There is enormous hypocrisy on this issue. Most politicians, especially on the left, will say that they are against middle-class welfare, yet childcare subsidies and paid parental leave (which overwhelmingly benefit the middle class) have been their 'holy grail'.

Effectively, the reason so much money is thrown at child care (and paid parental leave) is that public policy has attempted to force women with young children to remain in the workforce no matter what the cost. The same motivation was behind the abolition of the Dependent Spouse Rebate.

Part of the problem with regulation is that a high-cost system is forced onto the consumer, who has little choice but to choose "quality" child care in order to get the subsidies. Equally incentives to use the (largely free) informal child care of relatives are greatly reduced within the current subsidised system. People have been fooled into thinking that child care handouts are "free", when in reality it just results in higher required levels of taxation.

Apart from the very poor, people should take responsibility for their own choices. Those who have children should be responsible for the cost of their care - not the State. What next? Shall we make it a government responsibility to take all dogs for a daily walk?

Yes Bren, we'd hear a huge howl from David and his ilk if we decided to half pollies salaries and put them on the same footing as pensioners or self funded superannuants, minus the super subsidies, once they have moved on.

Those with their noses s buried so deeply in the taxpayer funded trough can hardly attack others subsidized by it!?

What David wants is to cut the pay of dedicated professionals?

Instead of fixing the funding paradigm to make childcare affordable for all; but particularly, those like single mums with no other choice but to work!

And that is only possible via massive tax reform and the end of all forms of tax avoidance!

Your point about the dependant spouse rebate is well made!

And why I won't be voting for an increase in polly pay packets any time soon!
Rhrosty.

If mothers were doing what they are supposed to be doing - mothering - there would be no need for childcare, and we would have well developed kids. But, no! Consumerism has everybody by the throat, and society is gradually falling apart.

Superb book by Professor Dave Garber on the "joys" of rules and bureaucracy. Something this article alludes to.

http://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Rules-Technology-Stupidity-Bureaucracy/dp/1612193749/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436148171&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=dave+graeber+rules

I agree with tbbn. Mothers are hopefully 'wanting' to bring up their children full-time - not shunting them off to child care when they believe that they 'must' work. A woman has the 'right' to decide what she wants to do but not, I suggest, expect the taxpayer to fund them.
The concept of the notion of putting 'responsibility for actions via consequences' appears to be largely forgotten by many welfare-dependent citizens who want the State to subsidize their going to work to earn money so that they can 'keep up with their peers'. Are air-conditioned late model cars, plasma screen TVs, designer clothes, 4x2 houses[with or without cinema rooms] really a Necessity or are they just a consumer-driven want via marketing?

If I get pregnant [apart from rape] is that the State's problem ?

My wife works as a supervisor in a Vacation Care and After School Care facility and is really doing the job of mothers in training their kids what obeying rules, sharing, respecting others, not expecting the whole world to revolve around them, and finding something themselves occasionally to do instead of the mantra "I'm bored because I can't use my 'tablet' or 'x box' all day without any restraints is all about - Shock, Horror!

"I support payments for the poorest parents so that kids can be raised with good nutrition, shelter, clothing and care. But my support is on welfare grounds, not because it is legitimate to impose middle-class child-rearing preferences on the rest of the population. Having children is not a reason to help oneself to other people's money."

So do I, very sensible comments. Now if we could extend that principle to stop subsidies for private education, soft loans and subsidies to farmers and multicultural organisations and concessions to foreign mining companies as well, the taxpayers would save a fortune.

If I ruled the world, I would not allow children in child care under the age of three. I believe that child care for under-threes is institutionalisation and as such is damaging psychologically.

David. Totally agree with all you have stated. I have a daughter returning to 'full time' work having had a child. She is in an agony of indecision as she is a medical scientist grade 2 (we call her the 'poo queen'). She is somewhat compelled to return in order to maintain her skill set and not have to go back to 'go' when her child goes to school. Whilst receiving the child care benefit, she has stated that she would be prepared to send him to child care without any subsidy.

75% of my wife's salary went on child care when she needed to go back to work for essentially the same reason (this was at the time of introduction of computers into the work environment). There were no subsidies at that time but I was in a position to care for the family financially.

For single mothers I fully support assistance. The 'over credentialling' and over regulating of the whole industry is both rediculous and a complete fabrication and, whilst loath to use the word 'sustainable', it is a Grecian approach to economics.

Rhrosty, this bloke is worthwhile I am prepared to pay ;)

Children are the future - and I find it difficult
to make sweeping generalisation and assumptions
why some mothers chose to send their children
to child-care. I'm sure that it's not a one
size fits all kind of situation. Some women have
no choice. They have to work.

So yes, I shall be voting for an increase in childcare
funding. Because I want children to have decent care
with qualified staff.

Still its a choice for each of us to make.
And the kind of society we want to live in.
To me the choice is evident.

I agree with most of what David has said here but one thing has been glaringly missed.

Every time there is an increase in Child care payments the Childcare places put their prices up more than the Payment increase. Everybody is left even more worse off.

The same thing happened when the "First Home Buyers Loan" went up. So did the price of the houses.

Money to the various State "Child carers" is like meth to ice addicts. Always want more and inflict immense damage while bingeing.

Children certainly are the future.
A future of overcrowding and overpopulation, lack of fresh, clean air and water, with standing room only.
If you breed them, feed them.

100% with you on this one David. There is also of course personal responsibility that would help the situation. Why Australians are expected to pay to bring up the children of single mothers who deliberately put themselves in this position I do not know.