By: acep74
25/09/2008
3:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
acep74 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| well, when i married him , she ended up being my ex too! |
|
By: acep74
25/09/2008
3:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
acep74 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| this isnt a lie , i write most of everything saying it on behalf of hubby and then i get carried away and forget im writing it. And this isnt *** because we are going through absoulte hell. its all true and alot more to it and i would be here forever telling it. We are so over this |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
25/09/2008
1:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Sorry, but I for one am confused with your story. In the beginning you are referring to your partner as being your husband, he etc. But after about half way you are talking about your wife?
If this is a legitimate story then I apologise for what I am about to say. Because this sounds like you are just full of it. |
|
By: acep74
25/09/2008
12:29 pm Yahoo! Profile:
acep74 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
sorry back again ..
another thing which all ties into this, is teenagers going from one parent to another playing us against each other then going some where else. Playing this game of what ever they feel they can get out of who ever. Well this has been a very stressful my kids are effected through all the fighting , she took off because she didnt like rules or so we thought but it was alot more then that but i'm still being lies too constantly . She is only around the corner but wont have anything to do with me or tell me about what shes doing. The govt have allowed for this and support them. Im not an abusive parent . I have a loving family home a bit noisy sometimes but love my kids. But my teenager daughter has just lost control and there is nothing i can do! My ex is laughing and shoving it in my face. |
|
By: acep74
25/09/2008
12:16 pm Yahoo! Profile:
acep74 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| well, our story is very long and getting messy now, hubby has 2 girls from the ex who has lied and down everything possible to cheat him out of a relationship with them, the younger one now 13 hasnt spoken to him in 7 yrs. We had the older one then 14 finally come to live with us because it was so bad with the ex , well she only really came to use us, she lied and didnt like our rules and took off to friends who thought they could do better. Now with the great new laws 3 rd party's can claim for cs too. How is this right now he his fighting 2 woman to see or have anything to do with his children. It's just pay your money and butt out! Well, we have 4 other children to support 2 with special needs and all the bills we established trying to help out his daughter who ended up playing him like her mother has done for the past 14 yrs and now we are doing it with a 15 yr old. Myu wife cant handle this much more and neither can our marriage . The ex's in some cases leave (had affair) then are still not happy with outcome and continue to wreck anything with our new life. These laws are so unfair they would want something like a few hundred bucks a fortnight for 2 kids who wont even see me! I hope eventually the govt wake up and do something. It's guys like me who have always done the right thing always paid my cs , wanted my kids but was never included keep getting screwed. |
|
By: deantspy
22/03/2008
11:48 am Yahoo! Profile:
deantspy Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I am a father of 4 children. 2 to a previous relationship that ended and 2 to my wife now. I have been perusing access though the courts since 2000 and PAYING child support. Prior to that my ex partner REFUSED access for more than 7 years. Thus far my ex partner has chose to "work around" the current system and choosing the best times to cut of all contact when it suites her even though she is being paid. She continually lies and has even been caught out in court several times, with no reprimand. I find the whole child support system to be unfair and very pro to the female parent with little or no regard for the male parent. I can no longer afford the expense of legal fees to continue to pursue contact and have no other option than to abort any more attempts. and I am a parent who REALY wants to se my children. and find it an offence to see some of the BIAS remarks here. G.A.L. |
|
By: tash_vs_world
6/03/2008
8:52 am Yahoo! Profile:
tash_vs_world Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| If you really do want to see your kids then take her to court and fight for them. If you are maintaining regular payments, and have no other reason why you would be banned from seeing them, then she hasn't got a leg to stand on. But you have to get off your as* and do it! Sitting here whinging on a yahoo message board certainly won't do anything. If you can't be bothered doing that then sign away all rights to them and you won't have to pay a cent again. |
|
By: dave.christian
22/02/2008
9:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dave.christian Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I think the whole thing needs to be run on a case by case basis also. I fathered 2 sons at a very young age, i was 17 when the first was born, and we had a very rocky relationship. There was a time where I was of the mindset that I had to just put up with the abuse in every sense of the word, that I copped, to the point I was just about ready to top myself, all because I believed I had to stay for the kids sake. Then she ran off with another man, and I realised it was for the best, so I didn't stand in the way, but only made sure that her new man understood that I was fine with that, as long as he didn't stand in the way of me seeing my sons.
