I would agree that there does seem to be some bias against single mothers as compared to married mothers, but the situation is becoming rather grave if current trends continue.

“Between 1986 and 2001, the number of one-parent families in Australia increased by 53%.”, and “One-parent families increased to 762,600 in 2001, from 499,300 in 1986. This increase was largely associated with an increase in the number of separated and divorced people.” http://www.spinneypress.com.au/211_book_desc.html

Now combining this with an ageing population (where in future years there could two people working for every one person retired) then it leaves the working person in a position where they have to earn more income to pay more taxes to provide the welfare payments for other people. Because so many people are paid by the hour, they will have to work longer hours to pay those taxes, and still have money left over to provide for their own families.

So unless the population suddenly stops ageing, or unless upward trend of more single parent families is reversed, it eventually means less family time for those working.

The welfare money has to come from somewhere.

“When it comes to addressing the labour shortage, Peter Costello expects single mothers from welfare-dependent households to perform a public duty not required of their more highly resourced married sisters.”

What “public duty” is this now? Working to support your family?

Wow! Novel.

This reads like a bit out of classic labour party manifesto of 1950’s… (and some claim the Liberals are fixated on the 50’s)

I guess the first and foremost mistake is to think that any taxation system is “fair” – it is not, cannot be and never will be.

The next error of assumption is that any system of taxation impost is intended to be “fair” – only in the “minds” of the “social levellers” does such exist – but the practice has been tried and failed miserbably.

Far from blaming the tax system for not being fair – maybe the author who do better to spend her time on researching the circumstances which

A: result in individuals

Failing to accept responsibility for their “lot”,
Avoid developing their skills,
Remain oblivious to opportunities,
Lack the determination to follow through with any plan,
Expect the state to support them as their parents did when they were children

OR

B those people who think and act the opposite of A (above)

Those people who feel they are “disadvantaged by circumstance” and deserve perpetual nurturing by the state note –

We deserve what we are prepared to work and commit effort to.
Work includes investing time in skills development and personal planning – then you will be “doing it” smarter (for more reward) and not harder.

The taxation system is not there to feather bed and "engineer" social norms. It is there to collect the necessary taxes for government programs. The individuals, who are the workhorses of the system, regardless of their socio-economic status are all best served by minimising the tax impost and being left to spend the residue of their personal effort on what matters to them – less limited by the social engineering whimsy of the levellers.

The difference between the stay at home parent in the intact family and the stay at home single parent is that someone is choosing to earn the income which allows the former to stay at home. Do we want a society where the government forces people to work as opposed to the government not supporting those who choose not to work.

The taxpayer does pick up some of the bill by way of FBT, is it part of the proposed cuts to single parents who will not support themselves?

Being a parent carries with it responsibilities, one of those is financial responsibility for yourself and your children. If you are able to meet the financial responsibility by sharing the load with someone else then great but the expectation that the taxpayer should carry the load is not reasonable.

I do agree that we need to address the practical issues which make single parenting difficult (better access to before and after school care, more access to shorter working weeks otherwise structured like full time jobs etc).

Robert
There can be changes to work hours etc, to help accommodate working parents with school age children, although I was partial to the idea mentioned by the Prime Minister last year (or maybe the year before) that school hours could be increased, and the students spend this increased time on sport or physical activities at school. This to me would be better then paid child care, where frankly the children can be put in front of a TV while waiting for mum or dad to pick them up, (as I have seen this type of day care).

However the numbers of single parent families is quite staggering:- “Between 1986 and 2001, the number of one-parent families in Australia increased by 53%. In contrast, the number of couple families with children increased by 3%.”

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/ea563423fdbffd30ca256d39001bc33c?OpenDocument

I believe that there are now nearly 500,000 single parent families receiving welfare payments, out of nearly 5,000,000 families with dependant children. Perhaps government is best to be fully investigating the reasons why there are so many single parent families, before these numbers increase further and add to more costs.

For every single-mother-bludger, there is a single father out there somewhere. Many of these single fathers have created more than one single-mother. Let's reel these guys in.

Brownie,
“Many of these single fathers have created more than one single-mother”. Is this true?

“Let's reel these guys in”. This seems to be suggesting that there be some type of totalitarian or police state, which will undoubtedly create more problems.

There are many single parent families and the numbers seem to be growing in time. I would agree that government has now begun to look at single parent mothers because of perceived labour shortage. Prior to this government has not said much about the growing numbers of single parent families, or on the overall affects this has on society.

