Check the figures out - Absent Parents Should Pay Their Way

[Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)]

Absent Parents Should Pay Their Way

Press Release by New Zealand National Party 3:28pm, 12th September 2006


National Party Welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins is disappointed that Peter Dunne has been forced to follow Labour's softly softly approach to absent parents who aren't taking responsibility for their children.

"United Future has some very sensible policies in this area, but Mr Dunne appears to have been forced into line by his larger coalition partner, which has an appalling track record when it comes to collecting what's owed in family support from absent parents."

Answers provided by the Revenue Minister to parliamentary questions show that of the 65,319 liable parents assessed to pay $14 per week towards the upkeep of their children, 44,339 are not even managing to sustain this and are in debt to IRD.

"These parents aren't even making the minimum payments. Yet Labour is working on law changes that will excuse these absentee parents from some of their debt. And the Revenue Minister has defended this approach.

"But the message this sends is that if you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions for long enough, the state will give you a discount. That's just wrong."

Figures released by Ms Collins during the weekend show the amount of debt owed by liable parents has topped the $1.1 billion mark.

The figures show that at June 30, 140,365 liable parents owed $452,012,960 in child support arrears and $651,519,334 in penalty payments. This compared with 131,241 liable parents owing $192,452,098 in arrears and $188,292,302 in penalties in 2000, after Labour's first year in office.

"The amount in arrears has more than doubled and the total amount owed, including penalty, has almost tripled, from $380,744,400 to $1,103,532,294, since Labour came to power, despite promise after promise after promise that they would try harder to collect the outstanding debts.

"Labour is doing single parents and their children a grave disservice by failing to enforce the law," says Ms Collins.

ENDS

Holy Shit!! No doubt the ones not paying their way are also on a benefit. Also the anomalie that some very highly paid single parents only pay the bare minimum, and those single parents that are honest and not on a high salary get done big time.

I use to remain ignorant of all the govt was up to - dont read the newspaper, or ever owned a tv - unfortunately at work I get these news feeds and in my downtime I read them out of sheer boredom. Not good for serenity!!

[riffer]

... those single parents that are honest and not on a high salary get done big time.

Don't get me started on this one... :angry:

Just another symptom of a society in which personal responsibility has gone to shit.

[R6_kid]

if you put a bun in the oven you gotta take care of it, end of story.

[Ozzie]

My god, this thread could see the blings go severely one way or the other.

I pay lots to my ex wife, who sits on her ass and does nothing, except still live well off the bullshit amount of money I have to pay her. Do my kids benefit from it, well I suppose so, the whole house hold does, including the guy living with her.

Actually, I take that back, as I have the kids half the time anyway, the amount I pay her is detremental to them, as I don't have anything left to spend on them myself, or on my standard of living.

She got everything when we split (cause I didn't want to cruel them), I had to set up shop from scratch. The only thing I took was the existing debt, then added some more to it. Do IRD take that into account?

NO they don't.

They see my paypacket, assess my pre tax earnings, decide how much I have to pay her, then take it out of my post tax earnings. No consideration to my circumstances, my debt level, my outgoings to provide a safe and secure environment so I can have my kids.

She shares with a bloke, IRD don't know that, he pays half the bills, IRD don't know that, I still have to give her money and pay school fees etc, IRD don't know that. It is just fucked up.

I know, I could dob her in, then her bene will get cut off, she will fight me for custody, being the male, I would loose, and all the way round, my kids would suffer.

Basically, they know they can fuck the Dad over, so they do. They make it so it is difficult for the Dad to get ahead. They make it difficult for you not to be an arse.

As I said, I took nothing except debt with me, then IRD had a crack, now what for me? Any sugar mummy's out there????

I don't like the idea of other people getting away with it, but if I could without screwing my X over, or hurting my kids, or risking the relationship I have with them, I would. But I can't, cause she wont get off her ass and get a job, IRD are arseholes, and I'm too much of a sook to try and fight it.

See, I am responsible, I want to look after my kids (and X to an extent), but IRD make it very difficult to do so without fucking myself over in the process.

:done:

Well, almost!

Having said all that, at the end of the day, if me and the other fathers can do it, by the fuck so can everyone else. I look after my kids, because they are my kids, not anyone elses. My kids have as much right to my money as I do, problem is, the IRD and their mother are in between.

[ajturbo]

, I still have to give her money and pay school fees etc, .


YOU MEAN I CAN GET THE X TO HELP PAY THEM?????

HOW??

[Ozzie]

HOW??
Basically hold them to ransom.

i have uncontested access to my children anytime. They stay with me 6 out of 14 nights, and half all holidays. I like it like that, I love them, wanted to ditch the X, not my kids. Now, she needs something she gets it, in her eyes I'm rich and can pay for the privalidge (sp?) of seeing my kids.

What little she knows!

Well, actually, she probably knows how stuffed my situation is exactly.

BUT....kids come first....she knows it, and thats how she gets what she wants.

[McJim]

I'm a smug bastard - vasectomy means never having to apologise :)

[SlashWylde]

....I look after my kids, because they are my kids, not anyone elses. My kids have as much right to my money as I do, problem is, the IRD and their mother are in between.

Good on you Ozzie, your more of a man than the pezzo di merde who used to call himself my father.

I've heard a few stories like yours, and personally, it's shit like this that keeps me from wanting to marry and have childeren. Just haven't met anyone good enough and trustworthy enough who would be there for the long haul, and not flip out and take the kids away from their father.

