The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Fathers stereotyped by Child Support Agency

Fathers stereotyped by Child Support Agency

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All
I forgot to point out in my last post that the median taxable income of receiving parents is some 30% higher than that for paying parents and that there are many untaxed benefits also paid to those parents.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 12:15:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your argument is very compelling antiseptic. I was hoping some of your detractors (pynchme and co) would pop up to challenge some of this. You do sound like you know the ins and outs, and back it all up with figures, but I like to hear some opposition.

It sounds like the majority of the work the CSA does is attempt to enforce guys on the dole to pay some of it to chicks who have slightly more resources? If that is the case, I must agree that the whole system would be very inefficient and better off abandoned and probably wouldn't cost the tax payer much at all if it was.

Except for the new dole payments to the ex-CSA employees of course.

Government spends a whole lot of money getting a bunch of net tax receivers to hand money over to another bunch of net tax receivers? Scrap the whole idea I say.

You've go no chance getting something like that through politically. No matter how rational the argument, it will be turned into the emotive 'public paying for deadbeat dads children'. Stupidly, they already do, with the added benefit of funding a government department to further encourage the adversarial relationship of some kids parents.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 4:43:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq:"No matter how rational the argument, it will be turned into the emotive 'public paying for deadbeat dads children'"

I think that tactic is just about past its use-by date. A whole generation has now grown up with the CSA involved and that means a whole lot of young adults who've seen what it did to their dad.

The CSActs and the original Family Law act were the product of 70s feminist ideology that is now past its use-by date. The femosaurs who infest the CSA have shat in their own nest and the neighbours are starting to complain about the stench.

Once the public start to see the Compensation for Detriment due to Defective Administration claims and the waivers of debt start to flow, all because these people were so arrogant as to think that basic principles of ethical behaviout didn't apply to them, the already shaky support for the CSA will take on all the reliable strength of a taxpayer-funded Scotch Finger that's been left in the taxpayer-purchased coffee too long.

I look forward to tossing the whole mess down the toiulet and starting again.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 2 September 2010 6:05:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti
If you have children, you are morally and finacially responsible for them and, chances are the general public has already helped along the way by way of tax payer funded assistance.

The bottom line is, they are your children, not ours and it was 'you' who chose to have them, not us.

If you don't want to support them, through thick and thin, then don't have them. Remeber, they did not ask to be born, it was your choice.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 3 September 2010 6:47:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rehctub:"chances are the general public has already helped along the way by way of tax payer funded assistance."

Nope,or at least, not to me. Lots has been given to Mum. I've not claimed a thing from the Government since 1999. Not medicare, not FTB, not unemploymnent benefit, not any kind of funding at all. I don't believe that those able to work should be supported not to and I don't believe in the sort of middle-class welfare that I'm sure you have accepted when it's been offered. I like to think I'm a man of principle and that's an important one to me.

Rehctub:"If you don't want to support them, through thick and thin, then don't have them."

I agree and I do. All I ask is that the Government stop making that task harder than it needs to be. Part of that is getting rid of the opportunity for vindictive women to create difficulties that the CSA represents. My idea for a levy simplifies the situation.

Your view is very simplistic. There are any number of ways in which children can come along unexpectedly, especially for men, whose decision-making power on the subject is limited to a decision to have sex or not and trusting in the condom top protect them. Tying people together financially is hardly going to make for good parenting if their only common ground is a one-night stand, is it?

As it stands, fathers in intact families share in the middle-class welfare handouts which reduce their cost burden. Separated fathers do not, to a very great degree, especially those with little care of their children. That means their burden is much greater than it is for someone like you,who has been fortunate not to go through a divorce.

The current scheme is justified on "the best interests of the child", so why do we only care about those interests to the extent that it lets us get money out of Dad? Is driving dad onto the dole in the child's best interests?
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 3 September 2010 7:27:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,

Who do you think is funding the CSA? You're paying either way. Now.

A whole lot of money is being spent getting a bunch of net tax receivers to hand money over to another bunch of net tax receivers, and in the mean time further encouraging the adversarial relationship of some kids parents.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 3 September 2010 8:32:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy