More possible problems with scheme.

Quote "
1)If the father is the baby's primary carer, he will receive the payment at the mother's salary.
2) The scheme also applies to same-sex couples.

Questions, potential problems.
1) What if the father is unemployed or just does not work? To give him potentially up to $75,000 is crazy.

2) He does not agree with same sex marriage but will pay for same sex couples to have a kid.

From my experience most fathers who care for children full time have lower salaries than their partners. Its the conduit for the gender role reversal.

'and I'm not referring to Abbott when I say that'
You read my mind. Your disclaimer was as sincere as Rudd's new found belief in positive.. hang on.

The argument (feminist) is that it's not welfare it's a workplace entitlement; From the party of workchoices and who says there is a budget emergency. But, significantly, also from a leader with three daughters, and who believes in the mother being a full time primary carer.

I'm not particularly wealthy (though Bourgeoisie of course), I 'earn' a decent crust, but I didn't need the baby bonus. Actually I did for the first as we went private health (I know, how naive, what a rip!), and spent the second one, proudly, on a TV. I decided to reinforce the stereotype.

People at my level of comfort just don't need the money, and I have a mortgage in Sydney, but no 4WD, and no private school I must admit.

The theory is that parents should be able to have children with absolutely no impact on their lifestyle. I disagree vehemently, people have sacrificed material lifestyle for children for years. It's actually an important part of the adjustment process.

Modern Necessities:

4-5 bedroom 3 bathroom, Two story house with Movie room and alfresco dining area and tripple garage, or at the very least a 3 bed terrace in a trendy suburb ( 'village') within walking distance of the CBD.

2 4WDs

Foxtel, hair weekly hair and nail appointments

Private Schools.

This is the lifestyle that apparently should not be interrupted by the inconvenience of child birth. I remember fondly the newspaper articles bemoaning the couples 'struggling' on family income $150k in Sydney when the means test for private health was discussed.

It must be said of course, of all workers, earning approx 100k, women under 50 years old probably make up about 2%.

It always seems unfair when you look at extreme examples, but quite often the money required to means test benefits costs more than the saving. Well that's often the excuse and I can believe it.

Which is why I am in favour of scrapping a lot of the welfare and just taxing people less. Perhaps that would put too many public servants out of a job. It would make it hard to target marginal electorates too I suppose.

Can we all agree that nobody should be paid from public-purse for their expensive hobby?

What then makes baby-making different than, say, yachting?

Or private schooling?

Dear Houellebecq,

<<Or private schooling?>>

Yes, for some people private schooling is a hobby, but on the other hand it is also an act of self-defence. So long as school is compulsory, private schooling (or home schooling) is necessary in order to save one's child from the indoctrination/brain-washing of the public-school system.

Once school is no longer compulsory, then I tend to agree with you.