![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Language, the great sanitizer
Feb. 19th, 2007 10:35 amThis article here has caught my attention:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21247151-949,00.html
It's about people avoiding paying child support to their children.
First thing that caught my eye:
In Sydney's 25 wealthiest postcodes at least 505 people - almost all men - claim incomes so low they pay the minimum, documents obtained under Freedom of Information show.
I thought, hmmm, interesting. And then there was this.
Across NSW, about one in three of the 218,000 parents making payments to their non-custodial children pay $6 a week. Of these 74,395, many of whom would be welfare dependent, 15,935 are women.
Ok, so let me get this right. "Of these 74,395, many of whom would be welfare dependant, the greatest number responsible for not paying the correct amount is actually men by a ratio of two men for every woman, however we're going to talk about the women instead."
Now, I am severely sleep deprived and while I do not appear to have my already week long headache, mornings are usually good for it hiding for a bit. So I might not be in my right state of mind. Did I read this right? And.... what? Many of whom are welfare dependant? Is this the author conceding that maybe, just maybe, people who pay only $6 a month child support might not actually *have* anything more? This article confuses me.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21247151-949,00.html
It's about people avoiding paying child support to their children.
First thing that caught my eye:
In Sydney's 25 wealthiest postcodes at least 505 people - almost all men - claim incomes so low they pay the minimum, documents obtained under Freedom of Information show.
I thought, hmmm, interesting. And then there was this.
Across NSW, about one in three of the 218,000 parents making payments to their non-custodial children pay $6 a week. Of these 74,395, many of whom would be welfare dependent, 15,935 are women.
Ok, so let me get this right. "Of these 74,395, many of whom would be welfare dependant, the greatest number responsible for not paying the correct amount is actually men by a ratio of two men for every woman, however we're going to talk about the women instead."
Now, I am severely sleep deprived and while I do not appear to have my already week long headache, mornings are usually good for it hiding for a bit. So I might not be in my right state of mind. Did I read this right? And.... what? Many of whom are welfare dependant? Is this the author conceding that maybe, just maybe, people who pay only $6 a month child support might not actually *have* anything more? This article confuses me.
