Having a baby in Australia is one of the most expensive undertakings that a couple would pursue. When the federal government introduced the “Baby Bonus” in 2004, the aim of this policy was to encourage a rise in the birth rate by paying families a lump-sum payment of $3000 to reduce the burden.
Since then the cost to the government in implementing this policy has been around $800 million and the effect of this expenditure has not been reflected in a higher birth rate. The question I ask is: “was the baby-bonus worth it?” The answer: “Not really”. Instead of encouraging new growth it only rewarded existing parents expecting a child already. Most analysts commenting on this policy would note this to be a waste of government resources that could have otherwise been used in a constructive way towards education and child care expenditure.
I think the government was kidding itself when it thought it could solve the crisis with a bribe worthy of a kid being offered to an adult. The Australian people and/or Australian parents are not stupid and know the full intentions of the government’s sweetener. One may argue that this sweetener is not aimed at the Australian parent, but rather the potential young Australian parent that may consider having a baby. Young Australians can be quite short sighted when it comes to thinking about the long term benefits the money may provide rather than short-term gains. To this extent the policy begins to show adverse effects that don’t encourage responsible parenting but rather induce selfishness. For example, reports of young parents spending their lump sum payments on luxury goods like TVs is alarming, especially when you expect the money to be spent on providing for living expenses and/or baby expenses. This is what happens when you give children money, they spend it on toys!
Money the government provides in the short-term will not support a long-term future for a growing population. Money is not always the key as the government chooses to believe.

Whether the couple spent it on a TV or not if it still induced (no pun intended) them to have a baby or an extra child the money still achieved its purpose. Incidently children and babies love play school and sesamie street. Do you actually have children. You would know that the cost of rearing children over a life time is astronomical. Dont begrudge them a TV. This is the usual jealousy that is a nasty trend in our society. Oh dear someone may be gettin more than what I am.

Look at all these extra roads that my taxpayers money paid for and I never get to drive on them.

Ricky, I share your concerns. But I would put it much more strongly;

The baby bonus is the absolute worst piece of government policy to ever be imposed upon us. It is a complete wank for a number of reasons:

The very notion of wanting to increase the birthrate is just profoundly flawed. We should be celebrating our low fertility, which at about 1.8 is still well above replacement level for the whole country, due to the large proportion of young people. With this birthrate and net zero immigration, our population would continue to grow for about 40 years before it stabilised.

We most definitely should be striving to stabilise the size of the population as soon as possible, in light of the water crisis, peak oil and the imperative to live sustainably.

Fertility rates are very hard to significantly alter, whereas population growth can be easily adjusted via immigration. There was no reason why any attempt should been made to raise our birthrate.

The composition of the population, ie a larger portion of young people to offset the aging population, can be vastly more easily adjust via changes to immigration than it can be via rises in birthrate.

The baby bonus is means tested, which means the lowest income earners get the most. So it effectively bribes those who can least afford to have a baby, or another baby, into having one.

The money doesn’t have to be used in any way for the good of the child.

continued

A big lump-sum gift is a pretty powerful vote-buying tool. It must have appealed greatly to many who would be considering having a child within the next term of government. I consider the baby bonus to be little more than a blatant vote-buying exercise

Great things could have been done with that $800 million. A vastly better use for it would have been to build a rocket to send “have one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country” Costello on a one-way trip to Pluto!

Alternatively, it could have been used to reward every person who reaches the age of 50 without having had kids! A gift of about $100 000, which is a tiny fraction of the cost of raising a child, would be nice.

The baby bonus is a truly disgusting piece of work.

So many envious people.We are a sour lot. When money is given we complain. When money withheld we whinge. Who would ever want to be in Government with such a lot of whingers.

A simple solution to contentious government funded programs.

Make the funding for them optional. Those who believe that they are a good use of money can donate towards the program. Those who think they can make better use of the money keep it and spend it on what they consider worthwhile (or save it for later). Everybody wins.

R0bert

With respect runner, that is not a highly meaningful contribution.

Perhaps you could indicate which points you agree and disagree with in my last two posts.

