"The CSA arose out of a perception that a father must pay for his children."

That was the ostensible reason. The real reason was because the gumment had set up the single mother's pension and then found, surprise surprise, that the costs blew out unsustainably. So then they discovered the value of paternity - involuntary.

So you think other people should be 'forced' to pay towards the cost of raising of someonelse's children. We already contribute as most single parents who receive CS also receive a pro-rata SPP as well or a full pension depending on the amount of CS afforded by the non-custodial parent.

No-one forces men or women to start and raise a family. It takes two. Yes, I will beat you to it, there are some pregnancies that occur without the consent of men (or the woman for that matter) as humans being human there are unplanned babies.

The Government demands that a parent contribute to the raising of their own child where they can. This applies to women as well who might not be the cusodial parent. Women also pay CS - the rules are exactly the same. What is patriarchial about that? With the changes to Family Law more men are in shared parenting arrangements and with more single mothers also returning to work.

Lets talk brass tacks.

What sort of changes would you make that would suit your sense of gender fairplay that are not already in existence?

I am genuinely interested to see in which ways you think the societies could be improved that are both fair and practical.

Antiseptic has already come up with the idea of a tax levy on all Australians to support the rising cost of single parentdom. Any other ideas and any reasons why that idea might not be readily acceptable to other people who already contribute to the care of their own children. Or is it the case of a Nanny State only when it suits.

Pelican I've made the point previously that if we have to have something like CSA we should break the directness of the financial link between parents.

By current rules the choices of one parent directly impact on the other who has no real say in those choices. If your ex manages to reduce their taxable income in a manner which CSA accepts (or has managed to avoid having one for a long time) the other person either pay's more or receives less. That in itself leads to a lot of tension between parents and grumbles within children's earshot about the other partner.

Any guess's about how many children with parents caught up in CSA's web have heard that it's daddy/mummy's fault that I can't afford to get you something special?

I've suggested that where CSA needs to be involved all money's are paid into and out of a pool based on whatever formula is deemed to meet the actual responsibilities and costs involved not on the choices of the other parent. The size of the pool will be impacted by the choices of all the parents involved but at least the link is not direct.

I suspect that like the current system the cost of administering it probably outweighs any real benefit to the taxpayer but kid's should gain by not having parents in constant conflict. What Antiseptic suggests would probably be the best outcome for all involved (including taxpayers) as it avoids an expensive bureaucracy and takes away the resistance to bullying aspect but I doubt that it would fly politically.

In my case I just don't want the pain of trying to get my ex to financially support our son, too much history for me to bite off that piece of pain so I don't get any CS (my choice and it's a much happier place than the alternative).

R0bert

Antiseptic makes a bizarre claim about politicians who have set up the CSA <"It has been appallingly mismanaged by a series of Ministers and senior bureaucrats, all of whom would proudly identify as Feminists."

Where did you get that rubbish from Antiseptic? What are these politician's names, and where is the proof they are 'feminists'?
Even if a few were female, and also happened to be feminists, what has that got to do with ensuring divorced parents provide financially for their children?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I don't believe any political party will accept the setting up of a taxpayer-funded 'fund' to pay for the children of warring, separated parents who could do so themselves if only they were reasonable to each other for the sake of the kids!

I am willing to pay taxes for the elderly, families and disabled on centrelink payments for whatever reason, but I would not be happy to 'fund' payments for families who refuse to accept financial responsibility for their children purely because they hate their previous spouse/partner and can't come to an equitable arrangement!

Pelican:"So you think other people should be 'forced' to pay"

Let me rephrase that for you: "So you think that some tax money could be used to replace the current flawed system that fails to achieve its stated goal of ensuring that children affected by poverty are properly supported?". Yes, I do. By making the contribution broad-based and specific-purpose like the medicare levy, it makes child-support a community project rather than a state-enforced extraction of an individual pound of flesh.

Tax is a fact of life. The ATO collects nearly $300 billion of it annually and $87 billion of it is handled by Centrelink in the form of "benefits" and "allowances" already. What's your particular objection to this particular proposal based on? I reckon with careful rearrangement of priorities it could be made almost revenue-neutral.

There is no SPP any more. Parents with child care obligations receive Newstart or whatever it's called now and have exemptions from the activity test until their children hit school. You're quite right that we already pay these parents - what I'm talking about is paying directly for the children, perhaps with some form of specific-purpose card, so that Mum or Dad can't use it to buy smokes or grog or dope or go gambling.

Suzeonline:"What are these politician's names, "

Oh dear...

Suzeonline:"who could do so themselves if only they were reasonable to each other for the sake of the kids!"

And if only the moon were made of cheese, then world hunger could be abolished!

Gosh! I think you're on to something here, Suzie!

Nice of you to add your voice to the "I don't want to pay another tax" lobby. I thought the "I'll pay for anyone at all except men" was a nice touch, but a bit wide of the mark, seeing that this proposal is about paying for children. I was sure you were all for the welfare of children, but I've been wrong before.

Peter Hume, the perception that I referred to above is obviously still prevalent.

I've got to say I'd have no qualms about septic's proposal. All I can think of is the ridiculous churn we have going in Australia. The reduction in hostility between warring parents is a side issue and icing on the cake.

It's a simple economic efficiency argument as far as I'm concerned.

'The ATO collects nearly $300 billion of it annually and $87 billion of it is handled by Centrelink in the form of "benefits" and "allowances" already.'

I cant believe nobody else thinks this is farcical. It's bloody scary. Think of all the money spent on administration on top of that that could be saved. No wonder unemployment is at low levels when we have so many people employed shuffling money around purely for the purpose of election bribes to different groups.

Tax us less and stop giving tax back to people who aren't genuinely poor. You could reduce childcare costs and high effective marginal tax rates for women in the process.