Another way of operating is to have a baby bonus that is paid by the taxpayer on the birth of the child, but the bonus is paid in vouchers.

The mother or father can only spend the money on the child, and not spend the money at the pub, or spend it on the latest model plasma TV screen.

Tax payers and employers should not have to bear the burden of paid paternity leave.

If women wish to take a break from work to have babies, they should be prepared to bear the cost. Most employers hold their jobs for them; that should be enough.

This article strikes me as pretty silly. I repeats a number of points we have heard before but we need to remember some facts:

1) It is not true to say that people who do not have children do not benefit from schemes that make it easier for others to have children if they wish. We are a COMMUNITY that PROVIDES SERVICES FOR EACH OTHER. The young medical staff emptying your bedpan when you are seeing out your final days in the "luxury" of a modern hospital bed do not just spontaneously spring into existence to serve you. They must be BORN and RAISED for our community to continue. Or would you rather die hungry, unwashed lying in your own filth at home? This applies to all services. They do not continue without society reproducing itself.

2) Common differences between women earning six-figure salaries and the unemployed are:
A) The former are highly skilled - we have a skills shortage do we not? Do we want these people to give up work to raise a family or can we compromise with a maternity leave scheme?
B) The former pay LOTS and LOTS of TAX! Why should they not see benefit from the tax money they contribute to our system.
Women who stay at home and choose not to work have that right - but they are not paying tax so why should they benefit to the same extent?

3) Why not do what Sweden does and, recognising the needs of the workforce and young children, increase the % oncosts of employment by having all employers/employees contribute to a pool of funding for maternity/paternity leave. Parents can then draw out of the scheme in proportion to how they have payed in - i.e. according to their former salary. There is no domestic competitive advantage/disadvantage for any employer.

How dare anyone deprive me of free lunches.

Who cares who pays... as long as it aint me.

These anti-woman types need to just shut up, make like a bike, carry some one else's load and just learn to peddle harder.

Maybe these people who complain about tax burdens should be quiet and get a second job or something. Sheesh, the greedy capitalist pigs need to tighten their belts so that the lefty leeches can loosen theirs.

And be damned the consequences. Entitlement addicts dont respect any reasoning that invalidates their self absorption. They dont care about the truth of these sorts of things or how their reasoning is all askew. All they care about is the money, the entitlement, the hand-out and the faux acknowledgement of their contribution to the social order. The stuff of deep insecurity. Who cares what the public thinks about your contribution to it. You already know the truth.

Who cares about the ultimate ironic betrayal of this sort of dependency on big brother and the nanny state, together with its inherent disempowerment and arcane, retrograde view of women (as paid breeders). Me thinks that either feminism is selling out women or that it was always about manipulating women to drive political ambitions.

Anyway, drink from the glass, before its empty.

And dont wounder too loudly why the cost of living is rocketing along.

Michael in adelaide sprouts the usual responses to this topic. And the usual answers to those responses:

3) The "Sweden does it so why don't we?" argument: Some asian countries have the death penalty so does that mean we should also be adopting those policies too?

Just because one country does something doesn't mean that other countries should do it. Also, because one (or more) countries does something doesn't mean that it's applicable to another country, or that fundemenally that it's the right thing to do.

1) The "The kids of the future will look after you!" argument: While this is true, it doesn't mean that the kids have to be born here. There are a hell of a lot of people (inc kids) in the world and a lot of them want to come here, so let them come.

If people choose to have kids, that's their business and they should bear the consequences of that decision. The state should not interfere. If employers wish to offer maternity leave then that's their business, however they should not be compelled to do so

WOW BN, that's some powerful logic there. Lets look at it:

" The "Sweden does it so why don't we?" argument: Some asian countries have the death penalty so does that mean we should also be adopting those policies too? "

Comparing childcare to the death penalty - NICE!

" Just because one country does something doesn't mean that other countries should do it. Also, because one (or more) countries does something doesn't mean that it's applicable to another country, or that fundemenally that it's the right thing to do. "

BN, it called LEARNING. We see how other countries are doing it better and we try to do better ourselves.

" The "The kids of the future will look after you!" argument: While this is true, it doesn't mean that the kids have to be born here. There are a hell of a lot of people (inc kids) in the world and a lot of them want to come here, so let them come. "

That sounds like the kind of Australia I want to live in! One overrun by people with no connection to my culture. What is Australia anyway?

"If people choose to have kids, that's their business and they should bear the consequences of that decision. The state should not interfere."

The state is US. Its whatever we want it to be. Since you think that children are unimportant, you should stop accepting any services from any person younger than you this minute! Can you survive without other people's children doing things for you?