Here's a mother with three children struggling to find money to eat. She has made her budget public.
She is on one income and paying a reasonably high rent of $460. There is no-one else sharing the expenses. That is her choice.
The estranged father is paying her $284.53 weekly. That's probably stretching his budget substantially as well.
These parents have chosen to arrange their lives this way and it is making her at least, and possibly him as well, 'poor'. And their children.
She is receiving $343 weekly from the state to assist with living costs.
I am not sure what the point of the article is.
Submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
56 minutes ago
5 comments:
I thought child support was another government scheme, thanks for clarifying this is what the dad pays.
I'm sure she could reduce her *weekly* expenses by $200 or more by re-arranging her vehicle, telephone and insurance affairs.
I don't see the point either. It's all about choices that she has made....I personally have no problem at all with her choices but she has to live with them. It does occur to me that $100 a week for petrol since she lives in town is a huge amount. We live in the country and don't pay that much although we do far more than the average milage. Strange.
Well as one of DPF's commenters said it was great to get a full breakdown of her income ($62,000 with potential to $73,000) with three kids, but it raises many questions about how much state support is available plus many many questionable costs the woman has.
My takehome is why pay this sort of money without redesigning a much more appropriate budgeting process, ie, with free money here there is no need to optimise its use to our benefit and hers.
JC
The point of the article? It's advertising for KidsCan.
"To help more kids click here"
Post a Comment