Part 2
CSA and the formula show no real regard for the needs of working non-resident parents to maintain a sane life, they show no regard for the circumstances that lead to the residency arrangements. They ignore the actual financial and or personal situations of either parent (except by some very narrow criteria), instead focussing on taxable income and level of residency as the sole criteria for determining the money transferred.

Real families don't make decisions on that basis, once the actual needs are met then optional expenditure becomes part of a balance between a whole bunch of priorities.

Again to quote the item from the act referred to by Dr Scutt
"unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had"

I'm certainly feeling abused by what's being done to me but I don't appear to have the benefit of that being recognised as abuse (especially by those wanting ever broader definitions of violence and abuse).

For the record I don't smoke, have never been drunk, no illicit drug habits, no gambling or any of those items. I do have a sizable mortgate, an oldish car that will cost more and more to keep going as it gets even older, a house in need of some repairs that will cost money not just labour. I'm in a relationship that benefits from time to time from the purchase of a bunch of flowers, a nice dinner out etc, not just cheap nights in.

R0bert

Paul1405,
Non military National Service would be a character building exercise foremost. Responsibility & consideration to fellow man. It could be started off with unemployed & once the benefits become obvious it could be made compulsory for people 19-21. It would be a transition into adulthood with a sense of belonging rather than the present, way too common directionless what do I do now situation. Cost wise it would end up the same as paying unemployment benefit plus it would create employment for those charged with running the show & associated supply/infrastructure would snowball.

Mark1959,
I suppose you meant fascist nevertheless I for one see such a service as an effective & perfectly moral way for young people to get direction by being with others & sharing views & experiences in an environment that doesn't promote the me, me mentality. It also would show young people that they don't have to work for the State against their will but rather learn, accept & appreciate that the State or rather other people don't owe them a living. Don't forget that it is because of so many me, me in our society that cause so many others to lose employment or can't find any from the start. The me, me's who fleece our social security funds & exploit the Public Service to such an extent that it is at collapse stage now.
There's absolutely nothing fascist about young people being exposed to how to effectively pull their own weight in return for a bloody good place to live in rather than sending it broke. I'm convinced that the party which proposes such a service would get the support of the majority of the voters. After all, most voters are pretty decent people.

Rhroshty

writes,

"I often note that some men, still try to exercise control after the separation or divorce. They often try to exercise that control by endlessly complaining about the costs they need to carry as child support."

Basically she regards men (fathers) as being of little more value than sperm donors and a source of income.

So is not a father still a parent after divorce or separation?

Or have they become redundant as human beings and are of little more value than what they contribute financially?

When it comes to pointing the finger, femininst hav no problems pointing out male violence, yet fail to recognise that often much more subtle covert behaviours of their own gender.

Plus they tend to offer 'excuses' for such behaviour that when perpetrated by a male gets classified as violence, but is not violence when the exact same behaviour is perpetrated by a female.

James, I'm not sure about Rhostys gender and regardless of that there are plenty of men supporting the hit the non-resident parents hard approach and plenty of women who see the injustice in it.

I had the impression that Rhostys views have been badly tainted by his or her own family situation (or the version of the situation that was imparted to Rhosty).

It is a double sided issue, plenty of people who are left holding all the financial responsibility for their family while the other takes no responsibility and I don't think child residency is any kind of predictor of which way that will go.

What's clear from all this is the danger in subjective interpretations of abuse, I'm in my view clearly being unreasonably deprived of the financial autonomy I had when my son was in my care yet for some it appears that I'm asking for it by virtue of currently being the non-resident parent. Any hardship I might endure I just deserve in their view.

R0bert

Recently in the newspapers there was another study that showed that women were worse off than men following divorce.

Now that is a no brainer, especially if she doesn't hook up with another walking wallet that earns more than the previous one did.

Reading the sensational newspaper headlines, one had to get to the body of the study that showed men also lost out as well.

But basically it boils down to the fact, that women can divorce men, but men can never divorce their wives, because she generally gets a lion share of the assests, control of the kids plus child support.

As the recent case in the news show that women can overtly break the law and never ever have to face the consequences of their actions.

Rhroshty wrote;

"I often note that some men, still try to exercise control after the separation or divorce."

I often wonder who really is the controller when one gender accuses the another of being a controller.

there is an offensive tactic used where one accuses another person of behaving or doing things, but the accuser is actually the person who is doing the things that they accuse others of.