I think giving the lump sum baby bonus was rediculous.Now we have girls leaving school going out and getting pregnant just to get a bonus,They have no intention of going out to work they get a supporting parent payment and a bonus baby allowance.Why should they want to work for a living it's easier to keep having babies,This Governement needs to wake up and really look at the issues they have created.What happened to no support until the baby is born? At least it slowed the I'm having kids for the money mentality down.There are better things to use that money on.Do the babys get the benefit from that bonus.Answer a good deal of the time NO! Stop the baby bonus and use it in the health systen where it is needed.No I am not whinging because the kids get the money I am whinging because our health system is the poorest.It equals a third world nations health systen.If your healthy I suggest you stay that way,Because if your not, Well I suppose you could always go out with the young Mothers when they just got their baby bonus and hope they will help you,Just don't hold your breath.

These kind of payouts are a waste of money. This is not an observation grounded on jealousy, whether people love or hate babies, it is purely an impirical observation.

Ethically, the tokenistic prizes are an insult to the babies.

These are human lives, not market research prizes for playing the game.

This tired casino is designed to encourage people to have babies. If money encourages the entrants to have a baby, then I think that is an insult to human life and the baby. Imagine telling the child later:

"we had you so that we had the money to buy a plasma screan televsion, twinkles. We thought that we won! Silly us! But never mind dear, there is always a catch with the booby prize. Let this be a lesson".

Deciding to have a child has to be for building a loving family and the personal satisfaction of raising a wonderful person.

This is not as much for selfish gain as it is an instinctual selfless gift of love.

As for doing "it" for winning the prize money and your Flag and country is a grotesque insult to the life that is in the balance. The value of a human life can not be for the sake of winning a plasma television set so that we can be entertained by propaganda, bad drama, and quizarama.

The prize money will do little to help raise a child if there is no infrastructure to help you.

The greed as the motivator will create monsters, and social disasters. Yes, some people are devious enough to think that this is a good scam.

A few corrections.

1. The baby bonus is NOT means-tested. Any mother/father is entitled to it.

2. The baby bonus is not paid until after the baby is born - it takes around 6 weeks to have the application processed if its lodged within a week of the baby being born.

I have received one baby bonus and found it immensely helpful towards covering costs. Whilst only $3000, it was able to cover most of the costs of setting up for baby (cot, pram, clothes, cloth nappies, nappy buckets, capsule, car seat......). These had been charged to credit card in anticipation of receiving the bonus to cover the costs. This then allowed me to use my savings to cover time off work to spend with my new baby. I see this as only beneficial. Given that my next baby will not cost nearly as much to set up for (due to the big ticket items already being owned), I intend to use to bonus to partially replace my wages for a period of time off work (probably 3-6 months). Yes, I havent been able to save to cover this as before, as now the $200/week I was able to save is spent on childcare so that I can work (to pay for everything else). Some of the costs of this childcare is covered by childcare benefit, and the childcare rebate, but I am still out of pocket to the tune of around $140/week even after I get my rebate back at the end of the year (thank god the govt brought that forward). And yes, it easily costs me $60/week for my little darling.

I might be biased with a vested interest, but I believe its a good thing, that is extremely helpful to most parents.

No it isn't worth it. Achieving the aims doesn't mean the aims are worth achieving, or worth the cost to taxpayers. The baby bonus doesn't make child raising cheaper for society, it just passes the cost on to other people.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/sustainability-party.html

Country Gal

The baby bonus is means tested.

‘How much baby bonus you get depends on your own taxable income each year. If your taxable income is $25,000 or less you will be entitled to a minimum annual amount of $500.’

http://calculators.ato.gov.au/scripts/axos/axos.asp?CONTEXT=&KBS=baby2006.XR4&go=ok

Ludwig, that is the old "first child offset". It was only available for the first child born since the policy was introduced, not for other children. It was first brought in for the 01/02 tax year, then taken out in 03/04 and replaced with the baby bonus. The first child offset was only able to be claimed through the tax return, and ranged from $500 to $2500 PER YEAR FOR 5 YEARS, dependant on how much your taxable income went down for each of those 5 years when compared with the base year (the year before the baby was born).

In contrast, the baby bonus (or maternity payment) is paid for every child born since the introduction, and is currently $4000 per child (compared to the maximum of $12500 for the eligible child under the old scheme). It is also paid directly from centrelink to the parents, rather than waiting to claim back through the tax system.

