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