On the Parkinson Formula
On the Parkinson Formula
by Dave Barrett
I don't think enough resistance to this formula is being expressed by payers groups. We all seem to have been blinded by the fact that a few payers may end up paying less than they are now.
This new (Parkinson) formula is a scourge. Once it starts in July 2008 payers will suddenly realise that they have been duped. We will then enter into another 18 years of protesting to get change. My belief is that we start a massive campaign against this formula now.
Unfortunately the government can't, or won't, break the nexus between spousal maintenance and child support. They use the child support system as a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are really making payers pay spousal maintenace - most probably to reduce welfare expenditure on single parent households.
You've only got to look at what Parkinson claims is needed to support a child when the combined parental income is high to realise that the whole formula is falsely based. No child costs $15150 per year to provide an acceptable and adequate upbringing; yet, the Parkinson formula deems that to be the cost for a 13+yo whose parents have a combined child support income of $100000. Discretionary expenditure must be removed from determining the costs of children. If the parents want to buy little Johnny his own TV, designer clothes, $400 running shoes etc,etc then that is a decision for them but the cost of these unnecessary items should not be factored into the child support payment formula.
Payers (mostly fathers) want to pay and they like paying but the payments must be fair and not undiguised rip-off's designed to reduce government handouts to single parent families.
The only fair way to determine payments is to calculate the cost of giving children an adequate upbringing and then make each parent liable for half that amount regardless of their respective incomes. A parent would then only pay the other if they had a lesser amount of care. So, in the case where the parents had 50/50 care neither parent would pay the other anything and at the other end of the scale if a parent had no care then that parent would pay the other all the amount he/she is liable for.
Linking the costs of children to income is silly - children cost a certain amount regardless of income. After all, we don't pay any other bills according to income. Traffic fines, mortgages, fuel, supermarket, solisitors fees etc,etc don't change according to income, so why child support?
Anyway, Paul, I must stop raving as I could go on for hours. I will have a look at your blog later and will let you know what I think. In the meantime keep up the good work.
by Dave Barrett
I don't think enough resistance to this formula is being expressed by payers groups. We all seem to have been blinded by the fact that a few payers may end up paying less than they are now.
This new (Parkinson) formula is a scourge. Once it starts in July 2008 payers will suddenly realise that they have been duped. We will then enter into another 18 years of protesting to get change. My belief is that we start a massive campaign against this formula now.
Unfortunately the government can't, or won't, break the nexus between spousal maintenance and child support. They use the child support system as a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are really making payers pay spousal maintenace - most probably to reduce welfare expenditure on single parent households.
You've only got to look at what Parkinson claims is needed to support a child when the combined parental income is high to realise that the whole formula is falsely based. No child costs $15150 per year to provide an acceptable and adequate upbringing; yet, the Parkinson formula deems that to be the cost for a 13+yo whose parents have a combined child support income of $100000. Discretionary expenditure must be removed from determining the costs of children. If the parents want to buy little Johnny his own TV, designer clothes, $400 running shoes etc,etc then that is a decision for them but the cost of these unnecessary items should not be factored into the child support payment formula.
Payers (mostly fathers) want to pay and they like paying but the payments must be fair and not undiguised rip-off's designed to reduce government handouts to single parent families.
The only fair way to determine payments is to calculate the cost of giving children an adequate upbringing and then make each parent liable for half that amount regardless of their respective incomes. A parent would then only pay the other if they had a lesser amount of care. So, in the case where the parents had 50/50 care neither parent would pay the other anything and at the other end of the scale if a parent had no care then that parent would pay the other all the amount he/she is liable for.
Linking the costs of children to income is silly - children cost a certain amount regardless of income. After all, we don't pay any other bills according to income. Traffic fines, mortgages, fuel, supermarket, solisitors fees etc,etc don't change according to income, so why child support?
Anyway, Paul, I must stop raving as I could go on for hours. I will have a look at your blog later and will let you know what I think. In the meantime keep up the good work.
posted by Unknown at
7:02 AM
Social bookmark this
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home