I think it's a pity that women might think that raising children on welfare is the best option they can find because it is very difficult. If the cost-benefits analysis economists are so fond of is applied to this situation then unpartnered women must think that they have no hope of better income or status through any other mechanism for them to 'choose' raising children in poverty above other options. That suggests Australia has a long way to go in breaking down barriers to opportunities for women without independent means, beyond bearing children.

I think a lot of children are born to partnered women whose relationships then divide and perhaps the capacity of men to become successful long term partners could be a policy goal so that women are not forced to rely on welfare to raise their children. Having said that, job availability and security must be an issue for all families partnered or unpartnered in terms of the opportunities they can provide for their children.

While I agree generally that Becker's cost-benefit analysis notions are interesting, one should not assume from his arguments that we all have a tendency to commit a crime. If it were so then many more, perhaps most of us, would speed, take things from shops when there was no danger of being caught, and so on. There are causes of 'crime' and of single mothers having children, or more children. We need to address those, not simply rely on the virtuous consequences of having more police on the roads and on the beat, or of abolishing benefits to single mothers.

Not only are single parents paid more for the number of children, they are also paid more for the proportion of time that children are in their care.

In my view a cause of more harm to children (and their fathers) than paying by the number of children. In many cases children spend less time in the care of their fathers because mum gets less money from the father and the government if the kids spend more time with the father.

The criteria for welfare and child support do not appear to take into account the reasons for any imbalance in residency, the mum who is left with the kids does not as far as I know get any more than the mum who fights a long and expensive residency battle with a father who wants to care for his kids or the mum who chooses to move to an area with low employement prospects away from the fathers employment.

A simple fix to this one
- Both parents to be equally financially responsible for the care of their children. If either parent is unable to meet their share that is an issue between them and the government (and maybe should be a factor in residency considerations) not the problem of the other parent.
- No financial assistance from the other parent or the government if the other parent is willing to care for the children (and no proven history of serious abuse or neglect).

The current system increases the bitterness for divorced couples as fathers are forced to pay someone to keep children away from that in many cases we would rather have the care of. It contributes to children being raised in households where the predominate income is welfare and child support. It deprives children of the things they can learn from fathers. It makes it very difficult for parents to move on from a failed relationship and increases the likelyhood of ongoing bitterness between the parents. It robs fathers of a significant proportion the role of fathers in raising their children.

R0bert

How do we balance helping mothers raise their kids while preventing the money being used as a kind of incentive for mothers to have more children? We can’t, that’s the point.

Every piece of policy has some consequence or reaction, whether that is social, political or environmental. That cannot be helped. I don’t think it is a bad idea, just that some idiots may abuse the system, just like police tapping into DNA records. DNA records by themselves are not detrimental, but the abusers are. In the process of deceit, abusers lower the credibility of the system and make it worse for everyone else.

Social outcomes are just what the Treasurer wants though; for the money to be used as an incentive for mothers to have more children because of our declining birth rate. What he didn’t count on was welfare-dependent mothers having more children for the sole purpose of getting more money. What to do? You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The idea backfired.

But if we scrap payments for new mothers, will they be able to cope? Is the money useless anyway because it goes so fast, as there are so many expenses tied to the raising of children? Do some mothers piss away the money on pokies/holidays/shoes?

It’s a tricky area, but i think abolishing the money to new mothers is not the answer.

I am not sure quite how it works but drug users are sometimes provided benefits in the form of vouchers that can only be used for certain items such as food. Retailers are then able to reclaim the money if they meet the requirements. Maybe the baby bonus and other child related benefits could be issued in the same way as vouchers for food, baby products, child care or even education funds and other essentials. This way we can be sure that the bonus is only used to compensate the mother for costs incurred for the child.

I would find it very difficult to find many single mothers who would want to have meagre payments, and subsist on very little, rather than have a more substantial income and a happy healthy child or children. Whilst there are many who will fill these shoes, and always will be, there are many single mothers who do not have family support, cannot afford child care, do not have any child care if the child is sick and who have little chance of rising above their situation. The payments for sole parenting are not that high, and are still below the poverty line. One off payments are soon absorbed into child rearing and there are few single mothers I have met who spend their payments on shoes and on themselves.

People who have lived below the poverty line for a couple of generations often will choose the welfare route as they know of no other way to survive. It is to these people we need to focus to break the cycle.

For those mothers who would gladly go back to work, we need to put into place much more job training, open up more child care facilities (including private in-home care)and encourage employers to open their doors and employ these sole parents. The community as a whole, needs to be open to changing our attitudes to sole parents.

Stripping payments is not the answer and to show lack of care to our future, our young children, is not showing a high degree of logic.

In comparing how we should be focusing on payments to sole parents to those in the USA is ridiculous. Sole parents in the USA are living way below the povery line in many cases, and most cannot even afford medical care for their children. Do we want the same system here? Is this what we want for our future? I would rather look to Canada, to Europe for ideas, rather than toward a country with little heart in how they treat their lower income citizens, in particular, their sole parents.

The article does not have any regard for mothers who are single due to desertion or bereavement. It assumes that women choose to be single mothers and make decisions to have more children as a single mother because the social security benefits allow them to. I have not seen evidence that the majority of single mothers fall into this category.

Whenever conservative commentators discuss social security, the focus is always on that provided to the poorest sections. Rarely do we see any discussion of middle class welfare, which takes many forms. What about the baby bonus, paid to parents rich or poor, which is designed to encourage giving birth? If the single mothers benefit is considered to encourage baby making, what about this one, which so far seems to be contributing to an increase in the birth rate? And if we think an increase in the birth rate is a good thing worthy of spending government funds to support, does it matter whether it is the BB or the Single Parent Benefit that delivers the largesse? Do we subscribe to the belief that the poor should not be encouraged to have babies because the children will only turn out to be criminals or poor citizens? What is this view except raw snobbery?

Rosie, when I was a young bloke, a lady horse breeder made the following observation to me. You see that mare down there, chasing the stallion around the paddock, trying to get in foal? Well you watch, after she's in foal, she'll kick him if he tries to go near her. Then, after she has the foal, she'll try to kick his head in, if he goes mear them.
Now listen young fellow, most of us women are the same, you'll only be welcome if you have a hell of a lot to give, so be warned.
Since the average mans capacity to be the sole bread winner for a family has been severely diminished in our modern world, it is most often the women choosing the single parent life.
Perhaps we should be training women to be successful partners.
Then there are the lazy slobs, who would rather breed, than work for a living. They have a second, to improve access to public housing.
Just watch the explosion in fatherless children when they get enough to buy an old bomb car as well.
Then we have the women, looking for love, & choosing single motherhood as a way to find it. At least these are, mostly, very good mothers, so perhaps its money well spent in this case

An interesting string of comments - as would be expected on an article that attacks a sacred cow.
Single mothers get to move from a Housing COmmission flat to a house when they have their third child, drug addicted parents (financed by Legal Aid) fight their own parents in the Faimly Court for custody of the children the (grand)parents are actually bringing up because they don't want to lose the child benefits (couples fight each other for the same reason, although neither parent actually wants the child), State Treasuries know that poker machine turnover went through the roof when the first child bonuses were paid and Harvey Norman knows there was a rush on white goods and plasma screen TVs.
These payments are not intended to achieve any policy objective - they are simply the glue that is needed to keep our social fabric in place (although as Macquarie Fields showed, sometimes the fabric does come unstuck).
Can I have a Nobel Prize too?

Maria Lee

First we alter the criteria for encouragements for women to have children. We make 'marraige' and 'family values' lifestyle a high priority, I would be thrilled to see more mothers taking a decade off working outside the home to make some biological contribution to our aging population, and lower the median age. Its only your side of the gender equation who can have them.

Demographics is another factor I'd look at. To maintain political and social stability, we need more Anglo babies. (as do the French and other Europeans) Yes. I knowwwww its 'discrimination'. But the goal is social harmony so, I support it. (but it would never get up I'm sure.)

But then, if you were in Israel where the PLO has basically made it 'policy' for Muslims to have as many wives as legal under Islam, and the 'reasons' for this are outright war, it kind of drives the point home that demographics are an important factor in social policy.

One of the reasons given in the Sharia teaching for having up to 4 wives is.."To strengthen the Ummah" (make the Muslim population STRONGER relative to others.) This was touted on Islamic Sydney as a reason for Muslims to have a legal wife and a few more 'stored away' and the reasoning given was "As long as it's legal under Islamic law its ok". It was emphasised that the first wife does NOT NEED TO BE INFORMED or give 'permission' about the new one. (which is Sharia law)

So, lets not kid ourselves about what is happening in our 'multicultural' society. The Germans have just introduced a 'Citizenship' questionaire, (Muslims hate it, because it asks how u feel about 'domestic violence')

So, on topic, I suggest rather than reducing payments. RE-DIRECT and INCREASE them (Based on Families and Family Values) It seems we can legistlate to destroy family values, so at least we should feel ok about some reversal of this trend.

I would like to question the theory that single mothers on Government benefits have more children because of the incremental increase in their benefit level. This seems likely only if the increase is significantly greater than the cost of the additional child. I accept that the initial cost of a second baby cared for at home (presuming the mother already has the necessary equipment, baby clothes etc) is nowhere near as great as it becomes in later years, but I find it difficult to believe that the single mother is unaware of how expensive children are over the course of time. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the overwhelming majority of single mothers have small families of only one or two children, and most of the remainder with larger families bore their children prior to going on the pension.

The small group who have a number of children after going on the pension, usually as a result of transitory relationships, seem to well exemplify the triumph of hope over experience. Many of them hold the pathetic belief that bearing a man's child will bind him to them, rather than the more likely probability that he'll never be seen again!

Finally, if single mothers bear additional children only in order to receive increased pensions, there does not seem to be a limit applying. If one extra child is good, shouldn't six, twelve, twenty be so much better? Maybe I am blind, but I have not noticed that happening. I think additional payments for children may result in additional births in the case of women who genuinely want another child but could not previously afford it. These women are usually not in recept of Government pensions; they are normally in stable relationships but on low incomes or with crushing mortgages

Jason gets a little muddled when talking about the baby bonus and welfare payments for single mums. The baby bonus is paid to families who qualify.

Most "family payments" as opposed to "welfare payments" are strangely announced in the run up to elections. Do we as a civilised society really need to pay $500 to each family when they have a baby. All it really equates to is a week or two of childcare.

But of course a little bribe goes a long way for our mean and sneaky Government. I bet similar bribes will be offered next election.

This comment "a general lack of investment in human capital" is simply disgusting. Human capital? Doesn't that speak volumes about the writer?

Ignoring that though anyone who thinks having babies is a way to make money is a fool but despite that I am aware that some, mainly young, women do so not thinking of the future. Perhaps they expect their parents to step in as they frequently do when the actual parent cannot cope.

Becker's theory probably makes sense in most cases. Let's turn it on it's head for Australian taxpayers.

Our governments, Federal and State, pay Senior staff of most organistaions to go to work. How? By subsidising their vehicles, or providing them as part of a salary package. The Tax Office allow relevant costs as deductions just as Jason points out for negative gearing.

