Breeding dissent: Time to scrap the baby bonus?

mle says:

08:01am | 28/04/11

Possibly we are travelling along this path of ‘self-genocide’ because unlike many places we do not rely on our children to take care of us as we age. We have social security, health insurance and other such things instead.
And generally, culturally we don’t hold large families in as high regard as we once did.
Many now have different focuses and what some consider responsibilities, whith which families do not always mesh and in fact directly conflict.

Mahhrat says:

08:17am | 28/04/11

@Erick, it’s always the way though, the terribly successful and awesome amongst us are usually the slowest to reproduce, while the bogan ne’er-do-wells arrive at one a year in exponential fervour.

The problem isn’t the baby bonus, it’s what happens after the kids are born.  Too many are missing out on the opportuntiies of life, because our education system sucks.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:25am | 28/04/11

Yep. 
 
I think we should not only keep the baby bonus but we should give any Australian-born children free secondary and tertiary education and health, provided we also cancel, or severely curtail, immigration - we need to populate from within, not without.

Chris L says:

08:37am | 28/04/11

I think the “refusing to breed” has to do with education Erick. Statistically the more educated people tend to have a lower birth rate.

To be honest I think the world could do with a couple billion less people. Not through any form of culling, of course, but perhaps a focus on education for everyone will encourage a gradual diminishing of numbers, not to mention a wiser and less hostile population.

Erick says:

08:46am | 28/04/11

Chris L, I too think the world could do with a few billion less people, in the same non-culling way. Unfortunately it’s the wealthy and relatively human-rights-friendly countries that are declining in native population, while the poorer and more violent countries have the highest rates of growth.

The same is repeated in microcosm within our society, as Mahhrat mentions. I can’t help thinking that this trend is bad for the gene pool.

Zac says:

09:20am | 28/04/11

Now that we have an Atheist prime minister and her Watermelon partner (the political arm of Atheists) - The Greens in power, Hamas friendly policies (MarriQville, generous intake of refugees) , gay marriage, population culling etc is in demand. How about we change “Baby Bonus” to “Gay Bonus”, we will attain the same result the Christ less Anglican Church wants? Seems to me Father Bob Brown is in charge of Churches like the Anglicans and the Dividing Church, I mean Uniting.

Unprotected Species says:

09:27am | 28/04/11

Once “OUR people” are removed from the planet, Erick, all the other species of man can duke it out to be the most beautiful and creatively, philosophically, technically and spiritually accomplished. It’s a one horse race right now.

John Smythe says:

09:34am | 28/04/11

Dunno…I read it as internalising the population problem instead of maybe pursuing more active immigration approaches.

Vaunted says:

09:35am | 28/04/11

@ Mahhrat, your denigration of ‘bogan ne’er-do-wells’ is a form of racism. Personally I’d rather live as a member of a minority amongst Australian bogans than some other categories of new settlers whose names we dare not mention.

Cam says:

09:49am | 28/04/11

And take a look at who are still breeding large families ... NZ citizen Pacific Islanders (straight into Centrelink for their family payments), Sudanese, Muslims of every race… it’s takeover by stealth. We can’t kill them but we can breed them out .....

fml says:

10:00am | 28/04/11

@vaunted,

Bogans not a race so its not racism therefore its ok.

@tony

Its cheaper to populate from outside, especially if its people who are ready to work and pay taxes.

@cam,

Its not illegal to have a large family, its why we live in a democratic country. I also doubt its a massive conspiracy by ethnics to take over this country by stealth, at best its a loving family wanting to extend their family at worst, its the father trying to get his end away.

Andrew says:

10:03am | 28/04/11

The problem is that the Baby Bonus is only paid to the bogan ne’er-do-wells so it is only them who are encouraged to breed further. It was a cash bribe, pure and simple, from Mr JWH to the residents of Mt Druitt and Macarthur to continue to vote for him.

Mr Real says:

10:59am | 28/04/11

“Our people…” Wow, the elitism and racism inherent in this comment thread is truly frightening. Get a grip, people. THINK about what you are posting. Erick, your “gene pool” comment sucks big time.

george says:

11:00am | 28/04/11

That’s because unlike a lot of countries most of us have the self respect to not live like sh!t.

With an adequate house going for $800k+ in Sydney, breeding by a lot of young Australians ain’t gonna happen.

Sure it could be done if you’ve got both parents working on $100k or so a year but as I said, we have self respect.

Anyway, don’t forget the Stable Population Party ya’ll.

fml says:

11:35am | 28/04/11

@vaunted.

“other categories of new settlers whose names we dare not mention.”

go on, say it, i dare you too, are you afraid? are you going to say its not PC, are you going to cry that you don’t have any freedom of speech? why not? might it be that what your saying is going to offend alot of people? are you a coward? whats the story?

@Erick,

Gene-pool? go on, elaborate. Are you going to call for a standard genetic test as a means for procreation? How would you maintain your ideal gene pool? what would it be based on? Wealth? Ideology? Religion? Race? How would you implement it? genetic engineering? selective breeding?

I bet you have already given your daughter a lists of acceptable names yeh?

Economist says:

11:57am | 28/04/11

Wow there’s certainly some fact missing from this debate. Firstly you now have the option of the BB or the Paid Parental leave, not both. So the BB is now really only applicable to people who don’t work i.e. welfare recipients and stay at home mums. I also believe its is only paid fortnightly now. Pulling the BB would cause up roar by the middle class where there is one sole income earner (say doctors wives), particularly if the paid parnetal scheme remained.

Also I believe Andrew Leigh while at the ANU did some work into this and found that the BB did not significantly increase the birth rate, that the increase simply coincided with Gen X breeding anyway and the fact that the economy was strong so people felt more comfortable to have children.

While open to abuse, the BB is not the key driver for the Bogan breeding program. That would be existing benefits such as Parent payments, Childcare benefit, rental assistance, public housing other allowance etc. By my estimates, it quite possible for a family/single parent with say 4 children to live reasonably comfortably. The following doesn’t cover off everything but give you a broad idea of th amounts of money involved.
$5300 - BB
$400-600 a f/n - parenting payment depending whether single or partnered
$6000 per child a year family tax benefit A .
up to $400 a f/n -rental assistance
telephone allowance $100 annually
Childcare benefit/rebate around $60 day.
healthcare card subsidies assume average expenditure savings of up to $1000 a year.

So a single mum with 4 kids could be earning the equivalent before tax of around $55000. They could also do some work before rates are affected, though I’m not sure of cut off amounts. Now here’s the kicker. If they were to place all 4 kids into childcare, which is possible if they do 15 hours of study or work a week, and they’ve had one child a year for the first 5 years, they’d receive around another $50-$60000 in subsidies (Note all figures above are just broad estimates and vary depending on age of children, location etc). So yes there is no incentive to work when you face such a high marginal effective tax rate. Reform of both tax and welfare is essential.

JAL says:

11:59am | 28/04/11

Empathize with your concerns Erick. But actually there are several disjointed agendas going on here. The government wants immigrants to prop up housing prices because if they don’t keep the ponzi scheme of importing more people who’ll needing more houses, then prices will drop and the gov. will be voted out. Second, businesses want more people to offer a greater market size for them to extract profits. Finally, regards “our people”, you will find that immigrant groups, particularly new religious ones, are following in the old Catholic strategy of populate and colonize. Muslims have worked this successfully in Holland, and by achieving 4-6 kids per family here, with financial rewards, they can triple their “market share” within one generation, even without further immigration. This is probably what the Anglican commission are fearing most but not telling us directly (for obvious reasons).

Anyway, as a genuine solution to anything, it is a messy thing to judge. I remember sustainable population being an issue in schools in the 70’s. Apparently we have let our own mixed agendas work against any sense of responsibility towards the future of our children.

JAL says:

12:04pm | 28/04/11

Hehe…yes I agree. The smart and educated don’t reproduce in numbers, while rednecks, both local and immigrant ones. tend to do so. Perhaps this is where Christians can rethink their concept of “the meek shall inherent the earth”. Its not quite happening as they invisaged, now is it?

P. Darvio says:

12:41pm | 28/04/11

Quote: Now that we have an Atheist prime minister and her Watermelon partner (the political arm of Atheists) - The Greens in power, Hamas friendly policies (MarriQville, generous intake of refugees) , gay marriage, population culling etc is in demand. How about we change “Baby Bonus” to “Gay Bonus”, we will attain the same result the Christ less Anglican Church wants? Seems to me Father Bob Brown is in charge of Churches like the Anglicans and the Dividing Church, I mean Uniting.

You forgot to mention that Atheist Julia was in that “Atheist” State of China and she is living in SIN and she is going to the wedding of that Christian couple in London who have lived in SIN for years – with their Mothers approval…oh dear…. the hypocracy.

Population Culling? – that Vatican Approved Christian Hitler was pretty good at that,  – even that Christian Historian Alan Bullock finally had to agree that Hitler’s population culling was in line with his Christian Faith.

Hamas friendly policies? – didn’t the last so called “Christian” Government in Australia recognises Hamas’s Humanitarian Division as just that -  a Humanitarian organisation? – how disgusting of these “Christians” to separate the Military Wing and the Humanitarian Wing of Hamas – they are all Terrorists no matter what they are doing.

BIBLE LAW and Jesus (who also approved BIBLE LAW) said gays should all be killed – so how can there be a “Gay Bonus”?

jb says:

01:07pm | 28/04/11

@mle: We absolutely do rely on our children as we age. Who do you think supports the social security and health systems (and everything else we rely on for that matter)? Working age people. i.e. our children.

Paulb says:

03:09pm | 28/04/11

“Using a surrogate in a gay relationship just shows how selfish the gay community can be, they want everything their way and in this case the baby bonus too.”
Yeah that’s it Phil.  We’re in all complete lockstep on this and we all think as one just so we can upset good hetero christians like you.  We (apparently) have an agenda you know and are all working furiously to corrupt your sweet Jesus world with our swishy gayousity.

Colin den Ronden says:

06:57pm | 28/04/11

If your IQ is below average don’t breed, you are polluting the gene pool. The higher IQ you have the more kids you should have. Why leave it to all the muslim immigrants who do not integrate well?

Observer says:

10:07pm | 28/04/11

Colin den Ronden says “...If your IQ is below average don’t breed, you are polluting the gene pool.”

You should heed your own advice Colin.

acotrel says:

10:08am | 29/04/11

@ Erick
‘Who are “OUR people”? What’s wrong if they want to increase?

The Western nations are indulging in what seems to be a form of self-genocide - refusing to breed, punishing their own original peoples, and encouraging outsiders to take what they themselves have created. It’s weird.’

What you are saying bring’s back memories of the Eugenics Society which fell silent after the trials at Nuremberg!

con T says:

02:38pm | 29/04/11

Inbreeding is also bad for the gene pool Erick.

Phil says:

08:08am | 28/04/11

“And even more specifically, *Heterosexual* parents”

Well how else would babies be born? Two Men cant conceive a child now can they?
Nice attempt to derail the conversation in to one about gay rights, im not buying it.

Richard says:

08:23am | 28/04/11

You got it Lennier.

What’s more, scrap all welfare: the whole lot.

You know, an interesting graph come out the other day which showed that China’s economy is on track to overtake the USA’s as the largest economy in the world by 2016: that’s just 5 years away. Now why is this?

Unsophisticated thinkers would have seen that and said “ah, it must mean that communism is better than capitalism”. They couldn’t be more perfectly wrong. The modern Chinese economy is actually more capitalist than the American one!

Present-day America is a centrally-planned welfare state. China is a vigourous capitalist country. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment benefits etc. China doesn’t have any of these. It is far easier for a Chinese citizen to open a business in China than it is for an American to open a business in America, the difference in all the compliance and regulations and red tape is astounding. Present day China is more like the America of 100 years ago. Its not perfect, but its on the right track.

True: the Chinese do not have democracy; but then again, if democracy is just a vehicle for lazy people to pass themselves a pay rise every 4 years at the expense of the productive portion of the population, is it really that desirable?

As a society we’ve got to get back to principles of basic fairness: a good day’s pay for a hard days work. No more handouts, grants, subsidies, pensions, doles, bonuses AT ALL. It would truly astound you how vigourous such a policy would make our economy, how much wealthier everyone would be, even the people who have the most to lose, in the long-run, even they will be better off.

fml says:

09:57am | 28/04/11

@phil,

What happens if someone donates their eggs? sperms donated so why not eggs? so theoretically its possible.

Markus says:

10:49am | 28/04/11

Which guy’s womb is the donated egg going to gestate in, fml?

fml says:

11:41am | 28/04/11

Markus, have you not seen the movie twins?

I guess its the one with the longest hair, i do not see why a donated sperm and a surrogate mother is not an acceptable alternative, so yes, two men conceiving is not inconceivable.

John says:

11:46am | 28/04/11

Spot on Richard. Just think of how good our tax cuts would be if we werent paying billions to ppl to just sit around. This is the same in Singapore as in China. In Singapore you get taxed only once you earn over I think 80,000 your taxed and even then it is at q very low rate. Most ppl in Singapore live a good life at that.

Phil says:

12:08pm | 28/04/11

@fml,
Even in your version of it there is a woman involved. Thats the only way it can happen.
Using a surrogate in a gay relationship just shows how selfish the gay community can be, they want everything their way and in this case the baby bonus too.
You then have the problem of who gets the money? the surrogate or the couple? then we have to think is the surrogate only doing it for the quick (well 9 months) cash? Why should tax payers subsidize their greed (both the surrogate and gay couple) just because they are in a relationship where between the two of them only they have zero chance of creating a child.

fml says:

12:37pm | 28/04/11

@Phil,

“Using a surrogate in a gay relationship just shows how selfish the gay community can be, they want everything their way and in this case the baby bonus too. “

Only in your sick world are people who want a child selfish. Are heterosexual couples who cannot conceive and use a surrogate selfish as well? if not, then this is blatant discrimination.

there is a baby bonus available, if available it should be available to ALL Australians, as ALL Australians pay tax. I think you find that the majority of Gay couples that have a baby do so for the fact, that they want a loving family, you putting this down to greed is just plain ridiculous. Yes some fools abuse the system, but they will find out quickly enough, that a baby costs alot more than a couple thousand dollars. Why should everybody else suffer as a result. Not even a minority are motivated by greed as you suggest.

Kevin says:

12:43pm | 28/04/11

@Phil: “Nice attempt to derail the conversation in to one about gay rights, im not buying it. “
Congratulations Phil on derailing the conversation in to one about gay rights.  Obviously there’s something about gay men that really bothers you.

Matthew says:

01:34pm | 28/04/11

I’m with Richard, it means the hard working get rewarded and the lazy either die or learn to work harder.

Jason says:

01:35pm | 28/04/11

Come on now Phil.  You should know by now that gay people have an inalienable right to change the laws of both nature, and society to suit their own personal agendas.  The rest of us are just homophobes and despicable creatures to even question the morals or long term consequences of this kind of manipulation of the natural order.

Phil says:

01:59pm | 28/04/11

@fml,
Yes the world is sick, there are only selfish reasons for wanting children, its as simple as that.
There is something wrong when a gay couple think they are entitled to use a surrogate to have a child of their own because given their pairing they just cant biologically do it with each other.
I doubt they do it for the money as 5k is nothing but more for the fact its a great accessory (like those small dogs) and makes them just like everyone else (straight couples).
You cant have everything your own way and thats what they are doing, there is never thought about the child just what they want (selfish).
Same goes to straight couples who use IVF or surrogates as its again all about them and what they want, if you cant have children then that should be the end of it.
If thats because you are in a gay relationship or just unable to have kids that should be the end of it.
The world has a high enough population as it is and its not sustainable and its going to get to a point (or already has) where it is not sustainable and will end up with a much lower quality of life for everyone.

The BB should be removed and people with kids should be responsible for the costs or their decisions.
There is too little responsibility and accountability these days, everyone expects handouts for everything.

Randy says:

02:05pm | 28/04/11

Spot on Richard. We are doomed now that we’ve realised that every three years we can simply vote ourselves more largesse from the public purse. Remove all welfare and most regulation and public servants. The state needs strict constitutional limits. Its only role is to protect us from physical violence and protect property rights. Individuals do the rest better.

fml says:

02:45pm | 28/04/11

@Jason,

Its human nature, If from the beginning of time we didnt manipulate nature we wouldnt be where we are today.

There would be no advances in medicine, there would be no space exploration, we wouldnt have created paper to write down our thoughts.

Please tell me your not so oblivious to the fact that everything around you is a result from the manipulation of nature? are you? really? Or is it only homosexuality you have a problem with?

Maybe you want to go back to a time, where their were no advances in medicine, science, religion, morals, ethics, and we survived by banging rocks together and spearing fish. Sounds a bit silly to me.

@phil,

“Yes the world is sick, there are only selfish reasons for wanting children, its as simple as that.”

How many children do you have?

Phil says:

03:42pm | 28/04/11

@fml,

None, I dont intend on having any either.
Its a choice thing and I can see its the intelligent thing to do.

Also please don’t tell me you are seriously relating Advances in Medicine, Space exploration and science to homosexuality as manipulating nature.
Homosexuality is not an advancement of any sort and offers the human race nothing.

fml says:

04:24pm | 28/04/11

@Phil,

Allowing two loving people to experience the joy of having a child is the advancement.

Alle23 says:

11:03pm | 28/04/11

@fml:

“I think you find that the majority of Gay couples that have a baby do so for the fact, that they want a loving family, you putting this down to greed is just plain ridiculous.”

Spot on, fml - “THEY” want a loving family.  It never ceases to amaze me that the major stakeholder in this family, the “child”, never gets asked what they want, but then again they’re just a child so what would they know, right?  Everyone is always so quick to discount the opinion of the person whose rights are affected the most.

The D-Generation (donor-conceived children) are all grown up now and they have set up a website (http://tangledwebsorg.wordpress.com/) expressing their opinions on this issue - at last the “child” has a voice.  I believe these are the only opinions that matter in this debate. 

Fortunately in Australia, legislation has been passed recently to ban anonymous egg and sperm donations.  No longer will these children have to walk around feeling like half of them is missing.  What is the result of this?  Donation rates in Australia are desperately low as no one wants little Johnny or Jane to turn up on their doorstep when they turn 18, so people (be they single women, gay or straight couples) are turning to the US, India etc where donations remain anonymous, to get that family that “THEY” want, as you put it.

So fml, what do you say to that child who has been created from an anonymous egg or sperm and who because of privacy laws in those countries will never find their biological parent?  Too bad, so sad, be grateful you’re alive, be happy that you were really, really wanted?  These donor-conceived children have said that even though they were really loved and wanted, that it isn’t enough.  Who are you to judge and tell these children how they should feel?  If making the choice to use an anonymous donor and taking away a child’s fundamental right to ever knowing who their biological parent is, just because you really want a child and believe that your right to be a parent is more important than a child’s right to know who created them, is not selfish, then I really don’t know what the meaning of that word is anymore.

Educate yourself and read the stories on the website above and then tell me you still think that people should be able to have a family just because it’s medically and technologically possible now.  It appears that “ethics” is a word that has disappeared from the dictionary these days.

fml says:

09:33am | 29/04/11

Alle,

So now you want to ask the child who they like their parents to be before they are conceived? are you idiotic?

“It never ceases to amaze me that the major stakeholder in this family, the “child”, never gets asked what they want, but then again they’re just a child so what would they know, right?  Everyone is always so quick to discount the opinion of the person whose rights are affected the most.”

Yes thats right its because they are not bloody born yet!

If they want to know their biological parents thats fine. Im all for that, but whats the alternative?? stopping people from having kids?
What about the kids that are born to a heterosexual couple? what if that kid doesnt like their parents? should we ask them too and at what stage? embryo? sperm? i know lets ask the twinkle in the mothers eye.

“Educate yourself and read the stories on the website above and then tell me you still think that people should be able to have a family just because it’s medically and technologically possible now.  It appears that “ethics” is a word that has disappeared from the dictionary these days.”

Oh come on, your asking me to educate my self but your suggesting either to ask the child who their parents want to be before they are even conceived, or worse yet, banning people from having kids,
thats just fascism. Your talking about ethics then suggesting that people that cant have kids naturally shouldnt have kids, this is a sad day for the internet.

Alle23 says:

12:57am | 30/04/11

@fml:

“So now you want to ask the child who they like their parents to be before they are conceived? are you idiotic?”

Woo hoo!  I got you to call me “idiotic” in your first paragraph!  Remember fml, personal attacks of another’s view point usually indicates that the attacking person is either a) losing the argument or b) has no valid points to refute the view point.  Thus, judging by your response, I know I’m on the right track!

How stupid of me sorry, I thought that by mentioning the tangled webs website as supporting evidence and stating that these donor-conceived children are now adults and are lobbying against the way in which they were brought into this world to try to save others from the internal pain they suffer and will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives would kind of indicate to the reader that these children who didn’t have a voice before they were conceived are now adults and as adults, they now have a voice to share their pain and experiences from which we can all learn. 

You are asking for compassion for gays and lesbians to be allowed to be parents and have the family “they” want.  I’m asking for compassion for the children to be able to find the missing piece of their puzzle.  That’s fair isn’t it?  Honestly, if it wasn’t for these donor-conceived people expressing their pain and loss resulting from the decisions others made for them without their consent, I wouldn’t care less about the gay marriage debate (same applies to single women who use anonymous sperm donors to have children).  In fact, I fully support legalised civil unions for gay and lesbians to protect their human rights.  I don’t however support re-defining “marriage” for the following reasons:

1. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 23, it actually says men and women have the right to marry and to found a family. So it’s the “and to found a family” that comes explicitly with marriage.

2. Same-sex marriage gives same sex couples a right, but it simultaneously takes away the right of children to have a mother and a father, to know who their biological parents are and to be reared by them.  Children are the only ones who are not asked what they want to do in this situation. Secondly, children are the only ones who don’t give consent to this. Third, there’s a doctrine emerging in ethics called anticipated consent. Can we reasonably anticipate that what we’re doing would be consented to by the people most affected by it?

Why fml, does this tangled webs group exist internationally, if we could reasonably anticipate that what is being done would be consented to by the people most affected by it - the kids?

“What about the kids that are born to a heterosexual couple? what if that kid doesnt like their parents?” 

Who said anything about a kid liking or not liking their parent?  I’m talking about making a decision (by using an anonymous donor’s sperm/egg) that will forever sever a child’s ability to ever find their biological parent.  The facts are that most donors don’t want to be found later on down the track, that’s why they elect to be anonymous and why donation rates in Australia are now practically non-existent.  People are starting to realise that they are actually in effect, giving away their children.

“but whats the alternative?? stopping people from having kids?’

Come on fml, you can do better than that!  Stop them from having kids?  Well they can now create sperm from a woman’s stem cell and use that to fertilise another woman’s ovum. That child has no natural biological origins.  How do you feel about the ethics of that situation?  Instead of arguing, why don’t we work together to find a solution?  So there are gay and lesbians who want a family.  There are also a lot of children whose biological parents gave up their rights as parents and either abandoned or neglected them.  Here’s an idea, how about instead of creating more children who may grow up into unhappy adults, why don’t we push for reforms of the adoption and foster care processes to make it cheaper, easier and quicker for all people (be they gay or straight, single women etc) to provide much-needed loving homes for the unwanted and neglected children already on this earth.  What do you think?  There’s really no point to debating issues if we don’t learn from each others’ opinions and try to find a solution.
And I do apologise, I shouldn’t have asked you to educate yourself, I should have asked you to open your mind.  It’s funny how those who often think they are the most open-minded are generally nothing more than “sheeple” who vomit out the same politically correct speech without any independent free thought and thus are often the most close-minded.

I couldn’t agree more, this is a sad day for the internet!

fml says:

08:37am | 30/04/11

Alle,

no your not on the right track.

“You are asking for compassion for gays and lesbians to be allowed to be parents and have the family “they” want.  I’m asking for compassion for the children to be able to find the missing piece of their puzzle.  That’s fair isn’t it?  Honestly, if it wasn’t for these donor-conceived people expressing their pain and loss resulting from the decisions others made for them without their consent”

I ask how you gain their consent before their birth?

“If they want to know their biological parents thats fine. Im all for that” I said i supported that, but continue on your rant.

“. Same-sex marriage gives same sex couples a right, but it simultaneously takes away the right of children to have a mother and a father, to know who their biological parents are and to be reared by them.  Children are the only ones who are not asked what they want to do in this situation. Secondly, children are the only ones who don’t give consent to this”

No they are not, because as i said before, one they not conceived yet or two they are too young to be asked, therefore to suggest something which is not physically possible as a reason to take away someones freedom is yes idiotic. Children do not have a choice in who their parents are and parents are not selfish for wanting to have a child.

“Well they can now create sperm from a woman’s stem cell and use that to fertilise another woman’s ovum. That child has no natural biological origins.  How do you feel about the ethics of that situation?” Im all for it. viva la science.

“And I do apologise, I shouldn’t have asked you to educate yourself, I should have asked you to open your mind.  It’s funny how those who often think they are the most open-minded are generally nothing more than “sheeple” who vomit out the same politically correct speech without any independent free thought and thus are often the most close-minded.”

sheeple? im in the minority, your in the majority, you talk about independent and free thought, but you use it take away someone elses rights, and promote anti-gay marriage. You think a marriage should be between only a man and woman, and your calling me a sheep? My point of view doesnt take any freedoms from anyone, yours does.

You just go to church every sunday, cook your roast, and call everyone else a sheep and oooh sooo PC. Plus you still havent answered my question, when do you plan to ask the children who they want their parents to be?  Also those people complaining about the way they are being born must have a pretty sweet life if thats all they got to worry about, imagine that, i have two loving non-abusive parents and my health but im going to complain about the way i was born, i think i might sue my mum for not having me via ceasarian.

