"...well, support the child/ren yourself."

That attitude ignores the fact that the parents are not the sole beneficiaries of raising children. Society in general benefits greatly from an adequate supply of labour, so it's in our society's best interest to ensure a reasonable birth rate. Secondly a person raised with a lack of education and support will be of greater burden to society further down the line (welfare and/or crime) than the initial marginal cost of quality education and welfare.

Of course, the baby bonus isn't a particularly smart way of spending the money.

Leigh, "Why are these people ‘vulnerable’?"

Because we've adopted a form of capitalism where its considered productive to screw people over.

"But, the facts of life are that there is a wide range of wealth in society; there always has been, and there always will be."

The facts are that this range of wealth is increasing. We're rapidly heading towards an economic feudalistic class system.

"How about the “most vulnerable” cutting the luxuries of eating ready-prepared food because they are too lazy to cook; huge TV sets; a lawn full of cars all needing maintenance and registration"

As opposed to those "most vulnerable" who have a nice big house, boat, 3 brand new cars, a healthy investment portfolio and would have private health cover anyway, getting a nice big fat 30% rebate payment from the government.

Desipis “That attitude ignores . . . blah . . . the line (welfare and/or crime) than the initial marginal cost of quality education and welfare”

Actually that is incorrect. The sort of children we want and which “benefit society” are most commonly born to those who do look after and encourage them to contribute to the society in which we live.

Unfortunately, too many of the “vulnerable” fail to conform with this maxim and thus, should refrain from breeding in the first place.

I am not some sort of ratbag leftie, like say Romania’s Ceausescu. I do not demand women have children for the greater benefit of the state or believe in banning contraceptives and abortions to ensure population growth, so I see no likelihood of achieving the optimum population where only responsible parents have and care for the children they produce.

Desipis, your statement is a contradiction in terms. Please sort it out before you post in future.

As for “Because we've adopted a form of capitalism where its considered productive to screw people over.”

Rubbish.

The capitalist system of private ownership has outperformed the centrally planned economies of every government which has inflicted central ownership and central planning on its population. I recall the “iron curtain” was built not to keep the victims of capitalism out of the peoples utopian republics but to stop the mass exodus of people seeking a better life under the terrible capitalist system. I recall the East German guards on the Berlin wall were order to kill anyone who dared attempt escape to the west.

I would suggest your denunciation of the capitalist system is repetition of theoretical socialist dogma, unsupported by any evidence of merit to the contrary.

As Margaret Thatcher wrote “Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so”

Margaret was, of course, using height as a general metaphor for ability, skill and earnings potential.

Better freedom of diversity, freedom of choice in cars and TVs, than all being limited to the “height” of the “most vulnerable”

Desipis,

I am quite astounded by your unsubstantiated allegation that private medical costs would be three times those in public hospitals. Several commonsense reasons suggest otherwise:

1. Although private hospitals are usually more spacious (higher building costs) they mostly only do the simple and therefore cheaper operations, leaving the more difficult (and therefore more expensive) ones to the public ones.

2. Staff salaries have to be broadly comparable, otherwise in an era of a shortage of medical personnel the lower paid staff would simply move to the other.

3. Whereas private education flaunts luxury (paid for by the parents), medical facilities are mostly based on medical need, and so would be expected to be comparable in cost.

4. In some towns, particularly Port Macquarie, the only hospital is private, and all medicare procedures are carried out there. I wouldn't think medicare would use private facilities if they cost three times as much.

5. In every business that I know that has both public and private operatives, the private is more efficient. Why do you think Iemma is trying to privatise NSW electricity?

As was said to me, I would like to see your figures, or is ideology overcoming common sense? You condemnations of capitalism incline me to think the latter is the case.

Hmm. The righties on this forum seem determined to simply ignore the charges: namely, the extreme hypocracy in which they condemn the low earning recipients of welfare while wealthier Australians recieve large sums of middle and upper class welfare.

Is it because they believe that welfare payments for poorer people act as disincentives to take responsability for themselves, while for some reason, welfare payments to wealthier people act as incentives to take responsability for their own healthcare, retirement incomes, children's education etc? If this is the case, would someone care to explain the legitimacy of this incredible double standard?

. The private health rebate costs 2.5 billion a year - half of this goes to the richest third

.The first home owners grant of $7000 was not means tested so many high income buyers recieved a windfall

. The Howard government was subsidising - to the tune of 570 million dollars anually - people who can afford to send their children to private schools that charge fees in excess of $12 000 a year.

There are plenty more examples. Billions are transferred to already wealthy households yet some would have us believe that spending on the poorer among the sick, elderly and the unemployed and low income earners must be curtailed to prevent upward pressure on interest rates. Would someone care to explain why fat welfare payments to the wealthy do not have this effect? And why lower income earners should pay to subsidise the lifestyles of the rich? And why only lower earning welfare recipients are "bludgers".

Tories - masters of arrogance, huberis and double standards.

Leigh,
Of course its their own fault. They should have chosen their parents much more carefully.
Seems the poor are less deserving than massive corperate profits. We don't want to impinge on executive bonuses do we?
The US shows us where this extreme market view is leading.
Please go and visit some countries where the poor are not looked after: A civilised society IS worth it. Better to support the odd bum here and there than have to line the backyard fence with razor wire.
Nations were built on Government spending, they are destroyed by profiteering.

Fozz “the extreme hypocracy in which they condemn the low earning recipients of welfare while wealthier Australians recieve large sums of middle and upper class welfare.”

Governments are elected to represent their electorates. They promote policies to get elected to govern, with the interests of the people foremost in the mind.

That is ALL the people. Not just the vulnerable but the able and wealthy too.

It is a matter for The “low earning”, as individuals, to resolve how to improve their earning opportunity. It is no different for me or anyone else, who may modestly claim to do better than earn a subsistence income.

There is no hypocrisy in anyone considering their own and their family’s well being above that of others, the “vulnerable” included.

“Is it because they believe that welfare payments for poorer people act as disincentives to take responsability for themselves, while for some reason, welfare payments to wealthier people act as incentives to take responsability for their own healthcare, retirement incomes, children's education etc?”

I would note the “welfare payments” you speak of are not payments at all but are income tax breaks.

Let us make this very clear now, seeking subsistence is entirely different to having the government tax impost / burden reduced.

I do not elect parliamentarians to tax me. I elect them to leave me alone to make my own mistakes, instead of paying higher taxes for them to make mistakes on my behalf.

I believe that big government, employing thousands of civil servants to run huge bureaucracies is the worst way of organising a nation. It extinguishes the consumer choice motivator, which is the most critical input measure of any service delivery.

I support small(er) government.

No one is motivated to do better because of higher taxes, quite the opposite, yet no one is motivated through the receipt of welfare benefits.

I suggest, there is no “greater common good” or social benefit possible from levying higher taxes to support more welfare.

“Welfare” will never substitute for the self-esteem and sense of acheivement produced through self-determination.