Nicky “ I agree with a bit . . but where is the "line in the sand"?”

Thankyou for your agreement, Nicky.

Hard to say where is the line.

I would tend to suggest people who are responsible will decide for themselves.

That just leaves them who are not responsible.

I know I disagreed with someone else recently (maybe Cevelia) about children and how far the community should go to protect children from the irresponsibility of their parents and this is much the same “line” as we have here.

I do not believe parents should have some gold-plated safety net to ensure children are not deprived.

I believe all that such mechanisms do is encourage the irresponsible to be more irresponsible whilst penalising the responsible.

I do not think children are better off being institutionalised away from their natural parents either, so that is the dilemma.

I believe, parents who seek discretionary welfare, for the benefit of their children, should receive only with “strings attached”. That is, the welfare should be paid as vouchers and so as not to encourage parental irresponsibility. If the burden of children is to be recognised more, greater income tax deductibility for having children will work to support the responsible parents.

Pensioners are those who have carried the burden of this country in years past, when we were kids. We should never forget them and remember, with luck, one day we will be counted among them.

We have changed the rules for society from a government pension based system to a self-fundung retiree. Not all would have made saved sufficiently to live reasonably in retirement. We should work to support them for the next say 20 years, until the cycle to self-funding has been fully implemented.

ASymeonakis you can bring up all the studies you want. They will all say children fare better with involved parents than disinterested parents.

However, the responsibility for every father and mother to engage with their children is with those parents, not the general community. Your case has failed, yet you just refuse to accept it.

Nicky,
I agree with much you are saying. I try not to think about the dreadful things that happen to our tax.

Col and Antonios, thanks for the info.
Antonios, I will go to your link to the commission and sign after I’ve posted this, thanks for reminding me.

Antonios said, “IS THE CHILD ONLY FOR THE MOTHERS? NOT FOR THE FATHERS, NOT FOR THE COUNTRY, NOT FOR EMPLOYERS? Why the women have to destroy their carrier for the children?”
I completely agree with you. Biology is no good reason for discrimination. I wish that the opponents of paid maternity leave would look at it as not just as a woman’s issue but a children’s one as well- in fact in benefits the whole family, and therefore, society.

Besides, babies benefit in every way from having a parent around as a fulltime carer during its first year, especially if the mother is breastfeeding. Ask any paediatrician and they will confirm this. Paid maternity leave will guarantee that one of the parents, preferably the breastfeeding mother, will be around for several months to care for the baby.
Antonios said, “The ACTU proposes a national system of 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full income replacement.”
Is that all they’re asking for? They should ask for six months. Are the costs of paid maternity leave so high that a wealthy nation like Australia can’t even afford 14 weeks? Or is it that Australia has its priorities wrong?
Calculate it; based on an average wage of say $50,000 pa, three months of pay would just cost $13,500 per child. Getting rid of the baby bonus and directing that money toward paid maternity leave will reduce the cost to well under $15,000 per child.
Under $15,000 to give an Australian baby a good start in life is not too much to ask for, especially with so many Australian children living in poverty.
Compare this meagre amount with the amount of tax that is being wasted on things like wars, the upcoming Catholic brainwashing event (could cost around 200million!), or people’s hobbies like football...

Continued

Not only people on high wages desire to raise a family and can be excellent parents Denying people of having a baby merely because of their income sounds almost inhumane.
The measly $15,000 for raising a child does not even mean that this money will be lost. Parents are not going to put this money away in a shoe box under their bed.

Where will the money end up? In the wallets of others, often of big businesses.
Parents will take their child to places like Wet&Wild and the movies. They will hire DVDs for the child. They will buy him toys, educational programs, computers and games, Happy Meals, whole new wardrobes several times a year and shoes, use hair dressers, even renting or buying a house with an extra room, a pet and a family car- all for the child.
Everywhere children go, businesses thrive. Part of these businesses’ tax should be spend on paid maternity leave, since these businesses make money out of other people’s children.

Col, I would think that the rule “no taxation without representation” does not apply here? Businesses do obviously benefit from other people’s kids.
Yes, you and I had a disagreement over a very similar issue. My view still is than children are innocent and should not have to live in poverty because their parents are irresponsible. You had good points as well, and I too can see the dilemma.
But I will always defend the children since they are the innocent part in this. Kids before money, not money before kids.

” welfare should be paid as vouchers and so as not to encourage parental irresponsibility.”
I have no real objection to your suggestion, so I’ll mildly reluctantly agree for the sake of children of irresponsible parents.

Obiviously, I made a mistake in my calculations, I previously based my calculations on 6 months and forgot to change it. We can either leave the calculations and offer 6 months paid maternity leave, or go for the 14 weeks.

At 14 weeks it works out even cheaper- under $8,500 is all it would cost Australia to pay maternity leave for each baby after we get rid of the baby bonus and introduce paid maternity leave.
How can one object to that when it will give every Australian baby and future contributor to our society a better start in life?

Hi all

Antonios, thank you so much for your kind words. I have one area of doubt here, and I've tentatively raised it before. Paid maternity leave is one thing, but what about the young women who have been getting pregnant solely for the baby bonus, who have never worked, and never intend to? I know that they would fall under the heading of Col's "irresponsible" parents, but that doesn't resolve the issue, and I assure you that those women are out there. These people left school at 14 or 15, and are often illiterate as a result too.

I have a friend who works in a support service for "young single mothers" and her clients have multiple children to multiple fathers, none (male or female) of whom have ever worked. She tells me that these women tell her quite openly that they are waiting for their youngest child to turn 5 or 6, when they would then be expected to look for work, then they will "just get pregnant again". These young fathers rarely involve themselves with their children.

When these women come to see her, she often has to feed their children, and we are talking of 18-22 years olds with three or four young children. In these households, no-one knows anyone who has had a job.

Col, are these the people for whom you are advocating a "voucher" system?

Are we going to, or have we, create/d a sub-culture?

Cheers
Nicky

Celivia
"Is that all they’re asking for?"
The Union movement in Australia is very week. union density 70% or higher for Scandinavian countries, about 16% for Australia and only 9% for USA. ALP did not support the Unions enough and conservatives have attacked on the Unions with many ways.
Australia has many migrants and many Unionists do not many things to support us (the non Anglo Saxon migrants) and we do not do not trust the Union very much. I am member from the Union because I am progressive, left not because I expect many things from it. Yesterday I took the results of specialist for my liver, his first word was " stop alcohol" and I answered I have to drink a glass of beer at least 35 years! it is from the chemicals in my work, I lost the ability to smell, the Union is missing. 15 years humiliation, no training, not any kind of opportunity, the dirty, unhealthy, the low paid hopeless work for migrants. It is not easy for union members under from migrants under these condition, we are about 50% of population.
Only Australia and USA do not pay maternity leave, where was so many years the ALP and Trade Unions, the first convention was in 1922 about a century before, many times the ALP as government had the opportunities to show their support for women but they did not. Most new members from the Unions worldwide come from women but the Unions must do something for them.
Australian Union movement stand more on white collars and not on blue but the union members come from blue collars, they have the huge problems. The labor aristocracy has taken maternity leave (most of them). Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick advocate for the immediate implementation of a federally funded 14-week maternity leave scheme, to be paid at the rate of the federal minimum wage.
At the 2nd stage, begin in two years, would give mothers and fathers a share in an additional 34 weeks' paid parental leave.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide