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 > Making child care count is not just about cost > Comments

Making child care count is not just about cost : Comments

By Elizabeth Hill, published 16/11/2007

In a prosperous country such as Australia, the wellbeing of children must be front and centre of all policy developments.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Derek@Booroobin, as you are admirably fully focussed on your children and one gave up work, maybe the mother of the children, that person is no longer paying into superannuation, you've forgotten old age.

What happens at the other end, after child rearing? The partner who 'gave up' work outside the home reduces capability to earn a reasonable income for his/herself and reduces security in older age. Or are the children then expected to be grateful for the 'sacrifice' and take in mum or dad as the case may be?

I made the mistake of being a stay at home mum after my first child was born. When my then husband thought he could do much better with a woman who was 'more ambitious' it sure left us when he left for greener pastures, with a much, much lower standard of living then if I had continued working and made use of child care.

I have a teenage daughter. I teach her that under no circumstances should she have an expectation that any man will be willing to support her. Women have the babies and will have to take full responsibility for that fact, for themselves and their children. A man willing and happy to contribute is a bonus. I was very fortunate that my ex made very little difficulty paying what he was supposed to for his son.

Before anybody thinks I am bitter or resentful, I am not. I am very happily (re)married. The fact remains, that nowadays, women are expected to make their own way, and so they should.
Posted by yvonne, Friday, 16 November 2007 3:53:11 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
Yvvon,
“How old are HRS”

If you are age prejudiced, then what age would you prefer. I can give whatever age you prefer.

If someone is paying tax, then they should have some say in how their money is being spent, and it is now questionable when someone is having their children raised by someone else, and then another person has to pay for it.

There can come a time when people have to work longer and longer hours, to pay more and more tax, and are getting less and less time to spend with their own children.

I think we are at that time right now, and the government surplus we currently have can easily dissapear in a few years with an eventual decline in the resources sector, which then means increased taxes, and more time has to be spent in the workplace.

But I know that the best time I spent with my children was when they were very young.
Posted by HRS, Friday, 16 November 2007 6:44:52 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
As HRS says -
'If someone is paying tax, then they should have some say in how their money is being spent, and it is now questionable when someone is having their children raised by someone else, and then another person has to pay for it'

This is the more relevant issue. Why should someone pay at all for someone else's kids?

The author of the article says - 'In a prosperous country such as Australia, the wellbeing of children must be front and centre of all policy developments.'

Justice should be at the front and centre of all policy developments. It is much better to have a just society than a society full of kids paid for by taxpayers who want their taxes spent on things that everyone can benefit from. People who have children seem to think it is their god-given right to have other people help pay for them. Then they winge and complain when not enough is spent. Having children is an economic decision as much as any other and the burden should be on the person who decides to have kids. Why should someone on thirty thousand dollars a year be paying for the child care of someone on a million dollars a year? If you want to educate children properly you might start with showing them what justice means.

Having kids is just one option among many that people have in the way they spend their time and money. It is not better or worse than any other option. If you make taxpayers pay for this then why not for all the other options. I might like to travel or I might like expensive cars where is my government subsidy for that.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 17 November 2007 8:36:33 AM
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
yvonne wrote 'The success of a person's future is largely determined by the care and education in the early formative years.
After age 10 or so, you've generally missed the boat to alter the course of somebody's life.'

This is incorrect...first six years of childs life is emotionally formative years...childrens naturally loving depended bond with their parents is the foundation...one or both parents missing meaningfully in childs life in this period and you get a emotional/'dynamically responsive feelings to each moment' normal mechanisms becoming maladapted...

so if the parliament wanted to force the government to do right by our children, then the most effective step to produce healthy children and with it a healthy dynamic society is to increasingly support the mother and father to be at home with their young children.

After age of 6, when childs sense of increasing independence starts developing, with their parents in close vicinity for security and confidence...curious energy drives their education and development...its natures way and we should find ways to work with this and augment it...

But the most destructive effect on the child is psychological attack by one of their parents for oppressive and dominating control of childs mind and (and suppress soul) behaviour...yes keep that up to age of 10 and beyond and you will have a broken child or 'robot'...for here the child has no known way to escape, like a scared animal being totured in a small cage, where can the child run to when all their natural instints is to run to their dependent parent when threatened...but its the parent who is traumatizing the child...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Saturday, 17 November 2007 8:57:55 AM
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
yep, there's way too much government in oz, derek. i'd do away with all of it, if i could persuade ozzies to run their nation democratically. no visible progress, but nagging passes the time and is cheap.

on the more localized question of child care, i wonder if we shouldn't be forming 'extended families' of 6 to 20ish adults and associated sprogs. some could look after kids while others pursue income. and change roles as convenient. no personal experience with this, but i have read that the kibbutzs in israel during the 1920's and 30's ran like this, and worked well.

trouble is, even if a good idea, setting it up in a suburb might be too hard.
Posted by DEMOS, Saturday, 17 November 2007 4:49:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yvonne,

How has it turned out?

Well, the home occupation of my wife (ceramic art) has now supported our family for a few years. My wife was one of the Founders of an art gallery, Peace of Green, which has managed successfully as an unincorporated collective of artists for some 13 years.

13 years after the birth of our first of five sons I left the comfortable, but not ethical, world of banking (after some 22 years) to found an independent democratic school with parents, teachers and young people. I am proud to say that I was a continuously (annually, by students and staff) elected (by secret ballot) Staff of the School.

We downsized and downsized, financially underwrote the school as necessary, have no personal debt, no real estate, own what we have, live simply and aim for a sustainable life. We expect to work for as long as we can. I'm in the process of establishing an organic farm.

The Queensland Labor Government saw to it that their power and complete disregard for our human and financial investment and our human rights, was greater than our passion and the enormous benefits to our children of learning and growing in a safe, just and peaceful democratic place of real life learning. They shut down an education enterprise, stopped the voluntary efforts of staff and interrupted learning that so benefitted young people of all ages, including those that the State rejected from their own schools after labeling them and taking away their self-esteem. We're still paying costs arising from the dismissal of a Supreme Court action. But that battle's not over.

As your nom de plume suggests, Demos, democracy in community can happen when the people want it and have the time to invest. It takes hard work, but the rewards are immense. Our learning community proved it worked, particularly when it was separated from gross government interference, and was self funded. I hope participatory democracy evolves, and communities make their own decisions (like Massachusetts Town Meetings), but always protecting and upholding the rights of individuals to be free and responsible.
Posted by Derek@Booroobin, Saturday, 17 November 2007 9:52:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage 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. Page 2
  4. All

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