But let me ask you this way: Suppose all compulsory child support were abolished, including CSA and sole parents pension.

--

Peter, the first thing in any "Crusade" is to get facts correct, eg we have not had sole parents pension for over 10 years now.

So to help you I just noticed that I have provided FREE the whole Centrelink Chapter in my book, so go there and bone up m'lud.

THEN, understanding the facts, you can come back and give us your theories on how to save the world, and for sure be very aware of the Crimes Act provisions against the CSA, for indeed it is very evident that they DO offend the Crimes Act. Indeed any mechanism to "abolish" them as you and OP say must be prosecuted in a court under Crimes Act, and it was Dr Robert Kelso and myself that forced the govt to add those sections in 2000 or so.

If you simply do what is called "boo hoo, they orta change the law", then you are going nowhere and the CSA will love you.

Peter does not wish to comprehend the law, as he wishes to live outside it DD, and if he had his way, for just a day, would reverse every Act and legislation Government ever implemented; the majority of laws taking into consideration people from all walks of life;not just one person named Peter.

A person [going only by the rantings on OLO] who thinks only of himself and not of children or the disadvantaged. Peter, tell me, do you have children you raised 100% of the time and paid for? Too late for your way of thinking: Laws, Acts, and Legislation will not be reversed in this country. Acts are amended or updated; few abolished or completely replaced.

No offence Peter, I am sure you have wonderful qualities, however I am damn thankful that you are not in a position to change any part of the current laws. From all your comments to date, I can graphically envisage the type of society my children, family, friends and work mates would be living in. Crime and suicide rates would escalate dramatically with changes you suggest to date. That would not concern you though, as your concept is to leave every person to totally fend for themselves in this world regardless of these people having paid their taxes through life for 20 or 30 years contributing to society, then befallen with a major obstacle on one occasion, in turn, requiring short term assistance. Under your laws, there would be NO assistance for any person in crises; temporary or permanent.

Sound cold hearted? Read your previous suggestive posts on OLO. Although you do not need to read your posts, as you know exactly the crap you are pushing for your own agenda, lifestyle and addictions.

Any person who wishes to lower the age of consent for children I find suspicious to say the least. This is a primary indicator that a person does not have the best interests of children at heart. Why would any one bother reading with respect what you advocate

Wow, a whole lot of mind-reading, personal argument, straw men, misrepresentation and assuming what is in issue from WAU. He responds with aggressive irrelevance when his ideas are challenged with reason. How amazingly intelligent and persuasive.
But one thing he didn’t do is show why there is a problem in the first place, how he knows, what is the justification for compulsion, how the same justification doesn’t apply wherever the same reasoning applies, and why those who want to raise children shouldn’t pay for them themselves, or obtain the funding voluntarily. So … why not? And spare me the tedious drivel. Just answer the question. Why shouldn’t they?
Your assumption that civil society depends on forced redistributions which you are unable to justify, merely shows your moral and intellectual confusion.

DD
I’m afraid you are going to have to do better than remark that we don’t have a sole parents pension and refer me to absent authority.

All
The men of Australia have got rocks in their head for voting for any party that supports the current regime of family law so hostile to men’s interests and personal liberty alike. The CSA does not further an agenda of equality but a double standard, in which women get money to do what they would have wanted to do anyway, without having to provide anything in return, and when anyone dares to question it, we get the ignorant ad hominem attacks which WAU has typified

This thread has been one big long whine by people who were unable get the decisions they wanted from the CSA. They then extrapolate that the CSA is against "males".

The CSA treats noncustodial parents as "noncustodial parents", nothing else. They make decisions for women to pay support, not "just" men .... a fact totally ignored here by some: It's obvious why.

Peter Hume, I can see no point whatever in arguing for a completely laissez faire approach to this subject, since that will never get up. Far better to accept that redistribution is a bi-partisan fact of life and incorporate it as part of any proposal. Let's assume that we're agreed that this may not be perfect, but it is a pragmatic approach within the political environment that we have.

I like the idea of a broad-based specific purpose levy for a few reasons. Firstly, it is obvious what the money is for, which means it is dificult to use it for other purposes. Secondly, it is broad and it allows those people who choose childlessness or have it forced upon them to contribute directly to a common good from which they stand to benefit. Thirdly, it decouples time in care from financial considerations, since the money is attached directly to the child, not given to a parent to spend willy-nilly. Fourthly, it reduces the disincentive to work that is inherent in the curreent scheme.

There are other reasons, but that's the nub of it.

The CSA must go, I don't think that anyone except employees of the Agency like benq or women who can't stand the idea of their ex getting on with his life free of their badgering who would disagree. The only real question is what replaces it.

You say:"The essential ethical defect of your argument is the idea that sole parents, most of whom are women, should not have to do anything in exchange for money" which is not the case. I suggest applying the money to the child's benefit directly, not giving it to the parent, which is a method that has been tried and failed.

DD, your inability to write coherently tends to undermine your claims.

benq just in case there is any confusion.

Do you have a stake in this issue which would has the potential to bias your own views?

You claim knowledge of how the CSA operates in practice but have not declared where that knowledge comes from. You denegrate other posters on the assumption that our views of CSA were formed by not getting what we want rather than the observed bias that many have experienced.

What is your stake in this?
a) concerned bystander with no real knowledge of how CSA treats it's clients in practice.
b) CSA employee or consultant
c) supporter of one of the mothers groups
d) other - please clarify.

I've sat in the session where the details of my income statements were subject to intense scrutiny while my ex's contentions that the level of deductions based on a previous role would still apply to an entirely different role were accepted at face value.

I've had other dealings where the maternal bias was blatent. I've spoken to enough other parents who deal with CSA and seen how clear the patterns are in their complaints about CSA are. CSA does hurt us all but it also operates with a clear gender bias.

Again what is your stake in this?

R0bert