Now you ask for independent thought, how about this, for everyone child on the website you mentioned how many children do you think are happy with their parents? didnt think about that did you? just listen to the loud minority, oooh sooo PC, so lets prevent anybody who cant have children naturally from having children at all because we cant ask the children! (i still think thats laughable). i am uncertain if thats PC or fascism. Why would you make the majority suffer because of a vocal few (yep thats PC alright). So stop them from having babies because they are not in YOUR definition of marriage (Sheeple - check, fasicsm - check, free and independent educated thought, no definitely not)

“Can we reasonably anticipate that what we’re doing would be consented to by the people most affected by it?” once again when do you plan on asking the child?

Kika says:

03:02pm | 30/04/11

Correct. FHOG was a short term incentive - long term disaster. Both policies failed to encourage me (target - 28 year old married woman with no kids long term renting).

Alle23 says:

11:07pm | 30/04/11

@fml:

You’re (note the apostrophe - you’ve missed a few in your above comments! lol) very good at putting words into people’s mouths aren’t you?  Please quote me where I said people should be stopped or banned from having kids? 

I dare you to read this article: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/25/donor-conceived-and-out-of-the-closet.html

I accept your argument that there are probably many donor-conceived people who do not wish to track down their biological parent and are indeed very grateful for their lives and for the families they’ve been raised by.  Humour me though and just click on the above link, it raises this very point.  I’m genuinely interested to know your thoughts on it.  Does that make you feel special and not so “fml”?

I would hate to see any government put in place legislation stating who can and who can’t have children and in regard to this, I think Australia’s got the balance right.  Instead globally, what I think all governments should do is enact legislation like Australia’s which bans financial incentives and anonymity for donors.  Legislation should protect the rights of the donor-conceived children and not the privacy of the donors.  However, this will never happen because as we’ve seen in Australia, when there’s no financial reward or the promise of anonymity, people simply stop donating their eggs and sperm.  As the article above states, we are talking about a $3 billion fertility industry.  Who’s going to give that up?   

“You just go to church every sunday, cook your roast, and call everyone else a sheep and oooh sooo PC.” 

That’s an interesting assumption fml.  I don’t recall ever mentioning God, religion or church in any of my above comments.  Please quote me where I have.  You’ve lost all credibility now.  Stick to what’s in front of you.  Sorry, I know, it’s easier to argue with people when you’ve judged them and put them in a little box with a nice little label isn’t it?  I guess because I don’t agree with gay marriage I’m homophobic also, right?  That’s funny because I distinctly remember stating above that I fully support legalised civil unions for gay and lesbians to protect their human rights. 

I know this is off topic but I’m intrigued by your choice of username.  I’m also making an assumption here, because “fml” isn’t usually associated with a happy, positive and contented meaning.  Sincere apologies if I’m completely wrong and these are your initials! lol

And if I’m so idiotic, why do you keep arguing with me?  I keep responding because I won’t stop until I have the last word - so it looks like you and I are going to be coming back to this page for a while! lol

Alle23 says:

01:57am | 01/05/11

@fml:

And one more point for you to consider. In this article, a donor-conceived person states that she feels like a freak of nature.  Now, I’m neither gay or a lesbian but I assume that they too at some point in their life, through no fault of their own but due to other people’s prejudices, fears, ignorance, intolerance etc, would have also been made to feel like freaks of nature, right?  So in essence, we’ve got people who feel like freaks of nature creating more people who feel like freaks of nature - is this really the way forward?  Shouldn’t we as a society be striving to break the cycle?  How can a parent or potential parent possibly and knowingly sign up their child to suffer the same pain and anguish that they themself have experienced in relation to identity issues?  Shouldn’t parents be striving for better for their children?

fml says:

09:03am | 01/05/11

yes they are my initials and yes we will be here a while.

Attacking my spelling is just as ignorant as calling names, you know exactly what i am trying to say and you pick on an apostrophe, classy.

You say you support civil unions, but not marriage, yet your not a homophobe.

” That’s funny because I distinctly remember stating above that I fully support legalised civil unions for gay and lesbians to protect their human rights. “
You dont get full legal entitlements unless you are married in this country so your little loophole prevents a gay couple from having full equal rights, so yes its homophobic to say you cannot marry and full legal rights like me because you are not the conventional marriage.

“That’s an interesting assumption fml.  I don’t recall ever mentioning God, religion or church in any of my above comments.” No you havent but the majority of people who use your argument are churchies and homophobes.

Now for my question you keep failing to answer.
“Please quote me where I said people should be stopped or banned from having kids? ”
Yes you didnt, you have stated you want the kids to be given a choice.
How do you propose this happens? what happens if you cant ask the kid? you obviously want to prevent suffering right? so how do you protect their right to have a mother and a father ?.

If your saying that you fully support equal rights in gay marriage, and your allowing two gay people to have a child, via surrogacy or donation, then we are saying the same thing, you cant have full equal rights unless you allow donation, so do you support gay couples having full rights?. Also, if you are saying that the response is purely reactionary and that you just want to support the children after the birth, then there is no point arguing as i am with you all the way.

“You are asking for compassion for gays and lesbians to be allowed to be parents and have the family “they” want.  I’m asking for compassion for the children to be able to find the missing piece of their puzzle.  That’s fair isn’t it?  Honestly, if it wasn’t for these donor-conceived people expressing their pain and loss resulting from the decisions others made for them without their consent,”

YES!, but how do you ask their consent! how i ask you how!

Alle23 says:

04:37pm | 01/05/11

@fml:

Don’t you just hate when you type a big response and then your computer crashes? lol Ok here is the short version because I’m too lazy to retype everything again:

The answer to your question I believe is this - you’re right you can’t ask for these children’s consent prior to them being conceived, that part is obvious.  What we can do however, is to listen to the stories and experiences of these donor-conceived children (now adults) brave enough to come forward and to not dismiss their feelings.  They have as much right as anyone else to feel the way they feel and to be heard so we should learn from their stories so that we can educate and guide people to make better informed decisions when choosing which path to go down should they wish to have children.

This is why I believe that everyone should have the right to adopt - to give children already on this earth a much needed loving, caring and stable home.  I have no doubt that a gay and lesbian couple could provide this for a child just as any heterosexual couple could.  This is why I argue that if adoption and foster care was made easier and quicker, many people would follow this path instead.

I believe a person can love a child who is not biologically theirs just as much as one that is and in the case of couples who used donated eggs and sperm, that child will never be completely biologically theirs anyway, will they?  Let’s break the cycle of pain and suffering and all move forward together.  That article mentions the hypocrisy of people wanting a biological child but by using an anonymous donor they are denying their child’s right to their biological link.

You are very wrong about one thing - I’m not homophobic.  The only people I’m prejudiced against are selfish people and they can be any race, colour, age, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Does that answer your question?

Alle23 says:

08:33am | 03/05/11

@fml:

Hello? Hello? Is anybody there?  You’re not going to let me have the last word are you?  Well, Socrates was right about one thing - people always seem to think you are judging them, when all you are doing is seeking the truth.  Sometimes it takes more courage to say no, than to say yes.  Baa, baa!

marley says:

07:57am | 28/04/11

What on earth does cancelling the baby bonus have to do with eugenics, never mind euthanasia?  I’d say the baby bonus itself has a whiff of eugenics about it - breed more of “us” so we don’t have to take more of “them” as migrants.

Zac says:

10:03am | 28/04/11

marley,

I’d say the baby bonus itself has a whiff of eugenics about it - breed more of “us” so we don’t have to take more of “them” as migrants.>>

Why is Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India, China etc breeding more of “us” and not taking more of “them” - migrants?

Why should Caucasians breed out of existence to accomodate more of the Hilaly’s? How would that make our society better or progressive?

Why discriminate against Caucasians to attain some utopian ideal?

Aren’t the ideologists trying to promote “eugenics” by trying to scrap “Baby Bonus” and instead putting in place “Refugee Bonus”?

Lucy says:

10:37am | 28/04/11

Zac, I dont know of anyone over the age of 18 who has had a kid simply because of the bonus. The bonus doesnt really encourage anyone to breed because the vast majority have the brains to know a baby will cost you far more than the bonus will give you.

Btw, Eugenics is selected breeding. If we had anything slightly Eugenics based then new Australians would not qualify and we would probably cut out the “dole bludgers” and the disabled as well. eugenics is about breeding a stronger population, not just breeding in general.

marley says:

11:27am | 28/04/11

@Zac - well, actually, Japan and China aren’t out-breeding us - their birthrates are lower than ours, Japan’s substantially so.  India’s birth rate is dropping, and so are the birthrates of many of the Muslim states (including Lebanon.)  In fact most of those Muslim states have birth rates only slightly over 2 kids per woman right now, and still dropping.  So, I don’t really see your point.

michael j says:

11:38am | 28/04/11

@Lucy- thats exactly the program the pom,s run for nearly 70 years forced sterilisation of people thought to be a burden to the state,,finished in the early 70’s i think? Winston Churchill was a great supporter ,,I think Hitler
may have got a few ideas off him,,,,,,,,,,,,

Me of There says:

12:31pm | 28/04/11

“Japan’s substantially so.  India’s birth rate is dropping, and so are the birthrates of many of the Muslim states (including Lebanon.)”

FYI, Lebanon is not a muslim state. It has always been and still is up until this moment, a Christian one.

Zac, so what if we want to breed more of ‘us’? ‘Us’ includes all Australian citizens - You know, people that speak English and believe in Australian ideals; as opposed to increasing population through immigrants who come here, expecting Australia to cater to their beliefs and thoughts.

Matthew says:

01:39pm | 28/04/11

Me of there, being an Australian citizen doesn’t mean that you speak english or have Australian ideals.  I have a friend from Hong Kong and his mother does not speak much english even though she has lived in Australia for over 20 years.

marley says:

03:38pm | 28/04/11

@Meofthere - 60% of the population of Lebanon is Muslim, so I’d say it fits within the Muslim world more than the Christian one.

Proudly Nullagravida says:

10:04pm | 28/04/11

Zac, you will find that the “Hilalys [sic]”, which I assume is your perverse euphamism for the peoples of the Arab pennisula ARE Caucasian. Despite what bogans and the occasional clueless hack may say, the “Caucasian” descriptor is not just the pale, freckled, blue-hazel eyed peoples from western and northern Europe such as the Anglos, the Saxons, the Celts, the Gallics and so on. The “Caucasian” is a quaint and rather aribitary label for the persons whose ancenstry extends beyond north and western Europe to as far south as the northern parts of Africa, the sub-continent and—get this—even beyond the CAUCASUS Mountains from which the appellatiomn derives its name.

Observer says:

10:05pm | 28/04/11

“... being an Australian citizen doesn’t mean that you speak english [sic] or have Australian ideals.”

One needs to look only at the dreadful grammar, punctuation and spelling from the bigots decrying the decline of White Australia in this discussion to see that.

acotrel says:

09:54am | 29/04/11

@Observer
‘One needs to look only at the dreadful grammar, punctuation and spelling from the bigots decrying the decline of White Australia in this discussion to see that. ‘

I dunno dere’s nuffink rong wiv me!

Ha ha ha ha says:

12:06pm | 28/04/11

Ha ha ha your niece is an idiot for shacking up so early. Ha ha ha ha I bet you he’s paying family support and reducing the burden on you and your family. Ha ha ha ha, there’s nothing funny about this situation

Col the Pariah says:

01:13pm | 28/04/11

I can’t help but agree we are far too welfare dependant in this country, if the money isn’t being doled out by the poiticians, it is being used to fund government that is far too large for the poulation.  Asian countries have a better understanding of production and responsibilities, it generally means a tighter family unit as they are truly the ones you depend upon to get you through your education, help you prosper so that later you can “repay” to your parents the sacrifices they made by looking after them.  In Australia this is seen as the government’s job and too much money is wasted because of it.  We spend 35% GDP on welfare, Malaysia is around 10% and they are by no means a third world country…It is astonishing, and the greens want to hand out more…sheesh…

S.L says:

01:21pm | 28/04/11

Yes I know Ha ha ha ha that’s why I wrote it. It’s too easy for young ones to get welfare and then Mr Costello gives them a bonus! I bet there are many families in the same situation directly because of it!

meh says:

09:02am | 28/04/11

If you scrap the BB you are essentially saying only people employed previous to having the baby deserve taxpayer assistance. Paid Parental Leave is for the employed while BB is the safety net for the rest.

It is illogical to say the ones who probably need more help should be the ones deprived of it.

Shifter says:

12:06pm | 28/04/11

@meh - if you can’t afford to have a baby…

DanWeLL says:

02:29pm | 28/04/11

@meh very true, very very true.

Problem tho, is the people who cant afford it and leech of welfare for every cent they can get their grubby little inbred hands on, saturate the economy and make it increasingly hard for people who were able to afford it to no longer do so comfortably!!

Just the other day, I was talking to someone whos friend was pregnant with ‘x’ kid, that during conversation actually patted and rubber her belly saying something to the tune of ‘heres my payrise for the year’ with a wink and smile.

Until you crack down on the leechs the problem will only worsen

Seriously says:

03:08pm | 28/04/11

Totally agree with Shifter, if you can’t afford children, don’t have them. I got a whopping $700 baby bonus back in the day when I had my son and laughed myself silly at a government that was paying me to have a baby. I would rather have had paid maternity leave, as because I was a single parent I needed to work (yes, it is possible for a single parent to actually prefer to earn an income over getting Centrelink benefits).

