kids" *.
Most people have the capacity to earn more money, for many at a cost. It may cost time at home, weekends, social life, relationships and/or health. For others it may cost them time with the children they pay child support for, missing out on a school play or the child's regular sporting events.
Without doubt there are people whom do rort the system and should be hunted down, but there are probably just as many whom genuinely experience an income drop beyond their control, or choose a lesser income for their own personal reasons. Some of these reasons may be to spend more time with their family or new relationship, care for an ill loved one, to reduce stress, a desire for a lifestyle change or due to having achieved their financial goals and not needing to work so hard. Whether or not your family is intact, we all have a right to choose how much we want to work and earn. For a few these rights are denied.
If the number of people on Australian websites and forums, claiming to have been unfairly assessed by this capacity to pay legislation is an indication of a more widespread problem, then it brings into question the workings of it and the power of the CSA Officers whom determine peoples income capacity. It appears the CSA doesn't always weigh up the capacity to pay against the personal cost to maintain an assessed amount. Choosing instead the almighty dollar and the savings to the government by forcing people to maintain their assessed child support amount.
It is irrelevant if there are thousands, hundreds or just one person whom has been unfairly treated by the CSA. If their determination is you have a "greater capacity to financially support your kids" is in opposition to reality or self fulfillment, that you must pay the assessed amount, then such a determination can only be viewed as enslaving you to a minimum income to pay the amount of child support assessed and for self support. In effect, in opposition to human rights and what all western society considers abhorrent, the CSA commits you to slavery ** under the capacity to pay legislation.
* http://www.csa.gov.au/schemereforms/eBulletin3.aspx
** Wikipedia definition- "Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons—known as slaves—are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work."
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Who's side are they on?
There are a number of websites on the net and forums within, dealing with CSA and child support issues. One such website is the FamilyLawWebGuide. It's intentions are honourable, but the so called experts whom moderate it are questionable. I have had minimal dealings with the site and from my own experience, it seems if one questions the advice of the experts or points out their shortcomings, you are likely to receive a warning. I was given warnings, was told I was a smartalec, arrogant and impudent. In all, three moderators requested my being banned from the site. The head moderator sent me a courtesy email stating I was suspended for 5 days because my postings were not in the 'spirit of co-operation'.
These same FLWG moderators whom requested my being banned , I found amongst other traits, to be sometimes vulgar, rude, inciteful and lacking in expertise. A read through members posts, (if not deleted), reflect views that reiterate a number of my own, plus views the sites moderators are pro-government, self indulgent, overstepping in their authority, lack humour, deny free speech, etc;
The power of the moderators is such they can ban someone without giving a reason or warning. To a point I don't have a problem with this power towards people whom merely sign-up to post offensive and slanderous rubbish. But should someone be banned because they question the validity of the moderators floundering knowledge? Or suspended because they oppose the moderators views? I think not.
No-one questions the FLWG site more than the person whom runs the blog, exposethetruth08. It is stated in the blogs title page;
"This blog was set up to comment on the sham website www.familylawwebguide.com.au and the injustices that they commit, the lies they tell and to correct the misleading statements they perpetuate."
This blogger I believe has some serious personal issues with the moderators of FLWG. It is apparent they are very bitter, vindictive and angry. Exposethetruth08 goes to great lengths and no doubt does some serious web surfing to find anything condemning the moderators, freely naming names and makes outlandish assumptions. No doubt there is some truths to be found within the blog, but it is also obvious s/he has little respect for the truth, as much of the blog is devoted to slander.
This blogger doesn't stop at just the moderators, anyone whom posts on the FLWG is potential for targeting. I, amongst others were attacked by exposethetruth08 and I gave her a piece of my mind. In response, exposethetruth08 dedicated a whole blog post to me and slandered my name with not even a whiff of truth in the rantings. Everything said about me opposes the blogs opening statement, there's nothing but lies, misleading statements and assumptions. If the attack on me is typical, then the blog has no credence whatsoever. In my view, exposethetruth08 blog is far more a sham than what it claims of the FLWG.
So whose side are these people on? Obviously, not for the good of all or even a few if their use of these sites is to push their own views, display power and/or to denigrate others, all under a veil of good intentions. In both, narcissist personalities get in the way of moral and ethical dispensing of the truth and facts both claim to be advocating.
I'm sure there are many more sites in cyber space just like these, with people all too eager to delete you at the hint of you questioning their so called expertise, knowledge or assumptions. Not to mention a fast and fatal response if you send any criticism their way. What they don't seem to realise is they become their own worse enemies, turn away many a reader/participant and have people like me discussing their failings.
These same FLWG moderators whom requested my being banned , I found amongst other traits, to be sometimes vulgar, rude, inciteful and lacking in expertise. A read through members posts, (if not deleted), reflect views that reiterate a number of my own, plus views the sites moderators are pro-government, self indulgent, overstepping in their authority, lack humour, deny free speech, etc;
The power of the moderators is such they can ban someone without giving a reason or warning. To a point I don't have a problem with this power towards people whom merely sign-up to post offensive and slanderous rubbish. But should someone be banned because they question the validity of the moderators floundering knowledge? Or suspended because they oppose the moderators views? I think not.
