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 > Money for nothin’ and parental leave for free > Comments

Money for nothin’ and parental leave for free : Comments

By Jessica Brown, published 29/9/2008

Lots of time to bond with the new bundle of joy, with money from the government paying the mortgage: a dream come true!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
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.
Posted by Jo-anne Schofield, Monday, 29 September 2008 11:30:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Shell, Monday, 29 September 2008 11:31:46 AM
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
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...
Posted by SapperK9, Monday, 29 September 2008 12:34:24 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
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.
Posted by BN, Monday, 29 September 2008 1:06:16 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, 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.
Posted by Othello Cat, Monday, 29 September 2008 1:18:53 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
"...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.
Posted by Othello Cat, Monday, 29 September 2008 1:29:35 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
I just want to thank Othello for this...

'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. '
Posted by Usual Suspect, Monday, 29 September 2008 1:41:35 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
If the United States would quit laying out billions of dollars for idiotic research on such things like:
How bears that mate in Yellowstone National Park, in the latter part of July make better mother bears, than those who mate in another park in the latter part of August.
How snakes in suits,only shed their skin every other decade.
or...How we can make 12 happy chickens produce more eggs then 12 happy turkeys, there may not be a $700 billion deficit! Think?
Posted by Immortal, Monday, 29 September 2008 2:21:16 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
The fairest solution is for parents to consider their finances before having children and only those who can afford them to actually breed.

The consequences of bribing people with baby bonuses, paid leave and any other inducement is to encourage all the irresponsible, unthinking wallies and dollies to copulate profusely and breed like rabbits.

The consequence of which is

Pollution of the gene pool.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 29 September 2008 2:43:24 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
Just because something's hard doesn't mean its not worthwhile or pleasant. Similarly, just because something is personally rewarding -as is an interesting, challenging and difficult job - doesn't mean that you should do it for free. Many jobs that are highly paid are both incredibly challenging and very personally rewarding.

Parenting is not only a private good - children live in society and contribute to it. I pressume you Othello - a former child - are making some kind of contribution beyond your comments here. One day somebody's child might have the good fortune to serve your needs as an elderly person in a hospital or nursing home.

People are not bribed to bond with their children - they are simply more free to bond with their children if they are less economically stressed.

You complain about the quality of parenting. There's heaps of research on this and the socio-economic relationship between behavioural problems and parental challenges. If we have a society which pushes more parents into poverty then we will create a society in which there are more behavioural problems.

If tabloid media is your only source of evidence you might think that crime is increasing but this is not the case. There's plenty of straightforward, bean counting evidence on this. The richer we get as a society - the less the rate of crime.

I would be surprised if you compensate me at all Othello. I'm in the fortunate position of being financially rewarded to such an extent that I am one of those people who, defined in George Megologenis' article, is in the highest range of tax contributors in the country.

The workers who ought to have access to government funded maternity leave are those who don't already have privately funded maternity leave. Workers on high incomes are typically already highly supported by their workplaces and need no government help. Its the non-well off that a just society is concerned for Othello.
Posted by Shell, Monday, 29 September 2008 2:54:51 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
This is wrong, the media go on about government paying for maternity leave when in actual fact it's the tax payers. Large companies should be paying for maternity leave then supply a creche, they make the profits and it wouldn't take much for them to make it up.What ever happened to the family unit, you plan your family and mum stays home until children are old enough for her to return to work. Is this the reason why kids are running off the tracks, they aren't something that is part-time or when it's convienent.
Posted by Anng, Monday, 29 September 2008 3:56:37 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
Lets go back to 1958, we could only borrow so much from the bank and built our house accordingly to our means, no carpets on floors, very little furniture, then the children arrived by 1962, still the same house,we survived on one wage for many years, the children had cloth nappies, not the disposable ones, it is about time this current generation got their act together, if you cannot stay at home on one wage then for goodness sake don't have children, don't expect taxpayers to pay your mortgage off or you LCD television while you lol around the house hoping to go back to work in twelve months to buy the next four wheel drive or the holiday house, my advice, don't have children if you want everything else.
Posted by Ojnab, Monday, 29 September 2008 5:56:21 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
My wife and I thought that it was best if she stayed at home in our three children's early years, although this caused significant financial hardship - we had little capital after years of travelling and doing unpaid charity work, and got hit by the Keating-driven 18% interest rates on our mortgage. But that was our choice, we didn't ask anyone else to fund it, and I have higher priorities than funding such a choice by others.

Nanny states are for goats.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 29 September 2008 9:14:39 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
I’m not an economist, so I have to trust that the number crunchers and community advisors will find the best combined solution. I basically favour a two- or three-tiered approach, in which those on low incomes would receive a payment provided mainly by the government and those on the highest tier would use a mainly user-pays self-funding/employer-assisted arrangement. Those in-between would be subject to a combination of approaches. In financial terms, I imagine that this is not all that far removed from the current Family Tax Benefits A and B - and much better than the former Child Endowment, which was non-means tested.

The non-economic issues that most concern me are:

1. It should be paid ‘parental’ leave, not paid maternity leave – and open to both genders. A 14-week ‘maternity’ leave paid to women – with only 2 weeks allowed to men – will both compromise women’s employability and entrench traditional social attitudes that distance men from their children.

2. There is very little debate about how the scheme is to affect self-employed, part-time and casual employees – who make up the bulk of female employment.

As for those who claim that their tax money should not be used to support other people’s children … well, I for one would greatly prefer not to have my tax money go into weapons purchasing for the military or many of our ‘war on terror’ involvements – which run into the tens of billions annually ($22 billion at last count). If the CIS could come up with a user-pays War Savings Scheme for those who believe in military solutions to conflict, while allowing the rest of us to have our taxes spent on non-military enterprises, I’d be all for it.
Posted by SJF, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 9:26:14 AM
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
Col, I like your comment re pollution of the gene pool, however it ignores the fact that the lowest common denominator will continue to breed regardless of means. I believe that we now have a better society in general than we did 100 years ago, where such children were basically left to survive or starve. Do we go too far in government support now? Perhaps, perhaps not. I could be a little biased given that I am on the receiving end. I do believe that it is in the overall interest of a society to have children (although the number of children is a different kettle of fish). I also believe that we start constructing a very shakey society if we insist on only the well-off having children. So I guess I think that there should be some support. I certainly support the idea of the tax churn rate being too high, and would be all for a change to the tax system to address this. Perhaps rather than cap assistance for those who earn $40k and below, we should be setting an income goal for families (including 1 person families - I know), and using the tax system to top up those that fall short, rather than taper-off those that earn increasing amounts. It oculd take into account all of the current payments that are made, and turn them into one. Oh, but I guess that would do some public servants out of a job!
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 11:25:47 AM
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
Churn is vital to the functioning of this country. How on earth could the government buy elections when they cant over-tax for 2 years, then spend the surplus in carefully calculated bribes to demographics in marginal seats.

I actually don't think the majority of the populace want to reduce churn either. For some reason nobody notices the tax coming out each month, and then they get all warm and fuzzy when they get money back in their tax return, as if the government has given them something other than a negative return investment for 12 months.

Too much 'gimme gimme gimme, horay', and not enough 'piss off what are you taking my money for to waste it and play santa before the election' attitudes I'm afraid.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 12:08:28 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
I'm afraid you are right about that refund US. We had the chance to get rid of personal tax returns in the past, but too many liked the refund, or wanted to be certain they were not being cheated out of anything (that last sentiment I can perhaps understand, but does no-one value the time that must be put into doing these returns?). Why not scrap the refund and return, and get a small tax cut in exchange? Too easy methinks.
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 1:07:55 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
In the UK they just adjust your tax free threshold from year to year to balance out any variations in PAYE tax taken. So instead of a refund or payment, you just get taxed slightly differently each year using the tax free threshold. A lot of people don't actually fill out a tax return. Seems to run pretty smoothly.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 1:58:39 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
Many jobs that are incredibly challenging and peronally rewarding are not well paid - nursing, teaching, military, public service. OTOH,
just as something may be noble or "gives to society" does not mean that it should attact a cash reward. Should be smiling at strangers or giving tourists directions attract money? We have become a sad society if we cannot be altruistic unless we are paid to do so.

"Parenting is not only a private good - children live in society and contribute to it."

I acknowledge that children *may* be a public good. See last paragraph of the second post.

"One day somebody's child might have the good fortune to serve your needs as an elderly person in a hospital or nursing home."

ANOTHER tired refrain from the quasi-altrustic child-maker mind-set. LOL! A report released from the AIHW in January suggested that less than 5% of people over 85 years of age require full-time care. I presume you and ALL parents who are growing fat fiscally and physically on these handouts will be encouraging their children to eschew a university education or the corporate overlordship and take up the "good fortune" of a noble yet low-paid role wiping botties in a oldies' home.

