Actually it is the taxpayers worse off

writes in the Herald:

Our law is taking up to $28 a week away from some of the poorest women and children in the country for spurious reasons.

The Social Security Act states that women who do not identify in law the fathers of their children will have deductions made from their benefits.

The aim of the law is to force mothers to name fathers so child support can be levied on fathers.

But that is not what is happening. Instead, 13,616 parents are permanently receiving lower incomes than they should be. The main people this punishes are not fathers who fail to support their children, but rather the children themselves.

Actually it is the taxpayer who is worse off, not the children.

If the mother named the father then he would have to pay child support to the IRD. If the father earns $50,000 he would probably pay $450 a month to the IRD.

Instead the father pays say $200 a month to the mother. Here’s how it affects everyone.

  • Father $250 a month better off
  • Mother/child $80 a month better off ($200 less $120 deductions for non naming father)
  • Taxpayer $330 a month worse off by having the $450 a month child support to partially cover cost of benefit, less $120 deductions for no naming

So even under the current system, it is the taxpayer who misses out – not the kids.

What McLennan wants is a system where it would be:

  • Father $250 a month better off
  • Mother/child $200 a month better off
  • Taxpayer $450 a month worse off by having the $450 a month child support to partially cover cost of benefit

And beyond doubt there would be a huge increase in fathers not being named.

Comments (80)

Login to comment or vote

Add a Comment