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