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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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