CSA doesn't really affect me, but I wouldn't be fussed about paying child support via my taxes.

Not sure how this system would work anti/bogan? Do you mean no CSA, but if a father or mother does a runner, or won't pay, means tested welfare goes to the custodial parent who has to prove how many days custody?

How do you prove how many days your kids are there? What if one parent says 7 and so does the other?

It seems to me the money saved in administrative costs would be lost again by the people making their own arrangements deciding they don't want to be a mug and putting their hands out.

How do you stop the couples who make their own arrangements from switching to the free money. Why would they be mugs and look after their children while others get a free government handout.

Another idea is de-facto couples like myself could pretend to split up so as to get the taxpayer funded CSA. What's to stop that happening?

This is just one part of a much deeper malaise.
Why don't all you whingers do the hard yards like the intact families who pay all the taxes to support broken families.
What a joke.
Families who work hard to stay together have to shoulder the financial burden of those who don't.
A big part of the problem is the welfare state.
It's too easy to split up, knowing everybody else in society will pick up the tab for the problems you've created yourselves.
Men can move from woman to woman, and women can move from man to man, creating more and more "dependents".
Except that they are the dependents!
Reliant on support from the rest of society.
And not sufficient support in order to survive,
but sufficient support in order to pay for cars, DVD's, McDonald's, mobile phones, etc.
Now let us wait for the shouts of the right to freedom and independence to make their own choices from those who demand support from (ie are dependent upon) the rest of society.

From the very first post this topic was "genderised". The inaccurate assumption was that the CSA is interested only in getting money from fathers.

The truth is the CSA is interested in getting money from non-custodial "parents" - - - male and female.

Logical and reasoned debate is impossible with people who "genderise" such issues. They are often bitter, hurt and mixed up - - -and clear thinking logic goes out the door, as evidenced by several posts here. Usually it's just best to leave such people to their own devices, and no amount of posting and reasoning will ever change or help them. It's a sad reality of life.

benq, are you in a position to judge if CSA show's gender bias in their dealings with parents?

My own experience as a father having done both shared care and primary care leaves me with the strong impression that gender bias is a significant factor in the way staff treat their work.

R0bert

Bitterness and hurt doesn't allow for clear, reasoned thinking.

The enemy is not women, the enemy is not men, the enemy is not the CSA, the enemy is not the government, the enemy is not legislation, the enemy is not etc etc etc etc etc.

There is NO enemy.

Being combative usually results in hurt, disappointment, disillusionment and often life long grudges. It's no way to live a happy and productive life.

It's peoples' "OWN" choice when they choose not to move on, and to play a blame game.