hi all,

I just wondered how many people look at the
costing of having a baby at $A15,000

a year.... and how many they can afford,
if they realise this fact

basically I figured years ago, one needs at least
$15,000 a year for each person in the family

sometimes it surprises me how the financial side
of bringing up a family doesnt get a look in

should be a two year course at school..grin

JHH

JHH, I can’t help but go straight into baby-bonus-condemnation mode:

The size of the baby bonus has become quite significant, but it is still only a tiny fraction of the enormous cost of rearing a child.

It is higher for lower income-earners. If it is working at all to raise our fertility rate, it is doing so most significantly amongst low income earners… who can least afford to have a child, or another child.

The baby bonus sucks the battlers into having babies that they would not have otherwise had, and then being stuck with a much larger financial burden than they would have had…for about 18 years, which many of them can ill-afford.

The baby bonus is rotten to the core, without even considering the fact we should be reducing our population growth rather than striving to increase it!

Its master Peter Costello deserves a one-way trip to Mars over this policy. And so does Howard. And the instigator of this atrocious policy, Paul Keating, should accompany them.

hi all, and ludwig,

yep its strange,
no one costs the finances, when having children...
unbelievable....

the $A15,000 a year is about right, from my experience,
so any baby bonus is really just a carrot for some I guess...
not good for the soul ... though I dont know much about it..
will check

the business of legal marriage is a financial institution,
first.....otherwise one would not need the legal piece of paper ..grin
some courses on legal marriage, finances, and the whole
legal situation, should be a high school course..grin

has astounded me, the various legal marriage laws in other countries..

the united states has different ones for each state....
gruesome stuff....and there is no way I would get married in
the united states.... getting divorced there is also gruesome

sounds a bit strong eh but happens to be true

unbelievable in this day and age..... guess knowledge is power eh

JHH

"the costing of having a baby at $A15,000"

Still the really smart ones can have no income (read no earned income) & 6+ children.

Darwin was right- those best adapted contribute more offspring to the next generation...

JHH
I knew it when I saw the Title.
Dont tell me you are all going to start saying we should pay more to people to have kids.
For God sake what ever happend to people being reasonsible for their selves and the choices they make.
What type of people are Australians turning into.
Its sickening.
If you cant afford a kids- Dont have it

JHH

Jolanda?

Dont tell me you are all going to start saying we should pay more to people to have kids.
For God sake what ever happend to people being reasonsible for their selves and the choices they make.
What type of people are Australians turning into.
Its sickening.
If you cant afford a kid- Dont have it
In this day and age there is certainly no excuse.
Not like the poor women a hundred years ago.
If you look at it the moe you give welfare- the more its demanded.
When does it stop being welfare and become political blackmail.
You should complain.
Try being a farmer.

nope I am JHH
artist grin

and I was just inferring that people should think twice
of the true financial costing of having a child, at least
here in australia, and probably anywhere for that matter

I was certainly NOT inferring of financial carrots, or bribery..grin

just a realisation that $15,000 a year for each baby, is a reality
costing.....
and that do young people adjust to their earnings as to
whether they can afford a child....

as far as I have seen, the social costs of living under this amount for each child, is enormous

JHH

Perhaps everyone who reaches the age of 50 without having produced any sprogs should be paid a handsome reward for their part in addressing the curse of overpopulation (:<{|)

About quarter of the cost of rearing one child to the age of 18 would be sufficient. That would be something like $100 000.

i believe oz should have a population under 10,00,000. so we all have enough water to drink, bathe- and preserve the native wildlife.

at whatever population, births and deaths should be equal. so we either import people, or raise our own in a responsible, planned way. a combination of birth licenses and bonuses would do it.

raising children should be a profession. any young woman can launch a baby with just a few minutes help. but she should put it into a professional, trained and licensed mother's hands shortly after birth.

the support of children should be a social responsibility. children should not be dependent on the luck of biological parents. result: a fair, humane society with everyone able to access educational and health resources while preparing to join australian adult society.

DEMOS I don’t think we need any licences, bonuses or anti-natalist incentives.

All we need is for immigration to be knocked on the head, or at least cut down to net zero (equal to emigration).

Then we would be sitting pretty with respect to the population factor. With zero net immigration the national population would continue to slowly increase for a quite a while – about three decades actually. But I could live with that, just as long as we were heading towards a stable population that would not exceed ~24million.

Our current fertility rate should be applauded and treasured. There is no reason why we should strive to either increase or decrease it.

Let’s have as few regulations as possible and hence as much freedom over the whole business as possible.

And I can’t see any reason why some people couldn’t have large families for as long as the national fertility rate remains roughly where it is – a bit below replacement level.

However, as I am childless and approaching 50, a $100 000 lump sum payment would be nice. And I reckon I deserve it ! (;>)

As fas as parenting ability goes, I don’t think you could justify taking a child away from a woman / couple that appeared to be lacking in parenting skills, unless the circumstances were quite grave.

It is much more important for the right sorts of support mechanisms to be in place to help them to quickly become good parents.

deary me...
having a giggle and laughing here

seriously though, children are important, precious,
and deserve the basic rights of,

water,
food,
clothing,
shelter

and not to be emotionally, verbally and or CORPORAL punishmented grin..

not just here, but world wide......

just a wee thought....

at $A15,000 a year for every child financially...

here in australia one can probably only afford to have one child
on a $A50,000 a year earning capacity

as mum and dad need $A15,000 a year for basic needs too

this does not include insurances, private schools and so on

our high school students need to do the maths.... ?

oh and while I am at it

poor old school teachers are becoming defacto dads and mums ?

that will cut the population of teachers down fast....

one should bear some consideration for them......

school is for basics, reading, writing and arithmetic..grin

JHH

A couple of points:

1. The baby bonus is NOT higher for low income-earners. It is a flat $4000, going to rise to $5000 in the 08/09 financial year - there are not further scheduled rises. Nor is it means tested - anyone who has a child qualifies. For my husband and I, it meant that we could afford to buy new baby equipment for our first child ($3000 bonus at that time). Didnt go extravagant, just bought basic cot, pram, wardrobe, car seat/capsule and a few clothes. Pretty much all came from discount places like BigW and Target - certainly didnt go for the trendy products. For our second child (still some time off), it will allow me to have 4-6 months off work, rather than 3 months (which was all I could afford after the cost of setting up with equipment). I just dont see how the baby bonus is encouraging me to breed a massive population.

2. I agree that financial management should be a compulsory school subject. It needs to be based around all aspects of post-school life, including the cost of having a baby, running a house, paying school fees, what might be expected to be earned from work etc. It should be a year-long project, where you are given parameters and are marked on how well you manage within them.

Lug
Love it. Yes Please.
JHH I apoligise I really did think you were somebody else.

Your comments are fair. As for all of us paying every irresponsible Mother and Father way in this world- I disagree.
However if the money were going towards controlling who has kids i would not mind so much.
Its not a social thing to encourage young girls and others to have more kids.
A matter of fact if you look around you will see a rather over polpulated world- All full of starving children
Thats what hand out does. Then they come to think of aid as a god given right.
Everybody in every country should take their own responsibilty.
When Do I get my $100.00 Grand Lud Good thinking.

That would go a long way to help the elderly who dont have little darlings to stick them in a nursing home .

At the risk of being accused of practicality...

Demos, exactly how do you propose that we reduce the population of Australia from 20 million to 10 million?

>>i believe oz should have a population under 10,00,000. so we all have enough water to drink, bathe- and preserve the native wildlife<<

Let's have a look at the ways that this could be achieved.

The government passes a law that allows each couple to produce only one child. Or perhaps (this is actually more likely, given their greed for our cash) they should sell "birth licenses", the number issued being equal to (say) half the number of citizens who dropped off the perch the previous year.

Or perhaps they could randomly sterilize half the kids born each year... no, that would be too much. How about instead sterilizing everyone who commits a criminal offence - that would also have the advantage of breeding out undesirables.

But wait - most criminals are male, and it is women who produce babies. Back to the drawing board.

