Absolutely - it should look at the person holistically and take into account all income and potentially any losses they have
Do you agree with this comment?
Yes, and the potential to earn. So many have quit their jobs and live on a benefit rather than support the kids.
Definitely. Unlike WfF definition of income, the child support definition of income does not include trust income. Under the current definition of income for Child Support, even in 50/50 share care situation, the poorer parent can end up paying child support to the rich parent just because the rich parent shelter their income via trust and CS assessment doesn't take into income trust income. Examples is when one parent is a wage and salary earner and the other parent structure their business /investment/rental income via trust. This very unfair and I believe this is not what is intended by the Child Support legislation.
I am concern about the extra work this is going to cause me and other small businesses. There is also the possiblity of more mistakes and thus more admin time spent correcting them.
(Edited by moderator)
Absolutely, sometimes losses cant be avoided, but hiding money in trusts etc shouldnt be allowed. Also income earnt overseas should also be taken into account.
In the case of repartnered parents, where one parent works and the other is dependent on their new partner, the working parent is disadvantaged (whether the paying parent or receiving parent). If the new partner's income is no longer being included then there must be some acknowledgement as to working potential of the unemployed parent, regardless of whether that parent has further children - which obligation falls to that parent and partner, not to the employed parent.
Please review the level of entitlement for receiving parents where they are capable of working to support their children but choose not to because the liable parent pays enough for the receiving parent to live off of.
This is exactly the kind of money grabbing philosophy that has created the broken system we currently have in place in NZ. If you want people to comply would it not make more sense to establish a set cost per year it raise a child and from that set a child support amount for every paying parent. No additional compliance costs to anyone and no fluctuating payments for either parent.
Yes! How is it fair on the children if some are valued at $75 per month while others are valued at $600 per month or even more? Neither of these amounts reflects what it costs to raise a child, only how much money some parents are able to extort from the other with the governments assistance.
What about receiving parents who are receiving all the income from their new partners, tax free income from the paying parents and choosing not to work so are not providing for their children while paying parents are assessed for 100% of the cost? When being assessed for WFF, childcare subsidies, and other government assistance the household income is used so why not for child support?
I think any tactics that may be used to reduce liability are often due to gross resentment/belief of unfairness of the amounts that can be calculated. A blanket income-based calculation is never going to be fair in many cases. I would also hope that in my case the mother's income will be taken into account if again living and working overseas (I am paying close to 1400/month).