Pelican:"do we really want taxpayers to foot the bills for others' casual sexual liaisons?"

That is largely what happens now. The chils support scheme doesn't actually recover much monet from those who are not willing to pay, or who are not in a position to, such as the unemployed including the wilfully unemployed. What it does do is to create a great deal of conflict between parents through misadministration of the scheme. It also gives a vindictive woman an easy tool, since all she has to do is ring tham and say "he owes" and watch him scramble to prove that he doesn't for the next several weeks, all with no possible negative consequence for her.

It causes people to remain tied together financially in the worst possible circumstance, often when they simply can't stand the sight of each other and it is responsible for thousands of men suiciding ove the past 20 years. All that and it isn't even necessary in 75% of cases, based on the CSA's own figures for "private collect" arrangements.

Far better to make the child support cost a levy on all taxpayers. It's about time the Severins of this world were held to account for their selfish decision not to contribute to the future generation that is going to be needed to care for them in their dotage, as well as the men who simply wanted to get a leg over but managed to plant a baby.

The CSA boasts that it administers the transfer of $2.6billion each year, which works out to about $250 per taxpayer per year. About $5 per week. Isn't that a cheap price to pay to see an end to the conflict, violence, suicide and depression that is a considerable consequence of the current scheme's administration?

Or are you ideologically wed to the idea that if the woman must carry the child, the man must pay, even if he took her word that she was not fertile at the the time? I suspect the latter - to do otherwise is simply too large a step away from patriarchal protection.

Anti
Fertility is not an exact science which is why even those good Catholics following the rhythm often become pregnant. I wouldn't really have a clue when I was fertile, I seemed to be fertile most of the month (seemingly) and fell pregnant as soon as my husband looked at me. I am not seeking patriarchal protection merely equally shared responsibility. There is a difference.

The issue is complex. I can understand a man who was out for a quick one nighter, finding himself a father, would be bewildered by the sudden responsibility. The woman feels the same. The fact is if the child has been born who takes care of it?

Perhaps if we go down your route of a tax levy, we could use some of those mining taxes to support these one night stand babies. :) (That was for Yabby)

I am all for supporting families but ideally people should take at least some financial responsibility for their own actions, women and men included, even if there is some government support to back it up.

The suicide rate for men is indeed deplorable. Often men were in a no win situation, paying CS, only being able to afford a one bedroom flat, meaning no visitation by his own children. I agree it was a situation that needed changing.

As for the comment about Severin - totally uncalled. My talked about a levy they paid for retirement via taxes and suddenly ...wallah...what happened to that money? I don't subscribe to the idea that we should all have children just to support us in old age. There are plenty of other worthy economic measures that only needed careful forethought and planning to ensure a retirement income.

Those who choose not to have children have also paid taxes, probably in most cases for longer than those who took a break to raise their children. And even if this wasn't the case, we are not a developing nation, a universal safety net protects us all in the event of illness, disability or other unforseen circumstances.

Sorry bad editing on my part. I should have written "my parents talked about a levy".

Anti

>> It's about time the Severins of this world were held to account for their selfish decision not to contribute to the future generation that is going to be needed to care for them in their dotage.. <<

WTF?

I have paid taxes ALL my life.

I am moving home to a regional area to care for my frail mother.

BTW. I didn't even notice this absurd little comment of Anti's until reading Pelican's stream of reason.

I also provide care for my niece and nephew when needed.

Anti - questions for you.

Are women wrong for having children and expecting men to share in responsibility for raising them?

Or

Are women wrong for NOT having children and relying on their taxes and super to provide for them in their frail old age?

Anti - women are just plain wrong in everything, right?

pelican,

'The issue is complex. I can understand a man who was out for a quick one nighter, finding himself a father, would be bewildered by the sudden responsibility. The woman feels the same. The fact is if the child has been born who takes care of it? '

Nice how you fast forward past the stage where the woman has had all the rights in deciding what will happen.

At the moment, a woman has full 'reproductive rights' (ie abortion rights), but a man has no reproductive rights.

To solve this, a man should be able to sign up for a pseudo-abortion. ie. he signs a declaration saying he does not want the child, and can not be involved at all in the child's life, and bares no financial responsibility at all. He cant kill the child, but he can be dead to the child.

This gives men the right to abortion that women have exclusively held.

This choice must happen before the same deadline of gestation for women to abort. Then the woman can either abort or continue with the pregnancy with all the facts. The flaw of course is for women who decide to keep it a secret until after this time, but there would have to be a law of disclosure for her if she wants child support later.

So, a man and woman have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant. At this stage...

a) The woman may choose to abort, regardless of the wishes of the man.
b) A woman may have the baby, regardless of the wishes of the man.
c) The man may pseudo-abort regardless of the wishes of the woman.
d) The man wants the child, but the woman still aborts regardless of the wishes of the man.

So, even though women will still have more 'reproductive rights' than men, this would be a small step in the right direction.

Of course this ignores the vast vast majority of cases where the man and the woman both want the child and happily accept their responsibility for that choice.

Bravo! Houellebecq