JW, it's because of irresponsible women that you that men like me object to the invasion of our privacy.

Take some responsibility for yourself and stop blaming men for the ills that obviously beset you. You might even try getting a job. Let's face it, you willingly took the sex.

For the record, I have 50% custody of my children and I don't want my ex to have any knowledge of my circumstances that she doesn't need to have, nor do I want to know anything about hers.

Poor antiseptic, you're obviously a bitter,twisted,unhappy man with a thin skin.

How do I know that? Well I made "assumptions" based on a few lines that you just wrote.

Just like you made "assumptions" based on a few lines someone else wrote.

My first sentence above is not my belief, (it was written to make my point). It's not my belief because how can I possibly directly abuse you like that, and be accurate, without knowing you and upon reading only one short post from you? Yet, that's what you've done with JW. You've offered personal abuse directed precisely towards him or her, yet I bet you don't know the person. And your abuse, directed squarely towards that named forum member, is there because he or she offered a strong, different opinion to your opinion. That person did not single you out, name you, and then directly abuse you. Yet you decided to do just that.

I think a good dose of growing up may help you cope with life better

I think any case where the CSA is involved, BOTH parents' personal and financial details should be fully available to the relevant authorities.The CSA needs to have the power, under law, to make relevant inquiries. I believe the full personal and financial details of a parent should not be given to the other parent, unless, it is relevant and necessary for the welfare of the children; such cases would be relatively rare indeed, but keep in mind some parents try to rort the system and the other partner, and even their children, by hiding income. Most parents are honourable and try to do the right thing by their children.

SallyG:"That person did not single you out, name you, and then directly abuse you. Yet you decided to do just that."

That person included me in a class of people she referred to as "irresponsible", "trying to hide" income or assets (which may be a criminal act) and several other epithets. I used her own epithets on her, yet you choose to condone her comment and condemn mine? Perhaps a good dose of getting over the man-hating night help both of you, hmm?

SallyG:"Most parents are honourable and try to do the right thing by their children."

Yes, they are. In fact, according to the CSA's own figures, the total amount uncollected each year is a trifling $50million, out of a total amount transferred of $2.6 billion. that trivial amount, which amounts to approximately $5 per annum per taxpayer, is used to attampt to justify massive intrusions into the lives of ordinary Australians. It was felt so important by the previous Government that they gave the Agency $143miilion in special purpose funding over 3 years (yes, you're right, that is nearly equal to the total amount outstanding over that period) to pursue it. Do you know how much that funding has caused to be recovered? Less than $5million in the first year, even after the Agency employed private investigators to spy on so-called "deadbeats". The current Minister, Dopey Joe Ludwig, has endorsed the use of such spies to recover that miniscule $5 per taxpayer per annum, much of which is an nvention of the Agency in any case, through inflated assessments and maladministration of the Acts.

At the same time, the current Government is prepared to give billions in corporate welfare to banks and other financial institutions.

The CSA does not exist to "benefit the children", it exists to punish non-custodial parents for the breakdown of their relationship.

Hey Sally ol' girl, you got it correct in that first sentence. He really does come across sounding like a bitter, thinned skinned twit. He thinks I was talking about him, must be his guilty conscience. If he'd never hidden any of his assets or money then my remarks wouldn't have applied to him, and I think he's probably too dense to realise that. My remarks were clearly applicable only to the guilty, and not the innocent. Ha ha, funny thing about a conscience, we all have one.

Don't worry about him Sal. He's thinned skinned in the extreme, and his response to me was basically because I've embarrassed him in some previous topics, so he gets aggressive and abusive whenever I post an opinion that he doesn't share. He's just a sad, abusive man with a thin skin. So I give it back to him in spades because he's very happy indeed to abuse others who don't share his opinions. A thin, thin, thin skin. Sad.

Sal, you're basically right about the CSA, but I'd go further. I think it's ok for both partners to know how much each other earns and what assets each other possesses, so big deal. This privacy crap is just that...crap. It's got nothing to do with privacy for the sake of privacy, but it's got a lot to do with privacy for the sake of deception. Some twits are just not prepared to pay more than a minimum towards their children, and that's their real concern, avoiding their full responsibility. These twits would prefer to self regulate their contributions towards their children, and of course we all know the consequences of that don't we.

It comes back to the welfare of the children and how much goes towards their benefit. A little bit of "parental" scrutiny/inside knowledge of the other partner can often benefit the children more than government scrutiny. Shame on the bastards, male and female, who are tight with their money towards their children.

JW:"He thinks I was talking about him"

I have no idea what you think you were talking about, but you were talking about me. I made a decision some 3 years ago, after the CSA completely ballsed up their assessment and then refused to revisit their error, despite acknowledging it contained "mathematical errors", to have nothing to do with the Agency. As a result, I have a considerable "debt" that is entirely fictitious. My ex-wife even tried to get the Agency to simply cancel it and was told that she would end up with a debt to Centrelink of approximately the same amount if they did so.

I realise that doesn't fit in with your "all men are bastards" ideology, but sometimes life is not as simple as the simple would like it to be.

JW:"This privacy crap is just that...crap. It's got nothing to do with privacy for the sake of privacy, but it's got a lot to do with privacy for the sake of deception."

All right, let's assume your silly little thesis is correct: where do you draw the line? What aspects of your life do you regard as being private? What aspects of your life do you regard as being public knowledge? What is the basis for your choices?