Sunday, February 17, 2013

DPB trivia

Around 10,000 sole parents on the DPB have had children to more than one child-support paying partner. (There will be more who have failed to name the father).

This piece of information was contained in an answer to a written question from Jacinda Ardern to the Minister of Revenue.

Wonder why she kept it quiet?

The current minimum child support payment is $16.30 - a mere 3 percent of a typical weekly payment to a single parent with two children living in Auckland.

And the left don't even want that tiny amount to go towards offsetting the DPB bill.


Johnny said...

Child support liable parent payments are a tax. It is a bad tax because it is not applied uniformly. Any tax that is not applied uniformly shouldn't be payable.

For example, if every woman who might be at some stage in the future be on a benefit, were to name John Key as the responsible dad, then that would end liable parent contributions overnight.

There can be many reasons for a tax regime to be a bad tax (as for example in why do we tax dogs, but not cats or rabbits). One reason for a tax being a bad tax is that the cost of regulation of the tax is out of all proportion to the revenue from it. This is the situation with this tax.

I don't pay anything under this tax, nor do I have relatives who do, but I regard this tax as a ridiculous tax, that should be dropped forthwith. I know what I'm suggesting is radical, but I said the same 15 years ago, when I played a significant role in getting rid of another bad tax - the broadcasting fee, when the debate raged over such a preposterous idea. Guess what, we stopped the broadcasting fee, and the sky didn't fall - in fact, precisely nothing bad happened.

This is another broadcasting fee (if you see what I mean - haha), and it is as bad a tax as the other one was.

Anonymous said...

Stop DPB then. That's radical and would solve the problem.

Income tax is not applied uniformly so I think that should be banned.

As a father I can think of nothing worse in the area of responsibility than having someone else support my children.


mike@nz said...

Truly the ramblings of a madman! Child support payments are not a tax, they are merely a VERY small part of an attempt by a hypocritical welfare system to place some kind of liability on the wayward parent as a form of consequence of their actions. Is that too much to ask Johnny? It is not my child, why should I pay? I have a guy working for me at present who is paying child support for 3 children to 2 different mothers and is now living with a 3rd. The 2 mothers keep him poor and even though the dippy mothers fought through the courts for custody, and even though they don't live together and he is trying to start a new life with his new partner, they are forever texting him (on my time) dealing with the various everyday child raising problems through the week and asking for extra money that he can't afford, laying a guilt trip on him about his kids missing out. And that's the way it should be!!! There needs to be consequences to making poor life decisions, and those consequences need to cost him, not the productive, stable, morally balanced taxpayer. If you want to pay more, put your money where your mouth is. Leave me well out of it!

Marc said...

Johnny your argument is trivial, and only one of the reasons why is that if any mother were to name John Key, Prime Minister, as the father fraudulently, I would hope that WINZ in conjunction with the courts would swiftly deal to her in the appropriate manner. It is such a stupid illogical premise you have based your post on, it's no wonder my eyes glazed before I got past the second paragraph.
Why is it that some people seem to treat WINZ as some sort of game, where it is fair to tell as many lies as you can get away with - all to get more than you are entitled to from other taxpayers?

S. Beast said...

I take it you missed the One Teen Dad, Many Mothers story? That's a doozy. The NZ male equivalent of Octomom.

Pity he didn't get sole custody himself because if he did he wouldn't have the energy to father any more.

How the hell can this welfare disaster be recouped via child support? Ugh, makes me sick just thinking about how many more victims will be created before this guy is even 30.

S. Beast said...

Also, it occurs to me now that if someone on the DPB had children to more than one father, IF the fathers were high income earners this would allow the state to recoup slightly more of the benefit from the non custodial fathers.

If (and I know of someone where this actually applies) you have many kids, many fathers all earning well you can find yourself off the DPB as it is financially better just to live on child support alone.

Johnny said...

Not sure who is supposed to have missed the "one teen dad, 13 mothers story", but it confirms what I said. Guess what? Under present arrangements, that one teen dad, makes just one liable parent contribution. One thirteenth of a contribution, if you like, for each family he created. Nuts, in terms of tax equity.

This confirms what I said above about it being a stupid inconsistent tax.

And the stupid comment about income tax being not applied uniformly came from "anonymous" so fortunately it doesn't deserve a response.

By the way, they said the same about the broadcasting fee - that it wasn't a tax.

Whoever said above before engaging brain that the liable parent contribution, that it isn't a tax, then what exactly it is, if it isn't a tax? And why is it collected by inland revenue if it isn't a tax? And when did it commence, relative to the commencement of payment of the DPB?

Think it through all of you, before shooting off mouth. It is a stupid tax and always has been. It is designed only to appease a few people who resent young men fucking without consequences.

I say again, and no-one has actually taken the trouble to dispute it. Only one gender has control of who gets pregnant, and who doesn't get pregnant.

[Doubt I've ever seen such a load of shooting from the hip, tripe from a bunch of non-thinking commenters, who cannot see the wood for the trees, in all my days on the internet.]

Mark Hubbard said...

For Johnny, Child Support is not a tax, just as Kiwisaver if entered voluntarily is not a tax, even though collected by IRD.

And before you fly off the handle, believe me, I have no love for tax, and am implacably opposed to a compulsory Kiwisaver.

Returning to Lindsay's post, the leaders' of both New Zealand's Conservative Party, and Sensible Sentencing Trust, would do well to note it's not gay parents whose activities form the crime stats; it's fathers' who've sired children to multiple partners, and whom are playing the system.

S. Beast said...

@Johnny, I was referring to Lindsay missing the story.

Just read that only 35 women nationwide have taken up the free contraceptive offer, barely reported in the media. Not surprising to me, but at least it has helped a handful.

I expect they will spend more on printing pamphlets for the scheme than actually implementing it.