These two incentives cost the taxpayer billions but as the richer people benefit it is not targeted as welfare recipients are. Why?

Becker's theory in reverse shows that those eligible for these taxpayer funded benefits will kill each other to get in the queue. It is the same money, collected tax, distibuted to the rich and nary a word raised by either side of politics.

Sajo's suggestion of vouchers is not workable as it carries stigma that the person is on benefits and identified as such by anyone taking such vouchers. People don't accept that. Rather though that such funds were given to people by paying direct costs, such as electricity, rent and so on. The regular weekly costs that are essential. Any other method tends to end up at Harvey Norman's or goes into the pokies.

Rosie's comments about relationships splitting are obvious, the divorce rate is about 33%, so defacto breakdowns would be that and more. But to generalise saying men are the failures does not indicate much thought or research on this topic. If men were not succesful long term partners most of us wouldn't be here Rosie. It's a 2 way street these days I'm afraid. Both partners are responsible for relationship failure, not just the males.

Firstly let me say I come from a single parent family. My father died when I was nine and my brother five. I am now a lawyer and my brother a graduate of Duntroon. Therefore I don't accept unconditionally that single mothers are doomed to fail.

However from experience I perceive massive problems in the way welfare in this regard is approached in this country. Certainly it must be highlighted that single mums are given very little incentive to rejoin the workforce. A combination of excessive taxation and child care costs make returning to the work force totally unattractive. In addition the welfare program is structured in such a way that single parents are actually penalised for finding meaningful employment.Is it any surprise that single mothers aren't motivated to return to work?!

My Mum survived because she used her initiative- I dare say though that the head on her shoulders also helped. But for women lacking in iniative or intelligence the government must do more. I have always thought that the government could allow for a basic allowance decreasing with the increase in numbers of children per mother (any mother).Most importantly the government could then match dollar for dollar the working income of those mothers each year. Or at the very least provide significant tax concessions for them.

If a simple system like this was costed properly by the treasury department I believe the economic benefits would far outway the costs and the community would see far more women back in the workforce.

RobbyH - there would be no stigma attached to vouchers as currently even the fairly wealthy receive the baby bonus so most families with new babies would have them for varying amounts. Child care centres, schools and baby shops wouldn't blink an eye.

More abject twaddle from the decendant of Nelson."Say no more""Say no more"These well paid wankademics really get up my nose,this is just more right wing sophistry to can welfare period.They do this by stealth,just like a stone mason chip,chip,chip., and presto 5/5 of F.A. is left.

Of course the old U.S.A.would be the last place to analogise anything.The poor,un-married mothers, and other social mis-fits in that country are treated like cattle.Sorry cattle are treated better my mistake. Katrina told me all I need to know about the U.S.Hey just keep building more jails it works dontcha think.There is not a sentient being on the planet, that believes anything that comes out of the U.S. of late.And to mention Newt Gingrich in the same breath as Bill Clinton is blasphemy.Newt should stick to writing books about the civil war.

I may be wrong,but I think I heared this man being interviewed by Philip Adams.If this is the same,he was on to him.

All through out my life getting on for sixty years,it has never ceased to amaze me,that the people who usualy complain the most about un-married mothers and welfare payments, are men.Of course these are the same men who will tell any lie,spend any amount of money entertaining them,and walk over broken glass to get into there pants.Hyprocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to pleasures of the flesh.And please no bursts, Phill you are probably one of them!No, so save your allotted amount of words to blast me some other way.

And finally the one off payments care of goverment.What a cynical ploy to get votes.These right wing righteous bastards knew full well most of that loot would end up back in circulation via plasma t.v.'s etc cause that's human nature,and Johny, I give him his due he played a blinder.I know rusted on Laborites who changed there vote for there 40 pieces of silver.

I don't know what the answer is,but stripping people of there dignity by making them look for there meals in rubbish bins,is not an anathema to me,it is bloody outrages

Wre, I'm also from a single parent family. An amazing amount of discrimination and snobbery manifests towards single mothers. My mother experienced this after my father died.

If the government wants to encourage single parents to work when their child reaches primary school age then perhaps it should help by creating some well paid 9am-3pm jobs.

Are there any single parents on this forum? I would be interested in your view of this article.

All this is is sloganeering, no facts nothing that can be empirical tested.

What proportion of single mothers have had children after they commenced the pension?
This article assume every one on a single pension is producing children for a free ride.

I look forward to an article from the author calling on the Howard Government to end all drought relief for farmers.

As all it does is encourage farmers to continue to operate on marginal land.

Or to ask the Howard Government to abolish negative gearing because all it does is to encourage investor to make speculative investments that generate a loss for a considerable period and hence need public subsidisation.

Or is welfare for the North Shore toffs ok but not for those in the WEST

the author suggest that what is required is assistance back into the workforce for single mums. Coming from a Howard backer this is laughable. They destroyed all the labour market programs that were designed to get long term unemployed back into the labour market.

They have not increased publicly funded child care and have relied upon rebates etc which get eaten by the money hungry private child care sector.

Lets get real

Excellent article Jason.

Maria-lee asks; “How do we balance helping mothers raise their kids while preventing the money being used as a kind of incentive for mothers to have more children? We can’t, that’s the point.”

We can’t entirely. But we have had this sort of support in Australia for decades; ongoing financial support that is, not the ridiculous lump sum baby bonus type, during which time the fertility rate has greatly declined. So it is not a significant incentive to have more children.

There is a huge difference between well-intentioned incentives, provided throughout the childhood period, and the atrocious one-hit-wonder baby bonus, which is the most despicable Australian government policy ever.

No matter how you look at it, the bb is rotten to the core.

The last thing we need is to increase our fertility rate. The national (individual) fertility rate is 1.76 or thereabouts, but even with net zero migration our population would still continue to increase for decades. About half of our population increase is from births and half from immigration, roughly speaking. This means that the effective national fertility rate is quite a bit above 2. The individual rate suggests that without immigration the population would rapidly decline. This is a huge furphy, which Howard and Costello, and Beazley, and even Brown, are quite content to let the populace believe.

The approaching proportionate increase in retirees is nowhere near as big a deal as our politicians make it out to be. There are much bigger things to worry about in the near future such as peak oil, our rapidly declining resource base, rapidly increasing demand on that resource base by way of an ever-larger population, etc.

The bb is a bribe to produce more children. It is also a blatant vote-buying exercise. It is not designed to help parents make ends meet with child-care, it is simply designed to dupe them into having a child where they would not have otherwise had one, and there is absolutely no requirement that it be spent on the baby!! It is a staggeringly bad piece of work

Ludwig/slasher,
Collectively you had said what needed saying, however I would really like to know in monetery terms, cash dollars, how big a problem this is, women having extra babies after they qualify for a single mothers pension.

Is it more for example, than an extra 1% tax on those who can afford to pay [multi-millionaires, billionaires]could cover. The reason I ask is that the children of these families, will be the employees of the wealthy, along with workchoices legislation, which will over time lower these employees wages, would it not be suitable for those who will gain the benefit of employing these people on starvation wages, pay fot the upkeep of the families, untill their employees can be exploited.

Is the baby bonus a 'social security rort' or another example of 'middle class welfare'?

While I don't approve of such a simple-minded thing as the $500BB - which, if it had the intention of increasing our population rather than merely buying votes, would not be an effective way of achieving this questionable result - I would rather see some hard statistics than rely on a basically moralistic, ideological rant against single mothers.

It is hard to see how anyone can justify negative gearing, for example, as an 'incentive' for the well-off to buy more property, or the 30% private health fund rebate that could surely also encourage certain people to have more children, while decrying the possibly socially detrimental effects of a flat $500 payment on 'single mothers'. There is an implicit moralism about doing so, and an underlying assumption about what constitutes a socially and economically acceptable motivation. I don't know if Brecker looked at this aspect, but Falinski represents his ideas as rather behaviouristic, mechanistic, easily to be adapted by governments to whatever their political purpose.

I have not found any information in Falinski's article or the comments concerning the actual rate of occurrence of the effect that Becker's theory posits. Guessing in an 'educated' fashion, I contend there would be few women who would be lured by what many would consider a paltry 'incentive', given the physical and emotional duress of childbirth and child raising (Falinski doesn't even consider that side of it). This is not to deny that the having of even more children by single mothers, for whatever reason, might contribute to some social problems.

Falinski's piece reflects the way the ideological 'right' assume the already well-off must be offered 'incentives' (how often have obscene managerial/CEO salaries been justified by variants of "if you pay peanuts you'll get monkeys"?) while the poor or disadvantaged must have their behaviour modified by disincentives. Beneath the window dressing is the unconscious belief that 'top' people may justifiably be motivated by greed, while the poor may not; they need fear and deprivation to get them cracking

I would tend to agree with Jason and his source, Gary S Becker, people do make cost benefit decisions based on any set of given circumstances.

However, whether some will simpky pop out children or decide crime “does pay” depends on their comprehension of the ensuing timeline used for calculating the "return" on the "cost benefit" decision.

Those who use a very short time-horizon in which to consider the consequences of a present act may readily accept that more children, more baby bonus is just as cost beneficial as assuming their crimes will not catch up with them.

Making any real “cost benefit analysis” can only be reasoned by considering the longer term lifetime consequences which for a crime might be produce consequences to being barred for certain job opportunities and for children at least an 18 year commitment to their development (and possibly longer with the added benefit of grandkids down he track).

Jasons observed, the tendency and desire for some types of governments to pervert the tax system and try, haplessly, to use it as a medium to pursue social engineering objectives is, accurate and an appropriate in the context of “child production bounties”.

Robert – I wholly and totally agree with the entire content of your first post. I am not sure if you are being reflective or speaking of personal experience of the single parent father role but I can (speak from personal experience) and would suggest you have it exactly right in every detail.

Slasher and Shonga. I can't understand why your posts are always critical of the Howard Government and contain some derogatory reference to to the rich folks on the North Shore or higher earners in general. If I remember rightly it has been the ALP that founded wedge politics, dismissed work for the dole and still maintains that ALL Australians should be university educated.

I think you'll probably find that all women are capable of having children regardless of their household income. In my opinion any concessions to mothers should be directed at every tax bracket. A professional woman who leaves the workforce to have children should be no less encouraged to work again than a factory worker etc! The situation as it stands is that hundreds of thousands of women are effectively retired prior to their 35th birthday.

The point that everybody is missing is that a cost benefit analysis is an economic not social tool. Talking about women and children as 'commodities' is immoral. However talking about skills/ labour shortages and recognising that women can fill some of these gaps is a reality. Herein is where a cost benefit analysis should begin.

Surely given the relationship between oil and industrial agriculture, and the imminent end of “cheap oil”, we should be financially rewarding families to have LESS children not more? Once oil peaks and then goes into an irreversible decline it will feel like the 1970’s oil crisis, only this time it is permanent. According to some geologists this all starts as early as 2008. Just like the 1970’s oil price rises will lead to inflation. This time we will combat inflation with monetary policy, raising interest rates to lower demand. However, this will happen while the airlines are going bankrupt due to the higher oil prices. The flow on effects to international tourism will create a crisis of unemployment, and combined with the higher interest rates will bring on the next Great Depression!