DanWeLL says:

03:14pm | 28/04/11

apoligies, was looking at wrong post when typing!!

@meh - the one who need it the most are being deprived of it because of the people who dont need it that do use and abuse it

@shifter - very true, if you cant afford it, dont!!

some people make really good candidates for mandatory sterilization!!

Em says:

09:12am | 29/04/11

My sister found herself unexpectantly pregnant at 20. She was unwed (not a hassle these days) and unemployed.  There wasn’t much time to assess whether she could “afford” to have a child, Shifter.  She’s paid for her “accident” by being the best mother she can be to a son who is now five years old and one smart and adorable little kid who is thriving under the guidance of his family.  The baby bonus helped a great deal since the father shot through as soon as he could and CSA decided that he only had to contribute $5 a month to the upkeep of his son - that doesn’t even buy a can of formula.  The BB payment was put into a savings account and used for costs directly relating to her son. It is not otherwise touched. No new cars, no plasma TVs, no iphones.

There are people who actually NEED that money for the purpose for which it was intended.

I find it abhorrent that there are people who would have rather seen my sister terminate her pregnancy (or become a candidate for mandatory sterilisation - WTF?!) than see what is ultimately an insignificant amount of their tax dollars go to someone who might need it.  She would have had the baby without the bonus anyway and made do but having that extra cash behind her was security that was valued and appreciated more than it’s worth.

ME says:

08:24pm | 29/04/11

@EM Maybe your sister should have done what I did. I used contraceptions until I was in steady work. I also spent 6 years getting to know the man I did have children with so I knew he would not run away the second I was pregnant. Yes I was older than 20 when I had my first child but I don’t expect everyone else to work for 3 days a fortnight to fund my decisions. I don’t feel these three days are “insignificant”. I would rather spend those days with my own children instead of working so your sister can feel the same security that most people work and plan for.

Richard says:

05:08pm | 30/04/11

Possibly having to take an IQ and EQ test before being allowed to have a child, on pain of castration, would mean less dimwits passing their defective genes on?

AliceC says:

08:26am | 28/04/11

‘many ethnic groups’

Are you serious? Should the White Australia policy be brought back to the forefront?

Tubesteak says:

08:43am | 28/04/11

Since when is it only ethnic groups and the unemployed benefiting at the expense of the rest of us.

What about bogans in their McMansions having another Jaxxxyn and Mersaydeez and then whine about the rising cost of living while buying another 3D plasma and Falcodore with their cash handout.

The BB is one of the most useless forms of middle-class welfare ever invented and needs to be scrapped immediately.

fml says:

10:06am | 28/04/11

bit one sided there tough love.

Better build a bunker in the backyard the commies might come get ya.

Adam says:

08:09am | 28/04/11

EH, I tried, honestly, to grab the money offered for this bonus. Just couldn’t find a woman to get pregnant. Had to fund my own plasma tv

bleD says:

08:19am | 28/04/11

No it is not ridiculous to suggest that the baby bonus causes breeding. I know one such case, in spades! As Tough Love says, the bonus should be stopped after the first child and then we might have some chance of stemming the population growth.

BL says:

08:54am | 28/04/11

That’s the whole point, the bonus is open to misuse and some people are narrow thinkers enough to see it in those terms. We have increasing numbers of unprepared parents producing uncared for children (a 400% increase in chold abuse in the last decade for example, increased infacide rates in toddlers, schools serving breakfast because kids dont get fed properly if at all) and yet we have an institutionalised policy that gives cash reward for having kids without long term forethought. We need LESS people having children for the wrong reasons and MORE thought towards ensuring the children that are around recieve better care. You seriously think cases like Kesha Abrahams aren’t a result of applied thinking and a well prepared, thought out situation?

Sandra Blackmore says:

09:02am | 28/04/11

Then don’t take up gambling!

JohnB says:

09:27am | 28/04/11

Are you serious? I’ve read the numbers, can’t remember exactly but the impact was significant (however nothing compared to immigration).

Try and find a book on human nature and read it!

Try Ebaying this…....“What Makes Us Tick?”

Also, get this book, and recognise the corruption, vested interest driving population at everyone else’s expence and trouble we’re in if we do nothing..“Overloading Australia”...An excellent read.

Exactly how does population improve our lives? It doesn’t.

fml says:

10:08am | 28/04/11

@JohnB

How old are you? whose going to pay the taxes when you retire?
An ageing population and burden on the tax system with no increase in population and this country is going to go broke.
Yes you paid your taxes, but not for yourself, but to support the generation before you retiring.

JohnB says:

10:28am | 28/04/11

So @fml when does stop? Do we just continue to increase population to fund an unsustainable life style. Over population is eroding our life style. If you step back and think about it you’ll recognise it is unsustainable. You cannot have a an argument that holds up being pro population. It simply doesn’t make sense. It is short term thinking, all revolving around we want more stuff and someone needs to pay for it.

To answer your q, I’m 46, have a degree in science and can categorically tell you from a well educated, unbiased with zero vested interest (other than wanting secure food for my kids’ kids) we are in real big trouble if we let the government take this lazy way to the future. I encourage you to explore how over populated countries are going, and recognise we here are presently well over populated.

Tim Flannery, the man the PM keeps quoting re carbon tax, says our sustainable population is about half what it now is. You won’t get the PM quoting that.

Like I’ve written elsewhere @fml don’t concern yourself with who’ll pay the taxes. What about, where will the food come from, what about water, what about anarchy and people killing for food, what will you need taxes for?

Lucy says:

11:00am | 28/04/11

@JohnB, you say you are an educated man. Yes the current situation is unsustainable but not because of population growth but because of lack of it. The median age in Australia is current 36.9 (June 2010) so 50% of the population is older than 36. Its even worse if you live in SA or Tas where the median age is just a few months shy of 40. (Feel like your surrounded by oldies, you probably are)

Its even scarier when you look at the basic demographics broken down by age. The only age groups that have more people in them now than there were in 1990 are those over the age of 45. We now have14% of our total population past age 65 and this number is set to get bigger.

This is the reason behind the encouraging people to breed. We have a growing number of people who are dependent, either fully or partially, on the public purse and a shrinking number of people who can pay for them. We currently arent even keeping up with the replacement rate, even with the help of all the new Australians others here are complaining about.

Unless we breed I can see a future where everyone currently under 50 wont be able to retire till at least 70 but you better be self funded as there will be no old age pension but you will still be getting taxed extremely heavily because you will still be paying for millions of people older than you who did qualify for the pension.

On the bright side, when the boomers start to die off in great numbers our population will naturally start shrinking which will take the pressure off teh environment, although not off the wallets of those left.

Markus says:

11:18am | 28/04/11

Lucy that is the exact reason why I support an increase in the government’s pension age.
65 was established back when the average life expectancy was well below what it is now.
If people can self-fund their retirement before that age, great.
But with more people living to 100 years old now than ever before, we just cannot afford to provide pensions to people for nearly 1/3 of their life.

fml says:

11:51am | 28/04/11

@JohnB

Food? We can import cheap products from asia that we cannot supply here, its done in the UK, that way as tax payers we wont have to subsidise inferior products that our farmers make. As to water we need more desalination plants, or a recycled water plants, but this requires, yep you guessed it taxes, which, goes back to my point, we need a higher population so that the taxes can not only build new infrastructure but maintain old infrastructure.

“Like I’ve written elsewhere @fml don’t concern yourself with who’ll pay the taxes. What about, where will the food come from, what about water, what about anarchy and people killing for food, what will you need taxes for?”

righto, im not concerned with antediluvian rhetoric, you say i shouldnt concern my self with taxes aye? you have just written off the only solution to the problem. As i said food will come from asia where its cheap and plentiful, taxes pay for the infrastructure to keep this country running, Yes this country has a responsibility to take care of the ageing, the work they have put into this country isnt being questioned, and yes we should take care of our childrens future, We need to invest in infrastructure, and this can not be done with out taxes.

Shane From Melbourne says:

01:08pm | 28/04/11

@fml- The obvious fallacy in your reasoning is that more people equals more taxpayers when it can just mean more welfare recipients. In fact, given the trend towards automation and Australia’s specialization in less labour intensive industries, they are more likely to be welfare recipients.

fml says:

01:30pm | 28/04/11

@Shane,

Thats a fairly simplistic point of view. More population means more welfare recipients.

Actually i would like to think that the number of welfare recipients is dependent on the unemployment rate, and, the unemployment rate is dependent on the state of the economy and that the entire system is cyclical.

We have low unemployment now with the largest population Australia has ever had. There was greater rates of unemployment at lower population levels at previous points in our history. Plus there are incentives the government has implemented that can reduce the number of unemployed, work for the dole, investing in creating jobs etc, but these measures are funded with taxes.

So, No, Larger population does not automatically mean more welfare recipients.

JAL says:

01:30pm | 28/04/11

FML - Your logic is twisted. Increasing the population in an attempt to gain more taxes to pay for enough new desalination plants to cover the already deficient water supply? More people will require even more water, when we don’t have enough as it is (...Doh!). Your strategy is ponzi scheme and doomed to failure.

JohnB says:

02:21pm | 28/04/11

I agree with everything you say @Lucy. All I’m saying is the problem of over population way out trumps any other problem you can throw at me.

@fml…Are you winding me up? “We can import cheap products from asia” Can we now?  Aren’t they very astutely snapping up farm land around the world from any country stupid enough to sell it to them such as Australia? Do you recognise their populations are out of control too?

“you have just written off the only solution to the problem.” How about us living a little more simply, before it’s enforced upon us by nature. There is no problem bigger than over population, time will prove this in the most harsh of ways, you’ll wonder what the hell you were thinking.

fml says:

02:37pm | 28/04/11

Ok then Jal,

“Your logic is twisted. Increasing the population in an attempt to gain more taxes to pay for enough new desalination plants to cover the already deficient water supply?”

No its not twisted, you just have it mixed up, the new desalination plants are a response to the deficient water supply, population growth is not the response to deficient water supply. If we have a deficient water supply and in the future i do admit we might, how do you suppose we overcome this obstacle with out creating new water facilities? rain dance?  are we going to be fighting over resources in a mad-mad style apocalyptic future? maybe. But with a decreased population and decreased taxes where is this money going to come from?

The only other way i can feasibly see it will happen is that we ban all gardens, especially houses with massive gardens, golf courses, no water for animals, Water should be for drinking, and human survival only. But i still think it would be easier to create a desalination plant.

DanWeLL says:

02:41pm | 28/04/11

How is it that 35% GDP is spent on Welfare when the unemployment rate nationally is only around 6%.

Does this mean that if the unemployment reaches 12% then 70% of the GDP will be welfare!! No wonder they float past seven safe countries and risk the high seas on little rusty bathtubs to come here!!

All aboard ppl. Were off to the land of free money!!

Jon London says:

10:33pm | 28/04/11

EH there are a hell of a lot of stupid people out there that shouldn’t even be allowed to breed. Im sure that many of those would be stupid enough to have a kid for 5K…...

ant says:

09:43am | 28/04/11

Well said. An injection of common sense and a pretty accurate commentary on current ways of thinking. Someone has to pay for their choices… I don’t have any children, but I’d like a Ferrari. I’m single so I can’t afford one but surely I have a RIGHT to what I want?  All you tax payers should give me your money because I want it.

That’s what it boils down to.

Kate says:

12:51pm | 28/04/11

Good points.
I think women and men can both contribute to supporting the family in the way that ‘blokes’ used to - but I agree, it’s not the role of the Government.

DanWeLL says:

02:46pm | 28/04/11

Well done GOM. What a breath of realistic fresh air at last.

Proudly Nullagravida says:

10:13pm | 28/04/11

Well said, GOM. ! These days, prospective parents think they can maintain the bachelor (both male and female) lifestyle after marriage; that is, regular piss-ups, hot cars, holidays, have friends over for drinks, go the movies, buy expensive clothes, have kids etc. all on a pre-marriage salary. There is no re-thinking of savings patterns nor lifestyle changes in the minds of these featherbrains that tell them parenting is a vocation and needs huge sacrifices of personal time and disposable income. You just cannot do this unless you are born rich.

The modern child-makers—bogans and yuppies alike—want the DINK lifestyle and have kids and someone, anyone but them, must pick up the tab.

Buffy says:

12:38pm | 30/04/11

Ah yes, the classic “pay for your own kids” argument… always cited by those with NO FRIGGEN IDEA what it costs to actually raise a child.

Yes I took the baby bonus, but it ran out after a few weeks, at which point I was already back at work paying for my own child, and will be doing the same thing next time around. That baby bonus is the only bit of money I have ever gotten from the government, despite paying taxes since the age of 16. Compared to what I contribute to the economy, I took a very small amount. And I’m not living any so-called “dink lifestyle” and expecting others to pay for it… I budget my money, and go out when I can afford to. Like all normal people.

Every parent I know lives the exact same way.

There is no question that a welfare culture exists in the country, and more could be done to change it. But stop letting this minority cloud your judgement of all parents. Most of us are just getting by under our own steam.

fml says:

10:12am | 28/04/11

Houses and cost of living didnt cost as much as it does now, you buy a number of investment properties, charge a fortune for rent and your kids that are finding it difficult to get a start in life.

are you a baby boomer? because you sure act and think like one. I did it so tough waaah, waaah waahh you would be no different to gen y if you in the same generation.

sir ronald bradnam says:

12:09pm | 28/04/11

no younger than a boomer. its about time a lot more people started understanding that the way for a country to create wealth for as many people as possible is for governments to take as little money in tax from the individuals in the society and to stop redistributing wealth based on the amount of people that approve of a policy and will vote them back in.
As for didnt cost as much that is debatable, affordability was still tough and we had nothing left at the end of the week much like today, but we also didnt stand there with our hand out wanting everybody else to pay for me as it was my entitlement.
There is only one whier here mate and it aint me.

fml says:

12:43pm | 28/04/11

If the government reduces the intake of taxes, who is going to pay for upkeep of infrastructure? Private enterprise? Yep because telstra is doing a great job installing internet in the regional areas.

Ironically the only way to reduce the taxes for each individual, is by a growing population. Where is this money going to come from when we lower the population and lower taxes?

I think you’ve got it the wrong way round mate, YOU, will be a little richer if the government takes less tax, the country will be alot poorer.

sir ronald bradnam says:

01:30pm | 28/04/11

fml….spoken like a true commie. Another way to reduce taxes is to stop taking and spending money on unnecessary shit, like, baby bonuses, paying people to sit on their arses, stimulus packages, government waste, public servants, government advertising, so there is more than ONE way and that is just for starters. The money then left in the economy would be used to purchase goods and services anyway so is not going to disappear, it is a far more effecient way of allocating funds as the people prepared to work recieve the maximum benefit..
Before you start i dont advocate the cutting of all government services and benefits there still needs to be a backstop.
If telstra was a true private company that didnt worry about government interference it would be far more effecient. If some one wants to live in the middle of bumsfckville and it costs 100k to put internet in and the return is $100 a month why would you, they choose to live out there pay for a satelite, all have sky TV so what is the difference they are happy to pay for that.
Im a firm believer in growing the population the more people using the infrastructure the cheaper it will be.
You have it the wrong way round comrade fml.

Richard says:

01:48pm | 28/04/11

Yep fml, you’re a deadshit. Government taxation destroys wealth. Government’s can’t create wealth, they can only take it by force and redistribute it wastefully. As long as wealth stays within the private sector, it is saved, invested, grown, put to good use, used to expand the economy, used to employ workers, give people jobs, produce products for the market, give people whatever there is demand for, give people what they want, create value.

As soon as it gets taxed by force by the greedy government, it goes to waste, it pays for lazy fat-cat bureaucrats to bludge, it gets wasted in inefficient schemes and projects, it gets pork-barreled out to people who didn’t earn it, it gets spent on bribes and corruption, it gets foolishly squandered.

What is infrastructure? Infrastructure is just the capacity to provide services that the people need. Well if they truly need it, then there is a market for it, there is demand for it. So the only question is, what is the best way to satisfy that demand? What is the most efficient and effective way to satisfy that demand? Time and time again, repeated throughout history like an echo, the answer rings out loud and clear: private enterprise, private enterprise, private enterprise. The free market. Laissez-faire, capitalism, the profit-motive.

When wealth is created, all of society benefits, all society is made wealthier. When wealth is wasted, all of society suffers, all of society is made poorer. You are wrong to equate “government” with “country”. Less taxation would mean the government is poorer, yes, but the country itself would be far, far richer.

fml says:

03:33pm | 28/04/11

righto, here we go with the name calling, commie, deadshit, comrade all valid arguments.

Who said anything about redistribution of wealth? its about creating infrastructure and jobs in areas where private enterprise is unwilling or unable.

“Before you start i dont advocate the cutting of all government services and benefits there still needs to be a backstop.”  Agreed i was just confused when you said “we also didnt stand there with our hand out wanting everybody else to pay for me as it was my entitlement.”. There are certain cases where people are entitled to it and thats why your right there needs to be a back stop, this cannot be done with out taxes, if collecting taxes is a communist ideology, then theoretically, monaco and the cayman islands are the bastion of free trade economics and trade and the rest a bunch of communist numptys.

Im not a communist by any means, but i do believe the government has a duty to take care due to its inhabitants, Now this may sound rather socialist, but i am just saying it in a sarcastic tone, when your wonderful free market fell during the GFC, who was it that paid to bail the country out? Yup, the tax payer. Im all for private enterprise, there needs to be a balance to counter act when free enterprise fails.

“If telstra was a true private company that didnt worry about government interference it would be far more effecient.“Efficient maybe so, but thats it. Government intervention is the only thing preventing telstra from gaining a monopoly on the telecommunications industry, yes, telstra are a benevolent company, they will definitely install infrastructure that is need by the country as opposed as what is best for their profit margin.

“Im a firm believer in growing the population the more people using the infrastructure the cheaper it will be.” Actually so am i.

@Richard,
“When wealth is created, all of society benefits, all society is made wealthier. ” No gap between rich and poor grows. Private enterprise will ditch jobs in a heart beat to save their bottom line.

I have no idea where getting the idea that i am saying redistribute the wealth, I do believe the government has to spend money on essential infrastructure though. Maybe you already had an idea in your mind and your trying to mould me into fitting into that ideology.

“Less taxation would mean the government is poorer, yes, but the country itself would be far, far richer.” No i still dont agree, Private enterprise will only ever bend over to pick up a dollar. the government picks up the slack and installs infrastructure necessary for the country to function where private enterprise will not.

“What is infrastructure? Infrastructure is just the capacity to provide services that the people need. Well if they truly need it, then there is a market for it, there is demand for it.” If this is true, where are the private companies lining up to supply water to australia? No they will wait till they get a government to pay for it.

So really what both you are saying is that unless you believe in anything other than free trade your a dog gone commie pig, im advocating free enterprise and a government intervention in areas private enterprise is lacking. I always thought communism was completely stated owned and controlled business.

Damn commie pigs dont even know their own dog gone ideology! darnit!

sir ronald bradnam says:

11:35am | 29/04/11

fml I agree with Richard….your a deadshit, sorry I meant a commie deadshit.

Freeman says:

10:34am | 28/04/11

Nossy,

some someone earning 500K is probably not middle class and pays a whole lot more than the BB in tax every year, and isn’t the BB means tested anyway? I also think the baby bonus should be scrapped but I
don’t agree with your attack onwhat you call ‘middle class welfare’. so, you think that all payouts should go to housing comission types who’s children so often follow in the parents footsteps and become professional welfare sponges themselves?

The baby bonus as a concept was ok. it was to encourage working families, who may be reluctant to have a child because of the finacial pressure, to have a kid. the problem is that the professional welfare parasites treat the money like they won it and breed and breed and have many kids who will end up in the same welfare cycle.

Rover of North Cooma says:

02:42pm | 28/04/11

Nossy, if she’s earning $500,000 a year, she can probably bust your chops for calling her “girlie”.

Kika says:

03:28pm | 30/04/11

Actually Nossy, a ‘girlie’ who earns $500K a year isn’t eligible for the baby bonus. If you earn over $100K the government thinks you don’t need $5K

Troy Flynn says:

09:55am | 28/04/11

i agree with you JohnB, but do you really believe that even if the majority of people want these changes, that the vested interests in Gov’t & the Business sector will actually implement a policy which lowers their voter / consumer base? Doubtful

JohnB says:

10:36am | 28/04/11

No I don’t @Troy Flynn. “may even trump the bribes given governments by big business. “

However, If people like you and I spread the word and make it a political issue there is a chance we’d end up with like minded politicians that would reduce population increase.

I want my kids to tell their (unborn) kids, grandad tried to warn everyone.

Mr Real says:

11:06am | 28/04/11

Why are so many of the anti-population, anti-people campaigners grandfathers?

JohnB says:

02:23pm | 28/04/11

@Mr Real, I’m not a grandfather, but hope I’ll be perhaps in ten years. Ever heard of wise old men?

Balance says:

01:06pm | 30/04/11

Umm. 90000000 are born. OK. What is the average infant mortality rate? How many people die a year? In other words, what is the net percentage increase? Both worldwide and Australian figures, please. Are we leading or trailing the global population trend? Or in other, more corporate, words are we a likely take-over target?

AFR says:

09:11am | 28/04/11

I’m with you on that one. I was talking with my pensioner parents on the weekend, and the freebies they get just for being old are astounding. $2.50 train travel, $5 prescriptions, free car rego, free licence, free coffee at maccas, discounts on council rates, electricity, footy tickets. Freeloaders

Adam says:

09:11am | 28/04/11

Logans Run.

I figured it was just cinema, not a manifesto. I’ll sign up iansand where’s the membership forms

Seanr says:

09:28am | 28/04/11

I’ll start doing up a list of old fogies I know and get back to you Ian. Should we split this up by state to make it easier?

Tim says:

10:15am | 28/04/11

Soylent Green?

bleD says:

07:14pm | 28/04/11

Totally agree, but present politicians are spineless and won’t address the issue. The only solution is to elect members to parliament who regard the population problem as THE primary challenge to humanity on this planet.

Lee says:

09:39am | 28/04/11

yeah thats not cool, but I would think that this would be in a small % and says a lot more about her moral character than anything else.

fairsfair says:

10:12am | 28/04/11

Oh I totally agree Lee, but I think we need to realise in offering this kind of “bonus” to people, there are some out there like this girl. I don’t know her all that well, but what is to stop her doing this again? Why are people allowed to get the bonus if they are pregnant to a certain point? If you have a late term miscarriage or a stillbirth, why do you get the bonus? I know that this is a harsh thing to put in writing, but you are not delivering what the govt wants you to - you have not produced a child and as tough as it would be to lose your baby - what would money do to help you?

Aussie Born and Bred says:

11:31am | 28/04/11

@  fairsfair - Oh, I don’t know, maybe it could help pay for the funeral of the child they’ll never get to cuddle and dote over, never get to take to their first day of school, never get to see them mature and grow, never get to see them marry and never get to see them produce offspring of their own.

It’s obvious you’ve never lost a child.  You could NEVER understand what a kick in the teeth it is and, yet,  you’d prefer that we simply keep kicking…

Lee says:

11:47am | 28/04/11

Still birth is a bit different, even post natal death- that bonus could assist with funeral cost, morbid I know but who expects to bury a child within a day or two of giving birth? Having a late abortion to get the bonus is deceptive and really unethical- totally different to your baby dying late into a pregnancy or just after birth- you dont consiously want your baby to die unless of course you choose the means like an abortion (if that makes sense).

Lee says:

11:51am | 28/04/11

@ Aussie Born and Bred- I guess we posted at the same time!

Well said and I hope in time your loss isnt as raw.

fairsfair says:

12:10pm | 28/04/11

I can’t imagine what it would be like to lose a child. It would be horrid, but I don’t think the baby bonus was designed to pay funeral costs. Nor do I think tax dollars should pay anyone’s funeral costs.

Umm says:

12:21pm | 28/04/11

Losing a child is more than horrid- if you have ever felt helpless times that by a hundred.
No it isnt designed for a funeral but legally a stillbirth and postnatal death still have to be recorded as a birth and a death therefore making the child “real”.
As Lee said, very different scenario to manipulating the system like your example.

Never say Never says:

01:00pm | 28/04/11

fairsfair
So, tax payer dollars shouldn’t pay for a diggers burial? NO?
Or the repatriation of a diggers remains to be buried in Australia? NO?
funny sort of a girl you are.
How about the burial of an aboriginal who died in custody? NO?

fairsfair says:

01:06pm | 28/04/11

The emotion of losing a child has nothing to do with it.

I agree - they are very different circumstances, but I don’t think any of them should end with claiming the bonus.

And my scenario is not manipulating the system - it is entirely legal. That was my entire point.

fairsfair says:

01:24pm | 28/04/11

Thats a whole other article Badger and you clearly have misundestood my point so I am not even going to respond. When does the next shuttle launch?

Never say Never says:

01:43pm | 28/04/11

“Nor do I think tax dollars should pay anyone’s funeral costs. “
anyone did you say?

Only two more shuttle launches planned fairsfair
perhaps you could get a seat on the last one (if you could squeeze into that size 10 you have hidden away in your glory box).
If we’re lucky they will remember to bring you back. Otherwise you can post from space.

Me says:

12:38am | 30/04/11

@fairsfair.  For the BB to be paid a birth certificate must be issued. This means the pregnancy has to have reached a certain stage which I believe may be 27weeks (I am happy for anyone to correct me on this number). I was unaware that abortions could be performed that late in a pregancy as both birth and death certificates would have to be issued. I would like to know what that would be on the death certificate as cause of death. If it is late enough for a birth certificate to be issued in case of miscarriage then they would have to issue a certificate for an abortion. If there is no birth certificate then no BB will be paid reguardless of abortion or miscarriage. If there was a risk to the mother or baby then they would perform an emergency c section and still try to save the baby (as has happened to a few personal friends of mine).
I think the governments intension was when parents are faced with THE most difficult time at least they don’t need to find the money for a funeral.
I hope once you have grown up a bit, one day you will look back on these comments and feel greatly embarrassed. I just pray you will realise how inconsiderate you have been before Karma has to show you.

