Col,
your daughters turned out to be lovely, responsible women because they came from a loving, caring home.
But there are many kids who were born into negative environments through no fault of their own and they need help.
The challenge is to break the poverty cycle, and while I realise that money alone cannot break it, because it is not merely lack of money that creates it, I do strongly believe that child poverty can be minimised IF taxpayers money is used wisely by a smaller, more clever and caring government.

Agreed that there need to be consequences for people’s choices, but I wish there was a positive solution like encouraging education and participation in the workforce rather than encouraging people to merely breed.
Years ago, I read something about a trial in the US where they paid children at school for reading books etc and the results were promising. I haven’t given this a lot of thought but I’m looking for positive encouragement rather than punishing consequences- these people have been punished enough by being trapped in a poverty cycle they cannot seem to break without help.

”I believe in individual liberty before the needs of someone else’s kids.”
Doesn’t that just translate to: who gives a crap about child neglect and poverty as long as my own kids are OK and adults can be free? Since children don’t contribute to society, nobody, other than the parents, should have to contribute to their wellbeing, since that would be reducing the liberty of adults?
Col, I know that you don’t like to see children suffer and that you give to charities so I’m a puzzled when you say cold things like that.
Yes, individual liberty is important and I value it, too, but we don’t live in a bubble isolated from the suffering of others, especially of innocent children.

I may not (yet) fully understand your philosophy, but what I understand is that you equate freedom/liberty with paying less tax.
I can accept that, but what about the freedom/liberty of children? All children deserve at least the basics.

Hi all

Celevia, that was very insightful, and said a whole lot of what I was trying to say. The people I worked amongst were effectively born "behind the eighth ball", what (family) role models they had were terrible, and they grew up with a value system driven by welfare.

I remember years ago I worked for the Commonwealth Employment Service. Back then, we wrote education and training programs which were delivered "on the job" with host employers. The people were not paid by Social Security, but by the employer (who was then proportionally reimbursed by the government). They made an amazing difference to people who had been on the "dole" for years, and many actually remained in the jobs after their program time ended. Then Howard scrapped all that (and us!) and brought in "Work for the Dole", with the punitive elements that go with that (including the name) and we went backwards again. People refer to unemployment benefits now as their "pay".

I think somehow communities have to reach these children before too much damage is done, before they grow up into damaged adults whose only solution is sole parent allowances and no responsibility and the cycle keeps repeating itself. Suggestions, anyone? After all, there but for the grace of "God" ... It's a bit too broad a statement to say everyone is responsible for their actions, I think. Some of us had the benefits of a good upbringing, discipline and education, but many didn't.

Cheers
Nicky

Col Rouge,
We do not speak for our children but for the children for the mothers and fathers generally. But as you wrote for your children I will write few words for my children. Sole parent, low income RACE DISCRIMINATION, language problems but at least two of my three children are not from the worst on our world, my daughter 28 working and studying, dean at Adelaide university, manager overseas. My son with many awards, distinctions, work and study IT (continue), few years before in The Advertiser (local newspaper)was a photo with three students awarded from a minister and title OUR FUTURE LEADERS. On of them, in the meddle, was my son. OK? I am not from the worst fathers. The question is what we can do to support the women to improve their position in our society and parallel create better conditions for our children, ALL THE CHILDREN. The paid maternity, paternity, parental leave, especially the parental leave, will support mothers and children.
Col Rouge
While you put your self as the center of our society, and less or more you ignore the other people of our society, I put the society as the center of the people who are moving to different directions, with different speed, goals, dreams and values. While each person seems that is moving as an individual, in really he/she is full of effects, values, dreams, ideas and DNA from the past and present from his society. The individualism is not very different from the independence of a 2 years old child as it run around its mother. The individualism is an excellent excuse to avoid social responsibilities while he/she fully enjoy the benefits of his/her society.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

“I think paid maternity leave is more about the idea that both parents should be equally financially affected by having a child.”
When married, generally with joint bank accounts and both names on the mortgage, BOTH parents are equally affected by having a child.

Being paid to have a child is to defray the financial effect onto non-prents.

“But there are many kids who were born into negative environments”

Like I said, you will never, ever eliminate from society some children so abused. But there has to be a limit to the degree of support anyone gives because every dollar deflected to supporting the children of irresponsible parents is a dollar removed from parents supporting their own children.

