Expect Pain on Tuesday

[Perp]

Sunfish, thank you for remaining polite and civil. I think there's nothing wrong with robust discussion.

You're correct, of course. I know no more of the Lady's circumstances than she does of the others' she generalises about.

Fair call, I see where you're coming from. I don't agree with letiha's generalisations, I think she's just frustrated at the perceived lack of incentive to work.

I think that the entire financial and physical burden of raising children should be shared equally between parents who've separated (one may do more of the financial, and one more of the physical, but the combined burden should be equitably split). I think a non-custodial parent contributing $66 per week is not contributing "half" of the total. The way I see it, what the government provides letiha is subsidising him because he's not carrying his share of the effort required to raise his children; it's not welfare for "her". She has sole physical custody and earns a good living (I don't think she'd dispute that), so she's doing her bit, IMHO.

But the woman you speak of has made three conscious decisions: To marry, have children and to separate.

I maintain that to separate may not have been the woman's decision - hubby may have left, or may have died. (Talking generalities on the matter of "choice", not any particular individual.)

 

[BayView]

Letiha, a couple of positive points to consider;

1. The single mums sitting at home on their @rses, or trawling the Mall with their 4 kids will most likely never create an exciting and fulfilling lifestyle, own a home, go to Disneyland, retire in comfort. But you will because you are a do-er. Don't be angry at those women; be sorry for them and congratulate yourself on having a good "Aussie Go"!

2. Be thankful that we are in such a great Country that we are able to look after those who are less fortunate (and/or lazy). The supposed greatest country in the world (USA) is not.

It's great to be back home!

 

[letiha]

Thank you for the support.

As far as choice goes yes I did choose to get married and I did choose to have children. But I did not choose to seperate, unfortuantley in Australia when your Husband decides to go not much you can do about it.

Anyway I have had a better look at the changes that effect me and they don't kick in till 1 July 2009 so by then the changes won't we just a big deal.

I don't want a free ride, I just want to be able to work my way to independence without being dropped half way there without a safety net.

 

[Apocalypse]

Apocolypse.

The problem really isn't with my work income, I suppose really it the fact that by earning an extra $100-140k from Capital Gains this year will bring by CCB and Family tax benefit down to nothing, this equals about a compined $600 a week.

The loop hole that I use allows me to get my normal pay of about 2200 a fortnight, and on every 6 fortnights Salary Sacrafice $1000 allowing me to stya qualified for single parents pension and thus obtaining the highest rate of family assisatnce despite large capital gains. By reducing my weekly income by 100 / 12 would not lead to the same result.

I suppose I can't complain to much, but it does suck cause I had a pretty good thing going for a while there.

Is the extra $100K+ from CG the taxable value ie. already discounted 50%; or does it simply represent the total gain. Either way I'd be thankful Coastymikes prediction of removal of the discount for CGT didn't occur!

You sal sac about $5K a year, would $100 a week reduction (similar yearly amount) do the same thing? If not, exactly what are you salary sacrificing into and how does that particular 'loophole' work?

As to the reduction in child support - assuming you have full (or near to it) custody, often the family court will skew asset settlements in the custodial parents direction, reflecting the lessened opportunity for said parent to work (at least in terms of number of hours). Did you get a greater share of the split?

An old (and somewhat fair) gripe of separated fathers is that the mother (often custodial parent) gets the the bulk of the assets, so the father is left with little PLUS has to pay a fair chunk of their GROSS income as child support on top of that.

 

[GoAnna!]

Is the extra $100K+ from CG the taxable value ie. already discounted 50%; or does it simply represent the total gain. Either way I'd be thankful Coastymikes prediction of removal of the discount for CGT didn't occur!

You sal sac about $5K a year, would $100 a week reduction (similar yearly amount) do the same thing? If not, exactly what are you salary sacrificing into and how does that particular 'loophole' work?

As to the reduction in child support - assuming you have full (or near to it) custody, often the family court will skew asset settlements in the custodial parents direction, reflecting the lessened opportunity for said parent to work (at least in terms of number of hours). Did you get a greater share of the split?

An old (and somewhat fair) gripe of separated fathers is that the mother (often custodial parent) gets the the bulk of the assets, so the father is left with little PLUS has to pay a fair chunk of their GROSS income as child support on top of that.

I think the system appears unfair when there is only the PPOR involved. The court will protect the hildren so the house will tend to go with the children and the non custodian is then required to support the ongoing care of the children. The major carer's income drops, they had a reduced ability to work, and so they resent the little they feel is being contributed in comparison to the money and hours they are putting in. The non custodian has most likely lost their children, their home and their marriage. And to add insult to injury they are expected to put money in each week. From each perspective it sucks! If 10 properties were involved the situation would not seem so dire as the PPOR would not make up the majority of the assets.

 

[letiha]

When we divorced we had no property except for the furniture, which at the time was being paid off - I got left with those bills.

As far as the Child Support goes the Family Court has nothing to do with it, all done by a set (and very stupid) formula now, doesn't take into account the individual circumstances.

The loop hole that I use would not work with a weekly reduction of income of the same amount, The key critera is that as long as one fortnighout of 6 my income is under a ceratin amount then I remain eligble (don't recieve actual payment ohter than $5-6) for the payment and therefore keeping the full rate of CCB and FTB.

 

[natmarie73]

hence the reason for a long whinge..!

No, just expressing my disgust at the entitlement mentality that seems to be so prevalent on an investment forum where I assumed contributors were aiming to earn enough money that they didn't need to rely on handouts.