Faybian says:

01:23pm | 30/04/11

As far as I’m aware,the gestational age at which a birth certificate is issued is 20 weeks. I have seen terminations carried out around this time if the mid term ultrasound shows serious deformities in the foetus. If a mother is any earlier than 23 weeks no one is going to perform a ceasarian. The baby will not survive. I don’t know this persons personal situation, but it could’ve been shame driving her to fly interstate to carry out the procedure. Also, I think Victoria has laxer abortion laws than other states. So where other states may not have done the abortion for non medical reasons, Victoria will. I’m sure that this person will have a long time to think about the morality of her actions if it’s been a non medical termination. Late term abortion is no picnic.

iansand says:

09:46am | 28/04/11

That would one of them there pygmy elephants, I assume.

overit says:

10:10am | 28/04/11

David - entirely correct.  They breed like rabbits and as a group pay the least taxes (all cash in hand).  Scrap that lot and we’re miles ahead already.

marley says:

11:34am | 28/04/11

They breed like rabbits?  Um, 2.7 kids per woman is breeding like rabbits?  Some rabbit.  By that standard, your grandmother was probably one too, since the birth rate 40 or 60 years ago was something similar for everyone.

billy says:

09:35am | 28/04/11

except when it’s called “paid parental leave?”

Loxy says:

09:57am | 28/04/11

Billy, paid parental leave is a little different because it’s a means to an end to ensure we keep mother’s in the workforce. I understand people’s opposition to it, along with the childcare rebate, however the reality is that overall these things boost the government coffers by keeping mother’s in the workforce.

Karen says:

10:53am | 28/04/11

I don’t really care about “boosting government coffers” - they waste so much as it is, and I paid tax for 20 years and never claimed any form of social security.  If they are going to continue with “paid parental leave” then it’s not really fair to abolish the baby bonus in the case of people like me who resigning from the workforce to take up the most important job - that of looking after our baby while my husband is at work.  We strongly believe it’s the best thing for our child, and why should I be penalised for nurturing my own child and not putting her in child care while I go back to work?

Melanie says:

12:51pm | 28/04/11

Well said David.
For our first child we received the baby bonus, but for the second hubby had just been promoted and this tipped us just onto the other side where we wouldn’t receive the bonus. I am at home with the kids (my choice), but hubby gets taxed more and misses out on the bonus as a reward for hard work. Felt like a real kick in the guts to him, but to me it felt demoralising. The funny thing is, we didn’t need the extra money for baby things as we had most things from the first, but have you noticed how many expensive prams there are out there since the bonus became available?

Proudly Nullagravida says:

10:24pm | 28/04/11

“Paid Parental Leave doesn’t give ANY incentive for mothers to actually mother their children”

Call me crazy, but I thought that having a child and the joy of a baby may just be an incentive in of itself to mother a child. If that is not reward then—here’s a suggestion—don’t do it; no-one is forcing you.

“Stay-at-home mothers deserve to be recognized [sic] and respected!!!”

What,  so the existing baby bonus and Fam Tax B not enough? Oh, that ‘s right, silly me! All those mean, nasty women who dare to go to work, those wretched jezebels who DARE to dodge the motherhood bullet—they are the ones whose ought to be taxed more and more to cross subside the veneration of motherhood, right? Ummm, social engineering much?

If cash is what is needed to “value” motherhood then it is clear one who has reduced motherhood to some crass material assessment is the one who has devalued motherhood.

Lisa H. says:

03:37pm | 29/04/11

What a strange comment, Nullagravida.
mothering is definitely work, but it’s not paid work. Therefore, the paid parental leave doesn’t really incentivise women to mother… it’s aim is the opposite - to encourages mothers to leave their mothering and work outside the home.

And, to make it clear, a large proportion of stay-at-home women do not get any benefits from the government -and that includes the baby bonus - if they are a successful family and Dad is a high income earner. Dad’s gross income is accessed as ‘household income’, but he pays tax as an individual, not a householder.

In many ways, stay at home women subsidise working mothers, as they also do not cost the government for child care, nor do they receive ongoing ‘benefits’, as these are all means tested on GROSS income.

The government gives no incentives for high achieving families to have large families.

Kika says:

03:30pm | 30/04/11

Yeah but stay at home Mums are likely to become Mums regardless of whether they get an incentive to do it or not. The ones staying out working until they are in their 30’s are the ones they want to think about having kids, because the ones staying at home I would dare say are the minority these days.

fairsfair says:

09:31am | 28/04/11

You can only get one or the other Elph. So working women can take PPL and those not working can receive the Baby Bonus. I disagree with all of it. PPL is annoying though as I think it is a positive for small business (to a minor degree), but that said I also think their has to be some sort of reward for going to uni and working hard - if that means you land a job that gives you private PPL, then good for you.  It really does grate my nerves seeing all these people get paid to have kids though. I am tired of everything being viewed with a value. Kids are a financial responsibility - I thought the “joy” of having them was supposed to reimburse parents their costs?

Elphaba says:

10:47am | 28/04/11

Aahh, cheers FF.  I was always curious as to why they had PPL and the baby bonus.

You’re telling me - I’ve wondered whether I should stop trying to work hard and save my money and just throw my legs up in the air and procreate, lol.  Life would be simpler…

Kayte says:

10:37am | 28/04/11

This is the unintended consequence of the policy.  Middle Class and wealthy people won’t choose to have children because they are getting an extra $5000.  But uneducated people from a lower socio economic background will.  The baby bonus needs to be scrapped because of this fact alone.  Encouraging people who can’t even look after themselves to have children is clearly wrong.

Economist says:

11:58am | 28/04/11

Eugenics anyone?

AdamC says:

01:11pm | 28/04/11

Well, eugenics has a particular meaning, but I guess the principle is similar. The idea would be to prevent unwanted pregnancies among those unable to look after children, and who are happy to accept extra cash to engage in contraception. I don’t have any problem with that from a civil liberties perspective, and I am far more libertarian than you, Economist.

Richard says:

01:33pm | 28/04/11

Yes, that’s right Economist, let your ideology blind you from the bald facts. Let your bien pensant left-wing attitude prevent you from recognising the real situation for what it is. What harm could there be in that?

You’re no better than those moralists who howled in protest when the two brilliant economists Levitt and Dubner (who make a lot more sense than you ever do incidentally) proved that legalizsng abortions in the US in the 70’s led to a precipitous drop in the crime rate in the 90’s.

Not politically correct perhaps, certainly not a savoury thought, and definitely discriminatory, but the numbers don’t lie. The real world isn’t PC, and governments should realise this and formulate policies to actually work in the real world, not in the fantasy world of left-wing ideologues like you who can’t accept cold hard reality.

Its people like you who bring disgrace to the word ‘economist’.

Economist says:

02:40pm | 28/04/11

Highly amusing. Where are these facts you talk of? I’m certainly not the lefty you take me to be. I judge each situation on its merit and sure compared with you I’m on the left.But simply read my analysis above on the problem with welfare, tax etc which I’m critical of. Just what do you think economics is? It’s not as you define it. It’s as much art as science. It’s simply a framework for analysing a certain type of behaviour. There have been excellent contributions by so called left wing and right wing economists.

By the way I’m not the one with the ridiculous ideology that blinds me to the way the world actually works.  You admire China because you think they’re more free market. Nonsense. It’s a totalitarian regime. Corrupt. To set up a business, for the most part, you have to have links to state. The state can take your ideas. I didn’t realise pegging their currency was free market behaviour. The world you dream of is ideological nonsense with no basis in reality.

You’re so blinded that you accuse me of something I didn’t even mention. There’s a big difference between legalising abortion, something which I support, providing people a choice, to targeting potential welfare mothers with a payment to stop them breeding. Sure we can all admire China for their effectiveness in implementing the one child policy, but the problem is that there were no incentives it was the cold hard hand of state, that you clearly admire. What amuses me even more is that you think that in your dream world that you’d be in with the successful crowd. What makes you think that?

Richard says:

03:26pm | 28/04/11

I think that everyone would be more successful in that world, Economist. Sure there would be winners and losers, but even the losers would be better off than they are now.

The critical difference that I envisage is that there would be more opportunity for unconventional non-conformists like me to implement innovative ways of creating value, because there would be less government restriction and control, and average everyday people of all different persuasions would have more money in their pocket to spend in ways they choose rather it being confiscated by the government and being spent in an autocratically, conventionally mandated way.

As for China, you’re wrong: I’m not a fan of the CCP . I too believe their government is totalitarian and corrupt, not to mention repressive and ultra-nationalistic. But the Chinese people themselves… They have an entrepreneurial vigour about them. Have you ever been there? There is an aura of financial vitality there, and the people are willing to dig in and have ago, in the spirit of the free market.

Yes, there is a lot of inefficiency and waste in China, they are far, far away from the ideal of a fully free market laissez-faire society (which I contend would be wildly prosperous, as history proves), but they are moving in the right direction. Perhaps not the government, but the people themselves are. Get to know a few Chinese people if you doubt me, go to sunnybank in Brisbane and see for yourself, the Chinese are the most entrepreneurial-minded race of people on the planet.

DanWeLL says:

03:03pm | 28/04/11

It isnt enough of a reason for ‘normal’ people to have a child.

But for a redneck bludger, or single mother its heaps of reason!

1. 5k straight up
2. Single pension increases about 100 bucks a week, another 5k, so now its 10k for first year
3. the extra payments dont stop
4. the extra payments actually INCREASE with CPI
5. theres no limits to the numbers of times you can claim BB
6. the pension increases each time also allowing a potential 10k per year per new child, plus an ongoing 5k per year, CPI adjusted of course, per each child on top of the first.

Now with free school, if they ever go, free health, practically free housing in some circumstances, all that extra cash can equate to 100 cartons of beer or 300 packs of ciggies or countless hours on the pokies PER YEAR. Thats 2 cases of piss per week, per child!!

For a lot of people who are that way inclined, thats a hell of an incentive to breed and screw the system even more.

So now the people we actually want to breed, like yourself and I, you know, the people who WORK, PAY TAX and teach or children with values to continue on doing the same when they grow up, either dont have access to the bonus even though we paid for it with our tax, or know its not enough to support the child and dont have them.

The people who will benefit will be the ones whos children will more than like be the next generation of bludgers and inbreds that will place yet more strain on an already biased and lopsided economy

Faybian says:

01:54pm | 30/04/11

@Danwell you don’t get the 5k straight up. It’s in installments. You try living on a pension (any sort for that matter). Unless you scrimp it’s no picnic. Yes a percentage screw the system while at the pokies, but not all of us. I was one of those horrible “Single mothers” and I used the system as it’s meant, a support for when it’s needed. I haven’t gotten a thing from the govt for years, except basic childcare rebate.  A surprising number of us do the same. I find your comments just as offensive as the actions of those who screw the system.

Marcus says:

10:26am | 28/04/11

@David: From the Australian Government Website:

“Paid Parental Leave schemeAustralia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme has commenced.
The Paid Parental Leave scheme:
•is government funded
•is for eligible working parents
•can be transferred to the other parent
•is paid at the National Minimum Wage - currently $570 a week before tax*
•is for up to 18 weeks, and
•can be taken any time within the first year after birth or adoption.

Taking time away from work for a new baby is a common part of working life. The Paid Parental Leave scheme will help parents spend more time at home with a new baby, and help employers keep skilled and valuable staff.”

Does that help?

Phil says:

10:19am | 28/04/11

Why would they be embarrassed?
They dont think about their actions and the many kids these lot have just expect someone else to subsidize the cost of their mistake.
If you arent smart enough to realise the cost in having kids you shouldnt be having any, thats whats wrong with the world.
The stupid, uninformed and lazy breed and those with a clue can see whats going on and make the smart decision.
As a society we are doomed by these people.

Bitten says:

10:52am | 28/04/11

Not a lot of personal pride or self-respect around these days I guess.

Ash says:

10:25am | 28/04/11

It’s because it’s OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS and we deserve some back for being hard working, good little consumer drones to keep feeding the government machine.

Zac says:

10:30am | 28/04/11

Where is the logic in coming up (spending tax payers money with absolutely no return) with new ways - utopian carbon tax, Pink Batts, Education Rev, NBN’s, surplus donations to failing public schools etc) - to tax peope? This is day light robbery and it is legal because it is called “TAX” the axe.

Markus says:

10:45am | 28/04/11

Agreed Kate, and sadly the list goes on and on:
- Where is the logic of paying PPL to mothers who have no intention of returning to the workforce?
- Where is the logic of giving someone a rebate on their childcare fees that is more than they paid in tax for that financial year?

Actually regarding the last one, what is the point of providing any government subsidy to keep a person employed that outweighs the amount they are taxed each year?

Richard says:

11:43am | 28/04/11

You guys are right~ but if the Libs tried to propose these types of policies, you just know they’d be howled down by the criminal leftist sponge class that thinks the government’s main purpose in society is to just dole money to everyone with their hands out.

And Labor would never make any cuts to the growth of the welfare state: its is against their DNA.

