The only thing possibly worse than the CSA is a Loan Shark where you pay compounding interest, subsequently it becomes a debt you can never pay no matter how hard you work.

I understand that there are some business leases that are structured in a way where the lessee works hard to build the business, and the harder they work the higher the expense of the lease becomes. subsquently caught in an never ending spiral of expenses bleeding you dry.

It like a business rent being based on the turnover.

Splitting up causes hardship for both parents. Both see the children, property and cash as 'theirs' and can't help hurting when that's divided--and supporting two separate households is expensive.

Children take a lot of money and time to care for. For them, splitting up can mean they lose their family home, change from more expensive schools to cheaper schools, move from more expensive suburbs into cheaper suburbs, eat and dress more cheaply, have less holidays,etc. Despite this being a very common outcome for the children many men turn a blind eye and still complain they pay too much money.

Prior to the CSA, child support was decided in court. Any change of income of either the custodial or non-custodial parent didn’t effect the original judgement until taken back to court. If either parent was in financial distress they couldn't afford the lawyer's fees to fight for the relief they needed. It also took time and stress in that adversarial environment.

The CSA does a yearly reassessment of income of both parties, applies a standard formula to work out the amount payable. If either party’s income changes in the meantime they can ask for a reassessment--they don't have to wait for the next yearly assessment. This was devised to avoid either side paying more than they could afford or less than they should as was happening in the previous system.

The custody of the child is usually given to the primary caregiver--not to the 'woman'. The courts are very strict on this. This isn't always a situation the noncustodial parent doesn't agree to, I have met many men who wouldn't dream of going for custody, believing their children are better off with their partner, I have met other men who have told me they left because they didn’t feel cut out for parenting—they left their children.

Not all non-custodial parents are financially ripped off--but can rip off their partners by minimising their income--by running their own businesses and 'hiding' income--this is extremely common--sometimes also putting assets in their new partner’s name

If the non-custodial parent is on a pension or benefits they pay $6 per child per fortnight and if on a low income pay this or not much more. This is not support of their children—it is a joke. Some men reduce their income to this quite cynically to avoid CSA payments (not always because of emotional breakdown).

The income for the non-custodial parent can be $13,983 if they have no dependent children increasing to $23,349 if they do, before having to pay anything above the $6. There is a further increase in child support free income if there is shared care adjusted to reflect the amount of time the child/ren spend in their care. Then they have to pay only 18% of their income (after this minimum is subtracted from the overall amount) for one child increasing to 27% for two and 32% for three. At this level the system is ridiculously pro the noncustodial parent over both the custodial and the children.

Non-custodial parents can claim part of the custodial parents pension for the two days they have the children per fortnight, even though it's difficult for the custodial parent to take advantage of this for childminding while working and custodian parents don't have to pay school expenses on weekends or medical expenses including dental and optical. They may spend more money on going out and having fun with the child/ren which can become a real problem with the 'fun' Dad vs. the 'drudge' mother if she can't afford it--a common scenario.

Parenting Payment is $13,314.60 (only available till the youngest child turns 6) with $3661.84 per year for each child under age 13. Newstart (unemployment benefits) is $10,943.40 peryear--the amount the custodial parent is reduced to after the youngest child turns 6 years old if they have no job. With a three bedroom house in a cheap (and rough) suburb being $11,960 this is not enough to survive and yet when the custodian works they lose 50c in the dollar after earning $62 per fortnight and 60c after $250. This is the stuff of nightmares.

"For them, splitting up can mean they lose their family home, change from more expensive schools to cheaper schools,..etc.., have less holidays,etc."

In most settlements there is a financial consideration given to the custodial parent “to aid is setting up the home for the children” No such allowance is given to the non-custodial parent, even though they are expected to do so. This is discrimination (and your point is invalid.

Please also consider the welfare and well being of the spouse and children of the non-custodial parent’s next relationship – they suffer dreadfully at the hands of the ‘first’ family. They are forced to live with financial disadvantage, and there is no assistance given to THEM to have a nice school…nor can they EVER take holidays. Sorry, but you are sounding awfully ‘snobby’ here.

".....many men turn a blind eye and still complain they pay too much money."

In a land where discrimination is viewed as an illegal act, how dare we NOT complain and demand the SAME and EQUAL treatment of BOTH parents? If one parent is working and paying child support, then the other parent should be required to do this as well. Since when is ONE parent more 'entitled' than the other.

Currently the amount of child support payments are calculated on PRE tax earnings, but not removed until POST tax earnings...of course they are paying too much. EG. Gross Wage $1000. (one child), CSA amount $180, Tax $300, Nett Wage $700, (LESS CSA) $520 which actually represents 52% of his wage.

The custodial parent receives this $180 per week, plus parenting payments, discounted child-care, discounted meds, rent assistance, ‘almost free’ travel. If you aren’t getting enough money, find work…the same as the “subsequent spouses” are forced to do.

"The custody of the child is usually given to the primary caregiver--not to the 'woman'. "

Kindly check the Family Courts - in excess of 85% of custody is awarded to the mother. This includes (and has been documented) situations where the mother is a drug addict, and a danger to her children.

part 2 to follow

We all know how these things work. The Govt. will wait till the death toll can't be ignored, form a sub commitee, and shelve it problem til after the next election. Outa sight, outa mind.
Costello's crowing about the budget surplus, most of which was stripped from programmes like this.

What amazes me consistently in this is are the men, and some women, who plunge into new relationships, breeding further children, knowing full well that they cannot afford the reasonable upkeep of the new family and the old one.

We will have true liberation when we have convinced men that they do not need a brood of their DNA running around them to affirm who they are.

I mean, the sheer and utter stupidity and lack of foresight - they know what they will be up for, they know how much a 'new family' will cost, but they decide to breed anyway, as if their particular genetic traits are vital to the survival of the fittest (from my experience they come from the shallow end of the gene pool anyway).

I agree that the present system seems unfair, but how many of these guys who claim that they cannot support their new family have only themselves to blame?

They have spread their DNA with their first wife - what sort of ego drives them to continue?

I am especially peeved with all those guys who somehow convince women who are 20 years their junior that a family is feasible - what the hell are these two parents 'thinking'? If the guy is 45 and the woman is 25 (it happens..), then the father will be 70 when the child is 25. This happens, and just having children with this sort of age different between parents, and the differing attitudes towards child rearing, means that much of the time it won't work.

Hey guys - get real - if it didn't work the first time, it probably won't work the second.