There's another problem emerging here, too. If you cut off the source (i.e. baby production), and simultaneously improve the life expectancy of the population, that population will age even more rapidly than it is at the moment. Imagine. All the laws passed will be to the benefit of an ever-increasing age level, until the kids become slaves to the older (and even older) generations.

So it looks as though the only way to achieve your goal is not through reduction in births, but in culling the old folk.

Population reduction would cause massive, irreversible pain. It would not result in the kind of blissful Utopia that you envisage where "we all have enough water to drink, bathe- and preserve the native wildlife."

It will be the catalyst for war, pestilence and famine as the economy goes to hell in a handbasket, and children turn on their parents.

We have 20 million people. Face it. Live with it. Deal with it.

Country Gal

“Nor is it means tested”

From the Australian Taxation Office website http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/33906.htm;

‘You can use the Baby bonus calculator to help you determine whether you are eligible to claim the baby bonus and if so, the amount you are entitled to claim.’

‘How much baby bonus you get depends on your own taxable income each year.’

You wrote;

“…just bought basic cot, pram, wardrobe…”

Fine, but it is not required to be spent on anything to do with the baby.

“I just don’t see how the baby bonus is encouraging me to breed a massive population.”

It’s specific purpose is to significantly boost our birthrate. This in conjunction with very high immigration is deliberately giving us rapid population growth. There is no end in sight for this growth. So the baby bonus certainly is part of a push for a “massive” population.

Fact
We were warned many many many years ago Australia could never go over 20 million max because of the water supply.
Percicles For a moment there i thought you had seen the light.
Remind me of your idea when you get old ok
Why do people think having kids is more important than caring for the ones who had us and cared for us.
Animals are suffering and so are the elderly.
I suggest we sort them out before encouraging more problems
I think China showed great leadership for the long term advantage for their nation.

The Government have years been concerned we could never hold onto Australia.thats was when we had four million.
Well guess what. Twenty is our limit and thats still nothing if you look at others.
We cant supply fresh water to more people.
We have over two hundred thousand arriving each month on visting visa alone.
Knowing that bird flu comes from countries where its common to have intensive farms why do we still allow these people to come.
Its only a matter of time. Mind you that does not include students or people with working visas.
At the moment onthe gold coast we have the only punlic hospital with a TB problem
Great over five hundred people involved.
Kepy pretty quite of course.
We cant cope now let alone more and more kids.

PALE, it is significant that you didn't answer my question.

The reason that it is significant is simply because in order to effect any change of this type, there has to be legislation.

Last time I looked, we have an elected government that puts together legislation, and passes it.

And presently, we vote for these people in some form or other.

So instead of mouthing a bunch of self-righteous twaddle about how "We were warned many many many years ago Australia could never go over 20 million..." and "Animals are suffering and so are the elderly", why not apply yourself to the practical task of framing the laws that will allow your dreams to come true?

You'd think I was asking for something difficult - all I want to understand is what kind of society you envisage will actually put into action all these measures designed to make your life easier.

Will it be a dictatorship? Will we still vote for political parties, in which case which one do you see as being sufficiently trustworthy to put it all together?

>>I think China showed great leadership for the long term advantage for their nation<<

That's ominous. But I don't think you really mean it, do you? The Chinese model of government is, after all, not one that would go down a treat here, would it? And population control was far from being their only big idea - have you had a look at their energy policy recently?

Will we need a new political party, perhaps? In which case, what would be its population policy - how would you actually put it into real words, not just vague platitudes and fuzzy wishful-thinking "goals".

But seriously, save your energy.

In fact, why not concentrate that energy on learning to live with the world as it is, and not waste your time building pointless and totally unachievable castles in the air.

Your Answer Madam
it will take more than you and I to change things. Yes a new Parliment made up of Inderpendants that actually care would be a good start.
Now re china. They did the right thing for the country at the right time. If you look at their postion in the world now I think you must agree they dragged themselves up the food Chain A long Way.
Their Animal Welfare Is appauling but thats a different subject.
They have dreadful diseases kicking around which sooner or later will be brought in here through the air ports.[ But I guess thats off topic as well.
If Rudds Apointed as PM we will have even more health problems as he pushes a closer arrangment with China. In Another way its REAL smart for Australia to be on good terms with China Given the worlds threats.,
Now if we dont get the new Parliment you mentioned we will continue to not care and not get anything done .
Now you were speaking on having more Children if I recall.
We now raise THE most self indulgant children in history. Parents are scared to disaplin their kids because of the damage done by do gooders. The Government pay them to leave home because they dont want to follow house rules.
Half of these kids are raised on welfare.
Thats SO wrong.
You dont fix things by buying more toys.
Same as we wont fix problems by giving more toy money to people who cant afford them in the first place.
Who Said. Give me the boy until he is 7 and I will give you the man?
Kids learn to expect welfare and so the chain continues.
Kids need to be born to a normal mum Dad Stable home who can afford them

That's not an answer, PALE, that is called avoiding the question.

>>a new Parliment made up of Inderpendants that actually care<<

How will this be achieved, do you think? Oh, that's right, you don't think.

>>re china. They did the right thing for the country at the right time... they dragged themselves up the food Chain A long Way.Their Animal Welfare Is appauling... They have dreadful diseases kicking around... If Rudds Apointed as PM we will have even more health problems as he pushes a closer arrangment with China. In Another way its REAL smart for Australia to be on good terms with China<<

So China's way is a good way? At least, that seems to be the gist, it isn't actually crystal clear.

But be careful what you wish for. Think about it, just for a moment or two.

Before we could even consider reducing the population of Australia, we would have to change our entire way of government, which is at present some sort of democracy-by-bureaucracy. That ain't going to happen in your or my lifetime without a major revolution and serious bloodshed.

Far more likely, as soon as one or the other of our northern neighbours notices that we are weakening ourselves with a parasitic, ageing population, they will be upon us like wolves on the fold.

Think of it. All that land. All those resources. So few people. All of them old and grey, living off their younger generations. Let's have a piece of that, they'll say.

Forget being the fiftyfirst state of America. We'd be a province of China, or another island off the coast of Indonesia.

And don't look to the US to protect us. They can't even keep a few square miles of Baghdad under control.

Well when you put it like that Yes I agree we are far better off staying as we are- A shilling each way and one foot in each camp.

In the one corner we have Rudd and WA Labours Ministers of Small Biz trotting back and forth to China .

In the other you have little JH and his buddy George Bush.

As its Anzac Day I might remind you we would all be Japs by now if it were not for America.
Perhaps we could start by teaching some history in our schools and a bit of loyalty might not hurt either.

Take a look at just about every national in past history that broke away to become a replublic and what followed.

Anyway wasnt this post about babbies?.

Who ever runs this country needs to address this- give me, give me, attitude thats become entrenched in Australia.

Welfare and handouts were put together for the truely needy.

You work an honest days work and you get paid for it.

You dont encourage people to have kids that can not afford them because its unfair on those children and the rest of soceity.

Probably and this is getting closer to answering your question_ If we all just get up and do things to better our neigbour and fellow men we will be on the right track.

You can say what you like about Australia but some people dont know how lucky they are to be living here- warts and all.

Yes we are a sitting target and no sadly I dont think long term we will hold her so enjoy while you can

Of course the counter argument would be hand the country over to you because you have the answers to everything.

Lets see. Its cruel to keep a dog as a pet is one of your strange ideas- is it not?
Or have I got the wrong person?

At least this contribution is marginally comprehensible, PETA, which is a step in the right direction.

But it is obvious that you still envisage the problem in terms of simple slogans, rather than thinking through the consequences.

The part of the equation that you and your fellow population freaks forget is that we don't exist in this world in isolation. History has a habit of happening whether we like it or not. We - along with the US and most of Europe - have had our day in the sun. Our economies have grown fat on the trade we have established with other countries, and now those countries are growing their economies faster, and educating their population better, so that they can enjoy our lifestyle some time in the near future.

If we decide to opt out of this race, then we should at least understand the likely consequences. Which are, that we either become a comparatively poor nation with a shrinking economy, or allow ourselves to be taken over by a more ambitious and better-organized country.

