"I'm all for welfare to help the most desperate in our society, those who really need it. But it royally pisses me off that low income earners like myself (I'm a working student) should be made poorer at the expense of wealthy breeders"

Too right Riz. Parenthood is a personal lifestyle choice, with costs and consequences, rewards and sacrifice. Provided fertility can be controlled, and abortion available where contraception fails, having a family is just as much a valid choice as not having one. Children are a private good and their benefits are enjoyed mostly by their parents.If a family is a personal choice, why should the childless face discrimination in favour of families? Why should the childless subsidise those who choose a different path?

Before the usual strawmen retorts are trotted out, I am not asking that children be made to starve in the streets. I strongly believe in hand-ups to address socio-economic disadvantage but I certainly oppose handouts to the wealthy. And I am not opposed to handouts merely because I am not getting one.

I not suggesting that parents ought to raise children with no support at all. Parents should be able to access social services aimed at making them better parents and I have no argument that social wealth is of long term benefit to me and society. Yet policy of today upholds that the *private* wealth of parents is "deserved" as a matter of course, this can be achieved through compensatory monetary arrangement and it is morally acceptable to penalise the childless to achieve this. It is wrong that working childless poor are facing the prospect of never owning a home of their own while they cross-subsidise middle class households with children.

Without a hint of irony, it seems the voices of those who argue against the notion that children are a private good and insist they are social goods are, incongruously, supporters of private welfare –- in the form of taxpayer-funded cash handouts -- for parents and they seem to revile social support such as government supplied services for mothers and their children.

Oh gee, here we go again - my grandmother brought up 24 children on a breath of air and a teaspoon of flour and never complained. She never complained, because those days womens roles were entirely different - they didnt have the chance of careers.

There was one time when our 3 children were underschool age - my husband was out of work and all we had in the fridge was half a loaf of bread, some butter and very little else - and no money. My husband had to get a handhout from centrelink until the next dole check. Fortunately the next week he found work.

This is why I do not begrudge my childrens good fortune to grow up in a time when they can be educated, buy a home and work for a better life than I had. My daughter-in-law is not a middle class princess expecting the world. They work hard. My grandson, even tho he spends a couple of days in childcare is well adjusted - havent seen any adverse effects of childcare on him.

Look at real government waste and not perceived waste.

Searching,

Government pork barrelling in the form of middle-class welfare is more than just a perception, whether one refers to it as a waste or a bribe - or both.

Clive Hamilton and Richard Denniss put it very well in their book "Affluenza":
"The boom in middle-class welfare reflects a far reaching transformation of politics in Australia. It reveals how our national objectives have gradually moved away from providing and improving essential services and helping those most in need to bribing the well-off for their electoral support. The apparent lack of funds for health and education is not an unfortunate fact of modern life: it is the result of a deliberate political strategy, one with bipartisan support."

Anitseptic "yes I do understand statistics and I have a fair grasp of genetics, which is why I took you up on this. You may be correct if there had ever been a specific policy among "professionals" to only breed with other "professionals", but there hasn't..."

Actually, the research is quite clear on this, people marry partners who are quite close to their IQ. Of course there are exceptions, men marrying their secretary etc, but on average, typically, trend-wise, by-and-large, what you would expect.

In previous ages, powerfull (intelligent) men (such as male aristocrats) could inseminate many of their female serfs/slaves/servants. The real vistims of this were the many powerless men, who died as serfs, alone, childless, or the worst betrayal of all, abused as a cuckold.

In short, there is a very good correlation (in statistical, epidiological terms, in sociological, societal terms) to say that smart people: earn more, have higher education, marry other smart people, earn more, live in nice expensive suburbs... and sadly have dewer children than average, and many fewer children than the most stupid people.

This is true especially of men - smart women marry smart men and stop working seriously. But they still live in high income households in nice suburbs etc.

Smart people are becomming rarer. This is a problem. That's why we shouldn't hand out means-tested money for having kids... $5,000 is alot to a drug addict, but little to a professional couple. Instead children should reduce your tax.

searching, I was simply making the point that generations of people have done just fine with no handouts at all. I have 2 children and I don't receive a cent in handouts, nor do I want any. I can look at the things I own and know that I own them through my own efforts, not because I was given a handout like a 5 year old child when Grandma comes to visit.

Your children must be proud of their taxpayer-funded TVs and their taxpayer-supported mortgage, not to mention their taxpayer-funded children.

Part time parent, I agree with you that it would be far better to subsidise people through tax deductions than through direct handouts if you intend to subsidise at all, which I say is unecessary for middle-class people, professional or otherwise.

The idea of the populace being "dumbed down" through dilution of the gene pool is not new. Anybody familiar with the works of Cyril Kornbluth, Cliff Simak, Phillip Dick Brian Aldiss, Kurt Vonnegut etc, will have read such classics as "The Marching Morons" and "Harrison Bergeron".

The fact is that our society needs a very broad range of capacities in both temperament and aptitude. The qualities that make a person a good lawyer are not the same qualities that make a good mechanic, but we need both if we are to have a functional society. Arguably, we need fewer people of high intelligence in today's world, since a great deal of routine work is done by expert systems or at least guided by them, where once a capacity to solve problems was required.

Perhaps it's a good thing that the well-educated middle-class are having fewer kids?

Poirot. To be in government I am assuming you have to please some of the people, some of the time, because you cant please all of the people all of the time.

Perhaps, just perhaps, giving parents (of any income level) a chance to stay home and bond and recover from childbirth and pregnancy would mean they are more likely to return to work, thus saving the govt in years to come having to pay out pensions - because those people will have enough super to support themselves at the end of their working life.

By reducing a persons chance to "get ahead" you are creating a greater divide between the poor and the rich.

Antiseptic. I was also pointing out that past generations will always have "done it tougher". I am sure your grandmothers generation did it tougher than your mothers, and we could continue back till time began. Does that mean, that future generations must stop in their tracks?

I am quite sure the next generations will be saying the same things to their children - "well, when I was your age".......

If we do have "middle class princesses"....whose fault is that..... could it be - oh no - dare I say - this generations fault ... well of course not .... we were perfect ... well ... at least I know I am !!

I dont know the answer - as every decision has its consequences - guess you just have to look at which is best and worst at any point in time.

As far needing more people with high I.Q has anyone read "The Wisom of Crowds" - Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few.