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.