Where is the money going to come from to pay parents to have more children? Why do we want more babies to join us for this crisis? Industrial agriculture is so dependent on oil that our very food is going to cost more! A larger population will ultimately make the problem that much worse.

This is the latest from Robert Hirsch whom the US DOE commissioned to report on peak oil.
"This problem is truly frightening. This problem is like nothing that I have ever seen in my lifetime, and the more you think about it and the more you look at the numbers, the more uneasy any observer gets. It's so easy to sound alarmist, and I fear that part of what I'm saying may sound alarmist, but there simply is no question that the risks here are beyond anything that any of us have ever dealt with. And the risks to our economies and our civilization are enormous."
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615

Isn’t paying parents to produce more babies just like subsidizing tickets to the Titanic?

What a great example of how parenting, and particularly mothering, is devalued.

Most parents on the sole parents' benefit are off it when their children are school age. For many, a few straitened years are worth it for the benefit of providing the primary care to their children. The sole parents' benefit allows the parent to stay at home with their children during those vital early years. Few people question the Family Payment system that allows partnered mothers to stay at home with their children in those important years. The only women not allowed choice, apparently, are those who commit the social crime of being a single parent.

The cost to society of forced childcare is not factored in the above article, be it in tax dollars paid in child care subsidy or family instability where child care is not available for older children or families who need a parent at home are denied one.

Those who abuse the system are few and far between. Probably the same percentage, one imagines, as business people who rort the tax system. And anyone who thinks that raising children on the sole parents' pension is *profitable* needs their head read.

pax

Jane
(Mother of five (ages 2-16), former single parent of 2, in full time employment - just declaring my biases.)

wre,
Funny, that you of all people should not understand our posts. Having been raised in a single parent family yourself, you must know how hard it was, some people have selected memory loss when they are well off. Luckily for you, that you had a very resourcefull Mum, some children are not so lucky, and live their lives as shop assistants or labourers, whose pay I dare say you couldn't now live on.

The reason for attacking the Howard Government is simple, they constantly attack those who are living close to or below the poverty line, but as the ALP in the past, never ever, make the rich pay their fair share of tax to support the community.

Col, a mixture of personal experience, observation and reflection.
I've managed to retain a version of shared care albeit an unbalanced version which does not serve my sons or my own interests well.

My former wife has made it clear in the past that she is unwilling to consider any change in residency arrangements which would reduce her income from child support or various child related welfare benefits. Along with that she has consistently manouvered for residency arrangements which maximise the "nights" our son spends in her care, moving away from the area we had agreed to live in (at her choice) being the winning tactic. Add to that my son in tears recently because mum does not actually pay much attention to him when he is in her care prefering to leave him to the DVD player and games console while she devotes her time to church and friends and you get the picture. Generally a good mum but the financial incentives for residency have in my view provided motivation for her to persue a residency mix that does not serve any of our lives well.

We formally had a mix that was close to 50/50, lived within a 15 minute drive of one another, gave our son time with each of us during the school week and on weekends as well us giving my ex and I weekend time to persue activities without our son. The mix also shared the impact on ability to work equally.

A good friend of my ex's when talking to me about issues her son was having admitted that more time with the father would help but that she could not allow that because she could not pay the rent if she got less welfare.

I've heard of other fathers who've moved to follow their children after an ex has relocated and then been forced to to move back to an area with better employment prospects due to C$A assessing child support based on "earning capacity".

R0bert

Yes Pedant, I'm one. My child is 2 1/2 yrs old but I work full-time so I thought I'd best leave it to others to discuss.

For interest though, I receive $75 per fortnight (reduced $20 per fortnight last december because of overpayment in 2003-2004).

The way in which centrelink found I had been overpaid was this. I had applied for the payments in my own name (really because I could only sign my own signature and not someone else's in person at the centrelink office that day).

Payments from centrelink are based on a combined income not on mine which was $0 that year. Fair enough. However, my partner's salary estimate I gave in the beginning of that year was too low by about 5 thousand gross by the end of that year.

I went back to work of course and centrelink redid its paperwork last year and reduced what it pays me so now I can repay the overpayment. It does not require my ex-partner to pay anything because, despite being originally calculated on both incomes (ie. $X + $0), I had applied for it in my name so I owe it.

I might say I do appreciate receiving any amount but find the decision to pay on a combined income but to claw back on a single income philosophically disagreeable. Also, I'm grumpy I guess because last year I went back to uni in addition to full-time work to finish a degree which helps my future working life so I now also pay a much larger amount per fortnight to HECS yet that is not excluded by centrelink's assessment. In other words, both the ATO and Centrelink calculate a taxable income and remove (HECs) or limit payment (Centrelink) even though I never see some of that income on which their calculations are based.

Anyway this may not be on topic or terribly important but you asked if there were single parents and I just meant yes, here I am.

Payments or no payments, I will work but a little welfare does mean a lot to me.

Shonga patronising people in this forum isn't going to win you any friends and I suggest the massive chip on your shoulder be moved so it stops affecting your vision. For your information a large proportion of my and my sibling's salary goes to supporting mum and keeping her in the family home during sickness and old age.

Having raised two sons successfully and having paid her taxes religiously she finds herself without a super lump sum (she was self employed) and ineligible for most welfare because her major asset(her home) is worth too much. She lives in a nice suburb but that doesn't make her a rich snob who doesn't deserve welfare/ government support. Or does it Shonga?

We live in a country where my Mum paid 48% of her earnings in tax while raising two kids and working her backside off to pay for footy boots and school camps. Yet you maintain that because she ran a successful business and earnt alot that 48% wasn't enough! If a mother sits around all day and uses her welfare for cigarettes instead of her children is that welfare amount too much? I should also mention that the top tax rate kicks in so early (60k) and so high (48%) because the fiscal irresponsibilty of the ALP every so often has made it impossible to improve.

It is unfortunate that children get caught in the middle of this debate. However a child is a child and a parent is a parent. No mother should be penalised because she wants to work and/or becomes successful nor should the children of a bludger be discriminated against either. We should be posting suggestions not mindless insults directed at people who live on the 'North Shore'.

wre,

lets get some facts right it was the ALP that reduced the top rate from 60 cents in the dollar to the rate it is now. John Howard was Treasurer during the Fraser years and promised tax cuts and then reneged, remember the fist full of dollars advertising. This is how he got his nickname "honest John", not because he was, but in typical mocking Australian tradition. Like calling a red head bluey, or a bald man curly.

Your attitude of thinking single mothers spend their money on cigarettes and why shouldn't i subsidise them shows your true colours.

You remind me of a conversation of I had with a farmer's daughter at uni. She was advocating that people should work for the dole and I asked does that mean she would support farmers doing community service for the flood relief/drought relief that they receive.

She responded that without the farmers the cities would starve and besides her father had not bought a new dress for her mother for two years, things were that desperate. I asked what type of car did her father drive. The response was a Mercedes, thinking it may be an old car I asked when did he buy it. She said that year. The year he was receiving drought relief and things were too desperate to buy his wife a new dress. I suggested that rather than bludging off the rest of us maybe he should have bought a holden and a new dress for his wife if he really cared about her. She said he had a reputation to protect and that was important.

You and the person I just described have no concept of hardship and the reason for welfare. It is to put food on the table for a family, allow them to be clothed to go to school etc

Yesh! That's a sad conversation to be having with a farmer Slasher... and yep, I get the irony.

However, the sad part of it is that government funds could easily "dry up" during the combined economic crisis that is coming. Peak oil is the beginning of the end of the oil age, and here we are debating a few dollars here and a few dollars there on a baby bonus or welfare payments to single mothers.... yet I can see this Great Depression getting so bad that many unemployed end up in Salvo's soup kitchen lines for a bite to eat. Just remember those challenging opening scenes from King Kong!

Welfare shmelfare if we don't handle peak oil right.
If the oil decline is just a meagre 2% per year, Hirsch has stated it would take 20 years to properly adjust to peak oil PRIOR TO THE EVENT with a big government, crash mitigation program.

However, peak oil could be far earlier than that (anywhere from only 10 years from now to maybe this year) and far more severe ... from 4% through to 8% decline. In other words, Hirsch himself has admitted today to being far too optimistic in his report!

The best welfare any government, whether blue, red, or rainbow coloured, could do for this country would be to seriously upgrade public transport, retrofit extra urban accomodation in the CBD's of our cities, and figure out how to do farming without oil. Otherwise buying a farmer's wife a new dress will be the last thing on the minds of farmers, and city folk may be forced to fight over the remaining food as our supermarkets run bare — as depicted in ABC's Catalyst special, "The Real Oil Crisis!"

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1515141.htm

Thise comment is from Professor Peter Newman from ABC's Catalyst...

"Yeah, the next 20 years are an absolute critical point where I don’t know that we can make it. I just feel we haven’t started soon enough."

What good are welfare payments if there is no food to buy?

Eclipse

Thankyou for highlighting the enormous magnitude of the looming peak oil crisis.

With this sort of scenario just ahead of us, we MUST start preparing, big time. One of the essential preparations is to get the hell away from our crazy continuous growth mentality. We have got to aim for population reduction and we are going to have to accept large-scale negative economic growth.

We need to throw the baby bonus out with the bathwater (and ‘have-one-for-the-country’ Costello along with it). And we need to rapidly reduce immigration, reduce per-capita consumption way down, implement alternative energy sources and in short, head directly into sustainability mode.

“Welfare shmelfare if we don't handle peak oil right.”

Eloquently put. If we want to retain ANY sort of system of child or single parent support, then we need to do everything in our power to prepare for the peak oil crisis NOW.

Slasher, using a farmer as a case in point is an unfortunate one. I would suggest you walk a mile in their shoes before you pass judgment. I have never met a ‘bludging’ farmer in my life and, generally, the farming community takes government assistance as a last resort and with great humility. That is a part of the reputation that they have and want to protect regardless of your attempts at disparaging it. They have pride in the self-reliance that comes from the land and hard work. To even suggest that they have no concept of hardship is an absurdity in the extreme.
To take a car, a dress and a pride in themselves to judge them and pass sentence speaks volumes for your knowledge of the matter

Well said Craig.

These systems are perpetuated by people like Slasher and Shonga who can't bring themselves to concede that those who put into the system should get more out of it than those who don't. If a woman decides to work why shouldn't she also retain welfare payments (ie like in a meritocracy)? If somebody receives $400.00 in welfare per week to take care of a small family, and then gains employment making $500.00 a week why should they find themselves only $100.00 better off (childcare excluded!!)? It doesn't make sense and it sure as hell isn't fair! Perhaps the reason Slasher is so against rewarding work is because his arts degree only covered Maoist Thought and he now finds himself qualified solely to practice ideology in cafes and beer gardens?