The old scheme is still in operation for those that qualified during the 2 years it was in, but has almost run its 5 year time frame. Thank goodness - one less complication in tax returns!

The new system also does not discriminate between those parents that choose to go back to work (often through necessity) - everyone gets the same amount.

LUDWIG-; "USE THE BABY BONUS TO REWARD EVERYONE WHO REACHES THE AGE OF 50 WITHOUT HAVING CHILDREN"

If war breaks out when you're 50 Ludwig you are prepared to go and fight are you? What about when you're aged 60 or 70years if war breaks out. Going to war are you? No!! you'll want someone else's children that you didnt have, to go and fight for you.
What about if bloody ethnic warfare or civil war breaks out in this country between the big tribes bought here by immigration in a few decades who's children are going to be standing around you for protection? You want all the benefits and protection that having a community around you provides but you want it for free. How are you going to have a protective sustaining community around you in the future if nobody around you has children? Importing them here from overcrowded countries is just taking the pressure off those countries so they can breed more instead of them facing the consequences which might force them to change their birth rates like China was eventually forced to do.

SAINTFLETCHER-; "ETHICALLY THE TOKENISTIC PRIZES (THE BABY BONUS) ARE AN INSULT TO THE BABIES THIS IS ABOUT THE SELFLESS GIFT OF LOVE NOT SELFISH GAIN"

So having a baby is about the selfless gift of love, The baby can live on love then,it doesnt need food or clothes or a roof over its head. It doesnt need around the clock actual physical care. When daycare workers do the job its called work and they are paid, knock off at six and have weekends and holidays off. When mothers do the work well into the night and never a sleep in even on weekends its all about love and doesnt deserve any recognition or renumeration from a society that benefits greatly from the providing of young fit people to do the jobs and provide the communtiy and services for the generation above it as they become too old.

And dont talk to me about immigration and multiculturalism. Open your eyes and look at all the ethnic wars(civil wars) raging in countries around the world at this very moment. Or is that your motive here do you want to use immigration to bring in more and more of your own tribe. Hardly accepting of the other ethnic groups here if that is your motive. Proves my point doesnt it?

Mothers shouldn't ask for financial assistance or time off because they should be selfless. Lets see you put in a long day and half the night in your job and do it for no pay, forget your annual holidays and weekends. You wouldnt do it would you?

Ooow sharky, so much hate!! You just assume the worst. How about asking some NEUTRAL questions and then making a judgement based on the answers.

“How are you going to have a protective sustaining community around you in the future if nobody around you has children?”

The concept of being rewarded for not having kids would obviously only be good if there was a healthy birthrate. That is; one at a bit below replacement level while we have a population that is too big and then one at replacement level once we have achieved the ideal population. It is extraordinary that you should miss this most basic point and jump straight to the ludicrous extreme by even thinking for more than a split second about a scenario where we would be having no kids!

“If war breaks out when you're 50 Ludwig you are prepared to go and fight are you?”

Bloody oath mate, if we are under imminent threat. If we aren’t under imminent threat then I’ll contribute in whatever way I can in order to make sure we don’t have to go and fight. You seem to be hung up on this willingness to fight in a war-like scenario. Why? People can contribute in all sorts of other ways. They don’t have to go and fight. That’s what we have an army for. Civilians should only have to fight as a last resort.

I think I’ve made a pretty damn good contribution to the betterment of our society and environment. I’d be perfectly happy with my life’s effort if I stopped having any further input at the age of 50. What about you? Can you say the same?

Continued

“No!! you'll want someone else's children that you didn’t have, to go and fight for you.”

I’ll want our armed forces to do it, of course. What would you have us do; reintroduce conscription, including for those over 50 who are physically fit enough? Or would you compel all citizens to fight and to be trained accordingly?

“What about if bloody ethnic warfare or civil war breaks out in this country between the big tribes bought here by immigration in a few decades who's children are going to be standing around you for protection?”

I’m calling for a reduction in immigration, and I have been for many years. I’ve been trying to prevent a scenario of civil disruption between different ethnic groups from ever developing. You express concern about this, so what have you been doing about it? Of course I would be willing to contribute in any way that I could if this sort of scenario did develop and become a huge threat to our way of life.

Come on sharkfin. You’re on the wrong track with this sort of stuff. The sort of passionate people that contribute prolifically to OLO and other forums are very likely to be the sort of people that would get out there and fight or strongly contribute to solving problems like this, wouldn’t you think?

“You want all the benefits and protection that having a community around you provides but you want it for free.”

Aha!! There’s that whacky conclusion…. based on nothing but a considerable degree of hatred for those who don’t have kids…..apparently. Dear o dear!

http://www.familyassist.gov.au/Internet/FAO/fao1.nsf/content/payments-maternity_payment

This is for those that want to find out how the baby bonus works.

Sharkfin you missed the point. Again.

The baby bonus is a one-off prize.

It is NOT an ongoing assistance to help pay those bills and help with all that work that we are not paid to do. It does not help us plan.

And yes, mate, I do hours of vuluntary work for my community and I feel satisfaction that I am helping those less fortunate than me. You sound like your mantra is "me-me-me".

Don't lecture me about on how to raise children mate.

I would never plan a child for a baby bonus. That is unethical, that was my point.

I would never plan a child for a war as cannon fodder, that is inhuman and I can't believe you see children as cannon fodder.

I remember at the age of 6, my psychotic primary school teachers used to bark at us to march in time as we had a war to look forward to. The principal told all boys to solute the flag and pledge not only that "I love God and my country" but also "I will die for my contry in war". If we didn't, they slapped our legs with a stick.

They explained that by the time we were 19, we should prepare to die for Australia fightining communism.

Now don't lecture me that you want to oppress yet another generation with this crap with conscription for something that is totally meaningless. Just like last time!

I will never forget that abuse for the rest of my life. It was a school in the poorest area in Melbourne and we were moulded for one purpose. War. They were not preparing us for life, didn't bother to teach us to spell, it was for obedience and death.

Now I ask you, what war do you plan on raising these children for? Whose ass do you expect them to die for? Yours?

Have you ever been in the army? Have you smelt the stench of death? Have you ever sent your children to war?

Saintfletcher-:

When war comes it will be beyond your and my control to stop it. Because Australia has a shortage of young fit fighting personnel there WILL be conscription just as there was in World War 2 .

When our enemies finally match our weaponary which they are working on at this moment (look how they’ve come up with a bomb to blow up our previously impenetrable tanks) then victory may well come down to how many young fit fighting males we have. Given that our enemies have millions of young fit fighting men. America can barely hold control of Iraq at the moment because they do not have enough men at arms. Fifty to seventy year olds can certainly play their part I’d take up arms and go myself to spare my children but a fifty to seventy year old army will be no match for all the young fit males in other countries.

I did not have children to have them killed in wars but I’m a realist and I know that if war comes the government will force them to go. That was just one example of how you need young people in the community around you as you age and become slower and less able. We don’t need doddery old people running hospitals and they certainly cant do some heavy tradesmens jobs as they reach up round 60 and over. Now I know there will always be the exceptions with good genetics but they are in the minority. A lot of old people just kid themselves that they have the agility and stamina of young people. They are probably all right for desk jobs but not for the punishing shift work of nurses.
That’s why we have this shortage of tradesmen at the moment because all the babyboomers cant do the heavy work anymore and have droped out with noone to replace this large demographic.
The lack of children has insured the handing over of this country to foreign workers.

LUDWIG-: “A considerable hatred of those who don’t have kids.”

You were the one who objected to financial help for mothers Ludwig. You made an attack on help for mothers that’s why I defended them. I’m tired of all the negativity towards mothers in our society and I WILL defend motherhood. Someones got to do it womens liberation never did. And don’t assume I was always a stay at home mother. I’ve done my share of fulltime and parttime and volunteer work too. I still give a lot of my time to help the community. The drought will break. We’ll adapt to having no oil, The West needs more sons and daughters, its other countries in the world who need to control their populations instead of wanting to overrun other peoples countries now they’ve overrun their own.

-:“I’ve been trying to prevent a scenario of civil disruption between different ethnic groups from ever developing. So what have you been doing about it.”

I admire you for doing something positive about this Ludwig you do sound like a very can do person. My prime reason for getting on the internet was to counteract some of the misconceptions and blinkered ideas about how standing around and talking love and peace brothers could stop wars. The pen can be mightier than the sword.
You could say I’m one of you passionate people on OLO.

Who are our enemies sharkfin? This ranting is sounding pathologically paranoid.

Define who the enemies are. You claim "they" are making weapons already. I guess "they" want Australia. Why Australia? There is no water here to begin with.

Surely New Zealand would be a better alternative.

This whole story is so hypothetical and absurd, it is hardly worth building a budget around.

Christ! there are serious climate challenges and you are fighting windmills mate. I mean, the Vietnam war took us back retrograde by 20 years, but this also had an enemy that the troops found confusing to define. Have you ever heard the Vietnam war vets talk about drinking with the enemy, and how it drove them insane?

Are the neo-cons going stark raving mad or are they expecting us to take the bait?

Even if our population doubles, if your connotations lead a war to defend Australia from say, (I sigh) Islam (?), `\o/` Forget it.

It cannot be won on munitions, battle in war as we know it, and cannon fodder. It begins and ends with media. You want peace for your children, you tell Ruphurt Murdock.

Making noises to provoke countries that never had any interest at all before the Howard Government only tempts them into Howard's desired effect. His need for fear and war.

Conscription will make little difference to defend our land, it only keeps a generation busy and cuts back on a baby boom created to be cut back.

I thought the budget was supposed to be a realistic plan to build in the future. I didn't know that all it stood for was preparing for a war, a division of class, and the betrayal of ordinary people.

What are these windmills Dan Quixotte?

I like the way you praise those that agree with you. Some of my favourite posters on OLO are the ones that disagree with me the most. Their personalities grow larger than their opinions. Love us or hate us, we are Australians. We don't always agree.

Why on earth has this thread descended into such flaming attacks on people. Oh that's it, its because we are talking about welfare!

The baby bonus was never meant to encourage people to have more kids for the sake of it, nor was it ever suggested that it was to help with the costs of raising kids. The FAO website (link on my last post) says that it is to provide some assistance to families (note NOT JUST MOTHERS), for the intitial costs of having a new baby, many of which are significant. I would suggest that for most people the availability of the bonus doesnt affect their decision whether to have a child or not. For a few disillusioned it might be the lucky lottery that you like referring to saintfletcher. For a few others the availability of a few extra thousand dollars at a time when income is very low anyway might just be enough that they CAN afford to have a child (or another one). I do fall into this last category. My husbands income is so impacted by the drought (as it was when my first child was born), that the baby bonus means that we can manage financially during that time.

“You were the one who objected to financial help for mothers Ludwig.”

No sharkfin! You misunderstand me.

I am not against some financial assistance for mothers / parents, of the type that we have had within our tax system for decades.

Neither am I against the concept of motherhood or parenthood. And I wouldn’t be even in a scenario of chronic overpopulation and a very high birthrate.

And thirdly, I am not against large families, for as long as the average family size is below, at, or slightly above replacement level.

So I am not in the slightest bit ‘anti-mother’ or anti-family or anti-support for mothers or babies. And I certainly did not make an attack on help for mothers, as you put it.

What I am vehemently against is the baby-buying lump-sum payment, which is specifically designed to boost our fertility rate, when we most definitely don’t need it to be increased at all. It isn’t designed to help mothers or babies. That is incidental. It is designed specifically to boost our population….oh and to buy votes for Howard and Costello. It is essentially a blatant vote-buying utter bribe of a policy, which is absolutely at odds with the sort of population policy that we should be implementing in this country.

I don’t think I could be more strongly opposed to anything!

I hope this has clarified any misconceptions.

"What about if bloody ethnic warfare or civil war breaks out in this country between the big tribes bought here by immigration in a few decades who's children are going to be standing around you for protection? "

So your answer is that we all start breeding so that when we do eventually hit some kind of limit brought on by all that breeding we will at least kill more of 'them'?

Freediver, Ludwig et al.

A point to be made (and I think that Shrkfin alluded to it, but got a little carried away), is that certain things rely on there being a reasonable supply of young people:

* physical jobs (including nursing and police)
* defence force
* taxes to support old age pensions (and other welfare)

There is no doubt a much longer list, but these are a few that sharkfin raised.

My basic standpoint is that 99% of people will need at least 1 of these things during their lives. So, if you dont have or dont want kids yourself (to contribute to the general requirement for a next geberation), then it is absolutely fair that some of your tax dollars goes towards helping those that are contributing to this. Of course, if we bred like north africans, there would be a different story, but we dont and this is where we stand. Parents still bear by far and large the cost of their offspring, but society in general kicks in a little as well.

We have more than enough people for nursing, defence, police and other physical jobs. Most of our economy is dedicated to provided services that most people would consider some form of luxury. We are not about to run out of people. YOu can't get more water, more food from the ground or fewer greenhouse emissions by putting in more people.

Freediver,
"We have more than enough people for nursing, defence, police and other physical jobs"

I don't know if it's just a country town thing but we have a chronic shortage of Nurses. My mother in her sixties works a few shifts a week to help out. And thats now.
As our population ages the demographics change and there will be an imbalance resulting in shortages of young people for such jobs. That's where immigration and our own birthrate rate become important.
It's one thing to want a lower population in Australia, it's another thing to look after our current population as we age. Long term planning is required.

Even though older people are very capable they will wish to retire too, particularly from physically demanding work.

The current shortage of nurses has nothing to do with a shortage of people. Our current birth rate combined with net immigration is well above what is needed to keep the population going up. The population is still increasing. Remember, if there are more people, you just need even more nurses, and more of everyone else. It doesn't actually solve any problems, it just makes them worse.

feeddriver

Thats right and I cant think of a less responsible way to have a kid.
Using a credit card to buy prams or whatever. I think the real problem was set in stone when we were too kind with welfare.
You can see the attitude of some girls is I am having a baby. I am having a baby. The Government should pay the Government should pay.\
The Government dear are just the other people.
We have to stop giving to people who clearly cant afford to have children
We have to stop this. We are encouraning these young ones to expect to be supported.
In this day nobody need to have kids unless they are well and truely planned.
Get a job and save. Meet a man and get engaged. Save both of you to get a house. Get married and both work and save. Stay away from credit cards. If you cant afford something go without. Have the baby when you can afford it.
Dont have a baby outside marraige because kids need both mum and dad.
The Government ought not be giving money to single young girls for something that is clearly meant to be for a happily married couple.

Just wondering actually why the Churches are not screaming their little heads off.
Where are all the good Church leaders gone. Family first Steve feilding and Kevin Rudd unclue bill Tony Abbott Peter C
To mention a few.

I also tend to think the money is irresponsible and set up to win votes.
I would rather see 3 or 4 grand go into the elderlies bank account each christmass.
Has anybody ever stopped to think how those poor darlings get through Christmass.
How about it Peter?

Nice one Wendy. I did all that. Also got 2 HECS debts that needed paying off. Got a mortgage (on a pretty ordinary sort of property, but all we could afford), two car loans (to get to work - no public transport in the bush). We could have had a baby without the baby bonus, but it would have been very tough. I'd have had to go back to work when the baby was just 3 or 4 weeks old. How fair is that?! And guess what - you cant get childcare for a baby under weeks (and they dont like taking them that early either - they should be with their mother). To have a second child is even worse - what were once able to be saved are now eaten up in childcare fees

Country Gal

“…certain things rely on there being a reasonable supply of young people”

Of course. We’ve got to maintain a healthy birthrate and hence a healthy stream of young people.

The birthrate that would maintain a stable population; about 2.05, would be perfectly healthy and would provide all the young people we would need to maintain all services. For as long as we have the current skew towards young people in our population structure, where a personal fertility rate well below 2 actually leads to an above-replacement national fertility rate, then a similar proportion of young people would be provided. So we don’t have to worry about that aspect (not even with concerns about the aging population).

“So, if you dont have or dont want kids yourself (to contribute to the general requirement for a next generation), then it is absolutely fair that some of your tax dollars goes towards helping those that are contributing to this”

If the birthrate is healthy of its own accord, then why should anyone who doesn’t want kids be required to subsidise those who do? I’ve never had a problem with tax concessions for raising kids, but now that I think about it, they aren’t really all that fair. We all pay for education and various other services for kids or that are utilised by kids. So we can’t escape contributing some of our tax dollars to the raising of children. But I reckon it should only be for general services and not for anything too direct.

If the birthrate was to fall significantly below replacement level, then yes more direct subisidies would be appropriate.

For as long as the birthrate is healthy, we should be applauding people who don’t have kids…..and not expecting them to too directly subsidise those who do.

A compromise Ludwig, you dont pay for my child-related tax concessions, and I wont pay for your pension (when you eventually need it). Or subsidise your nursing home bed. Its when all the baby-boomers move into retirement and then into old age, that we will see a real strain on tax revenue.

Wouldnt it give us all a great sense of purpose if we shifted to direct funding. Eg My tax dollars pay for a specific service/support. Local employers are allocated a local body that they have to pay their income tax deductions to. One pays to the public high school, one pays to the local hospital etc etc. Might even help with attitudes to welfare. Eg I could be allocated a local pensioner to support. My employer sends my fortnightly payments directly to said pensioners account. Or said single mothers pension recipients account. Do you think it would increase the sense of responsibility all round?!

"Wouldnt it give us all a great sense of purpose if we shifted to direct funding."

That's a really really bad idea. You would just create a lot of unnecessary red tape, and probably introduce irrational funding decisions.

Country girl
I just dont understand how this mind set- set in. Hecks credit Cards two car loans. Then you say you had to go back to work three weeks after the baby- How fair is that?

Well how fair is that - that you seem to think we should be reasponsible for your choices. On what do you base your feelings of anger.?
You had plenty of time to plan your life. Nobody told you that you must have a baby. Especially at a time when as you say you really could not afford it.
Re hecks -We used to work part time and use that money to pay night classes.
Its just wrong to expect us to pay for the fact you or anyone else has a child.

Sorry I am with Lud on this.

You plan things and you dont buy what you cant afford.

Also the elderly people have PAID "all their lives"

freediver - "and probably introduce irrational funding decisions."

Sorry too late that particular horse bolted a long time ago.

Country Gals suggestion would make democracy mean something. We'd really start to find out what government initiatives were actually supported by the people if we started to have real choice about where our hard earned's went.

How much funding would there be for the governments pre-election information blitz? How much for consultants to advise about a new dining room at the lodge? You get the picture. How much would most of us put in for pollies study trips and the like when ours kids schools had rusting gutters, no AC etc?

One the other hand some worthwhile things might miss out because other groups had better PR machines but then that happens already so where is the loss?

R0bert

"One the other hand some worthwhile things might miss out because other groups had better PR machines but then that happens already so where is the loss?"

OK, so we already have a minor problem, so where is the loss in turning it into a massive problem?

You are basically choosing a very poor solution to the problems inherent in people delegating 'politcal' decisions to a few chosen politicians. People already put very little effort into the political decisions (basically voting) that they make now. This would not decrease that problem. The idea would basically lump the public with the most boring decisions that politicians make and expect that because the decisions are in the hands of uninterested members of the public rather than someone who is paid to look into it that a better decision would be made. All that would happen is that public servants who are meant to get on with their job instead spend a lot of the time (=money) on advertising, like charities currently do.

There are far better ways to get around the problem. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by getting rid of the parts of our democracy that people actually like while not removing the bits they don't like.

Country Gal

“A compromise Ludwig, you dont pay for my child-related tax concessions, and I wont pay for your pension (when you eventually need it).”

Nope. That’s not a fair compromise.

People have babies for themselves, not for the good of the country. So they shouldn’t expect any direct tax concessions. Afterall, they get a huge amount of subsidy via general tax-funded services such as health and education.

If our society needed to encourage people to have more babies than they otherwise would, then yes some direct subsidies would be in order. But that is certainly not the case in Australia.

However, we do need direct subsidisation via our taxes for the financial safety systems of unemployment benefits and pensions.

So… no deal to the idea of not paying child-related concessions and thus foregoing a pension.

How about this: I don’t pay for child-related tax concessions and you don’t pay for my lump sum bonus when I turn 50 with no kids. Or putting it the other way round: I don’t pay for child-related tax concessions and I don’t get a lump sum for being a good little non-reproducer in this society which desperately needs to achieve population stabilisation, when I reach 50.

What’s that you say? Mmmmm, no I didn’t think you’d agree to that!

“Wouldnt it give us all a great sense of purpose if we shifted to direct funding”

Perhaps; if we could direct our taxes to where we wanted them to go. But of course, that would mean that some areas would get all the money they needed and more while others would miss out badly.

It just wouldn’t work. We must have a consolidated revenue setup, with decision-makers in government deciding how to divvy it up.