So maybe it best to look for the main causes of why there are so many single parent families in the first place, and solve that problem

Brownie "For every single-mother-bludger, there is a single father out there somewhere. Many of these single fathers have created more than one single-mother. Let's reel these guys in. "

Who is to say the single father is not already just another bludger supposedly like the single mothers your describe?

Who are the ones to be tasked with the responsibility to "reel these guys in"?

When they have been "reeled in" what action do your propose?

So maybe it best to look for the main causes of why there are so many single parent families in the first place, and solve that problem

I agree with your comment Timkins- Perhaps if we find the cause instead of treating the symptom we would perhaps be better off.

It appears that there is no common sense at all. Perhaps if we taught common sense 101 in schools- that for every action there is a consequence/reaction. Lets get back to basics!
Stop placing bandaids on an already festering wound!

At the other and of the spectrum we have Asian mothers working in the rice paddies,have a baby on the job and continue working in the fields the very next day,out of necessity of pure survival.

What is wrong with mothers of school age children working if the Govt also rewards them by reducing their pensions only marginly as a reward.They would also then have job skills for when their children leave school.Many of these mothers become unemployable because they lose contact with the work force.

The trouble is that Govt gets too stingy wanting too remove benefits totally,instead offering incentives,after all, they created the problem in the first place.

The problem is not that single mothers don't want to go outside and work, besides bringing up their precious offspring, it's just that they have no-one to help them do so.

Answer.

Get the Grandparents more involved! Give them more incentives for helping out.

And people with no relatives around them, of course should not be expected to work.

Latch Key children due to no example of unity or loyalty from the home would soon turn into criminals, resulting in even greater monetary costs for the government.

Families and parents teach morals, social etiquette and skills, not schools.

Schools are mainly large, mass minding institutions with little time for emotional support or understanding of the individual student.

It was expected, that is until this budget was announced, that parents should teach these social skills at home.

Unfortunately for ALL of us. There will be, if we allow these rules to persist, a generation of undisciplined, unloving latch-key children, roaming the streets.

Hope they don't break into your house, Mr Costello !

Some schools are mass child caring institutions.A school that can implement discipline i.e. there must be real consequences for bad behaviour,can also instill values,create a loving and caring environment for children to thrive.Unfortunately many of of our public schools are no longer able to discipline;hence many teachers have given up and are only there for the pay and the holidays.

I send my children to an excellent school and have to pay for the priviledge,but it well worth the expenditure.

I'm a single Mum and my child turns 6 next year. I am an external university student and I work here and there teaching IT and designing websites...it's not a regular income though.

Am I expected to, once again, give up dreams of acheiving more with my life to go and work a menial job?

I do worry about the impacts of the new budget, but I can see how the single-parent situations are increasing and causing valid concerns for those who pay their taxes (and yes, I voluntarily pay my taxes).

Still, there are some of us who hate relying upon welfare, but we need it as we make continued efforts to better ourselves and our lives.

I worry that I won't pass their criteria and will be forced to give up my dreams, once again, because my child's father took off the moment two blue lines appeared on a stick.

This is where Government continually gets it wrong. 'It' thinks that the only 'real' job/work is 'working for someone or something'! Not so.

If it wasn't for all the creative people out there, we would have no culture to enjoy; no music to relax to, no TV for child carers to stick our children in front of and no 'world famous markets' to visit.
Yep. The Government is 'so proud' of all these cultural achievements us dreamers have made, but do they allow and encourage it? No.

That's the sad thing..

not all single mums are bludgers.
i own my own business as a health professional and am a single mum to a toddler (father walked out on us)

i work full time in my 2 clinics. toddler goes to childcare 2 days per wk & is looked after within my clinic the rest of the time. i dont ask for handouts, father doesnt pay child support - i am happy doing it myself. its tough but can be done. i know i am probably in the minority, but dont label all single mums as bludgers. i started fulltime work when bub was 8 wks - took breaks to breastfeed... he was breastfed til 12 mths - child hasnt missed out on anything by me working - if anything education has been enriched by being surrounded by constant positive stimulation of a preventative health care environment!

just a thought

dynamite

Actually Dynamite
You are indicative of most single mothers. They're only on parenting payment single for two years on average before heading off into full time work, unlike their married counterparts, who receive Parenting Payment Partnered, Family Tax A & B for many years, and for many more children. Single parents usually only have one or two children.

It's a manufactured crisis.