R0bert, you make a good point about parents who dont make a reasonable contribution to the tasks of raising children prior to seperation, then wanting equal access after seperation. I dont want to knock the thousands of fathers who do a great job - I come from a single parent family (dad) so know just how good fathers as carers can be. Problem is for me that has set me up with high expectations of men! In my situation it was because my mother passed away quite young and to this day (20 years on) dad hasnt remarried. But he was always an involved father from day dot, and I think this set him up well to cope when the unexpected happened. Also helped that his parents years ago taught him the basics of how to cook,clean and look after himself (quite progressive for that age, as he was a war baby).

As for income-set contribution percentages, well the idea is to put the financial burden on the parent that is more equipped to carry it. I had a quick go at the calculator on the CSA website, and I'd get about $10/week from my husband based on our respective incomes, if I had full care (highly likely). Why, because I earn significantly more than him. Of course, that means that I would then carry the burden of both physically raising and financially providing for our children, which is kind of unfair in itself. But then, that's what happens now!

Hi all!
I have three children, two are from my current relationship and my eldest, from the previous. Now i have been on both sides. I never thought the minimum i paid of $21 a month (because of low wage) was enough and tried to buy as much as i could, clothes and shoes, uniforms etc. and did not ask for it to be 'credited'. I was not well and in a situation, my son has been back with me since 2001. Now i am the one receiveing the payments, voluntary and not often paid. Now my son is seeing his dad again, the child support stopped. I know his father feels that as he is paying for things like bus fare that he does not feel he should. I know this because in order to have something considered for 'credit' you have to have paid what you owe. it happened, and now i am waiting for child support to contact me and ask if i approve. I don't want to agree because as i felt, it's your child you pay what you pay off your own volition, not forced, just paid for.
But at the same time, i do not have to pay for two days of bus fare to school and lunch for one day, so you can see how i will agree as it helped directly my purse, But any stuff like the ipods are a no. Doesn't matter if items come here, they are items he bought off his own back, what's next credit for birthday presents!
The issue of how much: Right now it has changed from the minimum to a bigger chunk,increase in income, so from $25 to $170. Now consider my partner has paid the difference in those amounts, he believes that as he took on the role willingly then he should pay as if he were his son. He also believes the dad should pay something, uniforms, books, clothes. A set amount is a perfect way because every child is catered for, equally.

Yes go-mum I appreciate your comments.
I feel that all children should be supported by way of free food at school (three meals a day), free uniforms and free travel to and from school. This is regardless of whether you earn a small wage or a large wage. After all, why should children from lower income families be supported and those from higher incomes miss out. In my own case we received child endownment payments for my daughter up until she turned two then centerlink said we earned too much so the cut out the payments. You see the problem is that most high income earners, apart from the packers of the world, pay more tax, receive little or no benifits and when they retire don't quailfy for a pension. So, in the case of a parent that is a high earner and paying 30% of their gross wage to child support finds themselves without enough to start another family even if the other partner finds a rich partner. I feel a set amount should be [paid per child with all monies paid into a state run fund then the carer should have a atm card that can only be spent on child related expenses as oppossed to achohole and drugs as is the case so often. And of cause it's like anything else where the bad eggs, usually the minority, create these issues that rest of us are left to deal with.
rehctub

rectub, the thing with our welfare system is that is meant to be a safety net, ie to catch those on very low incomes that do not have the means (for whatever reasons) to support themselves. Higher income earners have a reasonable ability to support themselves. The reason that they miss out on the pension when they retire is that they have accumulated sufficient assets through their own endeavours (the upper limit beyond which the pension cuts out entirely is now $820,000, which is pretty generous) to not require further assistance. They are still entitled to a number of tax concessions (such as the senior Australians tax offset, and zero tax on super proceeds), that leave them a lot better off than when they were working. If we did as you propose and provided welfare to all no matter what their status, then our individual tax burdens would be very much greater than what they currently are. And we are a country that is very sensitive about high taxation.

country girl imagine a system that rewards those who contributes with ideas like: the more tax you pay throughout your life means you retire on a high pension. Then the less you pay, for whatever reason means you retire on a minimal pension. This would help to ensure high income earners, many of them self employed, paid the taxes they where supposed to. After all, why should those of us who contribute more end up with less.The gun buy back was a classic example. 2% levey if I recall on medicare. This meant that the more you erned the more you paid towards the buy back, even if you where like me and possessed no illegal firearms. We are now seeing the result of welfare dependent faimilies established back in the 80's. The parents didn't work then, niether did thier kids and now their kids kids are being paid to have kids even though the children miss out in many cases because the money gets wasted.

As for the $820K cap, imagine if you as an investor purchased an investment property in inner Brisbane back in 1990. You paid around the mid $300K's and it's now worth $1M + why then should you be punnished by not receiving the benifits you were promised.
You see income tax fraud and the black eccomomy all exist as a result of the system taking more and more away from the hard worker who contribute the most yet receives the least and, until some serious changes are made to the system it is the kids who have nothing to do with it who miss out the most.

So why are two children of the same age given different values when it comes to child support simply because they are from different back grounds. The system sucks and the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. rehctub

I was a single (male) parent once with up to 5 children in my care. A judge held that the mother (in 1992) having only an income (then) of $912.00 a WEEK could not afford to pay any child support. (Tell that to non-custodian fathers!) The mother then took me to Court to pay $50.00 a week child support for the daughter I had already been caring for since 1986! The idiot of a judge even went as far as to tell me I better have an excuse why I should not pay the $50.00 a week child support. In the end he accepted that as I had all along the child, since she was 1-year-old, and caring for her full time, then I should not have to pay child support to the non-custodian mother for this child!
Finally, in 1999 a judge ordered the mother to pay $20.00 a week. She paid about $300.00 in total and then stopped. The Child Support Agency pestering me to drop the claims against her, making clear that unless the debt was above $5,000.00 they could do nothing. Even after it went past $5,000.00 they again requested me to drop it but I didn’t. Finally, the mother was required to pay $5.00 a week from the arrears, well after my daughter became an adult! And, the child support Agency making known they haven’t got any records what monies they receive actually is being paid out to me as they do not keep records as to monies that are drawn. So, the Child Support Agency (considering the millions of children involved) seems to rip of parents by not actually paying the parents all monies received and not having any records as to what is actually paid out and to whom.

Previously, in 1985 my-former-(first)-wife had taken me to Court for child support. During cross examination I questioned my (then) wife if in fact there had been an order for one of the children and this was $10.00 a week and in fact I had been paying her about $75.00 a week on average.
Continued