As for that ignorant farming analogy I feel sorry for the poor girl you undoubtedly humiliated in front of your university class. Farming/ Agriculture may not be commercially viable on a large scale for much longer but the last time I checked it was still the country's second biggest export market. It may well be the industry we need to pull the country through 'peak oil'. Your opposition to rewarding farmers, ideologically parellels your opposition to working mums. You don't like capitalism, you don't want people rewarded on merit- maybe you'd prefer we kicked all our farmers off the land and let Johnny maintain a fleet of seized Mercedes instead? Then all the single Mums would end up in slums that we could bulldoze-sound familiar?

Slasher,
Perhaps we had better re-think our attitudes, obviously the farmer refered to has done it tough, no new dress for his wife in 2 years, hell I know people who haven't had a new dress in their lives. Remember the poor old farmer has a company set up so that he can buy he petrol cheap and claim it and any travel on tax, like ordinary working people can...eh! sorry, we can't. The poor old farmer like every business can claim business expenses depreciation on machinery, even the work clothes the company provides and embroideres for the employees including the farmer himself of course.

Ah yes, it's a hard life for the poor old farmer, livin' it up on drought relief, and to make things even harder if it rains, well of course flood relief. Personally I don't discriminate against Mrs.wre, if she has paid her taxes, [all 48% of them] she should be entitled to a pension, where she lives in Toorak, or Timbucktoo.

I WAS NOT BEING PATRONISING, I leave that to the wealthy. These people have no idea what the poor have to live through, and it seems they are interested in squeezing the life out of them by cutting a miserable pension from already poverty stricken families. However it seems that they themselves are prepared to sacrifice absolutely nothing, they must have a tax cut, well I have one question, you have had YOUR government in for 10 years now, and you are paying the tax rate the ALP left behind, does that tell you anything.

Two comments on wre's post.

If your mum has a major interest in the form of her North Shore house, why should the State (ie the rest of us) contribute to her ongoing maintenance? Shouldn't you and your sibling encourage her to move to a more modest dwelling (or even rent) and use the proceeds from downsizing to support herself. Or is the the old self interest issue involved - we don't want to do anything that might threaten the inheritance? This, of course, is what is behind the outcry whenever there is talk of making the elderly pay for their own upkeep - it is not the elderly who object but their children!

And regarding your observation that if you can get $400 on welfare but only $500 for working, there is something wrong with the pay rates, perhaps it is the other way round. We are providing too generous welfare. And of course when we look at what welfare is spent on, that is clear - but it is politically incorrect to suggest that welfare recipients don't have the same right to spend $10 a packet on smokes, $30 a slab on beer and whatever is left on the pokies. Benefits from the State should provide a subsistence level of support and the strongest possible incentive to set the alarm clock and get up each morning to go to work (any work), not a long term alternative to work.

Here goes, then. I'm a single parent (the father's a serial wife deserter), who never got a cent in maintenance. I'm also the child of a single parent (my father died when I was four, intestate and weeks after he and my stay-home, unskilled mother had bought their first house). Mum couldn't get a War Widow's pension at the time, although she managed to get one in her 70s, when Veterans' Affairs was desperate to spend its budget. She worked in a low-paid job until she was forced to retire, paid off the house, and tried to provide for her retirement, which meant having a protracted fight with the NSW public service, which at the time was very reluctant to allow older women access to the superannuation scheme. By the time she won this right, despite making contributions higher than she could afford, the time left to make them meant her payout was nugatory.

I used to think of this quite a lot when I worked for the (then) Department of Social Security, assessing applications for family payments. The grant of Family Allowance Supplement (the payment for the very disadvantaged) is or was assessed on taxable income. I ended up having to grant it to the stay-home wife of a Double Bay dentist, whose turnover was $800,000 the previous year, but taxable income $4000. At the same time, a couple of itinerant workers whose income was well under the poverty line waited 15 months to have their claim paid, because they weren't often at the address to which the department sent letters, and claims lapse after 90 days without a reply. They only got the payment after 15 months because I hid the file until they responded.

I don't begrudge payments to the better-off, but having seen my mother do it tough, and done it (less so) myself, I do find it alarming to see the truly needy denied welfare which goes to the beneficiaries of creative accounting. And don't get me started on priests' and nuns' 'stipends' not being counted as income for welfare purposes.

Let’s make it simple.
1/ Peak oil means we’ve burnt all the easy stuff… it’s only going up from now on.
http://eclipsenow.org/

2/ There is no alternative energy that is as easy to mine, in the same volumes, as cheaply and with as much “energy profit” as light sweet crude conventional cheap oil. There is nothing to switch over to after the end of cheap oil.
http://eclipsenow.org/facts/alternateenergy.html

3/ Farming itself depends on oil. We use 10 calories of petro-chemical energy to make just 1 calorie of food energy. Every McDonald’s hamburger took 10 times it’s energy in oil and gas to make!
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

4/ Everything is going to change, from city design through to international globalized trade, and we may not be able to support the current world population.
http://eclipsenow.org/facts/consequences.html

5/ So the government introduces a baby bonus to encourage population growth.

Smart, real smart. As in, “Get Smart.”

I would like to comment on Wre's post of January 12, specifically the point that his mother is '....ineligible for most welfare because her major asset (her home) is worth too much.'

It is my understanding that the value of a person's home is exempt from the Centrelink and Veterans' Affairs assets test. If it is situated on a large block (such as on a farm) then the value of the excess land only is means tested. It doesn't matter whether her home is a mansion in Vaucluse or a cottage in Mount Druitt unless she owns half the suburb! It only becomes a means testing issue if the person leaves the home for an extended period, such as admission to a nursing home. Of course other real estate (not the principal home) is treated as an asset under the nornal rules.

Tasman,
The $400 is per "fortnight" [benefit], and the $500 per "week"[wage], if that helps you any in your deliberations, someone was very mischievious when comparing the amounts, perhaps intentionally so..

You won't find anyone on a pension on a flight to Fiji, or anywhere else for that matter, you only recieve a pension when you have no other "legal" means of support. For most pensioners like myself the pension of 150-200 dollars a week is the difference between life and death literally. Before anyone jumps, I am on a pension because I have recently been made redundant, after a work history of more than 40 years, some 7 years of that 7 days a week every week, and I of course paid my taxes unlike others mentioned in yesterdays Australian newspaper.

Some can hide income but I have neither the inclination or the ability, I thought of it as an honor to be able to contribute to my nation.

SHONGA, I have seen the income statements of seperated parents of a school age child from a couple of years ago. At that point she had the care of her child about 7 1/2 days a fortnight, was working one day a week and had a significant amount of money in the bank (close to 1/2 of the value of an average house in this area). The father cared for the child the rest of the time. I'm a little bit rusty on the exact figures but from memory they go something like the following. The father is a PAYE wage earner with no real capacity for hidden income.

The various forms of child related welfare paid to the mother (including C$A money) documented in that statement added up to about $350 a week tax free. Add to that about $100 after tax for the one day a week work. The money from the sale of their house was in a bank and earning almost no income, I suspect that might have been in part strategy to help during the C$A assessment stage. At that point she was not renting so the figure did not include rent assistance. Nor does the figure include discounts for people on "the pension" and other hard to quantify benefits.

Her former husband working a well paid full time job was netting after tax and C$A about $120 a week more. That does not include superannuation. By the time the former husband took out his train fares, after school care fees (some for the time the child was in the mothers care) the net difference was down to about $70 a week.

It is reasonable to assume that the mother would be able to reduce her grocery bill and other costs by shopping around, using markets and other resources which are not readily available to the night time grocery shopper. Allow for some possible savings elsewhere and the picture is not as clear as some would like to portray it.

R0bert

Shonga, "...livin' it up on drought relief"
If ignorance was a deli, you would be the caviar.

Shonga
If you refer back to wre's post, his example was actually talking about $400 PER WEEK in welfare payments, not per fortnight. I assume he was talking about a single mum with a couple of couple of kids (a samll family). I stand by my post.

Hello R0bert,

Excuse my ignorance, but what on earth is C$A? It looks like 'Commonwealth dollars Australian' but I rather doubt it.

I believe that any parent that stays at home in a parenting role should be entitled to the dole as a minimum. It should be taxable. People who care for the aged and infirm, carers, should be paid the minimum wage as they earn it.
Long live the baby bonus and help with raising children.

However all this talk of single mothers intrigues me. What about the fathers.

Playing devils advocate here:
What about the men. Women can only have so many children, but men can father hundreds. Men who father multiple children and don't provide for them should have a little nick to end their procreation. It would only take a few minutes :)and viola less single parents.

part 1

wre, where shall I begin. The author is simply welfare bashing trying to use a ridiculous economic theory to suggest single mothers plan to have more children to increase their welfare payments.

My comments have been to point out the existence of middle class welfare which according to the author and you is not objectionable. It seems that welfare directed to the most needy is what you object to. Is it simply because you and the likes of the author can't get their mitts on it?

I challenge you to indicate to all the other people on this thread how much the single mother's pension is and what the cutoff is. Can you do that without looking it up on the internet.

You wonder why we are so critical of John Howard, let me explain.

You say you support measures to assist women back into the workforce ( I support this despite your ill informed comments)well John Howard completely slashed all the labour market programs which were designed to do just this.

If you look to QLD Peter Beattie introduced the "Breaking the Unemployment Cycle" programs to help long term unemployed, women and migrants etc entering the workforce. Look at the figures QLD has gone from having one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation to the lowest (if my memory is correct) Consistently more than 50% of the full time jobs created in Australia was in QLD. This would not correspond in any way to these programs would it?

You claim you are concerned about supporting your mother, John Howard slashed funding and support for aged care sector. This has forced many genuine people into the health system to be cared for.

part 2

John Howard out of ideological reasons is adopting a wage system which led to over a period of time to 20% less productive in New Zealand.

You will see from the next argument that I am not a Maoist, real wage growth can only occur if there is productivity gains.

Cost cutting deregulation of the labour market which is all that WorkChoices will achive will only bring on marginal productivity changes.

Real change comes from multifactor productivity that is combining capital and labour improvements. This has been demonstrated to be most likely to occur with a cooperative union.

Cutting penalty rates, reducing wages which is now occurring through the new system will reduce costs for a one off time, it does not lead to long term improvements.

No long term productivity increase + no real wage growth = no economic growth

No assistance for the elderly, no labour market programs for single mothers, no real wages growth, lesser productivity improvements, no economic growth.

I can see why you support John Howard, he panders to your class snobbery and allows you bash the economically disadvantaged who receive welfare.

Gee that is more important than all those other things isn't it.

Kephren, C$A is a revised version of the initials of the so called "Child Support Agency" who play such a key role in this mess.

The view of many of the payers is that they have little to do with "Child Support" and a lot to do with reducing the load on welfare.

Reportedly the mums who do get left with the kids by a dad who does not want them (I've never met one of those dads) have trouble getting much real help from C$A while those fathers who do want their kids find that C$A have no concept of impartiality or the well being of children. They go for the easy targets and use their discressionary powers to maximise the tarnsfer of money.

I'm not sure if it is still the case but it used to be that the amount of money handled by the agency was a factor in management performance pays and I expect that it is a key performance indicator. A recipe which is likely to lead for an organisational culture which goes for the easy dollars and to not waste effort on the hard cases.