It's now been 8 years since I have seen my kids in the flesh, I am stripped of over 30% of my income and all because of her choice. I want to see them, I want to know them, but she has never allowed that, and yet I have to suffer, while she works, has a partner that makes just as much if not more than I do, they own their own house, i rent and struggle to do it. Quite honestly, as I sit here now, I am on a monthly salary, I have 3 weeks to go before its pay day again, and I am pretty well flat broke.
How is it fair that she gets basically 3 incomes to support our 2 children, that I am denied access to, through no legal means, but only her decision???
It should be that if she took them away, married some other man, decided he was gonna be dad now, and he accepted that, then he should wear the financial responsibility as well.. as far as I hear, they live like bloody kings, while I have to struggle just to eat and buy petrol to get to work, just to line her pockets every month. It's bloody bull....
I have to pay for kids i do not know, through no choice of my own.. but tell me this, who will repay me for all the now years of pain and depression I have suffered not knowing where my kids are, or how they are, whether they are even alive or not, as if that isn't bad enough, im punished financially as well. |
|
By: anthony_sadgrove
2/11/2007
5:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
anthony_sadgrove Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
hello
i have just read this thread - yes all of it
it is probably THE best thread on the table
i think all of us screen jockeys are in a position to do something here
keep this thread goin
tell us what you want done
we can do it
so
we will do it |
|
By: thy.nemesis
31/10/2007
1:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
thy.nemesis Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>> Table 7.1: Total Savings Assigned to the Child Support Scheme
1996-97 $m 1997-98 $m 1998-99 $m 1999-00 $m 2000-01 $m
318............378.3..... ......419.2..........425. 01.........380.4
2001-02 $m 2002-03 $m 2003-04 $m 2004-05 $m 2005 - 06 $m
423.0..........433.5..... ......458.0..........510. 0..........539.0 <<
That's over $3 BILLION robbed from the mostly vulnerable and impoverished kids of separated families, since 2000! |
|
By: mysaytoday
10/05/2007
10:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mysaytoday Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
?
?
?
?
?
So, how much of this years' $539 MILLION is your family being ripped off compared to intact families?
?
?
?
?
?
<<<If the two parents were still living together as a household, they would be entitled to $4,095.30 in FTB Part A, Which is maximum rate for one child of this age.
Under the present Child Support Scheme, the liable parent would be paying $3,516 child support per annum for that one child.
The Resident parent would be entitled to keep $1,150 of that sum, and 50 Cents in the dollar thereafter.
As a consequence, $1,183, or about one third, of the payer’s child support goes to reimbursing the Government for FTB Part A expenditure that it would have incurred in any event if the parents had remained together.>>> |
|
By: ezysell
10/05/2007
10:07 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ezysell Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Rubbish why stay in a unhappy marraige as our forfather's did and let your children grow up with the unhappy surroundings how depramental to the children's little heads.Move on build a bridge I say. |
|
By: mysaytoday
10/05/2007
10:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mysaytoday Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I was wrong the MIT/FTB-A rip-off is is much bigger at over HALF a BILLION this financial year:
http://www.csa.gov.au/publications/facts_figures/0 6/ff06_8.aspx
Savings and Costs
7.1 Savings
Savings to Government outlays are achieved as a result of the application of the maintenance income test to payments of more than base rate Family Tax Benefit (FTB) Part A. As at July 2006 payments of more than the base rate Family Tax Benefit Part A are reduced by 50 cents for each dollar of maintenance received above $1,215.45 per annum for a single parent with one child from a previous relationship. The threshold is increased where there are additional children or if there is a couple with both partners receiving maintenance.
