This 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.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 02:36 am (UTC)From:also, re the 'many of whom would be welfare dependent', they were talking about how they think a large number of them are using huge salary sacrifice and cash business techniques to bring their declared income down to a minimum level.
I'm not sure why they mentioned many of them being welfare dependent though, as the whole point of the article was those who really aren't, and should be paying more than the token $6 amount of child support.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 02:55 am (UTC)From:"Rich deadbeat dads cheating their kids
RICH Sydney harbourside suburbs are home to hundreds of deadbeat dads declaring incomes so absurdly low they pay just $6 a week in child support - barely enough for a Happy Meal."
There are some other very dodgy assumptions there, however - since when did an individual's postcode determine their income? Should we assume that every person in a suburb earns that suburb's median income for accounting purposes? That'll be a big problem for a whole lot of students, live-in domestic labourers, and Homeswest dwellers come tax time.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 03:09 am (UTC)From:(Of course, I know that in this case they're not, but they might as well have been)
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 03:19 am (UTC)From:/asks the guy whose dad uprooted and moved three times rather than give his kids a nickel
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 03:47 am (UTC)From:I think it's the legal minimum.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 11:54 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-02-20 06:28 am (UTC)From:Having read the original article, the last paragraph (the second quote) doesn't fit with the tenor of the rest of the article. It does, however, give perspective - there are about 500 people in the position of being targetted because of where they live, compared to nearly 75,000 who are believed to be paying very little because that is all that they can afford.