I'd like to generate some discussion on the rates used by CSA for raising a child (and some of the other oddities of the system).

In particular children 13 years and over where paid child care is not generally an cost. I'll initially reference figures for a single child to keep it simple. http://www.csa.gov.au/child_support_formula/child_costs_table_2012.php .

CSA work with a range of figures based on the combined child support income ranging from seemingly nothing (if the parents combined child support income is $0 up to $24,649 for a combined child support income of $162,163. The proportion of the claimed cost is divided between the parents based on their gross child support income (pre tax). On the top rate that's $474 a week.

For comparison the individual part of the couples rate of the aged pension (+ supplement) seems to be $284.75 per week. http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/age_rates.htm

There is no requirement for money transferred between parents to be spent on the child, partners income is not taken into account so someone who has a wealthy partner and does not work much will still get the money regardless of how it's spent (or if they are the non-custodial parent avoid contributing if their work history is low income). As I understand it the government gives itself a break in benefits based on a partners income assuming that their presence changes the situation from that of a single parent, not so for a CSA payer.

There is no independent review of the impact of assessments on the payer and their circumstances.

Prior circumstances are not taken into account (other than capacity to earn based on previous earning history).

Tax breaks and Family Tax benefit payments go to the custodial parent regardless of who actually is paying the bills.

TBC

R0bert

I don't think it's a very wise thing to do to keep people who've separated/divorced tied together financially if the ability to cooperate in raising a child is a goal but that seems to be a position that's to difficult for many to accept.

I do think the CSA figures for raising a child are way beyond what is reasonable to mandate leaving the payer with no say over the discretionary elements of spending on a child.

In an intact family parents are able to make choices about what money is spent on and deal with the balance between a child's wants and needs and other commitments and priorities.

The system also determines "capacity to earn" for the presumed cost based n earning history ignoring the choices people make. Someone with a well off partner who does not need to work much can be regarded as having a lesser capacity to earn than someone who's had to work hard to support themselves and their child.

R0bert

Robert, this is a very sensitive subject, ome that my wife and I have argued about for years.

I have always maintained that child support should be set at a base rate per child, calculated on thier age.

Why should a child who's parent earns $150K per year, be valued higher than one who's parent earns say $30K per year.

The end result is that separated parents ( mainly fathers) simply can not afford to start over as they are screwed simply because the more they earn, the more they pay.

rechtub, I don't believe that there are any universal easy and fair answers. Nor am I keen to see CSA with even more discetionary power. I do want to try and get some discussion going on the topic hopefully without the traditional gender bashing. Mum's left with young kids and an ex not keen on work suffer with inadequate support as do fathers who work and have exs who chase custody.

I strongly believe that the figures CSA uses are massively exagerated for a child attending a high school and not doing much extra curricular stuff. They can probably justify them in some way or another but my impression is that those justifications don't fit well with government estimates f the cost of living when it comes to the government paying welfare.

R0bert

Good luck in keeping the discussion gender neutral.

Surely the only valid comparative rubic would be if the government was in the position of the non-custodial parent?

In other words, how much does the government pay or contribute to the upkeep of a child in foster care?

If the government regards that as sufficient then we have at least established a baseline.

Too early for the fingers, rubric of course.