“who gives a crap about child neglect and poverty as long as my own kids are OK and adults can be free?”

Accepting I am responsible for my children and the can, in some small way take credit for their success in flying the nest, leaves me to wonder why, if the model I used works so well (bearing in mind I went through a divorce when my children were 8 and 13), do not other parents who prefer the irresponsible option use it ?

And when they do not behave responsibly who picks up the tab?

It is like Margaret Thatcher so eloquently put it

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

Simply because an irresponsible parent lacks the character to look after their children, do not expect me to put them before my own.

My view of self responsibility has a consequence, it means I do actually expect others to be equally responsible and I do not assume exception.

“but what I understand is that you equate freedom/liberty with paying less tax.”

Wrong, it is a two step relationship.

I relate more tax with bigger, more intrusive and commanding government.

I relate bigger, more commanding government with less freedom/liberty.

Smaller taxes and direct philanthropy works better than government leveled handouts.

ASymeonakis “Sole parent, low income RACE DISCRIMINATION, language problems”

Sole Parent
I separated from the mother of my daughters in 1993, I never sought or received any government handouts and paid maintenance (more than I was required and lost 70% of the joint assets). I know all about sole parenting.

Low income: if you cannot afford children, do not have them.

Race discrimination: do not know what this has to do with anything

Language problems: it is the responsibility of every new Australian to acquire the skills to assimilate into the Australian system. Anyone which “language difficulties” should educate themselves for their own benefit, not expect handouts for being illiterate.

“ALL THE CHILDREN.”

Sentimentalist aspirations do not solve problems. You are seeking to divert my discretionary resources into the direction you want using sentimentality. It will not work.. I refer you back to Margaret Thatcher, in my previous post.

“While you put your self as the center of our society,”

I see myself as separate, not the centre of society and since what I do worked, for the benefit of the children who I am responsible for, I cannot see how you can criticize it.

Ultimately we want a “sustainable society”.

Me looking after mine is the “sustainable model”.

Taxing me to look after the responsibilities of those who give up and neglect their children is “non-sustainable”.

As for “society as the center of the people”

I have never met “society”, I know only people.

I know they move at their own rates and the socialist model is designed to slow the faster so they will get no further than the slower, like institutionalized mediocrity.

“The individualism is an excellent excuse to avoid social responsibilities”
show me where I have ever avoided myself of my responsibilities?
I earn a lot, so possibly pay a lot more tax (responsibility) than you too

Lenin said “Everything is connected to everything else” but as we know, Lenin was a twisted and malevolent despot.

(I like to balance Margaret quotes with Lenin quotes, she shows the light and he the darkness)

Col Rouge
"There is no such thing as Society"
Bush thought that there is not society but only individual and of cause he failed to support New Orleans people.
In the big tsunami in Indonesian we did not care for specific individuals but for various societies, from Indonesian to Somalia. Only people like you could think and support individual specific persons, all the others was supporting people, whole societies.
When ALQUEDA destroyed the New York Center they did not kick individuals, Antonios, Col Rouge, etc, they kicked Americans, they kicked the western civilization? Do you understand that? THEY KICKED THE WHOLE AMERICAN SOCIETY NOT INDIVIDUALS.
"I have never met “society”, I know only people" You do not know people you know only specific individuals, YOU KNOW AND CARE ONLY FOR SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, YOU DO NOT CARE AT ALL FOR THE PEOPLE=SOCIETY.
Col Rouge I understand that I can not change your mind but I am sure you understand that we voted the ALP for its program and it have to give the paid maternity leave etc.
Low income of cause race discrimination and of cause some people like you saw the problem but they did not care for my rights.
IF THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU THEN SOONER OR LATER OUR SOCIETY COULD CONVERTED TO A JUNGLE. What about the terrorists threat have we got there a problem as society or ONLY specific individuals ? Do you think we, as society, we have to do something and protect Australia from terrorists or not? If you think the government must protect the whole society then your theory for only individuals is collapsed, then the only question which stand is government's priorities. In this case the paid maternity leave is on the top priorities as it was in the ALP program and we voted the ALP to realize its program. You are from the other site, from the losers side, but do not worry. Howard even did not elect MP.