I have seen reports which suggest that the net cost to the economy of the C$A is far higher than the total amount of money handled by them (disputed by C$A).

Unfortunately Family Tax Benefits are impacted unless so called child support is assessed by C$A so many former couples have the tensions around separation added to by having to deal with them.
The arm of the government which works out how much fathers have to pay their ex to take their children away from them even if they don't want the children taken.

As you might gather I rather dislike C$A.

R0bert

Col Rouge, I have read about a dozen of your posts and you sound like you really do know everything! You can speak on behalf of everyone, so it seems. All bow down to Col Rouge. By the way mate, go easy on the commas. Reading your endless posts is like driving a Ferrari over a stretch of endless speedbumps.

Check The Australian newspaper today for "Singles pay for family benefits" it highlights just who actually pays, and surprise surprise it is the poor helping the poor again, nothing gleaned from those who could well afford to pay of course. Wre you ask why the hostility to the Howard Government, I can only repeat my previous statement.

I didn't realise you had been born with a silver spoon in your mouth when I asked you to remember your own hardships growing up in a single income family, obviously if your Mum has too much money to recieve a pension your family must be loaded, in comparrison to the ordinary Australians experience.

Though I agree with you on one point, welfare should be wound back in one area, that of Corporate Welfare, or do you think that should remain, yes I thought you might.

Slasher and Shonga you represent the epitomy of the tall poppy syndrome in this country and your class abuse (ie 'North Shore', 'Silver Spoon' etc) represents the exact reason why lethargy and mediocrity have such a prominent place in Australia.

What incentive is there for people to work when they think that welfare is a never ending pot of gold buried somewhere deep under parliament house? In addition it seems that when a single mum pays her taxes for forty years, saves for a nice home, and brings up two sons who are destined to do the same, she is destined to wind up in exactly the same position as somebody who didn't work, didn't pay her taxes and whom she helped support.

If you'd bothered to read my posts you would have seen that nowhere have I advocated taking welfare away from mums who don't work. All I have stated is that women who do go back to work should be rewarded. I for one would have little problem with huge tax breaks/ welfare concessions being given to Mums as an incentive for joining the work force. My examples of this have been so simplistic because I was pandering to the obvious comprehension difficulties the two of you have.

Speaking of simplicity the economic lesson you attempted to give was a little like John Howard giving Shane Warne lessons on leg spin or Kym Beazley taking Hand to Hand Combat 101 at Swanbourne (ie Embarassing). I'd bother to explain but my patience has run out- Saul Eslake's articles may be somewhere the two of you could start.

Robert “Col, a mixture of personal experience, observation and reflection.”

I thought so, I have similar experiences on which to draw. Hence I not only empathise with your view but have experienced how historic arrangements were “politically and economically skewed” against the father with disastrous consequences for the “balanced” development of children.

I note the posters fall into two groups here. Those who expect to be left to deal with the circumstances of their own lives (the independent thinkers) and some who want the government or someone else to make everything safe and secure for them (the co-dependents) as well as their children.

“World Best Practice” is for a child to have the relationship, interaction and support of both parents. Nature is in pregnancy, the mother is the significant “half” of the parenting team but that ends with weaning. Women who pretend men are incidental to child rearing have an inflated sense of self importance in the matter. The new custodial and support arrangements are infinitely superior to the previous system.

“Child maintenance” is not “Spousal Maintenance”. I trust the new arrangements where custody is presumed to be shared will produce superior results for children. That might mean that men are given proper and equal recognition for their contribution in supporting their children.

Working fathers are as equally capable of supporting a child as a working mother is and if they actually earn more than their less competent ex’s, then that only adds to that capacity.

Equal parenting requires equal recognition and equal consideration where financial needs are required.

Now tubley, what a sad little post you made.

60 words to complain about how “inadequate” you feel reading my posts. That you bother proves how accurate Margaret Thatchers comment was on the matter

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

“Ferrari” is a nice touch but from your post, if talking European cars, I would rate a “Lada” more your style.

A vitriolic article again marginalising mothers without men in their households.

The demographics of single mothers are diverse, just as the demographics for married mothers, married fathers, single fathers are diverse.

The payment is made to both married and single women. It possibly, although I don't think it has been proven, could be a misguided incentive for single or married couples who are not particularly intelligent. They'd have to have an exceptionally low IQ to not work out the costs would not go far.

Do not blame single mothers for the stupid decisions of men in government. And it's unfair to link this dumb decision with the 'injustice' of paying child support. It is right and proper that both parents contribute towards the raising of their child, and irrelevant to the issue of women receiving benefits.

There's nothing new about women and children living in poverty. Taking benefits away will not make the issue disappear.

I can relate to wre's posts.

My mother was widowed with six children in 1973. she was promptly sent a 'death duties' bill for $10 000.

Mum and Dad owned property. We lived in a large family home, but we had little cash money.

I think it's a harsh attitude to expect women and children to sell their homes because it happens to be a nice one. They're already experiencing discrimination due to the lack of a father, and adapting to a vastly lower standard of living.

I ended up a single mother through divorce. I believe I am your typical single mother e.g. one child, and 30+ years. I don't know why Australia is determined to believe single mothers are teenagers who choose to pop kids out like it's an industry.

I'm also a school teacher. Someone mentioned something about Peter Beattie and his 'success' in improving working outcomes for women. I'd like to be on record to say he hasn't been a help to me. Ed Qld are notorious for exploiting teachers by employing them on contract and ending their contracts a week or two before the end of the school year, and not employing them again until the second student free day of the new year. We then have to madly rush our planning without the benefits of the 'holiday' period to do so. We start the year disorganised and stressed.

I'd further like to add that I have spent time with welfare benefits as my sole income. It was not a happy time. At one stage I walked around the neighbourhood looking for mango and mulberry trees to implement our diet because we had no money to buy fruit until the next pay day. This entailed targetting the selected trees, and returning under the cover of night time to nick the fruit. I remember getting very run down and sick during this period.

The Liberal government has been unkind to women such as myself. I'll never forgive them for the hardships they've placed on my daughter and myself.

Col Rouge... the fact that you even bothered to reply to my pathetic post might say a little about your inadequecies don't you think?

In the case of crime, I think that certainty is always more crucial than severity if we are looking to solve the problem. In one of my earlier posts in the capital punishment debate I put forward the suggestion that a drug traficker is probably more likely to risk a 'possible' death sentence than a 'definate' 10 year sentence.

In my profession as a teacher I see that certainty is far more important than severity when applying behaviour management (by the way Liz, I know what you mean about EQ - you might try the non-government schools).

As for the parenting initiatives, I think that the certainty issue applies to a very similar degree. Certainty and consistency work well so if people know where their support is coming from and that it's going to be accessible then it's a lot easier to plan a family and provide for them, especially in single parent households.

Unfortunately this is all very difficult in politically turbulant environments.

Col tubley simply points out you gramatical errors, the political errors you make for yourself, nobody need comment on those, your post saddened me because if you are/have been a single father, it means you have been able to reproduce your arogance and stupidity.

Tasman, I wasn't disagreeing with your post, quite the contary, I was only pointing out the benefit level from my own experience which is $150 -$200 p.w.

Liz you are right on the money, as is Tinkerbell1952 and many others, we need to be making sure that everyone pays their correct amount of tax, as in wre Mum's case 48%, not 48% minus deductions for this and that which brings the actual rate down to less than 20%.

Let's make sure the wealthy are paying their fair share before we start attacking one of the most marginal groups in society.

Shonga,

To suggest that wre's Mum pay 48% tax without allowing any deductions is illogical and irrational. That statement serves only to confirm my suspicions that your posts are an elaborate exercise in 'bashing the wealthy'.

Liz “Do not blame single mothers for the stupid decisions of men in government.”

Were those the “men” who enacted the payment to mothers or the socialist ratbags who set out the unequal custody rules of the early 1990’s?

Liz, if you dislike the actions of those “men” you could stand for parliament, get elected and replace one of those “men” with your "woman's" perspective.

Then we could all sit around and moan about your “decisions”.

As for “I ended up a single mother through divorce” - Well so what!

I ended up a single father through the same process. I initially had limited access to my children, who were placed at the beckon call of their mother who used lies and faux emotion to corruptly exert her position of power in separation.

I bet every government has paid you more than it ever paid me.

I bet no government has forced you to pay your ex for the privilege of maligning your role in your children’s lives.

Then you whine on about how some State labor leader has failed to enshrine your rights and expectations as his first priority in his state.

Well ain’t that sad – I suggest get another job – I have had to do that when unhappy with my employment circumstances or needing to make maintenance payments in the past.

Tubley - Col Rouge... the fact that you even bothered to reply.."?

Not really – I was just filling in the overrun of words following my previous comments to others – and here you are wasting another of your daily posting allowance (of 5) on 24 words to me.

Shonga “Col tubley simply points out you gramatical errors,”

Shonga please Note:

you have omitted the comma which should separate “Col” from “tubely”
You have yourself used an ungrammatical statement “simply points out you gramatical”
And of course, you misspell “grammatical”.

Three errors in an eight word sentence.

Not the “stuff” to write home about. If you did, I doubt they would understand anything you wrote.

You are confirming you status as an intellectually challenged buffoon.

Shonga, I gather from your previous posts that you could quote the whole range of welfare statistics and allowances yet you show absolutely no sign of appreciating how wealth is generated. Wealthy by your standards, I imagine, is anyone that drives a car less than five years old and buys a new dress more than once every two years.
You have one of the most enviable jobs in the realm, Shonga. You are a critic of the world. You contribute nothing of substance, create nothing of value but spend your time tearing down the efforts of others. You think that the benefits that you get you deserve, yet others who have earned much more are predators that are beneath contempt.
There are those that are wealthy that abuse the system just as there are those on welfare benefits that do the same. These people are thieves. Nothing more, nothing less.
Perhaps we could have a perfect world where everybody is on welfare and we can spend our time tearing down those that wish to risk everything to achieve more. We could admonish those that are willing to go an extra mile to get what they want. We could cut down those dream and plan. Would you be happy then, Shonga?
There are many out there that are willing to risk failure at their own hand rather than succeed at the hands of others. Many people do fail but they are not the ones that moan at other peoples' success. That is left to the sanctimonious nobodies to whom welfare is a right and the success of others is denounced rather than be a benchmark against which their own mediocrity is measured.
Perhaps you could sit down and discuss this with all the people that you have employed, surrounded by all those things that you have created and all the families that have benefited from your willingness to risk what you have.

Coraliz,
No, quite the contary, I am quite happy with wealty people, so long as they pay their fair share of tax. I could not minimise my tax, so fail to see why anyone else should be able to, it comes under "rights and responsibility" why should you be able to make a claim to pay 48% of tax, when you actually paid 18%, where I come from that's lying, I don't lie, it's that simple.

Hey Shona, you wanna go on a road trip to South Morang?

Tubley,
Give poor old Col a break, clearly this old bloke is paronoid, probably undiagnosed. A man who has wanted all his life to be thought of as a bloke who should live in Toorak or Kooyong, because under his cloak of superiority lies a person with a huge "inferiority complex."