And it actually is criminal what the howling leftists do, because the result of the policies that they want to see enacted and preserved ultimately bankrupt nations. Always. without fail. Read this article for an example ~  http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/did-i-pack-my-ipad-full-of-cocaine

“Socialists like Morales think that you can cure poverty by throwing money at the problem. They believe that by confiscating profits from evil capitalists and sprinkling them among the poor, they can lift people out of poverty.
This is a logical failure. Poverty isn’t caused by a lack of money… it’s caused by the lack of ability or opportunity to create value. Showering poor people with money does not address this problem, just ask any millionaire lottery winner who’s ended up back in the trailer park.
Like an incompetent physician who routinely misdiagnoses an ailment, socialism tries to treat the symptoms of poverty rather than address its root cause. Consequently, these measures ultimately end up as catastrophic failures.”

Our own economy will end up as a catastrophic failure if we don’t reverse course and scale back the welfare state. But how can we do it? Firstly, the most important thing I guess is to vote for the Libs, even if they are a bunch of backwards, conservative christian nutjobs who want to return society to the ‘50’s. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that would be a good outcome. But compared to the complete and total economic destruction that will be the outcome of Labor government, there really isn’t any choice.

The second, we’ve got to loudly express our opposition to all government spending, largess, pork-barreling, boon-doggling, welfarism and statism. The government MUST get the picture that we voters, who hold their fate in our hands, don’t think that THEY are the solution to any problem. They must realise that infact we voters think they ARE the problem themselves.

marley says:

11:37am | 28/04/11

What you’re describing is a Ponzi scheme.  At some point the scheme collapses.  So I think we need to come up with something better than just an ever-increasing population.

T S Sebastien says:

12:37pm | 28/04/11

Marley I would not not say it is a ponzi scheme as those only involve the transfer of money with no underlying investment in anything. In this case there is a investment in something that provides an economic benefit (i.e. the creation of a taxpayer). You are right however in that the baby bonus is not something that makes sense in all demographic circumstances and once Australia got through its “hump” it should be eliminated at the point where the population is stable and not skewed demographically.  If they had introduced the opposite of the baby bonus during the post war years (i.e. a baby tax) then perhaps we would not have quite the problem that we are now facing…

Kochanski says:

01:05pm | 28/04/11

Unnecessary and unsustainable…

Kayte says:

01:10pm | 28/04/11

The country probably can’t afford a single low flat individual income tax rate either (it wouldn’t be popular with some that for sure). 

If you want to scrap what you call middle class welfare you will need to devise something that will add fairness to the taxation system for familys who have a sole primary income earner in a society where two primary income earners per household is becoming normal.  A single low income tax rate is one solution. 

We need to reward people who stay at home to look after their young children, instead of institutionalising them (which also costs the taxpayer money).  Family Tax Benefits are not perfect, but at least it’s something.

Your name:me says:

01:03am | 30/04/11

Your comment:@ Kate. Why should a single income family with children get brought up to the same standard as a double income family with children? If both people are making the sacrifices to go out and work then why should you get paid the same when you have choosen to stay home. If both go out to work they can afford the extras but sarcifice the time with their children. If only one person works then they can afford less but have more time with their children. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t stay home and still expect to receive the same as the couple that are both working hard for the future. I see how you can ask for fairness for doing less paid work. That is not the kind of rewards I want to see my taxes paid to.

Derek O'C says:

03:09pm | 29/04/11

Cherry picking… sounds a bit selfish for Australia and other affluent countries to takes all the doctors and skilled workers from poorer countries. How can they reach our level if we do that??? There is nothing wrong or racist about saying “enough is enough, it’s time to wind back a bit”. Please.

Peter says:

11:36am | 28/04/11

Redhead..A person is not meant to be able to ‘live a decent life’ on unemployment benefits. It is meant to get you by until you find another job. Perhaps the disability pension could be increased if it was restricted to the truely disabled i.e. not the morbidly obese or the alcoholics or drug addicts or those whose backward religious beliefs prevent them from holding down a job,

Bitten says:

11:56am | 28/04/11

Quite right! Lower taxes, no handouts please.

Ryan says:

01:47pm | 28/04/11

Me too please, lower taxes and no handouts.

Lisa H. says:

09:09pm | 28/04/11

Me too! Lower taxes, and handouts. Better value for money from our govts, thank you!!!

Mum says:

08:34am | 29/04/11

The biggest driver of the current boom was simply the age of GenX. Women in their 30s have kids because they want them, unemployed girls in their teens have them for the money, and then they keep having them, they don’t stop at 2. Between the baby bonus, parenting payment, FTA/B and the large family bonus you get a fortune with lots of kids, and you can just stick them in near-free childcare.

I had two kids at 32 and 34 and at the time I knew a startling number of other women of around the same age also having two sprats 2 years apart. I’m 35 now, I have 3 kids, if the baby bonus was $50,000 you wouldn’t get me to have another one. Once all of GenX has had their 1 or 2 kids the bulk of the baby bonus is going to go straight to the underclass, while the working GenY’s take parental leave. SCRAP THE BONUS.

Lee says:

12:08pm | 28/04/11

Then you should have kicked them out sooner or charged rent!

boom this says:

01:27pm | 28/04/11

Typical attitude of the baby boomers… you disgust me!

former bleedingheart says:

12:22pm | 28/04/11

Howard introduced this bonus for the most base of reasons..to woo the middle class caucasian Australians…a great way to populate or perish..Howard style…and get votes from the gen y.  Problem? There have been hundreds of welfare babies born for the payment.  Many of these are now in foster care…or worse.  This is literally going on as we argue about it..right in all our neighbourhoods. We can do better with our health and welfare dollar

Faybian says:

02:14pm | 30/04/11

I agree. Do people really think that all wealthy well educated people are actually good people and all poor are undeserving drug addicts dead sh$ts?
Oh, and @proudnullapara, it’s actually spelt nullipara.

Mayor Bumble says:

01:02pm | 28/04/11

I get it
Let’s give the money to those that don’t need it.
How about we give everybody with a successful business a successful business bonus.

Richard says:

02:02pm | 28/04/11

Don’t be sarcastic Mayor Bumble, it makes you look pedantic and stupid.

Don’t you realise that its been proved by economists that all human behaviour is incentivised. ALL. All human behaviour is motivated by incentive.

Do you think its desirable for our society to have more successful businesses or less?

Obviously, its desirable for our society to have more successful businesses than less. So if there were extra incentive for people to create a successful business, than there would be more successful businesses, which would be of benefit to society.

See, you have it back to front. Giving money to people who need it achieves nothing. In fact, it incentivises more of the same behaviour i.e. the behaviour that led to their poverty in the first place.

Like the Taoists say, “give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime”. So the answer is education.

But not the type of trendy left-wing uni education that prevails these days, which only teaches people how to be bien pensant sheeple. The only truly effective way to learn is by seeing other successful people and emulating them, copying them, learning by experience. If there were more successful businesses in our society, there would be more examples for people to emulate, and THAT is the only effective way of providing the education people need.

So you can see now how it is actually a better for the government to give money to those that don’t need it rather than giving it to those who do need it.

Bitten says:

02:09pm | 28/04/11

@MB: Are successful businesses asking for a successful business bonus? No. Are parents asking for a baby bonus? You betcha - they’re indignantly insisting it’s their right and entitlement!

So your argument is what exactly?

Mayor Bumble says:

02:29pm | 28/04/11

Sarcastic huh?
Shane wants to give baby bonus money to the “well off”

Let’s give the money to those that don’t need it.

What part of that is sarcastic.
hint - perhaps you should look sarcastic up in the dictionary and stop using words you don’t understand. Try using smaller words.
Try looking up pedantic as well.
Obviously you are a conservative troll concerned that business doesn’t recoup all taxes paid through accountancy dodges.
I’ve been around town hall long enough to know your type.

Janey says:

12:19pm | 29/04/11

Most intelligent comment here.  Thank you.

fairsfair says:

04:02pm | 28/04/11

I think it should be a tax deduction. You can claim up to a certain amount as a tax deduction (one one of the parents tax return) with the supply of receipts for cots, nappies, baby clothes etc etc. If neither parents pay tax, you don’t get the break - simple. If neither parent pays tax they are likely to already be on some sort of welfare entitlement and if that is the case - well sorry - you are getting enough out of the system as it is.

Markus says:

04:22pm | 28/04/11

Agreed fairsfair. That’s how it used to be for the Child Care Rebate back when it was still the Child Care Tax Rebate.
You could claim back up to $7500 in childcare fees per child per year, but only if you actually paid that much tax in the financial year.
The current version of the Rebate sees some families essentially being paid to not look after their own kids.

Kate says:

07:16pm | 28/04/11

I agree fairsfair. Sounds like a good plan and a way to make parents accountable so that they actually spend the money on their child.

I’m not opposed to parents getting a bit of financial help to cope with the costs of a newborn, but really, if your main priority is to buy expensive shit for yourself then don’t have children just yet.

Lisa H. says:

09:08pm | 28/04/11

Kate says ‘singles, childless couples and older people get the short end of the stick’...
I’m sympathetic to your argument, Kate, but don’t forget - families with a single income earner that earn more than 150,000 (GROSS, let us not forget) get no baby bonus and no benefits or concessions! Oh, and no tax rebate for supporting an entire family from a single wage either.

Dad’s GROSS wage, which is used to calculate ‘household’ income for handout purposes is not taxed as household income. It’s taxed as if he were a single man with no responsibilities but his own self!

Kate says:

11:59am | 29/04/11

@ Lisa - yes, that does seem quite unfair.

The way that relationships and people’s responsibilities within relationships are measured in terms of welfare provision is a bit weird across the board. For example, with Youth Allowance, you aren’t eligible if you have a partner who earns more than a certain amount. Why would they assume that a person on Youth Allowance, who is maybe between 18-25 years old, will be sponging off their partner for money? I certainly don’t. My boyfriend and I aren’t married, our finances are separate and I think that’s quite healthy at our age.

Bitten says:

01:34pm | 28/04/11

We know it costs money to have children Greg - that doesn’t logically mean it’s someone’s ‘right’ to get money from taxpayers to help pay for having a child, or buying a house, or walking upright for a day. This country is wallowing in an unsustainable situation where taxes are used to pay for individual choices, which means we all need more money because we’re paying so much tax, which means we all charge higher prices/demand higher wages, which means things cost more, which means the greedy moronic welfare hand reaches out again, because everything’s so much more expensive now, to pay for all the tax that pays for all the welfare!

ant says:

02:22pm | 28/04/11

Spot-on, Bitten. The premise for the argument in favour of middle class handouts is false. That certain things cost money is not a valid argument for taxpayers’ money being handed to people who exercised a lifestyle choice.

Especially when people on low incomes pay taxes, which are then handed to people on higher incomes, just because they have children.  That is wrong on so many levels.

Mum says:

08:49am | 29/04/11

I had my first child while working a $55,000 a year job. It cost almost nothing to get a cot, clothes, toys etc (most was given as gifts from relatives). I got about $700 in baby bonus which I wasn’t expecting.

Conversely, I wasn’t working when I had my second and third child, and got $4000 and $5000 for them, which was nice and took big chunks off the mortgage but it was totally, utterly unnecessary.

You do realise you can get handmedowns from friends and relatives who’ve already had babies, or you can buy secondhand off ebay or in opshops? Most baby clothes get worn only a few times and are in excellent condition secondhand.

My second and third children have been far, far cheaper than the first. No childcare fees, no costs of getting to work, free medical care, no buying formula. Everyone is having babies now so there’s a massive and far cheaper range of baby gear, maternity gear etc now than there was 10 years ago. Kids don’t need to be expensive. That said, we are just building a 4br house to put everyone in so I guess kid #3 is technically the most expensive of the lot

bleD says:

07:39pm | 28/04/11

This sounds like a frivolous comment, but it is not. It may well be the first stage of a population reduction initiative, and not just in Australia. And if that does not work, future generations may be faced with ‘a permanent snip’ after two children, no matter what sex.

marley says:

03:42pm | 28/04/11

Umm, okay.  So, having gotten that off your chest, what is actually wrong with the Anglican proposal?

Paulb says:

03:11pm | 28/04/11

Islam is not a race last I looked JW, so bat on.

K says:

03:46pm | 28/04/11

You are racist. Your entire comment is racist. Don’t make yourself feel better by saying “I’m not racist, but…” because any one who says that clearly is.

Good on you for having an Asian partner! Are you insinuating that Asians are also below us but you are doing a good deed to society by marrying one? GOOD ON YOU!

con T says:

02:34pm | 29/04/11

What if I said no more Asian immigration?
They were also were know to form their own little ghettos and breed like rabbits once -remember what Pauline once said.
But since you married one they are obviuosly OK; or just self hating maybe.

AdamC says:

02:40pm | 28/04/11

I don’t have anything to add to this, so this comment is really just a hear hear. So, um, hear hear!

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:25am | 29/04/11

@Meg- A bunch of crap. At some point population growth must outstrip environmental carrying capacity. You can delay it by inventing new energy sources and new agricultural techniques, but you can’t delay it forever, the world has finite resources.

