The real Costs of CSA
The "morality" of a graduated scale for CSA payments is based on the graduated tax schedule.
The purpose of the graduated tax schedule, where the rich are taxed at a higher rate than the poor, is to redistribute wealth and produce economic activity in the areas the government directs. Tax deductions or credits are offered to get wealthy people to give away money to charities, for example, or to invest in certain types of industry.
Does this sort of reasoning apply to how much it takes to raise a child?
(Quick explanation:
Tax deduction: You make $100,000. You give $10,000 to charity. Your taxable income is reduced to $90,000.
Tax credit: Your tax rate is 50% in the same scenario. You have avoided $5000 in tax -- half or 50% of the $10,000 you gave to charity --, and now have a tax credit for $5000.
In some cases, you can buy tax credits directly. It may cost you $7500 to get a $5000 tax credit, but it costs less than giving $10,000 to a charity. Some salary sacrifice schemes in Australia operate this way.)
But back to the question, -- Does it make any sense to apply this reasoning to the cost of raising a child?
The practical answer is No. The cost of eggs is the cost of eggs. It makes no sense that a child should need $12,000 a month
Yet that is what some of the CSA calculations demand (and more...)
The graduated payments scheme is based on the concept of alimony: "to maintain the manner to which (the divorcee) has been accustomed."
This is the best argument against the CSA awards scheme. There is no child who has become accustomed to $12,000 month; and more than that, there is no reason a child should be maintained at that level if the parents divorce.
All that happens is the paying spouse is raped financially and dispossessed. He (or she) has a disincentive to work or become more productive.
And the receiving spouse becomes accustomed to living beyond their means to earn, which is also a disincentive to work or become more productive.
The scheme does provide the government with the means to direct expenditures, as in the graduated tax scheme. Supposedly, the money is spent on the child, but that is easily disproven factually and intuitively.
The goal here is for the government to avoid the cost of divorce and support for the child(ren). Hardly a conscientious attitude from government. The government's policies encourage divorce, which in turn puts the cost of divorce onto the parents and into payments for the legal system -- lawyers and courts.
It can be argued that the government does not avoid the costs of divorce anyway. The inefficiency of CSA, where they spend $5 to recoup $3, is hardly cost efficient.
You'll notice the recent figures put forward by the Investigative Office states that they have already recovered $93 million against the $140 million allocated to set up the office. The question is How much of that $93 million was going to be collected anyway? Have they taken credit for collections for the whole agency?
The costs of lost productivity have never been charged against CSA. How many fathers, estimates run into the tens of thousands across Australia, find they cannot or will not earn and work to their best after being buried by unjust and unfair CSA demands.
In addition to that lost productivity, is the human toll. 37 men each month step in front of CONNEX trains in Victoria alone. The male suicide rate in Australia is 5 times the rate for women. How many of these suicides can be attributed to the divorce industry? The most conservative estimate I've seen say 60% of male suicides are related to the breakup of their families.
Victorian government figures cite a loss of $10 billion a year to depression. Private estimates put the figure at over $100 billion nationally. As of 2000, the GNP of Australia is $400 billion.
The figure in Victoria indicates the country loses 2.5% of its national value to depression. If the national figure is correct, then Australia may lose 25% of its national output to depression. That's one dollar in 4, folks.
And you wonder why I mention the lack of a national mental health system is important over and over? Think about it.
Maybe more important is the human cost to the future. The government will be responsible for these costs someday. The confusion, anguish, and anxiety that is caused by unjust divorce settlements and irrational, irresponsible judgments by CSA will be with this country for 70 years or more.
The resentment and distrust of the legal and social system, and the government, will only increase as these costs become apparent.
Paul Donley
The purpose of the graduated tax schedule, where the rich are taxed at a higher rate than the poor, is to redistribute wealth and produce economic activity in the areas the government directs. Tax deductions or credits are offered to get wealthy people to give away money to charities, for example, or to invest in certain types of industry.
Does this sort of reasoning apply to how much it takes to raise a child?
(Quick explanation:
Tax deduction: You make $100,000. You give $10,000 to charity. Your taxable income is reduced to $90,000.
Tax credit: Your tax rate is 50% in the same scenario. You have avoided $5000 in tax -- half or 50% of the $10,000 you gave to charity --, and now have a tax credit for $5000.
In some cases, you can buy tax credits directly. It may cost you $7500 to get a $5000 tax credit, but it costs less than giving $10,000 to a charity. Some salary sacrifice schemes in Australia operate this way.)
But back to the question, -- Does it make any sense to apply this reasoning to the cost of raising a child?
The practical answer is No. The cost of eggs is the cost of eggs. It makes no sense that a child should need $12,000 a month
Yet that is what some of the CSA calculations demand (and more...)
The graduated payments scheme is based on the concept of alimony: "to maintain the manner to which (the divorcee) has been accustomed."
This is the best argument against the CSA awards scheme. There is no child who has become accustomed to $12,000 month; and more than that, there is no reason a child should be maintained at that level if the parents divorce.
All that happens is the paying spouse is raped financially and dispossessed. He (or she) has a disincentive to work or become more productive.
And the receiving spouse becomes accustomed to living beyond their means to earn, which is also a disincentive to work or become more productive.
The scheme does provide the government with the means to direct expenditures, as in the graduated tax scheme. Supposedly, the money is spent on the child, but that is easily disproven factually and intuitively.
The goal here is for the government to avoid the cost of divorce and support for the child(ren). Hardly a conscientious attitude from government. The government's policies encourage divorce, which in turn puts the cost of divorce onto the parents and into payments for the legal system -- lawyers and courts.
It can be argued that the government does not avoid the costs of divorce anyway. The inefficiency of CSA, where they spend $5 to recoup $3, is hardly cost efficient.
You'll notice the recent figures put forward by the Investigative Office states that they have already recovered $93 million against the $140 million allocated to set up the office. The question is How much of that $93 million was going to be collected anyway? Have they taken credit for collections for the whole agency?
The costs of lost productivity have never been charged against CSA. How many fathers, estimates run into the tens of thousands across Australia, find they cannot or will not earn and work to their best after being buried by unjust and unfair CSA demands.
In addition to that lost productivity, is the human toll. 37 men each month step in front of CONNEX trains in Victoria alone. The male suicide rate in Australia is 5 times the rate for women. How many of these suicides can be attributed to the divorce industry? The most conservative estimate I've seen say 60% of male suicides are related to the breakup of their families.
Victorian government figures cite a loss of $10 billion a year to depression. Private estimates put the figure at over $100 billion nationally. As of 2000, the GNP of Australia is $400 billion.
The figure in Victoria indicates the country loses 2.5% of its national value to depression. If the national figure is correct, then Australia may lose 25% of its national output to depression. That's one dollar in 4, folks.
And you wonder why I mention the lack of a national mental health system is important over and over? Think about it.
Maybe more important is the human cost to the future. The government will be responsible for these costs someday. The confusion, anguish, and anxiety that is caused by unjust divorce settlements and irrational, irresponsible judgments by CSA will be with this country for 70 years or more.
The resentment and distrust of the legal and social system, and the government, will only increase as these costs become apparent.
Paul Donley
posted by Unknown at
11:11 AM
Social bookmark this
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home