Part time parent, the situation in many third world countries is very grim. People know that they will lose children as babies or in childhood at a high rate due to diseases like measles, whooping cough, etc that we in the West regard as things of the past.

As a result, and just as our ancestors did, they breed a lot. It has nothing to do with "intelligence" and everything to do with poverty and poor living conditions.

Pelican, you accused me of trying to reduce the discussion to "things were worse in my day". I simply pointed out that that particular piece of reductionism came from someone else.

Middle-class welfare is all about gender. Middle-class men do not receive the handouts that middle-class women do and do not receive any of the preferment that middle-class women demand. Feminist dogma underlies a great deal of the welfare state.

It's not admirable and it's not sustainable.

Anti, I am at a loss to know to which comment you refer - please show me where I made that accusation. Methinks you confuse me with another. Anyway...

PPP
You cannot compare the Third World with the West in terms of birth rates only without looking at mortality rates and the bigger picture in relation to social and economic systems. Higher birth rates are inevitable with little access to birth control and the fear of not being cared for in old age. Very complicated issues and you cannot compare one with the other. Much more needs to be improved in the Third World to eliminate poverty but a high birth rate is part of the problem.

People who choose not to have children are not being selfish - it is a human right to make that choice for oneself. The problems with an ageing population are only going to be made worse if we keep perpetuating the problem by continually growing populations beyond resource capacity. Everyone ages so increasing the bottom end only means an increase at the top end eventually.

What is a "middle class princesses" income by the way...just to get a new perspective on things - perphaps I am coming at this from the wrong end of the stick!

Of course the Yorkshire men would not have asked for a handout, because when they were young - there were no handouts! And as they had made their fortune, they had lost track of modern times and exactly what it cost to raise a family.

I think it was in the film the Aviator that (cant think of who said what) someone said "the only people who say that money doesnt worry them are those that have money".

Oh dear! "Racial purity" and that old chestnut, "the selfish route of childlessness."

A bunch of lame cultural prejudices strung together into a non-argument by someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about.

Somehow there’s this twisted perception among some child-makers that the childfree enjoy some kind of undeserved benefit and forcing the childless to make sacrifices in their own lives -- either fiscally or by denying flexible workplaces to the childfree -- is the best means to address this confected inequity.

"...the fact that kids cost money,"

Again PTP, that children *may* cost money is NOT a reason for others to cross-subsidise people's desires for child-making. It’s true that losing the income for a few months is difficult if one is used to a higher level of consumption, but the obvious solution is for the household to budget for that. Children are a private benefit. That is, they are mostly enjoyed by their parents. It is nonsensical that childfree adults' consumption habits are presented as the norm to which childed adults' ability to consume is then measured.

It doesn't take an advanced skill in deconstructing PTP's cryptic and often contradictory assertions to reveal that PTP feels taxpayers must compensate the "right" type of parents as they are owed some imagined right to a zero-sum impact on their post-natal lifestyle. The message is pretty clear: "hear that working scum! Take a tax hike to help your social betters. Those private school fees and luxury car payments aren’t going to pay for themselves. Give the rich a leg up, it’s all about choice..."

I will agree with you on one point PTP: Middle-class welfare it most certainly is – for the working rich – at the direct expense of the working poor. How disgusting and shameful. And yet, these wealthy people who feel hard done by seem to have no shame. That the advocates of breeding handouts tart themselves up as social justice victims is a slap in the face for those who are genuinely denied social justice.

The 18 week paid parental leave will be taxed, so it is NOT tax free. Also those accessing this do not receive the baby bonus.

Some people already have parental leave built into EBAs. The 18 week parental leave can be applied for on top of this, but that then puts them in a much higher tax bracket. In some cases they are actually no better off.

So actually the middle class (presumably those on somewhere between $50,000 and $90,000) are not necessarily better off.

The 18 week benefit is NOT tax free AND they lose the baby bonus.

As I said and will say again - why not look at other govt "handouts" - once again - arts grants - take a look at where that money goes - now most of that IS a waste.

Look at why Australia is 5th on the list of countries with the greatest divide between the rich and poor.

"Everyone ages so increasing the bottom end only means an increase at the top end eventually."

Thank you pelican. The current aging of the population is not just due to declining birth rates but also longevity and the bulge of baby boomers.

Creating another "bulge" is simply creating another large cohort in a few generations.

But that is too difficult for folk to comprehend. We are a materialist society and most people have consumerist lifestyles. It seems to me that too many of these people want to live beyond their means, have their baby and someone -- anyone but them -- must pay.