"...they are simply more free to bond with their children if they are less economically stressed."

Rather, more money for overseas holidays, fancy wines and meals, the 5bdrm/3bthrm McMansion, mobile phones, I-pods and designer babywear.

As for tabloid media? Never read it. There is plenty of evidence that the age of offenders for serious crime is drecreasing and obesity, ritalin use, binge-drinking and depression -- oh and child abuse meted out by their OWN parents -- most certainly are on the rise. I'd rather an abused child recieve assistance than a yuppie's child get an I-pod.

"The workers who ought to have access to government funded maternity leave are those who don't already have privately funded maternity leave. Workers on high incomes are typically already highly supported by their workplaces and need no government help."

Egalitarianism, yes. Please read my closin paragraph in my second post.
Posted by Othello Cat, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 7:22:56 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
Its not hard to tell who wants, has or had kids and who doesnt, hasnt or didnt.

There are pockets to be picked, bottoms to be wiped. Dont be surprised if your hand gets slapped or things get dirty.
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 7:29:39 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
Why do parents "deserve" a handout from non-parents? Oh, really, just ask any parent!

Indeed, how dare childless people have the temerity to just fritter that tiny bit of their own disposable income they have earned on mere frivolities like restaurant meals, consumer luxuries such as mp3-players, designer clothes and plasma tellies and even the occasional holiday away? It only makes sense that, when childless singles are rightfully being forced to work the weekends, late nights and vacations so that parents can claim a shorter working week/year/lifetime of family-friendly working hours, the childless should also be taxed within an inch of the poverty line so that this potentially wasted excess income of the childless singles is instead redirected to the righteous families with children who can spend it on the useful things they deserve like restaurant meals where their adorable children can entertain diners with their cute games of running around tables playing hide-n-seek under the seats and tripping over waiters, childhood necessities like cute designer baby-clothes and those BMW prams, mp3-players and plasma televisions in every child’s bedroom, I-phones for every child and mandatory yearly holidays overseas.

The childless should be eternally grateful for the sacrifices all parents make. They all should stop flaunting their carefree lives having parties in expensive bars and having great sex lives — unless they are planning to make a baby. As parents are always quick to remind horrible and selfish childless people, despite the skyrocketing overweight and obesity, over-prescribed Ritalin, illegal drug use, alcohol abuse and, now it has been revealed, high levels of depression and crime among the kids being raised today, there is an absolute 100% rock-solid guarantee that every single child will grow up to be taxpaying doctors, lawyers and nurses who will all be rioting in the streets for the volunteer rights to change Depends on patients in the oldies’ homes.

Just ask the oh-so-entitled parents
Posted by Othello Cat, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 8:49:20 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
OThello Cat, I am happy to declare up front that I am a parent. I must take you to task on some of the statements that you have made.

"suggested that less than 5% of people over 85 years of age require full-time care." Yet how many are heavily reliant on their children to support them physically and financially. If they didnt have children to do this, what would be the burden on the taxpaying community, who subsidise aged care.

"I presume you and ALL parents who are growing fat fiscally and physically on these handouts will be encouraging their children to eschew a university education or the corporate overlordship and take up the "good fortune" of a noble yet low-paid role wiping botties in a oldies' home.". Absolutely not. However, the tax monies of the corporate high flyers, lawyers etc will certainly help to pay the wages of those that do choose to work in aged care or other health sectors, and also pay for the infrastructure required for the economny as a whole to run.

The way the childless whine, you wouldnt think that there was taxpayer funded infrastructure, health, education (primary, secondary and tertiary), nor age pensions. I presume since they are so deadset against their tax dollar being used to assist someone else that they would dare dream of making use of any of these services, just in case someone else's tax dollar paid for them.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 11:39:07 AM
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
Country Gal, "The way the childless whine" is barely a whimper compared to the whining of some parents.

I repeat; Currently Australia has the SECOND HIGHEST cash handouts (as a proportion of GDP) to people with children among OECD nations (after Luxembourg). And now the Productivity Commission wants to taxpayers give the child-burdeed a big wad of cash just for making a baby. With an estimated 4 out of 10 families paying no net tax (as reported in the Australian last week) we all know WHO will be made to pay for all this.

These handouts are not good enough according to this author:

"It has been estimated that it would take a fivefold increase in income to compensate parents for their lost sleep and leisure and that the loss of earnings that results from mothers interrupting their careers to have children...is calculated to be around a third of a million dollars over a lifetime." See http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-help-bring-up-baby-20080930-4r5w.html?page=-1

The entitlement-poisoned child-makers claim that the COST of children justifies "compensation" from the rest of us. The subtext is " wha wha wah! It's not fair. The childfree sleep in, have waistlines and spend their money on material things. We've the right to reach into their wallets to punish them fiscally for dodging the bullet."