Table 7.1: Total Savings Assigned to the Child Support Scheme
1996-97 $m 1997-98 $m 1998-99 $m 1999-00 $m 2000-01 $m
318............378.3..... ......419.2..........425. 01.........380.4
2001-02 $m 2002-03 $m 2003-04 $m 2004-05 $m 2005 - 06 $m
423.0..........433.5..... ......458.0..........510. 0..........539.0 |
|
By: ezysell
10/05/2007
10:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ezysell Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I agree mate I dont see DUE TO HER BITERNESS but i am still expected to pay 100% child support i reckon they should get this lazy ass mothers of there butt and work like us bravo |
|
By: mysaytoday
10/05/2007
9:52 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mysaytoday Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
From memory the CSA web-site has the figure in its Fact & Figures for 2006-07 of about $130 MILLION FTB Part A saved because of the MIT!
That saved amount is the amound that children and their families are being RIPPED OFF! |
|
By: mysaytoday
10/05/2007
9:48 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mysaytoday Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Clearly, the Howard govt is discriminating against separated families with its FTB Part A Policy!
The total amount ripped off separated families since 2000-01 must be AROUND A BILLION DOLLARS! |
|
By: mysaytoday
10/05/2007
9:46 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mysaytoday Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
This is an extract from the 2007 Budget which proves that the Howard Govt has DELIBERATELY & KNOWINGLY left the separated FTB Part A taper rate at 50% but reduced the intact FTB Part A taper rate to 30% in 2001-01 & then 20% in 2004-5:
Australia has a highly targeted welfare system. The Family Tax Benefit system recognises that households with children face greater costs than those without. Family Tax Benefit Part A is directed towards those families with lower incomes. The necessary implication of targeting benefits is that as family income increases benefits are withdrawn. The alternatives are either not to provide these benefits (thereby leaving beneficiaries worse off) or creating a universal entitlement system with the higher spending, higher taxing and greater churning that such a system would entail.
While Australia's tax and targeted welfare systems necessarily create higher effective marginal tax rates, the Government seeks to identify and act where it can to reduce these and minimise their impacts. Over recent years, effective marginal tax rates have decreased significantly for families. For example, before 2000-01, families faced a 50 percentage point increase in their effective marginal tax rates from the withdrawal of family payments above the base amount. The New Tax System of 2000-01 reduced this withdrawal to 30 percentage points. In 2004-05 the withdrawal rate was reduced further to 20 percentage points. |
|
By: mysaytoday
10/05/2007
9:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mysaytoday Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
This is an extract from the Child Support Review Report released May 2005:
11.2.2 Misalignment with policy towards intact families
The MIT is not aligned with FTB in any coherent policy framework. For separated parents whose combined income for FTB purposes is below $32,485, the level of FTB Part A paid to the primary caregiver as a consequence of the MIT is much lower than if the parents were still living together.
In effect, the Government is reducing FTB payments to the family following separation that it would have paid in full when the parents lived together. This appears to be inequitable.
This situation may be illustrated by the example of where a parent liable for child support has a taxable income of $32,484 and the other parent is on Parenting Payment (Single). They have one child, aged six, for whom child support is being paid, and the liable parent has no new dependent children. They are not splitting FTB Part A on the basis of shared care.
If the two parents were still living together as a household, they would be entitled to $4,095.30 in FTB Part A, Which is maximum rate for one child of this age.
Under the present Child Support Scheme, the liable parent would be paying $3,516 child support per annum for that one child.
The Resident parent would be entitled to keep $1,150 of that sum, and 50 Cents in the dollar thereafter.
As a consequence, $1,183, or about one third, of the payer’s child support goes to reimbursing the Government for FTB Part A expenditure that it would have incurred in any event if the parents had remained together. |
|
By: mysaytoday
10/05/2007
9:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mysaytoday Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
There is so much misinformation here on this thread that it is scary.
One thing for those of you who don't know: because of the Maintenance Income Test (MIT) the single caring parent usually loses FTB Part A at the rate of 50c in every dollar of Child Support paid for the first child after the first $1215.45 per year (& each additional child $405.15)!
