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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Paying mothers to have children must stop > Comments

Paying mothers to have children must stop : Comments

By Jason Falinski, published 11/1/2006

Jason Falinski argues payments tied to the production of children promote harmful social outcomes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 17
  15. 18
  16. 19
  17. All
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.
Posted by Tasman, Friday, 13 January 2006 2:55:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello R0bert,

Excuse my ignorance, but what on earth is C$A? It looks like 'Commonwealth dollars Australian' but I rather doubt it.
Posted by Kephren, Friday, 13 January 2006 2:58:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Aka, Friday, 13 January 2006 6:37:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by slasher, Friday, 13 January 2006 7:15:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by slasher, Friday, 13 January 2006 8:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 13 January 2006 8:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 17
  15. 18
  16. 19
  17. All

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