Jessica Brown’s proposal for a user pays scheme for parental leave ignores the fact that the period immediately after childbirth is precisely the time when families can least afford to take on additional debt.

She has used the term ‘parental leave saver account’ which is terminology very close to the ‘parental leave account’ scheme promoted by my organisation, Catalyst Australia in a public submission to the Productivity Commission several months ago.

However, there is an important distinction between these two models.

The CIS is promoting a mix of debt and user pays policies to provide parenting support. By contrast our submission argued for a savings focussed scheme funded by a modest contribution from employers. In this way our scheme is not funded by increasing household debt, but by savings, similar to superannuation.

Families already make enough financial adjustment to have children. By failing to recognise this, the CIS proposal appears biased towards families and children with higher income and who can afford to put more money aside, take out insurance or take on more debt.

Parents are nurturing the next generation of consumers and workers. It’s time for all our businesses to contribute a small share of the costs.

The economic argument forwarded by the author makes a worthy contribution to this debate. I find no fault with making an economically rationalist contribution. I do find fault with the anti-intellectual use of un-evidenced, moral arguments forwarded in place of evidenced economic argument. This is rhetoric not research.

Firstly, staying at home with a new baby is not simply about bonding: its hard, physical, emotional and intellectual work that contributes to producing a civilized taxpayer- citizen to help support the future of society for all (including those who didn’t procreate so will need to rely more heavily on general society in their retirement – that labour-force comprising other people’s children who, hopefully, will be kind and community spirited to those without inter-generational family support).

Secondly, “bonding” has a socio-economic function. There is a correlation between a sense of wellbeing and a good capacity to contribute to society (including the tax base) that comes from sound bonding in early childhood. There’s good economic data on this - respond to that not the rhetoric.

Thirdly, we’ve designed a society which economically differentiates parenting work from non-parenting work. Perhaps that was unwise – perhaps not. What does the economic argument say about this? This researcher doesn’t tell us.

Fourthly, the age of first time procreation is increasing. A large proportion of parents are taxpayers for a long, long time prior to procreating and will continue to be taxpayers for a long, long time after (many the whole time in between) – they’ll have a reduction in tax for a period that coincides with an enormous increase in child-raising expenses which will help form the socially contributory taxpayer-citizen of the future.

The article implies that parenting and taxpaying don’t go hand in hand. Rubbish – that’s just ignorance caused by a generalized examination of tax information rather than a careful scrutiny. You’re a purported economist - show us the detail and keep out of the gutter with your cheap emotional shots which at least in this instance appear in place of evidence

One wonders how we evolved without the Nanny welfare state?

How does the Mongolian Yurt dweller bond with their child? By pack and saddlebag one observes.

This nonsense could make a conservative out of a born lefty...

From todays paper:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/20-weeks-baby-leave-plan/2008/09/29/1222650958160.html

"...mostly funded by the government..."

We have the most astonishing amount of tax churn in this country. The cost of government must surely be through the roof, and looking at the way the last two governments have behaved, surely it'll only get worse.

Seriously folks, tax churn is not good policy. Every bit of churn costs money to administer and only muddies the waters. There was a report recently which shows that with all the rebates/bonus' etc, most families got back as much (or more) than the amount of tax that they paid.

So here's a plan - let's abolish all of these rebates and bonus' and other guff, reduce the tax rate accordingly so that it's revenue neutral and let people be responsible for themselves. If people want to have kids, then they can put that money into a savings account (like suggested here, or some other form), if they don't then they can use the money how they want.

Perhaps there needs to be a top up for the genuinely low income families - fine. But for gods sake, let's cut the churn out - this is not good government, and it's certainly not good policy.

"Firstly, staying at home with a new baby...contributes to producing a civilized taxpayer- citizen to help support the future of society for all"

Ahhhhh the predicatable yet tiresome taxpayers-of-the-future-platitudes of the entitlement-poisoned child-makers. The gimme-handouts-so-that-I-can-maintain-my-pre-natal-lifestyle rent-a-crowd need a new mantra. Spare me the faux-altrusism please. The baby-makers are not fecund with mine or the nation's future in mind.

If is it such toil -- "hard, physical, emotional and intellectual" -- then don't do it. if you choose to have children, don't be a whiney martyr. Don't tell me that, because I have chosen not to do that I am supposed to adhere to a perverse noblesse oblige to compensate you because you made what is possibly a regrettable decision.

"Secondly, “bonding” has a socio-economic function."

I doubt there is ANY evidence to show that the more I throw money at the child-burdened that I get a return on investment. In fact, I find it repellent that someone ougtht to be bribed to bond with their child.

"..a society which economically differentiates parenting work from non-parenting work. "

Parenting work is a private good with a range of optionality. And judging from the stats on child-abuse, obesity, juvenile crime, teen depression and so on, I am starting to question whether parents are doing a "good job".

"A large proportion of parents are taxpayers for a long, long time prior to procreating and will continue to be taxpayers for a long, long time after"

So George Megologenis' claim in last week's The Australian that families pay no net tax was made up?

"..coincides with an enormous increase in child-raising expenses..."

That something is expensive does not justify a subsidy from the goverment.

Yes Shell, I too do find fault with the anti-intellectual use of un-evidenced, moral social-engineering arguments forwarded in place of evidenced economic argument. This is rhetoric not research.

"...which will help form the socially contributory taxpayer-citizen of the future. "

Not more of the taxpayer-of-the-future!

Oh sure. The baby-makers assure us evil childless people that the sticky little spawn that oh-so-adorably crawl under my table or upset trays of drinks and scream at my favourite cafe will all grow up to be taxpaying lawyers, nurses and doctors who will be rioting in the streets for the right to change Depends on patients in the oldies' home, apparently.

Hyperbole aside, it is equally possible that the offspring of the post breeder-handout decades are going to graduate from the University of Crime. Or else take cues from their own parents and grow up to be yuppies with a smug sense of entitlement and not pay tax and demand handouts so that they can continue to live like the DINKs they once were leaving the childless once again to pick up the tab and to work back late at night.

Like most demands for the swathe of baby-makers' handouts, when one digs under the painful faux-altruism, it seems that their so-called "rights" are not about the child but rather the desire to maintain a post-natal zero-sum impact along with subtext that it is perfectly moral to fiscally "punish" non-parents for having the temerity to dodge the bullet.(I suspect jealousy and envy is the driving force behind the latter)

A token amount of taxpayer-funded paid leave leave can be justified if - and only if -- it can be shown that children provide benefits to the rest of us. And then that quanta should be the same for all parents based on that externality and not with the best-paid parents getting more and the poor parents getting very little.