In the CHILD SUPPORT REVIEW in 2005 the MIT was identified as extremely UNFAIR compared to what the govt payst to intact families BUT the govt chose NOT to MAKE THE UNFAIRNESS WORSE in the 2005 an d 2006 Budgets(by increasing the threshold & reducing the taper rate from 30% to 20% for intact families!)
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE BECAUSE CHILDREN OF SEPARATED FAMILIES HAVE BEEN ROBBED OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS SINCE THE REPORT WAS RELEASED!
See:
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf /ea3b9a1335df87bcca2569890008040e/d2cbcb6d49d5cc04 ca25728e001205e0!OpenDocument
Maintenance Income Test:
This maintenance income test is effective from 20 March 2007. This maintenance income test applies if you are eligible to get more than the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A. Blind pensioners are exempt from the maintenance income test.
Maintenance income-free areas (per year)
Status Maintenance Received
(per year)
Single parent, or one of a couple receiving maintenance $1215.45
Couple, each receiving maintenance $2430.90
For each additional child $405.15
Maintenance over these amounts may reduce Family Tax Benefit Part A by 50 cents in the dollar, until the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A is reached. |
|
By: figjam9193
10/05/2007
12:53 am Yahoo! Profile:
figjam9193 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hi Sanerstii
Your post was an interesting read. I am remarried with 2 children and 2 children from a previous marriage. I must admit I have always paid child support on time and correct and am lucky my ex wife has spent the money (which is considerable) on our children. She also received enough money to purchase a house outright in a good suburb of Perth. Basically I dont hold anything against her. The issues are that I possibly contribute more than is required to support my children, however receive no dependant deductions for them. Unlike yourself I received a reduction in child support when my new children came along (Iam the bio-father) however it was about $20 per week for both children which is less than 10% of what I pay for the 2 other children. I agree with the concept of child support but think the system needs more equity.
It favours the self employed who can reduce income through trusts etc or business loans to themselves.
I hope someone in the Government listerns to these comments |
|
By: two_intrepid_travellers
10/05/2007
12:24 am Yahoo! Profile:
two_intrepid_travellers Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
give_me_chocy,
Some ideas..can't find a job in the country? Move!! There are jobs in the city for people just like you.
Husband not paying fair child support..And cheating on the dole? Dob him in, he's cheating us all, not just you.
Problems solved, we'll all be happier. |
|
By: poppence
10/05/2007
12:02 am Yahoo! Profile:
poppence Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I am getting annoyed, no, angry at all the complaining about paying child support. Your children need to eat. Note, YOUR children. Why the government or anybody else has to pay one red cent is beyond me. If you cant afford them dont have them and get a job. It is nonsense that you complain about it. I am blind and sit at home day in day out with no relief and if meals on wheels dont deliver, I go hungry. I eat five meals a week. Whats in this budget for me? Nothing. So stop your complaining. At least you have your children. And I think you all do very well thank you |
|
By: oz_mick
9/05/2007
9:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
oz_mick Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I am a single separated father, I care for my four children for 50% of the time, I also work fulltime. Despite this I still have to pay child support to my ex wife who sits with her BF and 4 children to him collecting all the benefits from social security and living in a housing commision house. Where is the fairness in this. There is nothing in this budget that benefits me. I hope that the newly elected government creates a new system of Child Support that is fair and equitable to all concerned. |
|
By: zinnia_1982
9/05/2007
4:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
zinnia_1982 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I am sorry but not all single parents are that way by choice. I have 2 children and my husband died at age 27. Everyone makes the same judgement as you..........that I walked out and couldn't work through my problems. I find attitudes like yours heartbreaking. Yes I do work, I support my children. As for child support I am lucky my husbands mother pays for my sons education (my daughter is to young) and that is more support then I ever expected. |
|
By: sues_got_mail
9/05/2007
2:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
sues_got_mail Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Tont_au - get a grip on yourself - think you need a reality check!
What gives you the right to make such assumptions when you have no idea of individual situations? Not all single mums are so by choice! If you cant say something constructive Re: the budget which I believe this discussion is about - dont say anything! |
|