Shane From Melbourne says:

06:07pm | 28/04/11

Umm…. Trans Tasman migration agreement?  United Nations Convention on Refugees? Incentives to breed such as Family Tax A+B, Paid Parental Leave etc? A lot more complicated than two simple policies. (But I’ll probably vote for your party anyway)

Libby says:

05:58pm | 29/04/11

Or you could look at it this way - the baby boomers are reaching retirement age now.  They may be contributing to the community but at the same time, many of them will start drawing the age pension.

Assuming the baby bonus actully increases the birth rate, aren’t we just adding to the problem given that these children will also be dependant for the next 15-20 years (all the benefits plus education and health expenses, etc.). 

Looked at that way, havent we got all the kids and the boomers on the books at the same time?

Scrap it now.

Bob says:

04:12pm | 28/04/11

Well said! I completely agree!

Kate says:

07:22pm | 28/04/11

Wow, this comment started out so reasonable and took a screaming left turn to Racist Town.

As for uni students, people who “bludge” off Austudy/Youth Allowance are quite clearly the minority. I receive Youth Allowance, but I also work part time and pay taxes - I’m pretty much paying for my own Government allowance in the taxes that I pay each year. I receive this money so I don’t have to bludge off my parents and so that I can afford to get a job which requires higher education, which will then benefit the people who require the services that my job will provide.

Nobody is saying ‘don’t have children’. People are just rightfully pissed off about the excessive provision of welfare to the middle classes, and the fact that seniors, singles and the childless are ignored time after time while governments throw money at parents and families.

The Redman says:

07:42pm | 28/04/11

Kate, I hope you read my post, if it is posted, and reply. It is righteous to be pissed off when one reads of who is eligible - that is everyone. The payment should most definately be means tested. In fact, every single government assistance should be means tested.

You are right. A family with a million dollar income should in no way be eligible for a single government payment of any type.

The Redman says:

07:29pm | 28/04/11

What an idiotic comment. It was the COALITION that introduced this payment. Understand? John Howard introduced the Baby Bonus. Do you understand?  Just reply and let me know that you understand that concept.

bleD says:

08:27pm | 28/04/11

The mistake was in not stopping the BB. That is what I was getting at. No guts.

The Redman says:

07:39am | 29/04/11

If the Gillard government is “thoroughly incompetent” for failing to end the bonus, then what does that make the government who introduced it in the first place?

Ryan says:

03:45pm | 29/04/11

@The Redman: “what does that make the government who introduced it in the first place? ” - gone, over 6 years ago mate, didn’t anyone tell you?

The Redman says:

02:33pm | 01/05/11

If memory serves, Ryan, the Coalition was defeated in November 2007. That is less than four years ago.

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

10:40am | 29/04/11

@radical53 The Costello/Swannnn baby bonus was intended for strugling hetrosexual [normal] couples, not some lesbian or gays with latent maternal instincts, the single parents pension had morphed from the “abandoned mothers pension”  and “child endowment” and was never intended for career single hetrosexual mothers who see it as their right to sleep around deliberately having children as a way of life, nor was it intended for lesbians with willing donations into a turkey baster, government funded artificial insemination from a sperm clinic or government funded IVF single mothers. My Mum used to keep that endowment money saved in a special bank account only spending it when she needed to, when I tuned 21 she gave me my third share [complete surprise] about $4000 left over from our child years, now that’s what I call a “MOTHER”.

MikeH says:

01:04pm | 29/04/11

@nevertrustachurchie: At the 2006 census over 60% of people defined themselves as Christians; not a “small amount” I would say (and, yes, “No Religion” was an option on the form. About 15% chose that). So even allowing for a reduction since then, we are not talking about a “small” number. Let’s say that it’s fallen to 40% or even 20%. Would you say that 20% of the population shouldn’t be allowed a voice? If so, do you apply the same rule to the 15% “No Religion” (of which I assume you are one)? The Church represents a significant percentage of the Australian population and of course they should be allowed a voice.

What are their *true* motives? Hmmm…. maybe what they said in the first place. Seriously, I’ve tried to come up with a conspiracy that could be going on here, but I’m coming up empty. Can you help me out?

Paranoia anyone?

Kika says:

03:33pm | 30/04/11

I reckon only 1% of people who get the bonus are thinking of the cash. $5000 doesn’t go very far at all when you think of how much money you need to even just set up a proper nursery, nappies, bottles, car seats, prams, clothes plus expenses you need if you stop working to help pay your bills. If anyone actually thinks that they’ll make some cash from it are dreaming.

Kika says:

03:07pm | 30/04/11

Correct. John Howard scrapped that long time ago. My husband is a NZ citizen who has lived here for 8 years or so. He is not entitled to any government cash from Centrelink even if he does lose his job. To do so he needs to become a permanent resident first ($800.00) then apply to sit for the Citizenship test and apply for citizenship if successful. Even though he’s married to me, he still needs to jump through these hoops because of the irresponsible lazy bastards who ruined the system for all future hardworking kiwis who actually want to do the right thing.

Ray says:

02:27pm | 30/04/11

Tania, FFS can’t women get away from focussing on themselves. - ‘people only get what they deserve or what they have lost’?’.

I think when having a baby you should focus on what you have GAINED. Gained through blessed nature. Nothing ‘lost’.

Your attitude will impact on a growing child through its formative years with less than desirable results.

A true demonstration of ‘idiocracy’, whatever that means.

A slave to ones self and the mighty dollar, is a poor substitute for mutual development with your child, no matter the fiscal arrangements.

I really am sick of women who will use their own birthright and subsequent gift of offspring, to argue some self serving gratuity.

The money never mattered with regards to the upbringing of my children. The self sacrifice made it all the more worthwhile and rewarding.

Kika says:

03:04pm | 30/04/11

The new maternity leave paid by the government is almost like that - but convincing the average tax payer that we need to pay someone their regular wage is unlikely to happen.

Ray says:

06:06pm | 30/04/11

Kika what is it with current day mothers. First you don’t sapeak of the father. Secondly ‘struggled for years and years’. Well stuff me. We were never in the black financially to around 48 to 50 years of age after the kids left home. Dedicated my life to my kids. But I am a father so no one gives a toss what I did. Did nothing if you believe all the female drivel

Women are currently on clover, still covet all the recognition of child raising, and still want expendable cash for their lifestyle.

Some find it easier to depart with the kids and hook up with another bloke. to achieve an expendable income from the new sucker while bleeding dry the father, ie the previous sucker, who pays for the children’s upbringing, is normally excluded from same, and is consigned to poverty while providing free baby sitting or childcare every alternate weekend to facilitate the mother’s weekend at the snow or eventually the Bali cougar experience. Correction change ‘some’ for ‘most’.

You also exhibit conceited snobbery in elevating your tertiary educated self assessment to the right and wrong type of people to have kids.

Welcome to Australian women. They are gems aren’t they. Read my previous comment regarding the validity of any of the ‘baby’ schemes. Purely female appeasement vote grabbing as in ‘pork barrelling’.

G. Forconi says:

05:28pm | 30/04/11

Yes why not , B.B. it’s OK !!!!    But….......
$5000 0r $6000 no metter the ammount, should be given to parents in VOUCHERS or COUPONS good to by in selected shops all the stuff a baby needs.
Formula, prams,nappis, and so on.
BB. up only to TWO chd , if you want more….. it’s up to you if you can afford.  This will stop some kind of people to have up to 10 chd’s and staying at home without working leaving on the dole, that means out of our pocket in tax.
I might be wrong but this will also stop some Asylum Seekers from thinking that Australia is a gold mine.
Regards
Joe

Derek O'C says:

01:17pm | 01/05/11

Some people are a bit crazy on here and it is unforunate cos they cloud the issue. The figures don’t really lie here, we have property prices skyrocketing here, traffic in some cities is beyond practical and there is the problem of resources depletion and global warming on the increase and will only get worse in the next years.

The baby bonus is bad because it give incentive to someone that MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE have a baby to have a baby. Can you see where this can damage not just our world but the development of our country as a smart, strong country? As a hard-working, taxpaying mum you need to work that much harder to a) support the Baby Bonus through increased taxes and b) compete econimically for goods and services for children that may or may not end up neglected.

Have you heard in the news of the horrific parents that stored children in the cupboard and other horror stories of starvation? Would you agree that just saving ONE child from this horror is worth the fazing out of the Baby Bonus?

As stated earlier a mature taxpayer takes 17-23 years to become productive. An elderly person is not productive for far less time, usually volunteering their help with childcare and other community areas (if they are not working). Most elderly people are not 100% incapacitated and add a lot to our society. They may be incapacitated for a short while; weeks to a couple years before they die. The issue of having someone to pay the pension is moot and a good excuse for big business to do all sort of manipulative things to our economy.

Message to the people using hateful speak please don’t, you look rediculous and hurting your own case!

Jax says:

07:25pm | 01/05/11

And a bit of extra cash back from the seemingly endless taxes I pay would come in handy to help with my bills and expenses but I don’t have kids so I get nothing.  Should I not have access to some kind of ‘bonus’ or ‘refund’ that is being given to people who are far more well off financially than me (but chose to have kids)?

Richard Mahony says:

10:29am | 04/05/11

“In short, they want to replace Anglo-Saxons with the invading parasites currently burning down taxpayer funded buildings.”

Sounds like the Normans.  And we all know what a bunch of bastards they were, starting with the original and greatest bastard of them all, Guillaume Le Batard who knocked off Harold in 1066.

Mind you, the Angles and the Saxons were bastards too.  As were the Romans who preceded them.  And the Celts who preceded them.

The only ones who seem not to have been bastards, probably because we know so little about them, were the pre-Celtic peoples of the Isles – and, of course, the pre-European peoples of Australia.  All the rest of the Johnny-come-latelys to Australia and the UK should go back to the Eurasian steppes whence it seems they came at the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution ten millennia back.

possumfella says:

03:05pm | 01/05/11

As a Child Free person and a non home owner (so no negative gearing on multiple properties thereby getting more tax credits) I am drowning in the tax for those who have multiple litters. Additionally, after years of putting up with special and female only exclusive maths and science study camps my spouse can’t afford to stop to have children - as she now has significant debt associated. People wonder how the TEA Party started in the US - doesn’t take much to work out how!

Darrin Hodges says:

03:22pm | 01/05/11

Only if you float over on a door and burn down a couple buildings, throw debris at emergency workers and demand the government do your bidding.

The Redman says:

08:39am | 02/05/11

Gee, that’s a great idea, Peter. Better yet, let’s head them off at the pass and simply euthanase the babies of these people you have mentioned and save all of us a lot of problems, including the babies. After all, the babies themselves would be better off with a quick and painless death that living and dying in poverty and starvation.

And I wonder how you would measure those who have the “right morals [and] the right outlook on live. Perhaps the Government should employ you as the final and sole arbirator of this particular question. Clearly, with you indicate by your post what a moral and righteous person you are.

Richard Mahony says:

10:49am | 04/05/11

The Redman, your riposte here is the classic straw man argument.  Neither Peter nor anyone else here is advocating the killing of children (so-called euthanasia and euthanasing or euthanising are just more weasel words)  - so why even raise the possibility?  It is completely irrelevant to the argument about the Australian baby bonus.

What Peter is arguing in effect is that we should target baby bonuses at women who otherwise would be unlikely to have babies, rather than handed out willy-nilly to all those mothers in our society - including those who are in the worst position to do a good job of raising children.

This is a perfectly sensible and rational point of view to have and cannot be fairly countered by the dishonest tactic of trying to whip up hysteria about killing infants.  If we are going to encourage women and girls in Australia to have children by rewarding them with a baby bonus, then we need to ensure that these mothers are going to be able to cope well with the long-term cost and responsibility of bringing up a child.  A one off baby bonus at the time of birth is not going to be of much help with the cost of raising a child a year or so later when the bonus has all been spent.  And what then?

Richard Mahony says:

10:00am | 04/05/11

If you earn so much then you definitely do not need the baby bonus.  The baby bonus is not intended as a tax refund to compensate you for all the taxes you have paid over many years of working.  It is intended to help the so-called battlers, a favourite term amongst populist pollies, with the supposed cost of bringing up a baby.

Like millions of hard working Aussies before us, my wife and I brought up two children without any such baby bonuses or other handouts.  And we did it all on one fairly modest single income - mine. Some of the worst bludgers in this country are those who now think they deserve handouts left, right and centre for any populist reason that politicians can dream up and just because they feel aggrieved at all the taxes they pay.  The solution to over taxation is to pay less tax in the first place – not have our own money handed back to us by vote chasing pollies in the form of bonuses.

The main reason Australia needs to increase the number of young people in this country is that we have increasing numbers of the elderly who do not or cannot work, whose health is steadily worsening, and who will need looking after in the future.  Just as in the US and the UK, the increasing numbers of non-working, sick but long-lived elderly in this country are becoming a burden on the country’s revenue base that Australia increasingly cannot afford.  There is no easy solution to this.  One thing is for sure: the baby bonus is not one of them.

Derek O'C says:

05:36pm | 07/05/11

“Churches and charities often have to bear the fall-out of increasing poverty, and homelessness.”

Never thought about this but you’re spot on.