The problem with the first choice is that it will automatically lead to the second; no country that cares for its citizens wouldn't sit idly by while such a rich and underpopulated nation commits suicide.

So yes, it is a bit of a treadmill. But we owe it to ourselves and our children to keep working at it, instead of just throwing our hands in the air saying "life's too tough with 20 million here, let's try it with 10 million".

As I pointed out, trying to turn that into a plan presents immediate difficulties, if only because we have trained ourselves to enjoy some basic freedoms, and one of those is to have a family. But more importantly, if we were to apply ourselves to the challenges involved in building our population to 25, 30 or even 50 million people instead of running away from them, we might have an even brighter future.

And no, I don't have all the answers. But at least I take the trouble to understand the questions.

To a large part I agree with much of what you just said. But and there is a but. Its totally selfish to bring children into the world without the means to provide for them and wrong to expect others to pick up the tab which is basically what this thread is about.

Yes Australia like others probably will go down hill from here.
All the more reason to introduce a co joint venture proposal inviting other countries to get involved HERE with our agriculture first hand working alone side Australian farmers.

We can all teach each other much.

People should not think we are any different from the rest of the world and one day we may even face sanctions as war crimials.

I am not saying i didnt agree with sending our troops to other countries either. I am just pointing out I agree with you and why.

As for your mention of PETA it is a matter of record they have done some great things.
However it is sad they push the veggie side because they loose so much support and play into the hands of the ever waiting media to discredit them.

That would be the same media gaints that conflicts of interests and control large live Animal exports.

Getting back to the subject of this thread that reminds me that some people despite how much money should not have children at all.
Monsters tend to breed Monsters
I wonder if there could be a test for compashion given to the parents before they had the child.
Maybe then we would not have thousands of unwanted children dead world wide. The only answer we can come up with is to push more animals into dreadful conditions to feed more people.
no I dont have the answers either/.
Your reply was certainly food for thought
Have a good day.

Who ever gave any of you the right to judge who is elegible to have a baby or not, and just what exactly is the 'required income' to become a parent.

Being a parent should never be about how much money you earn, or where you sit on the 'rightious' scale, being a parent is about loving your child, and giving your child what they need in life to become the best they can be.

Yes, I agree that some mothers would rather 'get a hit' or a 'six pack' before a tin of formula, but just how exactly do you expect to be able to monitor this?

The baby bonus has been very helpful for many caring and responsible parents, how fair do you think it is to take it away from these people?

Mum2
You asked?
Who ever gave any of you the right to judge who is elegible to have a baby or not.

Reply. Did I say I wanted to be the judge>? No.
I gave my opinion because this is a opinion forum.


MUMOF2>
"and just what exactly is the 'required income' to become a parent."

The fact you ask that question is what I meant.

It shows a lack of taking on your own responsibiltys.

Thats a bad example for any child. Dont you know how much it costs to keep 2 kids? Gee.

MUM OF 2 Says
Being a parent should never be about how much money you earn,

Reply. huh Dont you know its your responsibilty to have money to cloth feed and educate your kids? Then there is medical school fees outings.
Dont you know that your resonsibilty- not mine?

mum of 2 Says
being a parent is about loving your child, and giving your child what they need in life to become the best they can be.

reply

Yes. Giving what they need. A loving home and the material things they need as well. Like paying your own way. The NEED a good example to learn and grow from.
The greatest gift you can give your kids is a good role model to follow.
MUMOF2 Says.
Yes, I agree that some mothers would rather 'get a hit' or a 'six pack' before a tin of formula, but just how exactly do you expect to be able to monitor this?
Reply
Make sure those people dont have the kids in the first place.
MUMOF2Says
The baby bonus has been very helpful for many caring and responsible parents, how fair do you think it is to take it away from these people?
Reply
Actually its for the kids.
Nobody said take the 4 g off them. Perhaps it should go into an account for their childrens uni fees.
The 4 grand should NOT be increased to 15.
Thats unfair on all the people who work hard to pay for their OWN children and'others' on top of it.