An excellent piece that mirrors my own thoughts almost perfectly. Having children is a biological imperative - it's not a special service that women provide for the state as CHERFUL seems to think.

If a middle-class family cannot afford to provide for itself from its own resources than there is a big problem with the way that family has structures its finances. Of course, few middle-class families are in that position, which means that the enormous amount of taxpayer money that is redistributed to them each year is purely to support their lifestyle, not their needs.

As a child, I can recall being told "no, we can't afford it right now" on many occasions when I wanted something or other. My father was Managing Director of the local arm of a large Australian multi-national on an excellent income with housing etc all provided: of course my parents had the money, but they also had a budget and pririties, something that seems to have gone out of style in the modern "aspirational" middle class where "I want it all and I want it now" has become the standard.

The other point the author makes is one I've been banging on about for a while, which is that there is no "brake" on the process of buying votes with handouts or on the "lobbying" process which informs it. Any process that has no means to apply negative feedback is going to eventually fail catastrophically. Remove the governor on a steam engine, lock the throttle down and watch the fun if you don't believe me.

In today's Australia the bourgeois expect the state to pretend they're an underclass in need of assistance, which is obviously a recipe for disaster.

Why should we financially support parents? Because children cost money. In an urban society unless there are incentives, people stop having enough children to replace themselves.

In Australia our fertility rate is only 1.6 children for every two adults. We are suiciding, committing genocide against ourselves. Why do we have an aging population?

The problem is not an 'aging' population (which means we are living long healthy lives), it is that we are suiciding... failing to produce enough kids to replace ourselves.

Maternity leave is a nasty piece of feminism... it rewards only WORKING WOMEN. If you don't work, you don't get it.

The problem with our system is that everything is tied to certain behaviours.. it's about controlling our lives. You only get maternity leave if you work. You only get child-care benefit if you use accredited centres and not if you have a nanny. If Grandmum gives up work, there is no payment to compensate her loss of income. If wife gives up work after trheir second child there is no compensation for any further children. That's why we have such small families and are slowly suiciding. Especially the professional class, the people who will make the next generation a clever country are not being born.

Means-testing benefits mean that the lower your income, the more children you can afford.

Those on welfare are pumping out kids like there is no tomorrow because of the welfare bribes to have lots of kids. So single welfare mums are pressured into having more kids than they can look after.

Here we need to give tax reductions for kids so middle class parents can afford the kids we want.

Also making divorce fairer, because Australian men don't want to become dads... because they are afraid of having their kids stolen by divorce lawyers.

RIZ says :- < I know that as a single male, I find this wealth Distribution form Non-Breeder to Breeders highly offensive. If folk can’t afford a kid without Government Assistance then they shouldn’t be allowed to have a kid. Just as I have to go without a Flat Screen and a Rolls and lots of other things I like but can’t afford without Government help>

Riz If you can survive without the benefits of all the people in the society around you (provided by the breeders). The people who serve you every day, the teachers who teach you, the fit young soldiers that are there to defend you, the fit nurses who have the stamina to handle gruelling hospital shift and emergency work. The doctors who are not too old and doddery to operate on you should you need. The dentists, the tradesmen who keep your electricity running so you can enjoy a warm bath and lights. The farmers. The list of the benefits you derive from having a supportive and protective society around you (provided by the breeders) is incalculable if you tried to work it out in monetary terms. If you don’t think this is true then when you someday afford your flat screen and Rolls Royce or whatever, go and live by yourself in the desert or the jungle far removed from any kind of support base. Of course your flat screen won’t work without electricity and your Rolls Royce will need a constant supply of petrol and maintenance. Look beyond yourself and see the big picture. Without a supporting tribe around you your life would be very precarious. Having breeders around you is about survival.

CHERFUL, what do you think your uterus is worth? I think we need to start setting benchmarks if we're going to start applying the service delivery model of maternity that you are advocating. In order to do that we need to establish

Part time parent, the "middle class" is by definition the average. If average people cannot afford to have children without subsidies, then we have a major problem in our society. The reality is that such people can very well afford to do so, but they don't want to sacrifice any part of their lifestyle or financial resources to do so. hence we have all sorts of handouts to allow them to pretend that such trade-offs are unnecessary.

Damn, hit return by mistake.

ChERFUL, what I started to say was that to move to your service delivery model we need to establish values for the services to be provided. So, what is the value of the use of a uterus for 9 months? Ditto, what is the value of donating sperm so the uterus can be used?

The animal husbandry indutries have worked this out, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to do the same. Get back to us with your findings. won't you?

Antiseptic, I tend to support your argument on this one. Given the growth of the middle class it has always bemused me as to why critical support to those with legitimate needs are given short shrift while middle class welfare grows.

It came about I think, due to the greater influence of the middle class purely by its expansion and an expectation of more in return for the tax dollar. The short electoral cycle and popululist politics adds to the pork barrelling and both parties do it shamelessly.

It would be better to reduce taxes than merely redistribute tax already paid to schemes that serve no real purpose and let people decide how they wish to use these 'windfalls'. The inflationary aspect of middle class welfare is often forgotten and there is no courage of committment when discussion of tax cuts surface to making savings on paternity leave, child care rebates, baby bonuses etal. Family welfare should not be the burden of business but a personal choice.

If we have an economic system that can no longer ensure an average single income can raise a family at home even for the short term, then something is wrong. There is a lot of lip service by pollies of all persuasions about family values, the importance of children but little in the way of real reforms that don't disadvantage families who don't buy into the two income, wealth aspirational, consumerist mindset. Nothing wrong with that if you can pay for it but not when you expect others to support that lifestyle. And we are talking about lifestyle not hardship or disadvantage.