The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Paying mothers to have children must stop > Comments

Paying mothers to have children must stop : Comments

By Jason Falinski, published 11/1/2006

Jason Falinski argues payments tied to the production of children promote harmful social outcomes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. All
This comment "a general lack of investment in human capital" is simply disgusting. Human capital? Doesn't that speak volumes about the writer?

Ignoring that though anyone who thinks having babies is a way to make money is a fool but despite that I am aware that some, mainly young, women do so not thinking of the future. Perhaps they expect their parents to step in as they frequently do when the actual parent cannot cope.

Becker's theory probably makes sense in most cases. Let's turn it on it's head for Australian taxpayers.

Our governments, Federal and State, pay Senior staff of most organistaions to go to work. How? By subsidising their vehicles, or providing them as part of a salary package. The Tax Office allow relevant costs as deductions just as Jason points out for negative gearing.

These two incentives cost the taxpayer billions but as the richer people benefit it is not targeted as welfare recipients are. Why?

Becker's theory in reverse shows that those eligible for these taxpayer funded benefits will kill each other to get in the queue. It is the same money, collected tax, distibuted to the rich and nary a word raised by either side of politics.

Sajo's suggestion of vouchers is not workable as it carries stigma that the person is on benefits and identified as such by anyone taking such vouchers. People don't accept that. Rather though that such funds were given to people by paying direct costs, such as electricity, rent and so on. The regular weekly costs that are essential. Any other method tends to end up at Harvey Norman's or goes into the pokies.

Rosie's comments about relationships splitting are obvious, the divorce rate is about 33%, so defacto breakdowns would be that and more. But to generalise saying men are the failures does not indicate much thought or research on this topic. If men were not succesful long term partners most of us wouldn't be here Rosie. It's a 2 way street these days I'm afraid. Both partners are responsible for relationship failure, not just the males.
Posted by RobbyH, Wednesday, 11 January 2006 4:11:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly let me say I come from a single parent family. My father died when I was nine and my brother five. I am now a lawyer and my brother a graduate of Duntroon. Therefore I don't accept unconditionally that single mothers are doomed to fail.

However from experience I perceive massive problems in the way welfare in this regard is approached in this country. Certainly it must be highlighted that single mums are given very little incentive to rejoin the workforce. A combination of excessive taxation and child care costs make returning to the work force totally unattractive. In addition the welfare program is structured in such a way that single parents are actually penalised for finding meaningful employment.Is it any surprise that single mothers aren't motivated to return to work?!

My Mum survived because she used her initiative- I dare say though that the head on her shoulders also helped. But for women lacking in iniative or intelligence the government must do more. I have always thought that the government could allow for a basic allowance decreasing with the increase in numbers of children per mother (any mother).Most importantly the government could then match dollar for dollar the working income of those mothers each year. Or at the very least provide significant tax concessions for them.

If a simple system like this was costed properly by the treasury department I believe the economic benefits would far outway the costs and the community would see far more women back in the workforce.
Posted by wre, Wednesday, 11 January 2006 4:18:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobbyH - there would be no stigma attached to vouchers as currently even the fairly wealthy receive the baby bonus so most families with new babies would have them for varying amounts. Child care centres, schools and baby shops wouldn't blink an eye.
Posted by sajo, Wednesday, 11 January 2006 4:27:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More abject twaddle from the decendant of Nelson."Say no more""Say no more"These well paid wankademics really get up my nose,this is just more right wing sophistry to can welfare period.They do this by stealth,just like a stone mason chip,chip,chip., and presto 5/5 of F.A. is left.

Of course the old U.S.A.would be the last place to analogise anything.The poor,un-married mothers, and other social mis-fits in that country are treated like cattle.Sorry cattle are treated better my mistake. Katrina told me all I need to know about the U.S.Hey just keep building more jails it works dontcha think.There is not a sentient being on the planet, that believes anything that comes out of the U.S. of late.And to mention Newt Gingrich in the same breath as Bill Clinton is blasphemy.Newt should stick to writing books about the civil war.

I may be wrong,but I think I heared this man being interviewed by Philip Adams.If this is the same,he was on to him.

All through out my life getting on for sixty years,it has never ceased to amaze me,that the people who usualy complain the most about un-married mothers and welfare payments, are men.Of course these are the same men who will tell any lie,spend any amount of money entertaining them,and walk over broken glass to get into there pants.Hyprocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to pleasures of the flesh.And please no bursts, Phill you are probably one of them!No, so save your allotted amount of words to blast me some other way.

And finally the one off payments care of goverment.What a cynical ploy to get votes.These right wing righteous bastards knew full well most of that loot would end up back in circulation via plasma t.v.'s etc cause that's human nature,and Johny, I give him his due he played a blinder.I know rusted on Laborites who changed there vote for there 40 pieces of silver.

I don't know what the answer is,but stripping people of there dignity by making them look for there meals in rubbish bins,is not an anathema to me,it is bloody outrages
Posted by PHILB, Wednesday, 11 January 2006 4:42:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wre, I'm also from a single parent family. An amazing amount of discrimination and snobbery manifests towards single mothers. My mother experienced this after my father died.

If the government wants to encourage single parents to work when their child reaches primary school age then perhaps it should help by creating some well paid 9am-3pm jobs.

Are there any single parents on this forum? I would be interested in your view of this article.
Posted by Pedant, Wednesday, 11 January 2006 6:27:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All this is is sloganeering, no facts nothing that can be empirical tested.

What proportion of single mothers have had children after they commenced the pension?
This article assume every one on a single pension is producing children for a free ride.

I look forward to an article from the author calling on the Howard Government to end all drought relief for farmers.

As all it does is encourage farmers to continue to operate on marginal land.

Or to ask the Howard Government to abolish negative gearing because all it does is to encourage investor to make speculative investments that generate a loss for a considerable period and hence need public subsidisation.

Or is welfare for the North Shore toffs ok but not for those in the WEST

the author suggest that what is required is assistance back into the workforce for single mums. Coming from a Howard backer this is laughable. They destroyed all the labour market programs that were designed to get long term unemployed back into the labour market.

They have not increased publicly funded child care and have relied upon rebates etc which get eaten by the money hungry private child care sector.

Lets get real
Posted by slasher, Wednesday, 11 January 2006 7:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy