Should people who have to pay child support get a tax credit like custodial parents do?

You get a tax discount for breeding over there too eh? I believe the same is true here - they call it the Family Tax benefit.

The concept of applying it equally to non-custodial parents seems fair enough - but it would have to be weighted according to the amount they pay somehow. As I'm not sure how the standard (custodial) side of things works, it's hard to be more specific.

The weighing is built in. Not to be nasty, but did you even think about that question before you asked? You're usually pretty sharp. When you are taxed a percentage of your wages, and you get tax exemption on that portion you pay on child support, obviously the more support you pay for, the more tax exemption you get. You didn't need me to explain that to you I'm sure.

Anyway, you made an especially salient point about how politicians manipulate the electorate with these little adjustments to who pays what. Its a way for politicians to use the tax system to shape behavior by applying incentives.

You obviously don't care for it, not in this case anyway.

This is an example of why I support the FairtaxAct for the U.S.

My suggestion it would need to be weighted is just what you said - it would have to be applied to the portion you pay on child support. That seems a simple way to go about it anyway.

This is different to the normal Family Tax Discount/Benefit or what ever it's called here where (I think) it is based simply on your income, and the number of kids under 16 you have in your custody. There is a LOT of controversy about the child support system here, and I think the system is currently being overhauled to improve the way it takes more things into consideration when determining how much people have to pay etc.

All of a child support payment is supposed to go to the child (though there are no controls in place to ensure it does) so that amount of income should be tax free if a custodial parent is given tax exemption

The Family tax Benefit is divided between custodial and non custodial parents depending on their level of care. So if someone has the kids 30% of the time they pay CS based on that and receive 30% of the family tax benefits.

If you don't have kids and you have a spouse who doesn't work you get a tax break, so it isn't just people with kids that get tax relief.

Seems a pretty over-simplified way to judge who should get the tax relief. The original point here - that non-custodial parents should probably be given some kind of tax relief too - doesn't seem to me to automatically break down fairly and squarely on one factor such as how much custodial time they have.

With this simple system you describe, a parent who has no custody, but only has visiting access arrangements (or no access at all) would get no tax relief , even though by paying the potentially very large amounts of child support, they are possibly spending more of their earnings on raising the kid than the custodial parent is. There are cases where a person is effectively fully supporting an ex-spouse as well as the kid(s), but they might not then get any of this tax relief at all.

It all seems to need a serious rethink to me. Perhaps with the new Government on board in Australia and (so far at least) seemingly not afraid to shake things up a bit, such a rethink may actually happen. Somehow some way of determining the actual cost of raising the kid (or supporting the non-kid dependent as you mention) - then combine that with the amount of child support paid by non-custodial parent, and the contribution to it made by the custodial parent, to determine who gets what in terms of tax relief? Probably wishful thinking - whatever system one devises, people will manipulate it to their benefit (and thereby to the other persons detriment). So in any such system such manipulations should be a serious criminal offence (basically, equivalent to tax evasion).

I am unable to argue this point without using emotion (rendering my whole point invalid). I get $360 or so per year from my ex to 'support' my child. It started at around $250 per year and has gone up to around $360 per year. If he were able to use that money to lower his taxable income I would be livid.

I wish it only cost $720 per year to raise, feed, clothe, educate, etc etc etc my child.

The tax break isn't for time spent, it's for money paid.

User, why would you be livid if your ex paid less taxes?

Why is it so little? There must be a reason, because all the examples I see are talking hundreds per month at least, not hundreds per year?

Because he doesn't have enough 'taxable' income, or at least he hasn't in his past. He does most of his work cash in hand and he hasn't reached the level of taxable income of where his payments rise to more than the base rate.
In short, he is a loser and refuses to get a proper job because he doesn't want to pay child support.

The joy of non-custodial parents is if they don't get a job, they don't have to pay anything but peanuts. Where as the custodial parents have no choice. No money, no food in the child's mouth, no clothes on the child's back and no roof over the child's head. Not having a job doesn't stop the bills coming in.

I accepted this a long time ago, but when it comes up saying giving the payers more rights my emotional side jumps up and down and says it is unfair.
My father pays ridiculous amounts in child support for his other children and I can see where it is a good thing. Just in my case it isn't. And as I said, you can't win an argument with emotion

I still don't understand why, if it doesn't change how much he pays you, you'd not want the amount to be tax free?

Oh well, don't vote for Obama. It's his idea.

The whole child support system needs much more serious reforms than this.

For starters, the custodial parent should not be allowed to move the child outside 100 mile radious from where the couple resided when the seperation took place without either consent of the non-custodial parent or if the non-custodial parent chose to move away.

