579,
those 15% would be far more constructive they were a reward for not having more babies people can't afford to feed. Those who just can't control their urges should volunteer for tying tubes etc.
In a word, if can't look after a baby go & get knicked.

What you are saying indy is of no value at all. People are allowed to have babies, and it is lawful to get welfare for it. If we didn't need more population then we would not have migration.
Middle class welfare is the one that needs knocking out. If you can not afford childcare then stay home and do it yourself. Other than that do not have kids.

For the most part 579 ,not RObert you are debating in all possibility with folk who would not impose the thoughts they talk of on their own.
I think I see in Rechtub and maybe another's words pensions should be paid this way too.
Let get honest, never would Australians vote for or implement such a scheme.
However my thoughts a true and honest return for unemployment benefits, would reduce first number claiming the dole,some are frauds even not existing.
The work should benefit us, not private enterprise, for that reason IF and I am unconvinced every single parent should work, that work could be selected, maybe watching other kids in rotation while they work.
We DO need reform but we must keep it real achievable change should be our target.

I know one of these poor disadvantaged single mothers who has four kids to different fathers. Her parents get child support for looking after the grand children which are actually in free childcare all day. she only has a single mother's child support for her four kids & that's all she has to support her pool & poker machine playing. I'm sure many out there would agree she needs more support. She can't work because she never had the opportunity to learn the meaning of the word. She is however aware that it's all our fault.

Work for the dole should be a given.

10 or 15 hours per week, no show, no dole.

If you don't like it, get a Job, there's plenty out there. APPARENTLY!

Now as for pensions, well yes, if pensioners don't have any other source of income, savings etc, it's not the fault of the tax payer.

I do think that if they have retired from the workforce, having worked most of their lives, then there should be allowances.

How many pensioners do you see lined up at the clubs/pubs, ready to stuff that cash into the pokies', have a few drinks, perhaps a smoke or two.

Now if it's their money, then that's fine, but if it's not, then sorry, but welfare was not intended to be wasted.

In any case, the whole point is we are not in a position to continue to allow welfare to be wasted. FULL STOP,

rehctub,

$120K per household is quite a reasonable amount and the 3 kids is a lifestyle choice. If you can't afford the childcare then maybe you shouldn't be having the kids.
I can't see why I have to get by on much less yet subsidise those who get more.

As for negative gearing, renters can live the same way they did before and how it's being done overseas.
Positive gearing is also an investment strategy - not a tax reduction strategy.
All negative gearing does is keep property prices artificially high and reduce investment in new dwellings by making existing ones more financially attractive. Once again, the humble taxpayer makes up for the "losses" created by this system.

I agree with you about pensioners. I see them lining up at the Club the day after pension day waiting for it to open, but on the other hand those who have saved and sacrificed for their own retirement still continue to carry those who didn't.

From my experience with a relative in a Nursing Home, you can go from a life on the dole to the pension and into Aged Care and be financially better off at the end than somebody who worked and saved along the way.

I believe that even in the old USSR, you had to have worked for a minimum number of years before you were entitled to State Welfare payments.