"There has to be a better way..."

There is. All compulsion on *anyone* to pay someone else to bring up their own child should be abolished. There should be no payment without consent.

Men have no more a "responsibility" pay the state or the mother for children they have biologically caused, than a woman has to submit to being forced to satisfy a man's sexual interest that the woman has biologically caused. It is an absurd argument; a denial of ethics; a gross biological determinism.

In an earlier thread these issues were exhaustively thrashed out and the advocates of compulsory child support were not able to come up with a single reason or ethical basis for the supposed "responsibility" on men to submit to being forcibly exploited as a money object, with no rights (all rights men have to have contact with their children in family law are as a matter of benefit to the child, not the father).

It makes me angry to hear people say the problem should be thrown onto the taxpayer. Why should people be forced to pay for other people's decisions whether to have or look after children?!

It’s a non-problem. The reason we have the CSA is not because there was a generalised problem with supporting children. It is because the government foolishly undertook to pay a pension to people, mostly women, for no other reason than that they had had a child without providing for its support; and surprise surprise, government could not manage the endless demand it had created for free incomes! So they created the anti-social, utterly destructive CSA.

The CSA is unjust to its core because no-one has established that
a) those who want money to look after their own children should not raise the money themselves voluntarily by providing services to those willing to pay for them; or
b) obtain the consent of the father by offering reasonable terms to get his consent

Yes, justice requires that the CSA *and* the sole parents pension should be abolished
*and replaced with nothing*

Family breakdown and single parenting are effectively incentivised by a generous welfare system.
Why not then incentivise families staying together by offering tax advantages?
How about a 1% reduction in the marginal tax rate for each accumulating year of staying together with children?
This would be a one-off opportunity and forfeited upon separation.

If the rate of child support was reduced, we could be more certain that parents wanted their kids for the right reasons.

Yes, justice requires that the CSA *and* the sole parents pension should be abolished
*and replaced with nothing*

--

yes Peter, the Child Support SCHEME was just that and those on the committee in 1988 [incl Diana Bryant] agreed it was simply to be a trial and FOR THAT REASON the Family Law Act [s 66 A to Z in Part VII] was left fully intact and ready to be ACTIVATED [as child maintenance, which by the way worked fine] at any time CSScheme was DEactivated. There but needs ONE single legislative task ie "repeal CSAAct and CSRCAct" and we return to sanity of 1987. S 66G then swings into action and the country is freed to develop again, without those 400,000 fathers [by CSA OWN figures] whose only option was to be "self unemployed".

And there is no direct link to Social Security via CSActs, as testing applies to ALL payments eg Child Maintenance as well as Spouse Maintenance under Part VIII. So there is total integrity in the overall system, were it not for lawyers and feminists who make up the CSA "work" force and want to go ON printing money for themselves.

And the "sole parents pension" [and all names after that eg Parenting Payment] WAS abolished back in 2006 or so and replaced with "Enhanced Jobsearch" in the Costello "welfare to work" incentive.

As I say the whole long story of the FACTS about the CSScheme are in my book, which is why Howard had his Cash for Comment Freaks at familylawguide.com [or whatever] PIRATE it as an EBook

Peter Hume:"Men have no more a "responsibility" pay the state or the mother for children they have biologically caused, than a woman has to submit to being forced to satisfy a man's sexual interest that the woman has biologically caused"

While I agree with the principle of personal responsibility, the fact remains that children exist because the two adults acted out of their own interests at the time. That is, they are a foreseeable consequence of the adults' actions and they are unable to support themselves.

That is why my proposal is for a scheme that makes every adult (every potential parent) an equal compulsory share in the support cost of those children, with the money raised going directly to the benefit of the children. Perhaps such items as food, clothing, school supplies, etc could be "quarantined" via special-purpose accounts held in the name of the children at various participating outlets.

There is no evidence that children of high-income parents who separate suffer financially, it is all borne by children of low-income parents and it is mostly those kids who will grow up to fill the low-skilled service sector jobs that our society, especially the childless, demand. It is only reasonable that everyone should contribute.

DD, noone is interested in spam. If you have a point to make, make it, don't refer to a book that none of us has an interest in purchasing. I can't find any evidence of you actually helping anyone at all. Surely some of those grateful "clients" you claim would have shouted it to the rooftops?

I recall, in a moment of desperation some years ago ringing your phone as a response to one of your spams on DOTA or somewhere and being told "deposit $200 in such and such an account and I'll give you a ring back" or words to that effect. I didn't bother, mpostly because I didn't have either the $200 to spare or much time for someone who tries to ride on the back of others. I've got the $200 now, but I've still no time for spruikers.

Antiseptic
You still have not shown how the argument would not equally apply to the fact that women biologically cause sexual desire in men, therefore there is a moral justification for forcing women to provide satisfaction of that interest?; or that women ‘acted out of their own interest at the time’ in causing sexual desire in men … so therefore coercion is justified? Sorry, it won’t do.

There is no need for compulsion, and there is no need for social engineering schemes. People, left to themselves, will spontaneously form themselves into little mutual support associations (called families), and forcing some people to pay for others’ choices only makes for more injustice, not less.

The fact that poorer people can’t afford to buy as much stuff as richer people is because they are poorer. The solution is to earn more money, not forced redistribution schemes.

For example, most taxpayers in Australia spend all day working, then after work they go to the supermarket, find parking, go shopping, lug it all out, drive home , put it all away, cook the dinner and then wash up, *and look after their own children at their own expense*. They are taxed about 40 percent, much of which goes to pay for a class of people who, *because* they take no responsibility for their own income, have the privilege not to work, and who even get subsidised day-care (what for? I thought the reason we pay the pension is so they can look after their own children?!). It’s crazy.

If the pension were abolished, these people could, should and would, make money by providing services to the people whose taxes should be reduced. They could do the shopping, the cooking, the cleaning – even warm their beds. What’s wrong with that? I mean, we’re not being "moralistic", right?

Those who want what they can’t afford – including to raise their own children - either have to earn the money for it like everyone else, get consent, or go without. If they *really* can’t afford it, the ordinary law of child protection against neglect applies.