I do not mind paying for infrastructure, health and welfare but I have really had a gutful hearing that, because I have chosen not to have children, it imposes on me a perverse noblesse oblige so that the child-burdened, hiding behind their faux altruism, may maintain a post-natal DINK lifestyle.

I always thought that welfare was to assist the destitute and needy have a hand up.

I repeat, if -- and ONLY if -- it can be shown that raising children deliver benefits to the rest of then perhaps parents MAY be rewarded with a token gesture from taxpayers. However, the quanta ought to be the same for all parents to recognise that value of that externality and not so that the well-paid sheilas get plenty and the working-class sheilas get next to nothing.
Posted by Othello Cat, Thursday, 2 October 2008 6:51:28 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
Othello Cat, you dodge the points that I was making. Obviously they must be on the money.

4/10 FAMILIES pay no net tax. So 60% of FAMILIES do. Then the childless go on top of this contribution. The childless obviously never get a pension, income support, youth allowance.....

I completely agree with you that there should not be taxpayer funded parental leave for the well-off. If workplaces want to do this to try to compete for parents, then fine, but no-one else should be paying for it. Taxpayer funded maternity (parental leave) should be there to assist those parents who would have to return to work to pay the bills. It may even be a nearly zero-sum scheme anyway, given that I expect that the family would then disqualify for childcare benefit and rebate, family tax benefit, parenting payment. As I have said before, I dont believe that it contributes to a good society if the only people that we allow to have children are the wealthy.
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 3 October 2008 9:06:45 AM
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
Country Gal,

There is a great deal of evidence to show that the childless – especially poor singles – are directly subsiding the childed. In 2006 Dr Craig Emmerson MP (Rankin, ALP)showed that monies flowed from the childless, no matter how poor, into households with children regardless of need. Both governments have promoted favourable treatment of so-called “working families” at the expense of the childless. Rankin is one of the very few MPs brave enough to speak out on behalf of the childless and said, “it is only a matter of time before taxpayers without children organise a tax revolt.” (See Elisabeth Coleman, “Tax Slug on Poor Singles” in The Australian, 14 June 2008)

Ross Gittens noted “The third of households with dependent children are roughly square because, though they pay a lot of tax, they get back a lot in family tax benefits, education and health care... So who does that leave to pick up the tab?...the 40 per cent of households composed of singles or childless couples of working age. They pay a lot of tax but get back nothing in family benefits and not much in education and health care benefits. ” (See Ross Gittins , “Just who is picking up the tax tab?” in The Sydney Morning Herald, June 20, 2007)

That the breeders are determined to redistribute money away from the childless rather than say, the profitable businesses that make up BRW’s top 100, is poignant. If breeders really deserve recompense for making these future fabled taxpayer then taxing the mega-profits of big business makes more sense. After all it is big business that is most set to benefit from this future working army. Is it possible real reason breeders want to make the childless cough up is to punish them for failing to toe the social-line; that the only “real” family is one that is married and heterosexual – oh and tired and sexless. Misery loves company I suppose.
Posted by Othello Cat, Saturday, 4 October 2008 6:23:43 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
Othello Cat

You seem to go out of your way to target and insult heterosexual couples, especially those with children.

However from some of you earlier posts you are also quick to take offence and hurl the 'homophobia' stone for any slight against gays.

What about you give the insulting use of such words as 'breeder' a bit of a rest because it certainly doesn't do your credibility any good?
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 5 October 2008 12:28:11 AM
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
Cornflower, I think it just shows a concern that his/her arguments might not be valid.

Othello Cat, There is another way that you can think of the taxes "spent" on the young. Think of it as a loan that they will repay over their lifetime. Kind of like HECS, but not defined. After all, you were provided with healthcare, education (and most of the snooty childless seem to be university educated, which no doubt we paid for), child endowment, street carnivals and other public parties, parks to play in, vaccination programs etc etc etc.

As for your statement about the most poor singles funding families regardless of need, get real! Your telling me that a single aged-pensioner has to fund child benefits for James and Erica Packer? Yes I know, its an extreme example, but you are the one that made the sweeping statement.
Posted by Country Gal, Monday, 6 October 2008 10:30:57 AM
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. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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