Vanilla, I've been through some tough times with some of this stuff but when I've seen what others have copped I've not really been done over - rather looked into the abys.

Probably a combination of mindset, good luck and the fact that my ex is not vendictive just very self centered. I got close enough to see how bad it could be but so far have managed to limit the damage to stuff I can live with. I've got quite a few years to go yet before I'm out of the woods (a change of my sons residency could still send me under financially) but I deal with that by advocating for change.

I think that I and some of the others have been around long enough that if we were going to learn from each other it would have already happened. Whilst we share some concerns we have reached different conclusions.

R0bert

Evolution
Firstly I must confess that I am fortunate enough to have two children and a wife of 23 years so I don't go through the anguish that many do. Mind you, we have had our share of moments but some how we have avoided the obvious stress caused by marriage bust ups.
Furthermore, can I just say that I hold the up most respect for all non-custodial parents who pay their share of maintenance payments which brings me to my point.

You pointed out that CS is calculated at 13.5%. This is exactly where I disagree with the system.

You see the system calculates 13.5% regardless of the age of the child being supported or the amount of income earned by the payee. For instance, a child that is 3 is valued the same as a child who is 14 yet, due to income variations the 3 year old may be paid more than the 14 year old. Hardly seems fair to me.

I have said it before and I still say it, child support should be calculated by the age of the child involved regardless of their social status or the income of the other parent.

The system it's self allows corruption and that is evident.

If this aspect were to be addressed it would remove the issue of income hiding and would allow the other partner to move-on knowing that their child has the same support as all others.

It realy is quite simple to me.

The most basic thing re the CSScheme, now lost in 20 years of history is that it was introduced as a Scheme only, and has FULL redundency under the FLAct [called Child Maintenance]

So if Kevin 07 decided tomorrow to repeal the CSAAct [may as well keep the Collection Act] then the linkpin of s 66E simply says back to good old Child Maintenance [which did in fact work very well]

I have a case coming up soon based on CSA privacy invasion and High Court's "invite" in the Lemeah Meat case that may well blow CSA out of the water and Oz can revert to a civilised nation as it was pre 1989

OH yeah, to get back to the OP question, for the full bottle on CSA formulas just got http://www.csacalc.com where at present I am doing these reports for FREE

This is the site that severely embarrassed Howard as I had my calculator up and going a week after the details of the new formula were announced back in May 2005

but Howard was wanting to string it all out for 3 years as an election goodie so he allocated $600 million and 3 years to his Y2K Freaks to do the same job - and you will see as of last week it finally appeared at the CSA site, but still does not work and has more disclaimers than you throw a stick at

I am thinking of a automatic set rate, calculated on the cost of the child's needs until the age of 18. The overall figure would make people think twice about the decisions they make in life.

But in reality, as times get harder, (money wise) and it will, people like me, may have to put up with no child support at all. The good father's must be feeling the pinch, and we cant have some women or men black-mailing on the grounds of using children as a leaver and this does happen.

Thinking on the big picture, it maybe better to deal with the hand that we are all dealt with and just get on with it.

The child support system seems to be making more problem's than it's worth, and to be honest, I don't need his money. So to be fair to all, just have the system banned! I can only think this will take the pressure off an already struggling way of life.

Then no-one can complain. Its still a rock and a hard place and we can do well without the drain on the already over-loaded government system.

Just a thought.

Now you're thinking, Evolution. On the downside, there would be nearly 4000 unemployables released to the real world when their CSA sheltered-workshop closed down, but even paying them to exert their talents to the full by sitting on the dole would be a bargain, especially as it would mean that the thousands of men who are sitting on the dole because of the CSA would be able to return to work.
Not to mention that the millions of dollars it costs to have the CSA exist would be freed to do actual work, instead of shoring up the lifestyles of the previously-mentioned incompetent and corrupt unemployables.
Good move all round, in other words.