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.

CSA still alive - I thought I killed it long ago

For reference there is some comparitive work on child support scheme's done in 2005 at http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/childsupport/pubs/ChildComparisonSelectedCountries/Documents/comparison_of_selected_countries.pdf

A bit hard to do direct comparisons but its worth noting that a lot of the calculations seem to be on net income rather than gross. Not all.

Also some interesting reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support

R0bert

cost to raise a child
[no child is a cost..they are our investment..for tomorrow]

cost?
bah

think of what has been lost
[the death of investments [read youth[..in war

YES THAT IS A LOSS..

yet economists include that*
and its damages..[mutilations needing hospital care
and repair [for a select elect few]..as 'economic plus'

usa has aborted 65 million babies..[since vietnam]
that is a cost..!

so much more than 'money' was lost

forget cost..its an investment
and war kills that invested in..[the life love logic..good..:lost]

bah
cost!
ya gotta know values
to realise what has been truelly lost

cost bahhhh bahhh bahhh

bah
so much lost

let those who reap the advantage
bear the price

think of all we give to educate
who gives that advantage

who reaps the harvest of productivity or health

they who reap the harvest
bear the cost of the planting

we bear the burden
but who reaps the harvest
and who the bigger gain...?

make them pay

govt should supply a base standard for everything
from then on the extras/../must pay back..

the more you plant
the more you reap

govt accords each child at birth[a birth bond]..that covers basics
go beyond that equal minimum...you must [pay your own way]

govt does [must]..recognise its peoples skills
the more skill you got..the more 'credit limits you get]

offsets

so say your a good singer[govt helps you achieve greatness
the peoples skills are our one true asset

then that people
see it as value..pay its way

currently govt cash cow goes top down
rightfully it should go from the base up

let capitalists EARN..who gets our cash

The choice whether to have children (or not) is personal one and demands a significant degree of personal sacrifice and dedication, including a huge ongoing financial burden.
I've done it 3 times myself.

However I fail to see why I have to pay extra taxes to subsidise the somebody else's lifestyle choice, particularly in a society that insists it's based on the individual and abhors the very notion of socialism.

If you can't afford it, don't expect it to be given to you as some sort of "right". Pay for it or go without.

Wobbles I mostly agree but the point that I'm getting at here is primarily about so called child support figures which go well beyond the actual costs involved in raising a particular child and often beyond the ability of the payer to pay and still maintain a lifestyle that meets realistic needs.

It's about government which treats itself to breaks which it does not give to payer parents.

It's also about a system that encourages conflict over finances between separated parents and provides financial incentives to put child custody ahead of children's needs.

I do think that the harm done by CSA costs the community far more than any benefits that might come from it due to the conflict between parents it encourages and the motivation it provides to far too many to not work. For all the money transferred between parents CSA was costing the taxpayer in 2003/04 around $1 for each $8.49 transferred http://www.csa.gov.au/__documents/publications/1248.pdf. The thing is that's achieved by hitting the soft targets (payee wage earners) really hard many of whom would more than willingly support their kids but object to the bullying and extreme rates used by CSA.

They like to measure money transferred between parents which gives them an incentive to hit the soft targets really hard to help that figure along.

R0bert

R0bert,

You will enjoy reading the Ombudsman's reports of the last few years. There is an interesting progression, including a couple of example "cases" about two or three years ago. The CSA has not got a "compensation and waivers team" for nothing. It is to redress bizarre excesses far in excess of a poorly-derived formula.

The poorly-derived formula you lament is almost the least of issues with the child support act, which is vigourously discussed over at the Family Law Web Guide.

Rusty.

what is not generally understood is that Self Raising Flour applied liberally to the head of the [Lee] child can reduce the raising cost by big mobs

Actually, the CSA Compensation Waiver Team is not there to redress the bizarre excesses, it is to get waivers of future legal claims from the clients they have mistreated. It Addresses rather than redresses, in the only manner they know - dodging liability, but it is at least an acknowledgement that there are many many things they have gotten wrong.

Rusty