"...often choose to back a corrupt tribal leader "

*does double take* Surely I am the only one who cannot see how contradictory this statement is?

"...so why should my hard earned taxes go to the army?... why should my taxes go to pay for hospital care for those who have accidents..
For those who dont own cars, why should their taxes pay for the roads? They dont drive on them?"

False analogy. Taxes pay for social goods. I do not drive BUT I can choose to access a road in the future. But I and other taxpayers cannot access your children whenever I choose. Your children are your own private goods, your own personal pleasures, your benefit.

Ok...so my analogy of the car was a tad stretched...

Well, I hope that when you go to a resturant, Woollies, Big W, fast food outlet - see a teacher - a nurse etc etc, you refuse all service, because you are accessing "other" peoples children and enjoying the service they provide.

Those accessing paid parental leave on a low income, would not be able to either buy a home or pay rent if it wasnt for paid leave. For low income it becomes a catch 22.

As the divide between rich and poor becomes greater (on the premise that if you cant aford them, dont have them) the lower socio ecomonic will not have children. Unless of course that is what you are suggesting - breed out the low paid "workers" in society..... then who will do those menial low paid occupations.

As for the higher income earners, they are the teachers, nurses, solicitors, drs, professionals in our society.

Agreed, if they knew they wanted children, then they could have saved some for a rainy day or a "baby day".

But if we start stripping back hard fought changes in society when do we stop? At what point in time do we say "ok, thats enough, no more?

It seems that as each generation reaches a point in life, they become jealous of the advantages of those coming after them.

searching,

"AT what point in time do we say ök, that's enough, no more?"

At the point where we pay people to maintain their affluent lifestyle instead of reserving support for those who need assistance to make adequate provision for their families.
The idea of government support is to assist in making society a more level playing field, not to compensate the already well-off for their drop in disposable income.

Middle-class welfare began as an electoral bribe and has been rapidly assimilated as a perceived right by those advantaged by its largesse.

A good read is a Research Paper from the Parliamentary Library.

Money for Nothing? Australia in the global middle class welfare debate. 12May 2009.

"...(on the premise that if you cant aford them, dont have them) the lower socio ecomonic [sic] will not have children. Unless of course that is what you are suggesting..."

Strawman. There's no eugenics subtext in my comments. More the contrary, I find it appalling that the childless working poor and lower middle class are cross-subsiding wealthier households *just because* they have children. Indeed, your rhetoric "...who will do those menial low paid occupations..." inadvertently reveals your own prejudices about poor people and intelligence.

In earlier posts, I made it clear that that parents should be able to access social services aimed at making them better parents - such as quality ante-natal care, schools and health services for kids. I have no argument that social wealth is of long term benefit to me and society.

Again. Children are a private good. Parents do not have a reduced “expendable income”, as some argue, because they have spent it on a private benefit. Across this wide brown land, copulation is not driven by some benevolent gesture to make a future taxpayer or worker. Yet these greedy people assert that increasing the *private wealth* of parents is deserved without question, that it can only be reached through compensatory monetary arrangements and it is morally acceptable to penalise the childless to achieve this.

The real truth is that many people these days keep themselves dissatisfied by comparing themselves with people who have more, never with people who have less -- who they rarely see up close. Some child-burdened seem to expect to have a zero-sum impact after they have birthed; they want to continue living like DINKs and the working childless to pay for it.

Yet, despite all of the endless hand-wringing and angst, assistance isn’t being directed toward kids at the greatest risk. This is a greed-driven charade designed by and for the comfortably well-off middle-class child-makers who are irate at the financial impact that children have on them and who, after decades of funding welfare for the poor, no matter how parsimonious, are demanding theirs.