Hi all

On the whole (and I admit that this thread has gone a bit beyond my comprehension of some of the issues), I'm a bit inclined to agree that it is really up to those who want to be parents to support their children. Be it by way of a scheme similar to superannuation, then that's fine. Fundamentally, I do not see it as my responsibility to support other people's children.

That leaves us with the problems as described by rehctub though. We have an incentive system, paid for by the taxpayer, in which people who have never worked and quite likely never will, having children for cash bonuses, and society then pays for those children's' support until they go on to their own income support". These people are in fact never called upon to provide for their own children, yet some of these households have a higher income than mine!

Yet, having worked all our lives, an age pension, when we get to that point, may well be a thing of the past.

I can't see how that does the country any good at all in terms of productivity or social advantage. Sorry, Antonios, but I have just seen so much of it!

Nicky

Pericles,
You have shown good reasons to bin that particular news poll.
But the invalidity of that poll doesn’t end the argument because if Heckman’s analysis is correct in where he shows that PML will save money for the government, then I can’t imagine the public would oppose PML.
I haven’t come across any reviews of his analyses by other economists/experts in this area, and I have not seen statements by economists that PML provided by the government will damage the economy.

Since I have no vested interest, (I wouldn’t want a 3rd child even if they paid me a billion $), but I want to look at all the perspectives.
That I happen to be in favour of PML is because I find that positives outbalance negatives.
And Antonios has a point that we can expect Labor to do Laborish things, like introduce PML, even if the public were given only a vague plan and were not shown the exact details.
If PML benefits all parties and is good for the economy, then why would the public be against it? Even greedy companies like Woolworths see the benefits of PML and spread their view around.

Nicky,
everybody’s personal experiences naturally influence their opinion so I do understand your perspective.
But you (and Rehctub) link chronic welfare recipients to PML and that is not correct.
I don’t mind if you are against PML but then you should be against it for the valid reasons like Col and Pericles, not because of a misunderstanding.
I reiterate that PML, unlike the baby bonus, supports only mothers who were previously working and paying tax, and will return to the workforce. It has nothing to do with families who have a history of being on welfare.

Well cared for children will likely grow into responsible adults and even childless people will benefit from having less irresponsible teens and adults in their communities.

Col and Antonios, not ignoring you but I only had time for one post till the weekend.

Celvia, rehctub here.

With the greatest of respect I think you miss undestand my point.

I don't link maternaty leave with wellfare it is just that I see this as yet another hand in the cookie jar and there are just not enough cookies to go around.

I repectfully ask that you actively observe some of our seniors. Not the ones sitting at the pokies all day, but the ones trying to survive on what amounts to the equivilent dollars we spend on a good night out and this has to last them a whole week.

These are people who have work all their lives, paid taxes, raised families and are now left to rot.

The system just can't afford any more hand-outs and, if it can why not support these folk instead. God knows I think they have earned it don't you?

You see people today struggle for all the wrong reasons. Second car, rental property/share portfolio, mobile phone bill, big screen TV (on hock), OS holidays, the list goes on.

It would be great to think that we could all get help with our kids but the reallity is if you can't afford them the DON'T-HAVE-THEM!

YOUR KIDS-YOUR CHOICE-YOUR RESPOSIBLE FOR THEM AND THEIR NEEDS.

Hi again all

Just a quick one because I am pushed for time too.

Celevia, with the greatest respect, can you see any government having the guts to make that sort of distinction? Maybe the idea someone came up with - of those who know they want to be/will be parents should contribute something along the lines of a superannuation program with the government making some form of contribution as well, because as things are, people who are on welfare are far better off when they have loads of children. That's the only way I can see such an idea working to favour those who deserve, and need it.

Cheers
Nicky

Antonios,
you are correct that the word ‘socialism’ has different meanings. I think that many progressive countries use some principles (probably the main ones) of socialism and some of other political directions. I’m not sure about every individual country but I believe some pick what they think is the best of several worlds. ‘Pure’ communism, socialism, or libertarianism does not seem to work, or even exist- but being creative with existing ideas might make a better system. How free can a country be if it has to always stick to certain principles no matter what? Any fair system needs to focus on and support people first.

Col,
About LPG, my husband drives at least 100-150 km daily. Although LPG prices have increased driving on LPG is, as you said, still worthwhile.
But I don’t see why individuals (and corporations) have no problem accepting government subsidies to benefit their own desires, e.g. as drivers, when they are against introducing help for others, e.g. for working mothers. I don’t ‘get’ where the cut-off line is; when do subsidies become acceptable?

About freedom/free markets, I agree that there are many positives of a having them, but I don’t believe that they exist because aren’t markets always constructed and have rules and regulations? How much input do poor countries really have and do the richer countries therefore have more freedom of choice and rules than the poorer?

Corporations advocating a free market can (and have) accept state/govt interference and financial support from taxpayers’ money and this is inconsistent.
Why should individuals have to do without financial support while the govt is still serving the corporate world? How accountable are corporations?
And, people don’t ‘really’ have freedom of choice when there is much coercion by corporations and pressure by the media to buy certain products.
I doubt that poor countries benefit as much as wealthy countries from globalisation because there’s unequal power and input.
Anyway, this is quite off-topic, perhaps I shouldn’t have sidetracked it. It would make an interesting topic elsewhere so I’ll keep my eyes open for any future thread about it.

Continued

Nicky,
Glad you could find the time to reply. I’m happy to agree on the idea of people making contributions to some kind of fund along the lines of the superannuation fund.
Although, to keep such fund limited for the use of parental leave won’t be very desirable but when such fund can be set up in a wider frame so that any justified time off work can be paid from that fund (or paid out as an addition to superannuation near time of retirement when not used for other purposes), I can’t see why it should not be viable.
Seems that most of us have agreed on the vouchers/coupons, too.

Rehctub,
I agree with you that the pension of the seniors is disgraceful, but isn’t that all the more reason to prevent poverty among pensioners? A family, but also the future taxpayer, is better off when the mother’s income and superannuation during her time off to give birth and care for her baby is maintained.
If mothers can maintain superannuation, like fathers can, our future pensioners will be better equipped to look after themselves while their children, coming from a working family, will have had good role models and did not have to grow up in poverty. It’s likely that they’ll become working taxpayers, too.

Otherwise, have you thought about who will look after all these childless, elderly people in the future? Who will keep filling up the cookies in the cookie jar?
We need to reduce our population gradually, but not by starving our elderly, and neither by financially bullying people into giving up their dream of starting a family.
Stop the average earner from having a family and we will end up with a majority of elderly who won’t have support from their own children (because they couldn’t afford any) and who therefore financially and physically rely on the overworked and overtaxed children of others.