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.