No-one questions the FLWG site more than the person whom runs the blog, exposethetruth08. It is stated in the blogs title page;
"This blog was set up to comment on the sham website www.familylawwebguide.com.au and the injustices that they commit, the lies they tell and to correct the misleading statements they perpetuate."
This blogger I believe has some serious personal issues with the moderators of FLWG. It is apparent they are very bitter, vindictive and angry. Exposethetruth08 goes to great lengths and no doubt does some serious web surfing to find anything condemning the moderators, freely naming names and makes outlandish assumptions. No doubt there is some truths to be found within the blog, but it is also obvious s/he has little respect for the truth, as much of the blog is devoted to slander.
This blogger doesn't stop at just the moderators, anyone whom posts on the FLWG is potential for targeting. I, amongst others were attacked by exposethetruth08 and I gave her a piece of my mind. In response, exposethetruth08 dedicated a whole blog post to me and slandered my name with not even a whiff of truth in the rantings. Everything said about me opposes the blogs opening statement, there's nothing but lies, misleading statements and assumptions. If the attack on me is typical, then the blog has no credence whatsoever. In my view, exposethetruth08 blog is far more a sham than what it claims of the FLWG.
So whose side are these people on? Obviously, not for the good of all or even a few if their use of these sites is to push their own views, display power and/or to denigrate others, all under a veil of good intentions. In both, narcissist personalities get in the way of moral and ethical dispensing of the truth and facts both claim to be advocating.
I'm sure there are many more sites in cyber space just like these, with people all too eager to delete you at the hint of you questioning their so called expertise, knowledge or assumptions. Not to mention a fast and fatal response if you send any criticism their way. What they don't seem to realise is they become their own worse enemies, turn away many a reader/participant and have people like me discussing their failings.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Recording CSA telephone conversations.
Published in the NSW Law Society Journal of March 1998, page 51, an article by barrister Tom Molomby covered the issue of telephone conversation recording by a party to the call. In part it reads:
" At one time some believed that the federal legislation extended to the recording of a phone conversation by a party to that conversation. That was no doubt an available interpretation. However, in recent years decisions of the Full Courts of the Supreme Courts of South Australia and Western Australia have held that "interception" in s.6(1) of theTelecommunication (Interception) Act 1979 does *not include* the recordingby a party to the conversation."
Green v The Queen (1995) 124 FLR 423 at 430-433 also (1995-6) 85ACrim R 229, 135 ALR 181, T v Medical Board (SA) (1992) 58 SASR 382 at398-339.
It is because of these rulings and others, that allows the CSA to record conversations between its officers and customers. It also allows you, the customer, to record your conversations with them via telecommunication equipment with recording capabilities*. What you cannot do is 'intercept' a conversation, that is record somebody elses conversation you are not party to via any means.
The advantage of recording your CSA conversations is, if needed, something permanent to refer back to without having to go through the time consuming FOI and the outlandish expense of transcripts. This could be very handy in the event you have been given conflicting or wrong advice, have been coerced, had a privacy breach or a myriad of other errors the CSA officers have been known to make.
These rulings also mean of course, you can record your telephone conversations with anybody, friend or foe. If you make recordings with the intention to maybe use them in court, then that would depend on whom you sit before and arguement by the other party whether or not they would be allowed as admissable evidence. If it's for your myspace page or similar, I suggest you check the legalities and remember, once public they could be put to uses you didn't intend.
As to informing the other party you are recording theirs and your conversation is debatable, I have not found conclusive proof you need to inform them, that's not to say you shouldn't by law. Perhaps as a courtesy and to cover yourself, one should at least inform the other party on the first occassion you will be recording the current and any or all future conversations. In doing so make sure you record their acknowledgement. With the CSA or any other authority, I suggest you put it in writing.
* There are a number of devices you can utilise to record your conversations. Modern mobile phones often have limited ability as too many cordless base stations with memo/answering capabilities. VOIP telephony is probably an obvious choice if your connection is 256k or better. Most softphones, eg, Xlite, have recording capabilites. With voip handsets, check the user manual. The advantage to recording them on your PC is you can burn them onto a CD.
" At one time some believed that the federal legislation extended to the recording of a phone conversation by a party to that conversation. That was no doubt an available interpretation. However, in recent years decisions of the Full Courts of the Supreme Courts of South Australia and Western Australia have held that "interception" in s.6(1) of theTelecommunication (Interception) Act 1979 does *not include* the recordingby a party to the conversation."
Green v The Queen (1995) 124 FLR 423 at 430-433 also (1995-6) 85ACrim R 229, 135 ALR 181, T v Medical Board (SA) (1992) 58 SASR 382 at398-339.
It is because of these rulings and others, that allows the CSA to record conversations between its officers and customers. It also allows you, the customer, to record your conversations with them via telecommunication equipment with recording capabilities*. What you cannot do is 'intercept' a conversation, that is record somebody elses conversation you are not party to via any means.
The advantage of recording your CSA conversations is, if needed, something permanent to refer back to without having to go through the time consuming FOI and the outlandish expense of transcripts. This could be very handy in the event you have been given conflicting or wrong advice, have been coerced, had a privacy breach or a myriad of other errors the CSA officers have been known to make.