He has only made it to South Yarra, so it must be deeply disturbing for him to realise that at his time of life, he will never make it.
Paronoid personalities often tend to regard themselves as "superior beings" to the rest of mankind, they have an outside persona which reflects dominance, yet a frightened child lies within.

This bloke has coped with a past tragedy by the "muscle up" method, he really should be pitied rather than attacked, poor old bloke.

Give him what he is unable to give, some Christian charity...

Shonga, you state “I could not minimise my tax, so fail to see why anyone else should be able to”. How does your inability/ineligibility to do something mean others should not? Is this aka as sour grapes? If a business necessitates the billing of purchased materials and labour, under your proposal they should not deduct the amount collected for materials before paying tax. Doors would quickly close. Likewise an investment property owner, under your tax maximisation scheme, should not deduct from rental income interest or expenses incurred in owning that property. Under such a scheme there would be no employers or landlords – no-one would bother. Tax minimisation is not lying provided claims are valid. Yes people lie – mostly they are eventually caught. Wages are for labour only – there is rarely more to deduct. Therefore is not a case of you being the victimised employee, as you seem to expound. Please feel free to work for yourself anytime – you may quickly see the benefits of working for wages. l feel that you need to further your knowledge in this area otherwise it will appear that you are breaking one of your cardinal rules of never lying. At the same time perhaps you could read the latest edition of the DSM IV and undertake a psychology degree. Both may assist you in a more accurate diagnosis of Col (and perhaps a constructive self-analysis).

Putting that aside, Falinski’s article highlights the need for caution in regard to paying parents to have children. The one off payment appears too high for all recipients to use in the best interest of the child. I do not advocate scrapping the single parent payment. If single parents are not supported stress and poverty may escalate to the detriment of the child. The frustration-aggression hypothesis predicts that where poverty and frustration (from not being able to meet basic needs) occurs, anger increases, resulting in more violent crimes. For this and other reasons that have been previously raised it would appear that a balance is needed. At this point I feel the scales need adjusting

Let's make it REAL simple. Even Dr Karl thinks peak oil is just about here.

If you want to guarantee any sort of welfare system,
you have to try and guarantee the civilization within which that system operates!
We have to rebuild everything we do around an oil free, low transport, walking distance society or we will be in a really bad way. There is no scalable, economically viable alternative fuel. There is no bio-diesel or coal liquefaction scheme that can be scaled up to run what we are running. Peak oil is REALLY bad news, far more so than any changes to baby bonuses or single mother payments.

If you want to eat in 5 to 10 years time, we need to wean off industrial agriculture which is so dependent on oil, and start growing food closer to Sydney and our other main cities. I'd say maybe 90% of our private transport is going down, big time!

There is no way I can summarize the concerns of the geologists and other scientists that have been studying peak oil for a long time other than sounding this alarmist. It is mathematically inevitable, it is on our doorsteps, it is a profound risk to law and order and civilization itself, and we have no backup plan.

Peak oil looks at welfare payments, and says "Welfare shmelfare". Geological realities don't care about our refined social sensibilities, and may just destroy them all.

Coraliz, you write; “The one-off payment appears too high for all recipients to use in the best interest of the child.”

You seem to be in favour of this payment but think it is too large, because somehow more money is not in the best interest of the child. That does not seem to compute.

I would love to know why you think this lump-sum payment is in any way a good thing.

Please refer to my two previous posts on this thread to see what I think of it

I must agree with other postings that have misgivings about the cash payment of a baby bonus. The child's needs can be accommodated through the supply of items needed during the difficult early period. This will free up the income of the family to address, on their own cognisance, other pressing needs and would stop the bonus disappearing into the family's "consolidated revenue". At the risk of being hounded by the opportunistically blind, that would stop the bonus being spent on items that could be described as "wants" rather than "needs". Having had children myself, I know how easy it would be to find reasons to spend money on recreational items to give a parent a well-earned "time out". However, these things are the responsibility, and at the discretion of the parents. It is called discipline and without it the child will always be a struggle anyway. If their budget without the bonus prohibits it, then there is no reason why the taxpayer, who may not be able to afford it him or herself, should fund it.
I anxiously await the slings and arrows...

Ludwig,

There are many reasons that I consider the current large lump sum inappropriate. One of these reasons has been very well stated by you in an earlier post – “there is absolutely no requirement that it be spent on the baby!! It is a staggeringly bad piece of work”. In an attempt to further clarify my comment I would add that usually by the time a baby has arrived the parent(s) and families have gathered together at least the essentials. Therefore, it is doubtful that the majority of a large BB will be used at that point for the child’s benefit. Whilst some disciplined parents may put the remainder away for future use, many will not and do not. You asked why I thought any lump sum a good thing. Well I consider that would be appropriate to give a small one off payment that may assist with unforseen expenses/needs, following the birth of a baby. If the entire BB is still to be distributed then let it be spread over a much longer period in order to a) lessen BB being seen as an incentive to have children and b) perhaps provide a greater chance of funds being utilised for the direct benefit to the child.

Craig….no slings and arrows – I wholeheartly agree……

Coraliz, I agree that child-support payments should be spread out, with perhaps a small lump sum to start with. But this is not going to happen with the baby bonus because the motivation for this financial assistance is NOT to help the child and/or parent(s). It is purely a baby-buying (and vote-buying) payment. What more tangible bribe to have a baby is there than a large up-front lump sum with no strings attached. If it was spread out or if there was some requirement for it to be spent wholly or partly on the baby, it would lose a good deal of its punch (bribe value).

Arguing for an increase and change in distribution of payment of the single parent allowance and other child-support is fine, but this needs to be completely divorced from the deplorable abject bribe that is the baby bonus

03 9408 5594

Tubley since you are a teacher I’m sure you won’t mind me pointing out that in your post “definate” should be spelled “definite” and “turbulant” should be spelled “turbulent”.

Col Rouge I agree with the first seven paragraphs of your post Saturday, 14 January 2006 5:21:27 PM. However I feel compelled to point out that in your post Sunday 15 January 2006 10:02:33 AM (where you complain about Shonga’s admittedly poor spelling and grammar) in the last sentence, “you status” should be “your status”. Also “labor” should have a capital L if you’re referring to the political party and in “please Note” the “n” in “note” should probably be lowercase.

Rapscallion I like the points you raise about the wages of CEOs.

JaneS, Ro, wre, Col Rouge, Anomie, R0bert and Liz, thanks for sharing your experiences as a single parent or child in a single parent household. It could be inferred from Jason Falinski's article that he thinks single parents are lazy and bad and shouldn’t have children but I think that you prove the opposite.

Thanks for pointing that out, Pedant. As a fellow “pedant” I am most disgusted with my two mistakes. Luckily I teach students young enough so that they aren’t learning such big words. More along the lines of “cat” and “it”. Mind you, the literacy standards among teachers, as exposed in “A Current Affair” last year, make me look like Shakespeare reincarnate.

Pedant,
Yes you are correct when it comes to my spelling, one of my many weaker points I'm afraid. The only way I differ from Col is that I don't claim to be perfect, and have stated in this place on more than one occasion that "I may not be the most educated, the most intellegent, the most politicly astute, however I know my opinions on subjects and this is an On Line Opinion site" where I assume all opinions count. Some of us myself included have benn raised in a less fortunate enviroment than others, and as such have less education, however I know what my definition of fair and unfair is, and while I believe cautiously with Col that the new rules for fathers and their children is fairer, in some cases this will prove to be not so for the child. In a wealthy country like ours if some Christian charity cannot be employed by the more affluent in society toward the less fortunate, in my humble opinion, it is a very sad day for our country.

Hello everyone,I only joined this site a day or two ago and find the opinions really interesting.
I would like to say I think the baby bonus scheme is an appalling piece of policy just designed to grab votes and nothing else and let me explain why, I work as an outlet supervisor for one of the leading charities in Sydney and believe me I see the results of this policy on a day to day basis.
The worst part of this is that I see many young girls who come into our store with their welfare vouchers for clothing and most of them would be aged 17-25 age group and have at least 2 kids with them and it is not uncommon to see them pregnant yet again, the tragedy is these young ones think that the $3000.00 lump sum bonus they get is a huge amount of money which will last them for all eternity.
The truth is of course that it runs out quickly and they are coming to us again and again for family assistance when things get tough.
I feel this policy should be scrapped at once as it is is only encouraging naive young people to have kids for a very short term financial gain.
As for welfare in general I have no problem with payments given to people who have contributed and paid taxes all their working lives,however I do get annoyed when welfare is just handed out willy nilly to those who have not, people with disabilities excepted of course.

Col, my dear friend.

I think you may have taken Liz's comment about "men" the wrong way. We do, I believe, live in a patriachal society that has discriminated against women for over 200 years. Women waited over a century before they even gained the right to vote.

It is fair to say that even today, women are unfairly represented at the political level. Not to mention workplace discrimination, unfair payment and recognition for sporting professions, sexual harassment and domestic violence.

It is a fact that most people in government are men, with women having to fight twice as hard to gain positions in parliament. So Liz can be excused for this generalisation.

It is a shame, Col, that you are so bitter about things. Having said this, I do feel for you, having seen my Dad in a situation very similar to yours, it was heartbreaking. But then there was my Mum's side of things. She struggled for years to look after us and it was hard for everyone involved.

Eclipse. You are right. The urgency of peak oil cannot be stated strongly enough.

It gravely threatens the very fabric of our society, and societies around the world. You could put the same message on just about every thread on OLO, because it is very strongly connected to just about all of them. Not only that, but it is by far the most significant factor in just about all of them

I agree that the the baby bonus should be scrapped. It is open to abuse and it does not contribute anything to the long term of bringing up a child. The best thing that the government can do is slash child care costs for working parents/ single mothers or fathers. Inexpensive or free child care for all those who work should be a priority over baby bonuses and parenting payments.

Tubley, “Col, my dear friend.”

I would point out, you posted elsewhere you did not like me therefore I find it strange you calling me “friend” here.

But since such discernment is absent from your character, I can readily assume other qualities are likewise deficient.

As for your tirade regarding the down-casting of women.
Let me explain to you my take on “the world”.

I have no quarrel or grounds for retribution or reparation because some ones grandfather might have slighted my grandfather.

I am not responsible for the wrongs perpetrated against women, ethnic minorities or others by my ancestors or peers.

I am responsible for what I do and endeavour to exercise consideration and ethical standards in all that might involve.

I take serious issue with anyone who perpetrates a wrong against me.

Therefore, regardless of the “historical oppression of women” (for women insert any ethnic, religious or social sub-group), for which I was not responsible, I accept no liability.

Individual “Merit” is the only measure to use when considering anyone for anything.

In the past

I have employed ladies, because they were competitively best suited for the role at hand (merit).

I have employed people who happened to be from “ethnic minorities” because they were competitively best suited for the role at hand (merit).

I have resisted employing people who were incompetent or inept, simply to comply with some bogus notion of affirmative action or employed to suit a quota from a particular gender or minority.

Since I consistently resist swallowing the crap which the “politically correct” serve up, I am far from bitter.

