After much debate and squeaky wheeling, sometime last year, my daughter, Zoe, was included in the CSA assessment under the guise that she lives with me part-time. This added $500 to my exempt child support income. This equates to her worth being @ $90 per annum or a measly $7.50 per month. A figure far short of what the CSA determines my other child is worth. A figure that also falls short of the officially determined Costs of children 2011 Table C http://www.csa.gov.au/child_support_formula/child_costs_table_2011.php.,
Utilising apportionated parental incomes on the bottom of the 3rd table C scale, the costs for 2 children equals $16,063 plus. That's $8,031.50 plus each or a few cents short of $670 plus per month per child. Deduct exempt Child support amounts of each parent (@ $20k +$30k) and it still leaves @ a total annual cost per child of $ 1,125 or $93.75 per month each. So how is it, in CS Assessment, Zoe whom is in my care about the same as her brother, is worth 12.5 times less per annum?
Zoe is definitely not worth less, but the CSA had to do something that had minimal impact on their unaccountable and hidden policies, wouldn't attract the ire of the other party and can officially say she is included in the assessment. Simply, it's a bureaucratic whitewash that demonstrates the governments unwillingness to follow the principals of common law.
any questions? - zoehasrights@yahoo.com.au
Showing posts with label child support. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child support. Show all posts
Monday, March 7, 2011
Monday, January 25, 2010
More news..
source: http://www.psnews.com.au/Page_psn20011.htmlChild Support audit
An audit of the “most significant change” to the Child Support Scheme since its inception has found the Child Support Agency could have better managed the reforms which affected one third of the scheme’s clients.
The audit, Child Support Reforms: Stage One of the Child Support Scheme Reforms and Improving Compliance, found it was difficult to determine if the reforms had achieved their desired results.
The report covers stage one of the reforms, which are to be undertaken in three separate stages.
Auditor-General, Ian McPhee said the reforms were being implemented to address concerns about the fairness and adequacy of the Child Support Scheme (CSS) and to assist women and children with financial support following separation or divorce.
Mr McPhee said a compliance program was also considered necessary to complement the Child Support Scheme Reforms (CSSR).
He said an Improving Compliance program was designed to address the growth in child support debt and to encourage parents to comply with policy and make child support payments on time.
The Auditor-General said while the reforms were lead by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the day-to-day management was undertaken by the Child Support Agency (CSA) in partnership with other Departments.
“As is common with the delivery of any major policy reform, the planning and implementation of stage one of the CSSR experienced some difficulties,” he said.
“Many of these issues, however, could have been better managed, or in some cases avoided, if weaknesses in both whole-of-Government and individual Agency governance and project management arrangements (such as risk management, communication and performance monitoring and reporting) had been adequately addressed.”
Mr McPhee said the CSA’s inexperience in implementing policy reform and its lack of a “robust project management framework” had contributed to the difficulties, as had the absence of Agency support agreements and insufficient risk management practices.
He said the Improving Compliance program was track to meet just one of three key outcomes.
He highlighted a lack of strategic planning and inadequate financial planning management practices for the poor results.
“The effects of these shortcomings include that some compliance risks to the Child Support Scheme remain unaddressed, and some individual projects have been unable to achieve their collection targets,” the Auditor said.
Mr McPhee made six recommendations, saying the CSA had “taken some steps” to improve operations, including a reorganisation.
The audit report was available from www.anao.gov.au
-------------
I will comment after reading the report
Child Support audit
finds reforms lacking
An audit of the “most significant change” to the Child Support Scheme since its inception has found the Child Support Agency could have better managed the reforms which affected one third of the scheme’s clients.The audit, Child Support Reforms: Stage One of the Child Support Scheme Reforms and Improving Compliance, found it was difficult to determine if the reforms had achieved their desired results.
The report covers stage one of the reforms, which are to be undertaken in three separate stages.
Auditor-General, Ian McPhee said the reforms were being implemented to address concerns about the fairness and adequacy of the Child Support Scheme (CSS) and to assist women and children with financial support following separation or divorce.
Mr McPhee said a compliance program was also considered necessary to complement the Child Support Scheme Reforms (CSSR).
He said an Improving Compliance program was designed to address the growth in child support debt and to encourage parents to comply with policy and make child support payments on time.
The Auditor-General said while the reforms were lead by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the day-to-day management was undertaken by the Child Support Agency (CSA) in partnership with other Departments.
“As is common with the delivery of any major policy reform, the planning and implementation of stage one of the CSSR experienced some difficulties,” he said.
“Many of these issues, however, could have been better managed, or in some cases avoided, if weaknesses in both whole-of-Government and individual Agency governance and project management arrangements (such as risk management, communication and performance monitoring and reporting) had been adequately addressed.”
Mr McPhee said the CSA’s inexperience in implementing policy reform and its lack of a “robust project management framework” had contributed to the difficulties, as had the absence of Agency support agreements and insufficient risk management practices.
He said the Improving Compliance program was track to meet just one of three key outcomes.
He highlighted a lack of strategic planning and inadequate financial planning management practices for the poor results.
“The effects of these shortcomings include that some compliance risks to the Child Support Scheme remain unaddressed, and some individual projects have been unable to achieve their collection targets,” the Auditor said.
Mr McPhee made six recommendations, saying the CSA had “taken some steps” to improve operations, including a reorganisation.
The audit report was available from www.anao.gov.au
-------------
I will comment after reading the report
In the news
source; Bigpond News
Child Support Agency shamed
Tuesday, December 29, 2009 » 11:33am
The national Child Support Agency has been slammed after a crackdown found parents owe more than $1 billion in payments.A new report by the Auditor-General revealed almost 400,000 parents are not receiving proper child support.
That was because the other parent's income estimates were not being checked against their tax.
The Child Support Agency was also criticised for employing expensive private detectives to catch 'dead-beat' parents.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you just love how the news is reported? Who are the 400,000 'not receiving proper child support' and who are these 'other parent's'? Could some of these parents who owe be considered the custodial parent? It's quite possible due to increasing shared care and the main custodial parent now having to work a minimum of 30 hrs a fortnight. Could these parents be the ones underestimating their income?
Have to wonder who these 'expensive private detectives' are targeting? Obviously not those underestimating.
Monday, March 9, 2009
New Formula
Is the new Child Support formula working? There's certainly no outrage about it, so perhaps it is.
One thing it hasn't accomplished is targeting those who rort the system or the gender bias that has been longstanding. You know the rorters, parents who demonstrate a low income but are asset and lifestyle rich. For example, a mother in a shared parenting situation who is a company director, buying a house, who enjoys regular interstate and overseas holidays, spends money freely on luxuries, expensive clothing and dines out more than the average person can afford to. Yet her taxable income falls below the child support threshold, so pays no child support. The father on the other hand lives hand to mouth, sometimes having to borrow money to pay his bills because his child support expenses take a considerable slice out of his income. Monies that further enhance the lifestyle of the mother.
Take a case like this through the CSA and all the mother has to do is claim she is being supported by her new partner to ensure no change in assessment. Reverse the roles and the father would be accused of failing in his financial duty towards his children, most likely investigated and made to cough up cash under the 'capacity to pay' legislation.
Isn't it about time the legislation is changed to look at the combined assets of relationships on both sides of the divide? After all. in family law, company income and combined assets of a couple are considered to be theirs and to be divided accordingly if they separate.
One thing it hasn't accomplished is targeting those who rort the system or the gender bias that has been longstanding. You know the rorters, parents who demonstrate a low income but are asset and lifestyle rich. For example, a mother in a shared parenting situation who is a company director, buying a house, who enjoys regular interstate and overseas holidays, spends money freely on luxuries, expensive clothing and dines out more than the average person can afford to. Yet her taxable income falls below the child support threshold, so pays no child support. The father on the other hand lives hand to mouth, sometimes having to borrow money to pay his bills because his child support expenses take a considerable slice out of his income. Monies that further enhance the lifestyle of the mother.
Take a case like this through the CSA and all the mother has to do is claim she is being supported by her new partner to ensure no change in assessment. Reverse the roles and the father would be accused of failing in his financial duty towards his children, most likely investigated and made to cough up cash under the 'capacity to pay' legislation.
Isn't it about time the legislation is changed to look at the combined assets of relationships on both sides of the divide? After all. in family law, company income and combined assets of a couple are considered to be theirs and to be divided accordingly if they separate.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Capacity to pay = slavery.
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."
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."
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..
Monday, August 18, 2008
Who should pay?
Australia has the 5th highest divorce rate in the world, it currently stands at around 47% *, a few percentage points behind the highest, Sweden at @ 54%. In comparison, other countries like India, Turkey and Italy range from a 2 - 10% divorce rate. Without getting into the how and why's, it is obvious many western countries (but not all) have a very serious problem in parents separating and the welfare of the children from their relationships.
Are the parents to blame for separation after pursuing the dream of a lifelong partnership? The latter most of us were led to believe was possible, in a society where family still holds the high ground with many aspects of life revolving around it. Or is it the shift in societies attitudes towards commitment, loyalty and working at a relationship to blame? Whatever it may be, relationship breakdowns are certainly far more prevalent in a country like ours, indicating our societies values are at fault.
If the view taken is our society is to blame for this high degree of angst, then shouldn't society in whole, take on responsibilty for the financial welfare of our children? In doing so, provide equal opportunity for each and every child from separated parents and removing a major drawback in the present system. If all Australians were made responsible for the financial support of these children, then perhaps all would set about creating a more relationship friendly future in the best interests of children yet to be born.
* (Source: Americans for Divorce Reform)
Are the parents to blame for separation after pursuing the dream of a lifelong partnership? The latter most of us were led to believe was possible, in a society where family still holds the high ground with many aspects of life revolving around it. Or is it the shift in societies attitudes towards commitment, loyalty and working at a relationship to blame? Whatever it may be, relationship breakdowns are certainly far more prevalent in a country like ours, indicating our societies values are at fault.
If the view taken is our society is to blame for this high degree of angst, then shouldn't society in whole, take on responsibilty for the financial welfare of our children? In doing so, provide equal opportunity for each and every child from separated parents and removing a major drawback in the present system. If all Australians were made responsible for the financial support of these children, then perhaps all would set about creating a more relationship friendly future in the best interests of children yet to be born.
* (Source: Americans for Divorce Reform)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
