SallyG:"I bet Graham doesn't remember the EXACT wording of the deleted post."

I refer you to GrahamY's words:"Forrest Gump, I removed the quote. It did exist."

Thanks for the opportunity of clearing that up for you.

SallyG:"I believe in free speech, and won't contact a moderator or forum owner"

If only because you know that he will confirm my statements. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make that clarification, I'm sure everyone appreciates it.

Sally, I'm not privy to the back end workings of OLO but my guess is that a deleted post would be kept somewhere in case it became the subject of a legal dispute. The exact wording of a post, the details of who posted it and how long it was visible on the site could be significant issues in a variety of legal scenario's.

I'd rather not buy into the dispute between you and Antiseptic but I don't see the evidence supporting Antiseptic having lied. I'd expect Graham to have given a different response if he did not know that the quote was correct but that's an assumption, I don't know for sure.

I've made my point elsewhere that I'd rather Antiseptic and those who don't enjoy conflict with him try different approaches. To try giving the other the benefit of the doubt a bit more often and see what that changes. To focus on the topic rather than the personalities (with me posting an off topic post yet again).

The original topic was about privacy and CSA, do you have any ideas on how some verification of detail can achieved without passing on financial details to ex's?

R0bert

R0bert:"do you have any ideas on how some verification of detail can achieved without passing on financial details to ex's?"

The detail will be in the tax return. The law now requires all parties to a CS matter to lodge tax returns in a timely manner, thereby largely eliminating the need for the ex to know details other than gross personal taxable income. If a company is used to hide personal income, rather than as a vehicle to allow income to be earned, that's a matter for the tax commissioner, not the CSA. I'm sure he is ever vigilant for that sort of thing.

As it stands, the ex is able to use the CSA as a weapon for the mere cost of a phone call and the filling out of a couple of forms. I see no reason for my ex to know anything at all of my affairs, for all that things are relatively peaceful now.

Antiseptic, "I see no reason for my ex to know anything at all of my affairs, for all that things are relatively peaceful now."

Agreed but I also recognise that some people do lie to the tax department and CSA. I assume that passing on the details to an ex is designed to give the ex opportunity to protest - claiming an income of low $20ks and living in a luxury waterfront apartment etc. The assumption is that the tax department will miss stuff that an interested party might know.

In theory people could reverse the formula to work out the taxable income but many would lack the maths skills to do that reliably. They could also get estimates on the value of a property by persuing it elsewhere.

I don't like the system in the first place nor do I like the assumptions about responsibility it makes but if we have the system and responsibility is based on earnings then how can that be made to work while respecting peoples privacy and minimising the causes of conflict between the parties?

Robert

All people do not declare their full income in tax returns. For someone wishing to hide income, a tax return is their best weapon against a former spouse or partner, for obvious reasons. Other people often know that the person is really earning much more. If a so called evader has nothing to hide, then let him/her reveal full details of tax return declared earnings to partners, where child support issues are relevant. Privacy? What rubbish! You sure are a secretive bunch aren't you. Hmmm.

If a former partner, or anybody else for that matter, knows or suspects someone is hiding income from the authorities regarding child support issues, then they have the legal responsibility to bring such matters to notice. It doesn't matter whether it's the custodial, joint custodial or non custodial parent.

The evaders and whingers will complain, but who cares? Only they care. Care about themselves that is, and their unresolved squabbles with their ex's. Their children come second.

I am happy to have cleared that up for you Robert and antiseptic/austin powerless.

samsung, no need to clear up any confusion. Antiseptic and I are both well aware that you are focussed on point scoring and not the least interested in honest discussion of the issues.

For those who are interested honest people also care about their privacy at times, they don't necessarily consider that providing their financial details to a third party is of any benefit to their children, more likely the potential for increased conflict with an ex resulting from such disclosure will be detrimental to their children rather than helpful.

R0bert