We already get so many more tax benefits and deductions than average working people and I simply can't understand why anyone with an investment mentality would be upset at losing a government handout that frankly they really don't need.

I do think that pensioners and carers got shafted though and I think they are more deserving of government help than someone earning $150K.

 

[natmarie73]

I think that's the important point to remember. The baby bonus wasn't introduced just for poor people, it was introduced to encourage widespread population growth. Otherwise it would have been means tested from the beginning.

Hell, if we had a choice of a single mum with 3 kids already, who has been on Centrelink for years and has no intention of ever working vs a young professional couple - who would you rather see have another child?

May not be the politically correct thing to say - but who the hell are we kidding?!

OK, but does Australia really need to encourage population growth by encouraging more babies to be born? I think it would be a much better idea to increase skilled migration instead. That way the increased in population is benefiting the economy right now when it is needed, not in 17 years or so when we may be in the middle of a recession and all these $5000 children can't get jobs.

And who really thinks that a $5000 handout would encourage high income earners to have children? If they want children they would have them anyway on that sort of salary - $5000 would not change their mind. What woman who's hubby earns $150K+ would say to herself "Hmmmm, if I only there were an extra $5000 in the kitty I would have another child." Not a single one. The only people who were encouraged to have children for money are those on welfare and lower income earners on say $30 - 40K where the money would actually come in handy and that's why I call it middle class welfare.

 

[asdf]

And who really thinks that a $5000 handout would encourage high income earners to have children? If they want children they would have them anyway on that sort of salary - $5000 would not change their mind. What woman who's hubby earns $150K+ would say to herself "Hmmmm, if I only there were an extra $5000 in the kitty I would have another child." Not a single one. The only people who were encouraged to have children for money are those on welfare and lower income earners on say $30 - 40K where the money would actually come in handy and that's why I call it middle class welfare.

How very true. The benefactors of the baby bonus amongst the "rich" has been their obstetricians and their insurers who picks up anywhere from $6-$8k for the privilege of ensuring your child arrives safely into this world. Your "rich" in this case have deferred having kids well into their 30s to ensure that they can adequately provide and support their families seeing each child will set them back up to half a mil each (and thats if they walk out the door at 18). Now that is responsible family planning from the educated and informed.

 

[steveadl]

OK, but does Australia really need to encourage population growth by encouraging more babies to be born? I think it would be a much better idea to increase skilled migration instead. That way the increased in population is benefiting the economy right now when it is needed, not in 17 years or so when we may be in the middle of a recession and all these $5000 children can't get jobs.

And who really thinks that a $5000 handout would encourage high income earners to have children? If they want children they would have them anyway on that sort of salary - $5000 would not change their mind. What woman who's hubby earns $150K+ would say to herself "Hmmmm, if I only there were an extra $5000 in the kitty I would have another child." Not a single one. The only people who were encouraged to have children for money are those on welfare and lower income earners on say $30 - 40K where the money would actually come in handy and that's why I call it middle class welfare.

Agree with you on both counts Natmarie. Addressing our current skills shortage would be a more important priority, especially if half the babies that result from the incentive end up the same as their parents as in my example.

I don't think there should be a baby bonus at all. As you said, it's only going to encourage lower socio economic groups to procreate, rather than high income families. This will only result in an increasing gap between the haves and have nots (IMO). My issues was that, whilst I don't necessarily agree with it - the baby bonus wasn't introduced just for low income groups, it was for everyone.

Hopefully now that they will be rationing out the payments to those that receive it, it will be used more as it was designed to be as opposed to just a nice little wad of cash to go and buy something 'cool'. As a guess, I would also assume this will take away the incentive for some of these people to become pregnant in the first place.

I'm not in the least phased that I won't receive the baby bonus - I don't expect any govt. assistant and never have/will.

 

[buzzlightyear]

....As you said, it's only going to encourage lower socio economic groups to procreate, rather than high income families. This will only result in an increasing gap between the haves and have nots (IMO)....

Now maybe it was the way I read this comment, but it did strike me that I believe you are linking lower socio economic groups and their behaviours (re their financial status) as being less than desirable. I think the poor behaviours exhibited with regards to our financial affairs are not necessarily class dependent.

Given Australia's class mobility, generally good access to education, I am not sure we can lump in those who might come from lower socio-economic groups as trapped in their predicament for life.

 

[steveadl]

Now maybe it was the way I read this comment, but it did strike me that I believe you are linking lower socio economic groups and their behaviours (re their financial status) as being less than desirable. I think the poor behaviours exhibited with regards to our financial affairs are not necessarily class dependent.

Given Australia's class mobility, generally good access to education, I am not sure we can lump in those who might come from lower socio-economic groups as trapped in their predicament for life.

You're absolutely right Buzz, poor financial management is prevelant through all classes - the same as a high paid lawyer may live from week to week to be able to afford his mansion, new cars and other high maintenance lifestyle gadgets.

My comments about the lower classes in my example are directly related to the first hand experience my fiance has had when working at an employment service who soley dealt with unemployed persons and trying to get them off benefits and back into the work place. The attitudes that came through the doors were quite astounding, and I'm not talking about one or two bad apples. We're talking hundreds of people each week. There were positive success stories and attitudes in there as well, but they were definitely in the minority. You'd be amazed at how hard people work to not work, and continue receiving as much as possible for the govt. Plus we're also talking about the 3rd generation in a row with this lifestyle.

If nothing else - at least the lawyer is paying taxes, and is getting minimal govt. assistance.

Add: Despite the access to education that you refer to - the majority of these people show no intention or desire to enact any change or better their situation.