These rulings also mean of course, you can record your telephone conversations with anybody, friend or foe. If you make recordings with the intention to maybe use them in court, then that would depend on whom you sit before and arguement by the other party whether or not they would be allowed as admissable evidence. If it's for your myspace page or similar, I suggest you check the legalities and remember, once public they could be put to uses you didn't intend.
As to informing the other party you are recording theirs and your conversation is debatable, I have not found conclusive proof you need to inform them, that's not to say you shouldn't by law. Perhaps as a courtesy and to cover yourself, one should at least inform the other party on the first occassion you will be recording the current and any or all future conversations. In doing so make sure you record their acknowledgement. With the CSA or any other authority, I suggest you put it in writing.
* There are a number of devices you can utilise to record your conversations. Modern mobile phones often have limited ability as too many cordless base stations with memo/answering capabilities. VOIP telephony is probably an obvious choice if your connection is 256k or better. Most softphones, eg, Xlite, have recording capabilites. With voip handsets, check the user manual. The advantage to recording them on your PC is you can burn them onto a CD.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Who's money is it?
Sometime back, around 2003, I came across a FaCS annual audit and within it I noticed some $695,000 was transferred from a trust account to the CSA. In addition monies from elsewhere (not a trust account) were also allocated to the CSA for wages, rent, etc. I did some investigative ping pong over several months between the CSA and the Finance Department and found out all child support monies went into an interest bearing consolidated trust account.
I did a quick calculation and worked out this $695k would have been equivalent to bank interest gained from yearly average of Child Support monies i.e @ 5% of $1.3 billion. (Interest rates were a lot higher) My calculations may be incorrect, but back when I did this, the CSA held onto CS monies for around 4 weeks before paying the payee. If one was paying $500 a month, around $6,000 per annum, at 5% interest, that's $300 a year or $5,000 over 15 years the government has pocketed of yours or your childs money.
The legislation stated the monies paid in child support to the CSA were to be set aside for the child. Therefor, one would assume these interest dollars actually belong to the children. If this reckoning is correct, then over the life of the Child Support scheme, our children have fraudently been ripped off of millions, possibly billions of dollars. Another point of view is it the payers that have been ripped off millions of dollars, as paid child support monies don't become the child's until received. Interest monies that could have be deducted from a payers payments. Either way, the interest earned was not the governments to do with as it pleases, by law it wasn't theirs.
Argument maybe the government has a right to use these monies to recover costs in part or full. If this is the case, the child support scheme would be considered a user pay system. Or, child support monies are in reality, taxed according to the interest derived from them. As to the user pay theory, the majority of payers do not choose to have CSA involvement and most certainly children don't fill out the forms, it is the payee whom makes the request. How is this taking of moneys from non applicants then considered legitimate?
Since I made my enquiries I have noticed a shift in how child support monies are perceived. Nowdays monies owing are technically seen as a debt owing to the Government, not monies to be set aside for the children. (I wonder today, if it was my enquiries and arguements with the CSA that instigated this change.) No matter how they spin doctor it, the Government continues to make money from child support paid.
I ponder whether a class action by payers, on behalf of the children and/or the payers/children whom have outgrown CSA involvement is possible to recover these stolen monies and return them to their rightful owners..
I did a quick calculation and worked out this $695k would have been equivalent to bank interest gained from yearly average of Child Support monies i.e @ 5% of $1.3 billion. (Interest rates were a lot higher) My calculations may be incorrect, but back when I did this, the CSA held onto CS monies for around 4 weeks before paying the payee. If one was paying $500 a month, around $6,000 per annum, at 5% interest, that's $300 a year or $5,000 over 15 years the government has pocketed of yours or your childs money.
The legislation stated the monies paid in child support to the CSA were to be set aside for the child. Therefor, one would assume these interest dollars actually belong to the children. If this reckoning is correct, then over the life of the Child Support scheme, our children have fraudently been ripped off of millions, possibly billions of dollars. Another point of view is it the payers that have been ripped off millions of dollars, as paid child support monies don't become the child's until received. Interest monies that could have be deducted from a payers payments. Either way, the interest earned was not the governments to do with as it pleases, by law it wasn't theirs.
Argument maybe the government has a right to use these monies to recover costs in part or full. If this is the case, the child support scheme would be considered a user pay system. Or, child support monies are in reality, taxed according to the interest derived from them. As to the user pay theory, the majority of payers do not choose to have CSA involvement and most certainly children don't fill out the forms, it is the payee whom makes the request. How is this taking of moneys from non applicants then considered legitimate?
Since I made my enquiries I have noticed a shift in how child support monies are perceived. Nowdays monies owing are technically seen as a debt owing to the Government, not monies to be set aside for the children. (I wonder today, if it was my enquiries and arguements with the CSA that instigated this change.) No matter how they spin doctor it, the Government continues to make money from child support paid.
I ponder whether a class action by payers, on behalf of the children and/or the payers/children whom have outgrown CSA involvement is possible to recover these stolen monies and return them to their rightful owners..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