They should also change the way custody defaults to the woman. They should consider things like who is in a better position to provide financially, who is more stable, the age and wishes of the child, etc. There are plenty of factors to consider besides gender.

Also, the non custodial should just owe a certain amount - the kid doesn't get hungry based on how much one of his parents make. I don't like the sliding scales.

It sounds like in your case, his primary crime is tax avoidance, and as a secondary effect he gets to avoid his responsibility to you. My suggestion would be to put aside any 'Aussie' notions about not dobbing people in, and contact the ATO (and Human Services while you're at it). I expect they love to hear about people who work cash in hand - they live to audit people and drop huge debts on them for past unpaid taxes. It may or may not get you anythign in terms of improved support from him, but might (or might not) teach him a lesson.

Really though, I think cash-in-hand workers are pretty unusual these days, and he seems like a bit of an exception (unfortunately for you). I'm glad to hear that you do see there are extreme cases at both ends of the spectrum. It is a very emotive issue that's for sure - the other night on TV I heard a comment from a guy saying he is happy to pay support for his kids, but it hurts when he thinks about the fact that he pays so much but still rarely gets to see them. I just think it's a messy, complicated area and seems to need a big shakeup to find fairer and more effective solutions.

Uh-huh - I doubt that User1.0 (like myself) will have much option on that score, being an Aussie.

That's one wacky idea you've got there. I'll give it 1 out of 10 just for being original. Ridiculous, but at least it's original. Perhaps you just didn't explain it clearly - I'd like to think that's the case.

Agreed 100% - this is a major flaw with the system here to - in theory I don't think it does still default to the woman, but in practice that is the way it still works. It should be done in a totally unbiased way, on merit.

There is an argument for this sure, but also a strong argument for sliding scales. If you went with your method, how would one set the level? What would it allow for in the way of luxuries? CDs? Mobile phones? Nintendos? Private classes in tennis/karate/ballet/guitar/whatever ... ? Setting the levels above a minimum subsistence scale seems like it has an effect on the personal liberties of the non-custodial parent. But there is also an argument to say that's just bad luck that they should have thought of that before making babies.

I didn't know she's Aussie. I knew you were. I should have figured she isn't American. Her English is good.



Thanks for allowing me to clarify then.

Two people are married with children. Almost undoubtably they all live in the same geographical area at this point.

There is a seperation between the two parent. One of them is assigned custody. The other one takes up new residence in the vicinity to enable him or her to continure working her job and have visitation with the child. Weekends or whatever the arrangement is.

With me so far?

The custodial parent after some time decides he wants to move to the other coast. What I'm saying is he should have to do one of the following.

A. Leave the child with the other parent.
B. Get permission from the other parent to take the child away.
C. Cancel his plans

The idea is one parent shouldn't be able to deprive the other of a reasonable chance to be with his/her child.

Suppose I got divorced and had custody of the kids with my wife getting to have them on weekends and holidays. A few years after the divorce, I get involved with some hussie who's moving back to the mainland and I want to go with her. Should I be able to take my kids with me? Depriving my ex the opportunity to see her kids regularly as per the agreement? Or make her change careers to move to follow me?

I don't think so. That's my point.



How to set the level? Some government bean counter figures out how much it costs to clothe, feed, and house a child in that area and divides the figure by two. That's the amount paid in child support for each kid. That's what the kid has a right to and the parents have an obligation to provide.

The issue of luxury items is between the parents and kid. If a parent wants his kid to have a Nintendo, he buys one for him. Should the government step in and make sure married parents are buying their kids Nintendos and cell phones too?

Sounds like the levels of child support would be pretty low this way. Seeing as how you think it's quite possible to survive on minimum wage, complete with Health insurance, the determined cost of "how much it costs to clothe, feed, and house a child in that area" should be pretty small. Unless they live in an expensive area perhaps.

Incidentally I do happen to think one can live successfully on a very small income. I do it myself. It's just not much fun making ends meet, and for me I do have the advantage of living in Australia where I can get my medicines each month at cheap rate because we have public health insurance. Plus the rising cost of living in the city forced me to move out to a country area, which luckily for me suited me anyway. As for any chance of putting money away for retirement time - that is out the window. So again I will likely be dependent on the public support of senior citizens we call the old age pension (unless circumstances improve between now and then, which I sure hope they do of course).

As long as the government mandated "levels of child support" are enough to meet the child's needs, (not wants) I'm not concerned with opinions about small or large. The government's involvement needs to be limited to ensuring both parents are sharing in the expense of meeting the child's needs. Anything beyond that is a private matter - none of anyone's business.