Reckon I'll be a batchelor for the rest of my days. Easier that way innit! :msn-wink: Plus this worlds over populated as it is - don't feel I need to contribute to the problem.

[chanceyy]

boy ohh boy this could be one hot topic

It really pisses me off woman who deliberately get preggers just to "trap' a guy .. kids do not ask to be born and can end up being the pawns in a very nasty game .. & mostly by woman .. WTF children need the love & support of both parents, not to be used then discarded like a bit of rubbish..

My ex has a daughter .. never gets to see her & pays through the nose for the privelege of having sex with someone professing to have loved him .. when she told him she was preggers, he was prepared to stand beside her .. & what was her response .. no i do not love you thanks for the sperm donation .. He would make a wonderful father .. & is never given the opportunity to be one .. that sad both for him & his daughter cause they are missing out on so much

It is disgusting the way some ppl behave .. those who use the kids as a way to try & punish a ex partner & those who deliberately decieve to try & trap someone ..

ok thats my rant over

[slowpoke]

if you put a bun in the oven you gotta take care of it, end of story.


Blokes gladly look after the bun(s), it's looking after the oven that sticks in your guts.

[Jantar]

Yes BMW, you have really opened a can of worms on this issue. Under NZ law there is always a liable parent, and if both partners share equally in bringing up the children the liable parent still has to pay the other parent. In over 80% of cases the liable parent is the male who ends up paying twice, and the ex wife gets paid.

In my case I had to pay the IRD over $1000 per month for two of my children who my wife had custody of. The third child my wife gladly passed over to my care because I was prepared to send him to the school of his choice in order to follow his chosen career. That was another $10,000 per year. She didn't have tp pay a cent towards his care because I was the liable parent. IRD do not take any of this into consideration when working out a parent's contribution.

IRD simply apply a formula and the father pays. Too bad if he can't afford it, they will simply attach an order to his wages. This is why so many fathers are on a benefit. They simply can't afford to work as their contributions would be crippling. At least while on a benfit they only owe $14 per week, while if they work it can be $1400 per month. And what do they get for $1400 per month? If they are very lucky they may be allowed to visit their children, but many wives even find ways to prevent that happening.

If the government are serious about making liable parents pay their fair share, then they should rationalise the whole process and make allowance for other payments that each parent may make, and allow reductions in payments where access is restricted.

[KLOWN]

I have no experiance in this matter but it seems that yet another government division can't do their job properly, just like winz who don't bother to check who really needs the beniefit and who is screwing them over. Bureaucracy is such a problem as it dosen't allow for anomalys(sp?) there is just one solution for everyone and if it dosent work then you get fucked, but the alternative is a dictatorship, which would be alright as long as im the dictator:yes:

[Beemer]

They should decide who breeds and who doesn't by way of a lottery similar to the Green Card draw in the States. Those who REALLY want kids would have to go into a draw to be allowed to have them, and the rest would be banned from breeding.

Takes two to tango and I am sick of hearing about these 24 year-old 'solo mothers' who make a career out of having kids. Never worked, never contributed taxes, no husband or partner - half the time the kids all have different fathers or they have no idea who the father was because they were drunk. I remember when the DPB was for women who had been left by their husbands or partners, not for those who see breeding indiscriminately as a lifestyle choice.

[FROSTY]

the SYSTEM SUCKS --it really is that simple.
Im not gonna go into my financial situation with baby bikie and BBB but it matters not 1 iota if I pay $1500 a month or $5.00 a month. My ex gats the same amount. --And Im a lucky one --my ex and I get along pretty well

[Beemer]

Yes, it hardly seems fair that a girl can get pregnant and be supported on the DPB and also force the father to pay for the child for 18 (I think) years even if she has a new partner or earns a really good salary.

I read a report recently on supervised access and it was a real eye-opener. One guy desperately wanted to see his child whose mother had moved to the South Island so he would travel from Wellington to Christchurch and sleep rough because he had no money for a room. Half the time he'd turn up for the arranged visit and she'd have called to say the child wasn't well or something had come up. It got to the stage where he gave up because he was so poor. Same goes for people who split and the kids go to live with the mother. The couple may have had a reasonable standard of living before and the mother continues to enjoy that lifestyle because what father wants to penalise his kids? So he pays maintenance and lives in a flat.

No wonder there are so many single men in their 40s and 50s - who wants to take on a guy who has to pay thousands of dollars a year for kids he may see very rarely? I don't think it's fair that the IRD has the right to take what they decide is a fair amount. Sure, there are a lot of rich guys who work the system and end up paying nothing or very little, but there are also a lot of decent fathers out there who have shitty lives because they have to pay so much to support their kids when their relationship breaks up.

[magicfairy]

I thought the system was so blatently unfair (Dad has to pay set $$ based on his income, regardless of what it costs to actually keep a child and what else he does for that child) that when I split with my son's Dad, and found out IRD expected him to pay me $160 a week (he had a good income) that I came to a private arrangement that he would pay me $50 a week, which I thought was fair.
I don't imagine many mums do this though.
I was working so I had that option. I would have liked the $160 but I thought it was morally wrong, even if legal.

If you are on the DPB then what Dad pays goes to the government and Mum just gets the standard benefit.

So the good Dads end up payin for the bad ones.

[Ozzie]

So the good Dads end up payin for the bad ones.

Count me in!

Even if she did get a job, I have no hope of a private arrangement with her, she sees it as she has a right to my money.

Dunno how she arrives at that, sort of my privalidge to give it to her or sumthin.