Nicky,

'1. Should having children be restricted to those that are "well-off" I am not convinced that this is a good target for society to have.
'

There's well of and there's well off. Money is about priorities. I know myself I can afford 0 children living in Balmain, 2 children living in Ryde and 4 children living in Guildford.

The argument boils down to a trade off between what quality of life you desire against how much you want children.

Support the genuinely poor with welfare, but incentives to breed are just dumb. It's the same as Maternity Leave; Why should a woman on 150k get full pay for 6 months to have a baby. If she wants a baby, she can budget for it or adjust her lifestyle. Everyone but the genuinely needy have this option.

People handing out How to Votes at polling booths can pick voting intentions by the voter's appearance, as well as by secondary behaviors like which How to Vote cards do they seek out and which papers are flung in the bin. The people handing out How to Vote will cheerfully get the Liberal or Democrat papers for those in need because if you don't it's a black mark against their own party. The author of this article is a Labor Party strategist and yes the Labor Party has lost the support of childless inner urban women.

The Usual Suspect's reasoning is flawed. A woman who is earning $150,000 may need paid maternity leave because if she takes 6 months off work to have a child she won't be receiving half her salary - and the chances are high that her high paid job is kept open for 6 months for her to return to anyway. If the Usual Suspect can live on $40,000 a year why can't this high achiever manage on $75,000. Perhaps Usual Suspect owns his house outright and the high earner has a mortgage in Sydney.

billie,

'Perhaps Usual Suspect owns his house outright and the high earner has a mortgage in Sydney.'

That's irrelavent. Everyone has choices. She can sell her house and rent, she can downsise, move to a cheaper area, she can save up beforehand, forgo the new sofa and new car. It depends on how much she really wants a baby. As I said, the genuinely poor don't have this option, so welfare can kick in for those on really low income.

Are you saying that a woman on 150k should be kept in the lifestyle she is accustomed to when she chooses to have a baby, when a single working mum on $40k a year pays for it?

I can imagine her on her post baby holiday in the whitsundays, paid by the maternity leave and baby bonus from the taxes of the single mum slugging it out. That's just warped.

BTW: I own about 10% of my house in Sydney. I chose the area I wanted to live based on my means and my future desire to have a family. That's my point. So you're saying I should have bought a house in Rose Bay and asked the government to pay me to have babies because I cant afford it due to my mortgage in such an expensive area? Life's not fair!

That's why we have proportional tax. The woman who earned $150,000 before having her baby has always contributed more to her own maternity leave and baby bonus than the woman who earned $40,000. Proportionally, the higher earner has funded the lower earner, not vice versa.

I agree there should be a cut-off point for the wealthy, however.

Veronika,

That's just churn though. Welfare should be for the genuinely needy. Are we taxing the rich so we can hand it back when they choose to have a child and not work? Let them plan for that themselves and save heaps in administrative costs and taxes in the first place.

It's as dumb as giving everyone a free car every 10 years, paid by taxes. The wealthy, since they have contributed more tax, can get a mercedies, the poorer people can have a ford fiesta...