Response to Bigred and Mike/Monteverdi

Bigred posted this on www.familylawwebguide.com.au:

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/forum/index.php?page=topicview&type=misc&id=3177&start=0#first_unread


Bigred made this assumption:
"The payer is a taxpayer. That means they contributed to the bonus because it can only be paid because the government has a surplus of revenue over expenditure"

We respond:

Bigred you really need to become more informed. The statistics do not support your claim and in fact 39% of payers are regarded as being unemployed and pay no tax at all and only the minimum of Child Support, and then you have the very wealthy who employ tax minimisation schemes who also pay either no tax or the very minimum.Further there are those that use cash transactions and self employment to understate their tax liabilities and as a direct result their Child Support liability. We have direct evidence of some assessed payers of Child Support that despite earning several million dollars per annum still do not pay any tax at all. Also a fact is there are quite a few members of the FLWG that are the recipients of Government funding and are payers of Child Support (again the bare minimum) that in no way comes close to supporting a child. The current Child Support arrears bill is $1 billion dollars. So that is $1 biilion dollars that has not been paid to support children! Fact: The The government is currently spending how many dollars a year (of people who do pay tax) in chasing up and enforcing these arrears.

The $1,000 bonus will benefit a child either directly or indirectly so stop being greedy and spiteful and put your efforts into supporting your child instead of finding ways to be a turkey!
And you assume that we will be flattered that you have sympathy for certain views we have? Not likely! Your arrogance is already evident in your posts and we really do not desire any support from any person that does not willingly support their own children. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mike/Monteverdi we are not interested in a debate at all. Your constant calls for us to expose who we are only confirm your desire to see us threatened in some way. What does it matter who we are, the truth is still the truth and unless you can post some cold hard facts to prove that what we state is not true then it stands. The FLWG and the S.P.C.A. have either threatened us, attacked us or called on us to expose our identities. Where is the rebuttal if in fact what we have exposed is not the truth.

We are well aware of your views and posting them on a forum makes you as liable as we are, so when posting your little blurb from The Age, we hope you are taking notice of your own implied threat. Further, by posting in support of Bigred as a representative of FLWG and therefore the Shared Parenting Council of Australia you are only further reinforcing the message that his view is your view. We get it ok? Do you also support the use of threats of violence against us? Yes we thought so!
We are sure Gerry Orkin will not be impressed with you posting his name all over the internet and also by posting to Peter Saxon on his blog that you firmly believe it is Gerry Orkin who writes on this blog. You have left yourself wide open and we certainly hope that Gerry uses whatever means possible to force you to retract your statements. Egg on your face Mike! And as Peter Saxon says 1+1 does not equal 3!