I am actually, consistently “happy” to participate in a society which respects my freedom to condemn the small minded who live small lives and demand everyone else should follow them.

That you might find the above difficult to accept would be of no surprise.

Such ideas are most likely beyond your comprehension and thus present, for you, an overwhelming challenge (ironically, the same challenge which I accept with enthusiasm everyday).

minuet - has it occurred to you that mothers may actually want to spend time with their newborns and usually have to forsake payment to do so. The whole idea of the baby bonus (apart from political motivations) is to compensate parents for costs incurred not just to make it cheaper for some to go back to work. Childcare costs are way too high but we can't just ask those who don't use it to pay for it.

Tubley and Pendant - thank you so much for your words of encouragement to single mothers. And thank you Tubley for providing the lovely Col with some background information to my post. Alas, he won't get it.

Mr H: I do think it's a shame that you have to automatically link the baby bonus to pregnant teenagers, and that somehow equates single mothers.

Col: 'Were those the "men" who enacted the payment to mothers or the socialist ratbags who set out the unequal custody rules of the early 1990's?'

No, a different set of 'men'. These were not the 'stupid' or 'socialist ratbag ... men'. Nor way they neoconservative or economic fundamentalists. These were enlightened men who apply economic, social, environmental criteria, as mentioned by the other lovely poster - Robert. Intelligent men who understand how to economically and socially sustain a society.

'Liz, if you dislike the actions of those "men" you could stand for parliament, get elected and replace one of those "men" with your "woman's" perspective.'

If only Col, but I'd have to adopt a patriarchal view of the world, such as the views and political agendas of Amanda Vanstone and Kay Patterson. No, they would not elect me, or Tubley for that matter.

'As for "I ended up a single mother through divorce" - Well so what!'

Yes, so what. I didn't mean it to be a statement, but an explanation.

'I ended up a single father through the same process. I initially had limited access to my children, who were placed at the beckon call of their mother who used lies and faux emotion to corruptly exert her position of power in separation.'

It must have been delightful being married to you. What a silly woman not to realise the gem she was married to.

To be continued ...

... continued

'I bet every government has paid you more than it ever paid me.'

Possibly. But what if they stopped paying women like me Col? How would you live your life with no bigotry to express?

'I bet no government has forced you to pay your ex for the privilege of maligning your role in your children's lives.'

No I haven't. But they're such right-winged wankas, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a payment for 'maligning your [questionable] role in your children's lives'.

'Then you whine on about how some State labor leader has failed to enshrine your rights and expectations as his first priority in his state.'

Slightly embellished paraphrase of what I said Col. Now what was that you said about your ex?

'Well ain't that sad - I suggest get another job - I have had to do that when unhappy with my employment circumstances or needing to make maintenance payments in the past.'

Col, Col, Col. Employment - what sacrilege. You, more than anyone else know it's a single mothers mantra NOT to work. How do you expect us to go to work and be the national scapegoat at the same time?

Now how much will 10 kids X 10 baby bonuses give me? Would that pay for a tit job? Maybe I can attract a man like you Col.

Thanks R0bert for explaining C$A. It was the $ sign that confused me. I can now see it is a pun.

Before I dive into this imbroglio of child support, baby bonuses etc, I wish to state that I have no personal interest in the matter. My children are all grown up now and I have never paid or received maintenance.

However, I remember that when the CSA was set up, the Government claimed that large numbers of non-custodial parents were not paying their Court ordered maintenance. The custodial parents were obliged to make repeated trips to Court to try and enforce payment. I can vaguely recall men being gaoled for non-payment (maybe that was under the old Marriage Act, I'm not really sure) - a futile punishment if ever there was one as few could pay while sitting in a cell! Under the current system payment is far harder to evade as it is organised through the tax system. Certainly, 'easing the burden on the taxpayer' was a major part of the Gov't's spin at the time.

I think that part of the problem (rife throughout the Gov't welfare system) is the way the Gov't ignores tax liability. All its calculations ignore tax so that non-custodial parents can be left with insufficient to live on after tax, as I understand that maintenance payments are not tax-deductible. Possibly, some of the difficulties could be solved if the tax issue were addressed.

Those people complaining about the 'baby bonus' payment might like to recall its predecessor. The officially titled 'maternity allowance' was introduced in the dim mists of the past at £15 for a single child. I remember my mother telling me that it was a considerable sum when her children were born in the 1940s, but the rate was never increased! The Hayden budget of 1974 abolished this magnificent payment of $30 altogether when the totally inadequate child endowment system was overhauled.

Incidently, other than payment for the first child, child endowment remained at 50c per week for the first eligible child, 75c for the second and $1 for each subsequent child (if my memory serves me correctly) from 1941 until 1974. So if the Gov't never increases the current baby bonus, in a generation or two it will be equally pathetic and you will have nothing to complain about.

Col,

I know you think I have a small minded veiw of the world, as you have said so many times before. Why then, do you waste so many words replying to me? Surely someone with such a small mind as I have isn't worth the effort. Or maybe you really do love me.

Please don't deny your true feelings for me, Col, it hurts too much.

Col,

Pleeeeeeeeeeease will you stop wrapping inverted commas around everything? It is completely unnecessary.

I called you my friend because I was being sarcastic. I know, sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind, punish me.

The down-casting of women is and continues to be a reality. It is not something that lies buried in our past. It is real and obvious.

You may judge people on their merits but my point was not strictly about you. My point was about our social state as I observe it. The reason I mentioned it was to point out my understanding of what Liz was saying, since you berated her.

I just wonder if you would employ me, Col. Would you judge me on my merits or would you be politically biased against the left? Even at 28 I consider myself merit-worthy. Would you like to view my resume? I suppose not.

And no, you aren’t responsible for the wrongs of your ancestors but you must recognise the reality that the past impacts on the present. I personally hope for a better future. I choose not to use words like “mankind” as it is traditional dogma that is inappropriate in today’s world. We are people, not men. We are humankind, not mankind.

Unless of course, you have a particular liking to men, Col. Don’t be concerned, most men like to watch male football stars groping each other on the field for a high salary while women playing the same sport get a fraction of the wage, if anything.

Then there is domestic violence, sexual assault, workplace harassment and the kind of stereotypes that keep women in kitchens, or playing taxi to drunk men at barbeques. It is a political and social reality that women are being repressed in a patriarchal society and a very important point that Liz touched on.

And no, I don’t think your ideas are beyond my comprehension. I am not a stupid person. But your ideas are usually beyond my acceptance or agreement.

Hi Liz,
I do not quite understand why you think I am attacking single mothers in my previous post about the baby bonus, I am not in fact I did not even mention single mothers in my post.
Indeed after my parents split up many years ago, my now late mother raised myself, my brother and my sister on her own on a disability pension,so I do understand how difficult it is to struggle.
These young mothers obviously do have partners/boyfriends however in the vast majority of cases we see the fathers are also on welfare payments and that is where my point lies, don't you think it is a silly policy to throw money at people to have children when quite a few of these new parents are really just still kids themselves?
I would also just like to explain that while speaking to one of our case workers recently,(Who incidentally has been doing family conferencing as we call it for some 20 odd years)tells me that in the suburbs we look after in some families there are 2 generations of people who have never worked meaning the last family members who had jobs were the grandparents.
I feel sorry for the poor children they are having imagine growing up in an environment where living off welfare payments are the norm.
That is the point I was trying to make that's all.
Cheers.

My apologies Mr H. I suppose when I read your comments stating:

' I see the results of this policy on a day to day basis. The worst part of this is that I see many young girls who come into our store with their welfare vouchers for clothing and most of them would be aged 17-25 age group and have at least 2 kids with them and it is not uncommon to see them pregnant yet again'

I jumped to the assumption (particularly since it has already been discussed in this thread), that here's another one who's stereotyping single mothers.

I do apologise again.

So the wash up Jason is "that paying mothers to have children should NOT stop" as your half smart suggestion implies....

Tubley “Would you judge me on my merits or would you be politically biased against the left?.”

That is a statement which displays a complete and profound ignorance of what “Merit” is.

Merit considers all aspects of all applicants. Anyone’s personal bias (be it political or regarding any other trait) may well benefit or detract from their meritorious suitability for any job.

Thus whilst your politics may well detract from your suitability for any role, it depends on the meritorious suitability of the other applicants as well.

Just another example of "merits" of "competition" in our daily lives.

“The down-casting of women is and continues to be a reality.”

And plenty of down-casting of men occurs too.

It is an attitudinal trait. As you should know, we can impose laws to regulate behaviour but the only thing which changes attitude is education.

Personally, I believe everyone is an individual and in most things gender makes no difference as do not religion or race.

You need to get up to speed in the history of enactment of the Factories and Industrial laws which curtail the involvement of women in certain activities and industries. This discrimination is to protect them form the toxic effects of dealing with substances which would effect their suitability to succeed in any future pregnancy (a consideration which does not effect “men”).

Your dislike of the term “mankind” shows more of your fixation with self-loathing. I am indifferent to it since, in using a word like “mankind” I do not perceive its use applying only to “men”.

What is your take on “menopause”. By your standards, it too is “inappropriate”. Maybe you should demand it be referred to only as “womanopause”.

As for your derisory cheap shot “Unless of course, you have a particular liking to men,”
Actually tubley, I am on record in declaring the only spectator sport I have any interest in watching at all is female mud wrestling.

“I am not a stupid person”

Self-assessment and self-declaration are never reliable sources for such statements.

Paying women to have children makes about as much sense as paying men to have sex. That is … if we truly believed in equality. Otherwise, we just continue to be concerned with what is in the best interest of the child - we all know by now that does not involve the fathers in any significant way.

Do we trust single mothers to make all the right decisions for our latest batch of Australians?

Are we preoccupied with harm minimisation here, or are we designing a robust new model to take us into the new century?

It is not about taking the view of paying mothers to have children, it is about providing adequate access to facilities eg - child care after the child is born. As society has this negative impression of single mothers it is important that people remember that looking after children and working is a very difficult balancing act. For a single mother the question of employment and raising childrent is always an issue. Most single mothers do not want to be on welfare however they do not have any viable options for child care. In a nutshell the cost of child care is huge and can consume half a wage. In the end is it worth working if most of your money is being taken for child care when a mother can stay at home and rear her children and be paid to do so. Make child care financially accessible then society may see more single mothers returning to work. And isn't that what the government wants?
Sam Q

sammyq

I have been asking myself the same question. Is the government really serious about providing the framework for parents to be free to work and be assured that their children are cared for? It is simply not economical to work and have one's earnings spent on providing child care.

The idea that women simply have children to receive more welfare is as absurd as it is insulting. Just one child is a lot of work let alone more. If it was so financially rewarding, where are the single mums beating a path to stockbrokers to invest all their illgotten gains?

We don't need one off baby bonuses, we need suitable infrastructure to ensure that people can work and provide for their children.

The government talks the talk and that's all folks.

Should we stop paying mothers to have children ? NO!

actually, the question is rather sloppy... and I would reframe it completely.

