The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is being a father worth the risk? > Comments

Is being a father worth the risk? : Comments

By Sylvia Else, published 19/5/2005

Sylvia Else argues society should bear more of the cost of marriage breakdowns to encourage us to have more children.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. 20
  11. All
There is a simple solution to a lot of the financial problems of couples having children.Let couples with children income split, so that the parent who brings in the single income shares the income with his/her partener.Their tax liability would be less than halved in many cases.This would encourage women of real genetic ability to have children.The state need not compensate.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 19 May 2005 9:29:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

Well put. I’ve been agonising for an hour to articulate my thoughts in a single paragraph, and it turns out you’ve already done it.

Many would argue that what you propose is a concession and a subsidy. It just shows how funked up we’ve become.
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 19 May 2005 10:30:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Three things come to mind...

1. what the government 'gives' it must first take away... all good as long as my hand reaches into your pocket and not yours into mine.
2. if we need more worker bees we dont have to breed them we can import them... immigration
3. human beings are not worker bees, nor fodder to be brought into this world for such cynical reasons as feeding the system.
4. people couldnt give a rats arse about breeding humans to support the misguided economic rationalisations of the politically motivated. We bring life into this world for personal reasons that are a world away from number crunching the perceived social welfare 'problem' of the future.

Put down the cup... there's no storm breweing here.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 20 May 2005 11:11:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,
The system of income splitting for couples may work, but there would be a problem with de facto relationships or cohabitation. Undoubtedly the taxation department would eventually want a piece of paper proving that the couple were actually living together as a couple, and not just sharing accommodation. But that piece of paper would become like a marriage certificate anyway, so the couple would become formally married.

Although about 30% of children are now born outside of marriage, relationships such as de facto relationships, cohabitation etc have not been studied much in Australia I believe. But I have seen studies in the US suggesting that cohabitation lasts only 18 months on average, with many more potential problems occurring during that type of relationship than in marriage, and obviously 18 mths is not long enough for a father and a mother to raise a child.

I have also seen US studies suggesting that each divorce costs society about US $30,000, as well as the individual costs to the man and woman. The costs of separation in a de facto relationship are probably similar, so there appears to be economic benefits to be had for society if the average marriage or de facto relationship can last as long as possible.

Feminists in the US are now beginning to understand that the more de facto relationships a mother has, the worse off she eventually becomes, emotionally, financially, and physically. The same would be for fathers and their children, and far fewer children are generally born in de facto relationships than in marriage.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 20 May 2005 11:39:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker ,thanks for the the compliment.They are rare in my line of work.

Timkins,we have paid the lazy and incompetant people to have children at the tax payers expense for too long.Really intelligent women over the last 30yrs have had fewer children so they can pay more taxes for those indolent non achievers to suck off the public purse.We are diluting the genetic pool and creating mediocrity.

I propose that only those who live in stable relationship for five years be able to income split.Instead of their taxes paying for the indolent,their income can pay for intelligent prodigy.Politically incorrect,but it will produce positive outcomes.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 20 May 2005 11:16:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,
The 5 yr period sounds good, as it would encourage longer-term relationships. Children will eventually come along, and they are more likely to be born to parents in a more stable environment.

Systems such as the $3,000 Baby Bonus just encourages the production of babies, and do not encourage fathers and mothers to be parents in a long-term relationship. I think society eventually pays a heavy cost for men and women to have a series of short-term relationships.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 21 May 2005 7:02:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. 20
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy