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