Should we structure our community and support structures such that parents who seek to have at least 3 children are rewarded, cared for, helped and encouraged ? yes.. resoundingly so. Without 3 childen per couple we are

-in negative population growth,
-heading for a population of geysers like me
-in danger of democraphic changes which could threaten our culture
-in danger of being cared for in our old age by an uncaring 'state'
-missing out on the many benefits that a happy extended family can offer.

So, I suggest that we do all we can at a government and local level to see a '3 children/couple' policy implemented. Such encouragement would not 'punish' or disadvantage childless couples, but it would simply lessen the financial disincentives for those who are happy to bring at least 3 children into the world.

I'm sure I'm missing some things here, so those who can see the glaring holes in my post, feel free to inlighten me :)

Boaz

Your post has me mystified. Why 3 children? Australia will have difficulties maintaining its current population unless we improve our management of unrenewable resources ie water, oil etc.

Plus who cares for all these children while parents are out earning the many $'s necessary to feed, clothe and house three dependents. Current child care is inadequate and expensive.

We need sustainable growth both in resources and population. We don't do enough to support what is here already, let alone start a baby boom.

We don't have -ve population on this planet, we are heading for over population.

So how much would an average woman pay another average woman to look after her not-so-average progeny?

Bear in mind that government will want their cut from each party to the transaction. The child care operator will want a return of at least 500k per employee (it is rumoured that Macquarie Bank is preparing a takeover bid for ABC). And then, there are the regulators, and their respective costs …

Apologies. In my previous post I meant “500k in revenue”, not returns. We all know such returns would be unrealistic after paying for CEO and other senior executives and management.

im a single mother, i have a 3yr old child, no raising my child on welfare isnt the best choice, its my only choice at this point, i dont have people that can care for my child while i work, daycare places have a 12month + waiting list, i am living in the highest employment area that my situation allows, i can't move because then i would be too far from my childs father, who a farmer with alot of assets and supposedly not too much cash because the accountant fiddles the books, so he pays me little for our child in comparison to what he really earns, my childs father should support her and not the government, i raise her everyday and do the hard yards, he has no responsibilty at all, so he should support her, he is more than capable. i wont leave my child with a stranger who has no training in daycare, yes i have looked into the at-home-carers arranged by our council, i tried it, these are untrained ordinary people who have family members and friends walking into that house all day, these people could be molesters for all we know, i would rather raise my child by myself and not work until my child starts school at least then i know she is safe, i am preparing her for school, teaching her to swim and doing everything that the daycarers arent. what about the housewives that are home all day and still receive centrelink benefits and BB's, they have a partner so that makes it ok? And i think people in this discussion need to stop sterotyping all single mothers, you really think this is where we want to be? you really think we are all whores and spend all our money on drugs, alcohol and pokies? we are single mothers because we couldnt keep our relationships together? give me a break, takes 2 to make children, takes 2 to have a relationship and it takes 2 to make it all crumble into nothing!

aj20, why are you raising your child alone?
Your choice or the fathers?
Is the father willing to have at least half the care of the child?

If the father is unwilling to provide half the day to day care of his child then yes he should pay, if he does not do so because of your choices not his then he should have no financial responsibility for the child.

I don't know your situation and am not attempting to pre-judge it, my questions are based on my observtion that most of the single mums I have come across who are not doing shared parenting are doing so because of their own choices not the fathers choices.

Generally a refusal to do shared parenting, moving away from where the father lives (glad to see you have not done this) or a level of interference in the fathers parenting which makes shared parenting unworkable. Those mums who treat children as their own property have no ethical basis for expecting someone else to pay the maintenance on their property.

If you have been left with the full time care of a child that the father wanted born but will not take responsibility for the care of then you have my support. It is a hard road that no-body should have to take on alone.

It might be be useful to do some research into the actual levels of child abuse outside the home, my impression is that much of the current concern is media beat up rather than particularly high levels. The biggest risk to kids of abuse and neglect is in single parent homes, I'm guessing because of parents who don't get a break from the load. I also have the impression that most child sexual abuse happens close to the family (rarely the biological parents though). Be careful who your child spends time with but don't let fear of abuse drive your life, it is not that common. In Queensland the Abused Child Trust web site is a useful starting place, http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/./facts.htm

R0bert

BOAZ_David, let me enlighten (rather than inlighten) you to something: a geyser is a natural hot spring that intermittently ejects a column of water and steam into the air. Perhaps you mean geezer…

aj20 I think you make a good point. Single mothers are among the most regularly vilified and that’s wrong. There is nothing wrong with being a single mother.

he has her every 2nd weekend, after our seperation we did 50/50 but the level of care he was giving wasnt satisfactory, he is a farmer and he works long hours and he was doing them with her by his side, call it interfering on my behalf but i find it ridiculous to drag a 2year old around all day doing an adults job, in the end he agreed with me, my ex is welcome in my home anytime if he ever feels the need to see her, and if he wants extra weekends he can come and stay or drive all the way and pick her up, every 2nd weekend he has her i meet him half way, as far as im concerned he should drive all the way and get her, and im sick of single fathers complaining about the child support they have to pay, if the man leaves and leaves her with furniture and a house and everything she has no grounds for complaint, but like myself i left with nothing, i wasnt even allowed to take my daughters bed because of a mans bruised ego, and yet people are still feeling sorry for the poor fathers, yes fathers are entitled to time, but you dont see them getting condemned and labled for being single parents either, most dont put in the hardyards or the money into raising a child but are happy to sit back and pass judgement at their ex's and the job they are doing, those men need to stand up to their responsibilities because the women definetly do!! its about time the lables came off the single mothers and went onto the poor excuses of fathers that are helping bring these children into the world. and maybe if fathers did start putting in the hard yards and helping more they might get to see their children more, men expect too much and give too little, (exception of a few good dads) and why shouldnt the father move to where the mother wants to live?

aj20, maybe you have not noticed the label "deadbeat dads" floating around.

The reason that there is some sympathy (outside the family law system) at the moment for single dads is because we so routinely get worked over really badly by a gender biased family law system. If you want some pain in your life try being on the wrong end of that system for a while.

The reason legitimate single mums are suffering is because so many others are abusing the system. I prefer to see people judged on their merits rather than by labels so I'm with you on that.

Why should the woman get the house, the furniture and everything (which many seem to think they should)?

Dragging a two year old around all day doing farm work does not sound like a good plan, agreed on that. Was he unable to have the child in some childcare because of your objections or because of his location?

"Why shouldn't the father move to where the mother wants to live?" A whole bunch of reasons, the cost of relocating, impact on employment, loss of support networks, lack of certainty that the ex won't just move again etc.

There are no easy answers to this one but remaining in the area where the couple were residing before seperation seems to be the fairest option all round. I know that the concept of a childs best interest is a farce but that is one area where it could easily be applied.

aj20, there are plenty of dads out there who want to be parents to their kids but instead find themselves being relegated to the role of a checkbook to subsidise their ex's distaste for paid employment. Also to many mums who think that they should be the sole arbitrator of how their child is raised and ensure that the father has no opportunity to put in the hard yards that count in a childs life. Until the authorities start differentiating based on the choices people make the situation is unlikely to improve.

R0bert

I for one would love to hear what the ex Mr aj20 has to say about all this.

firstly seeker turn this into a personal battle if you like, don't expect to me to start slinging cheap one liners at someone i dont know though. i dont think the male parties understand the situation and predicaments they put women in, im not going to say that all women would like to be off centrelink payments, maybe some don't, but there are alot of single mothers who would love to go back to study and work and not receive government payments, i want to go to uni and get a degree only problem is i would have to move away from my ex to do that, which would in turn create more problems, i did find a solution that is going to take me twice as long to complete my diploma, so thats twice as long i have to stay on payments, what exactly do the males in this situation have to sacrifice? wouldnt it make more sense for me to move and get a decent career started so i can provide for our child instead of the government doing it, if the man is leaving the sole responsibility of the child with the mother she should be entitled to do what is necessary to provide for the child. i wouldnt turn down my childs father taking care of our child as long as the care he was giving was suffient, because it would help me in the long run.

aj20

Your circumstance is indicative of many single mothers. But this forum unforunately is dominated by a subjective few with their misogynistic views on single mothers and self appointed authority on divorce issues.

All the best with your studies.

Keep focused on your daughter.

Seeker

You wouldn't happen to be a Liberal politician would you?

Liz

aj20, "if the man is leaving the sole responsibility of the child with the mother she should be entitled to do what is necessary to provide for the child." - agreed.

The bit that gets more difficult is "as long as the care he was giving was suffient" which can easily be changed to "my way or the highway" by some.

I tend to be of the view that the same rules regarding the standard of care which apply to intact families should be used for seperated/divorced families. Would the child be taken away from the parents by the authorities based on the level of care if the parents were still together?

If not then the perceived level of care may not be to the other parents preference but it is within the levels society regards as acceptable. Somewhat stronger protection for kids with divorced parents than parents in intact families by default in that there is a better chance of someone reporting clear neglect or abuse than where the parents are together.

R0bert

You are so right Jason Falinski! Perhaps we should pay women to have abortions instead. OR better still, all poor women (who cannot support themselves and a child) should be neutered. Australia's population my die out but still better that than some women be paid a 'free handout'. Whilst its less than an award wage for raising tomorrow's people, how dare they get this money for the thankless task of doing so much on so little. They should so be blamed for the more complex societal issues (such as drug and alcohol addiction) and villified as much as possible. How dare our Government offer them assistance.

Juanita

Good for you, Juanita. Perhaps all single women of child-bearing age (except for the rich of course) could be locked up in vast camps with an all married female staff of guards. Men could then make appointments to inspect the inmates with a view to choosing wives. Any woman so chosen who later finds herself without her husband (regardless of the reason) would be returned to the camp and any children she had would be fostered out to 'deserving' married couples. This would solve so many problems: no more single mothers on pensions, heaps of jobs for men, lots of children for adoption, good obedient wives too afraid to be anything else........Ahh! the male version of paradise!

Withdrawing welfare is such a concern to me.

How will we be able to afford the grog that fuels the alcoholic degradation of the nation?

I suppose though, with the decrease in our drunken stupors, we'll actually have some idea who the fathers of our children are.

I am a single mother of a 7 year old. Last year I returned to work after seperation. As most people in my situation, separation and the ensuing emotional and financial hardship can take a long time to gain control of. From the time separated I was unable to get regular income support from my childs father. I had to move out of the family home and we rented it. The rent did not cover the repayments. My partner did not help even though we were joint owners. Over the past 3 years I have borrowed, racked up credit card payments, tried to sell the property and this has failed. When I went back to work I earnt a wage, but I was still losing around $600 a week trying to keep up with the repayments. While I recieved family payments I contacted centrelink and told them of my new job. I also told them that my taxable income would be around 28k for the year, but in actual fact it is negative because of the losses I have made. I want to know if anyone has experience or knowledge on how centrelink deems income for single parenting payment. Is it an annual amount that is worked out fortnightly - or is it the taxable income - I am just very confused as I have been hit by centrelink for trying to decieve them on income though I am just very confused by what the legal requirements of income actually are. Some sites say annual, some say fortnightly, others say adjusted. Can anyone help?

Thanks
Tania2