10 years ago I had a 1 night trist with a blonde woman in Nth QLD.

I have paid this extortionist 18% of my gross wage ever since, my relationships and children hence have suffered because of this incubator of CSA. I have never laid eyes on my alleged child with this witch and have no desire to.

She is the moll of an outlaw motorcycle gang member. Would make things a tad hard.

For every dollar CSA gains from thedead beat dads it costs them $5.

Get rid of this crap all together and for christ sake remove the punitive feminists who make the non custodial parents life a fing nightmare.

Interesting to note that our Labour Govt refuse to meet with any of the MENS GROUPS and are reviewing the changes no doubt to make sure the horrible dirty blokes will be kicked in the guts and that no custodial parent will not be disadvantaged.

I can see the the big lefty love in now castrating whats left of thier blokes before moving on to reek revenge on the conservative right. My EX of 10 years ago is privy to my personal taxation information and more, the whole system is geared for custodial parent (read Female) men are discriminated against. We are lower than smoking nazi whale eating abortionists and its about time we regained our testicles.

Lady who started this, I wish your kids the best, just dont take it out on us of the 2 meat and Veg variety

Under the CS scheme, separated fathers can have effective marginal tax rates of up to 74% and much higher if a corrupt CSA official decides to garnish from their income or their bank account, something that is always done in secrecy so that the first the man knows is that he has no money, often leaving him in a position of abject poverty, unable to afford accommodation suitable for children on the rare occasions when the "single-mother" deigns to allow them "contact" with their child.

I'm ery tired, of hearing yet another "poor me, I'm a victim" whinge from a segment of society that has been as mollycoddled by the law as it is possible to be. I've been on the other side of those laws and seen the discrimination against men first-hand. I've watched as free legal services were provided to my ex in her pursuit of her goal to maximise her custody of the children in order to maximise her CS take from me, whilst I had to pay many thousands of dollars in legal fees to get any kind of hearing at all (of course, I work and she chose to become a full-time student when we split up). I've seen the farce that is the DV court, where the women are ushered under heavy (female of course) police guard into a "sanctuary room" for tea and bikkies, past all the "violent" men who are sitting in the corridor waiting their turn to have lies told about them, all in the interest of having a DVO that can be used to increase the "single-mother's" custody of the children and thereby increase her take from the father.

Frankly, my dear, I reckon it's about time that "single-mothers" woke up to the fact that they have a responsibility to their children's financial well-being, just as the father does and got off their bums to do something about making some money.

evolution, there is nothing even remotely "fair" about the system.
It penalises those willing to make an effort and panders to those who are willing to manipulate the system. Corrupt to the core.

It's adverserial nature means that if you want to challenge the basis that an assessment was made on you are reopening old wounds and if your ex is a player risking having your kids dragged into the dispute.

The ability to plan normally is destroyed by the impact of decisions an ex may make - if they find an excuse to reduce their work hours you have to pay more (or receive less if a recipient).

The current system totally fails to create any expectation that both parents have a responsibility to provide for their children, the one who has to provide is the one who gets the most income regardless of the effort that goes into gaining that income.

The current system has no checks and balances in it regarding how child support is used, extra money paid does not have any assurance that the money is used for the childrens wellbeing.

It's a punative system designed to reduce the welfare burden created by people who wanted to find a way to "make fathers pay" regardless of the harm done to children or their parents.

A presumption of equal shared parenting and equal shared financial responsibility for children would be a much better basis for minimising the harm done after relationship breakdowns.

R0bert

The real issue here is about the kids and the current system is flawed as it values the up-bring of a child depending on their social status rather than their age.

I have said it before and I will always say it, 'the cost of raising a child MUST be calculated by the age of that child, not based on the family situation they came from as that situation no longer exists.

Payment calculated as a percentage of ones wage leaves the system open to corruption, evidence of which is currently widespead.

As for the child resulting from the 'one night stand', tough titties to you. If you are stupid enough to have unprotected sex with a total stranger, given the millions of dollars we tax payers spend on 'safe sex education' then tough luck. Why should I pay for your stupidity, I have already spent enough on educating your type yet you now want to sherk your responsabillity. It is your type who have created this debarcle in the first case. People who have the child but don't want to take the financial responsabillity for caring for them.

This is the very reason why compulsory child care exists! Because you don't want to pay. ANYTHING

Robert Hi! I have to agree with REHCTUB. It takes two to tango, and because your a man, it doesn't mean you can just dump a human life onto the other party and the seeder gets off Scott free, that's what is not fair. My wife receives child support because the first guy she meet before me made her pregnant and done the runner when he found out. My stepdaughter is 17 years old now, and he has been paying for his 5 minuet fling ever since she was 6 mouths old. He was also one of these blokes that thinks that girls are just pieces of meat, and the payments that he has to make soon snapped him out of that low level thinking.

By the way, she loves spending his money. Child support is a good deterrent and yes every case is different, but this bed hopping has to stop for the child's sake. But what does money fix when you know your real dad is out there somewhere and it shows in her face when she hears his name. Its really painful for her and she has said in the past, why didn't my father love me. I think she was 9 that the time.

evolution "and because your a man, it doesn't mean you can just dump a human life onto the other party and the seeder gets off Scott free"

If you read what I posted I suggested that the decisions a person makes should be factored into the equation. So the person who chooses to become a parent and then tries to reneg on their responsibilities does not get to escape scot free (unless we decide the whole thing causes to much trouble - a viewpoint I lean towards).

The parent who makes decisions which effectively isolate the other parent from the childrens lives should not expect to be able to force the other parent to pay for the kids. At the moment a custodial parent who moves away resulting in the other parent not getting to see the kids can expect to receive extra money from the payer - hardly fair.

Both parents need to be held responsible for their decisions and accept that their life choices will be limited by those responsibilities.

One of my points is that I think any gains created by child support are far outweighed by the conflict created by a system that keeps two people who are not otherwise together tied together financially. They stay bitter at each other because their choices impact on each other. Kids get dragged into the conflict either by hearing bad talk about the other parent or by the withholding of access. Kids have their relationship with one or both parents damaged. We all suffer as a result. I don't have easy answers to that but far to often the debate about making people pay ignores what we all pay as a result of a system which contributes to kids lives being damaged.

We need to treat the positive involvement of both parents in childrens lives as more important than the earning capacity of one parent.

R0bert