Parental leave is more about the welfare of the ageing

St. Michael says:

11:24am | 04/01/11

Enjoy your tax bill for the entirety of the Baby Boomer generation’s retirement, then.  I guarantee it’ll be a lot bigger than the bill for a piddling 18 weeks of maternity leave at minimum wage, and there won’t be spare taxpayers around to shoulder it with you.

Horthy says:

01:41pm | 05/01/11

So what if it is bigger, St Michael? At least it will avoid an even larger bill which will arrive if we continue down the road of continued excessive population growth, which is what you are advocating.

joy king says:

02:54pm | 06/01/11

i’m not against payed parental leave, i’m against paying singles having
all these kids and expecting tax payers to foot the bill, i understand anyone can make a mistake .But how many mistakes can one person make 4.5.6. Come on people wake up, there laughing all the way to the pubs,clubs,and drug dealers,while there kids are rooming the streets,and when they are at school this so called parent, should me made to get a job and pay some of this money back.

Dig a little deeper says:

02:51pm | 04/01/11

Acotrel ... they will not be “earning your pension payments”.  Superannuation is to take over and pensions will eventually be scrapped once the Government decides that compulsory superannuation has been in place long enough to cover everybody.

St. Michael says:

05:30pm | 04/01/11

Not according to Senior’s Voice, Dig.  They’re predicting that by 2050 75% of all retirees will be at least partially dependent on the pension.  Link’s further down the page.

Jane says:

08:26am | 05/01/11

Dig I have to agree with St Michael. Unless your super is over the $1m mark AND you own your own home outright, you will be recieving at least some pension.

The $300,000 most Australians are set to retire on equates to about $20,000pa for the 20 years of retirement that most of us will have, ie not the yacht owning annual holiday that most dream of. The pension will have to be there forever but the goal is to need as little as possible, after all do you really want to live on $714 pf?

TChong says:

07:20am | 04/01/11

Agree KH, means test all govt handouts, but then it tends to be middle class professionals ( not you or me , ofcourse) who do the most whinging, then have their hand outs while crying “what about me” , “we pay taxes too”

KH says:

07:52am | 04/01/11

I’ve never said I wanted any handouts, TChong…...my mum had worked from age 14, and being a single parent, had pretty much always worked - i never knew her to not have a job until she was in her 70s - once when I was a kid, she washed dishes to earn money, because she refused to take welfare.  I would do the same - I would rather wash dishes than take the dole.  Welfare is for people who really need it - pensioners, or disabled people, unemployed people who really want jobs but just can’t get one and the like.  For everyone else, if you want something, you should save for it, or plan for it.  Having kids means making some compromises, like houses further out, second hand cars, fewer luxuries.  Who really ‘needs’ 2 plasma screen TVs in their house or the latest expensive European kitchen appliances?  I ask this because I know it is happening - one person in particular who I know has these things, but is still excited that her baby didn’t come before January 1!  How can people like this even be eligible for welfare?  It just doesn’t make sense.

Economist says:

08:03am | 04/01/11

I totally agree with your assessment of middle class welfare. However there are two payments that I believe should continue due to their direct link with workforce participation and hence taxes. These being paid parental leave and the childcare rebate. These payments are incentives for maintaining connection with the labour market, as Tory has highlighted. Without them immigration levels would have to increase dramatically.  Taxes continue to flow into the government coffers, hence governments on both sides support them. The issue is at what level is it reasonable to subsidise at minimum wage (Labor), current salary (Liberal), or with CCR 30% (Liberal) or 50% (Labor)?.

There are other ways to improve the tax transfer system. As the Henry review suggested we should only have 3 payment types instead of the 20+ payments we currenlty offer and the rules for accessing shouldbe a lot clearer. Currently you need a degree in law to understand an individuals entitlements.

TChong says:

08:23am | 04/01/11

KH , pls read , I never accused you of wanting handouts, and as I said, I agree. ( no sarcasm, genuine agreement - my NY resolution)
All govt welfare should be means tested.

Markus says:

08:56am | 04/01/11

Economist while I agree PPL can be part of a healthy workforce, CCR I do not agree with.
Back in its initial form, the Child Care Tax Rebate, the rebate was paid based on taxable income upon lodging a tax return.

Now it is paid at a flat rate of 50% up to $7500 per child per year. In many cases of families with more than one child in childcare, the family is receiving more CCR each year than they pay taxes, and that is before even factoring in CCB too.
How exactly does having both parents in the workforce benefit the economy there?

Mike T says:

09:56am | 04/01/11

@ Economist.

I get your logic around the paid parental leave being required to sustain growth. However can anyone give me any figures on how well this will actually work in boosting brith rates (maybe other countries have data)??

From my unbderstanding, very low income earners more often then not already recieve subsidies when they have a child. This may be in the form of single mothers pension, low incoem subsidies etc. So are we assuming that paid parental leave is going to result in a massive incease in the middle and upper class deciding to have babies???? I just cant see this happening as i the middle class/upper class families are of two types….. 1) they are not intersted in having babies 2) they are desperate to have a baby…those desperate will beg/borrow/steal to make it happen. Is there a missing group that im not aware of….those that are not fused, but now that i get 6 months paid leave im going off to have a baby!!!!!!

Happy to be proved wrong, but just seems like our taxes are going where they shouldnt…and the opportunity cost is depressing

Christopher says:

10:47am | 04/01/11

I am getting sick and tired of people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds always bitching and moaning about how good people with money have it. Who do you think pays for most of these government schemes. Because its not the people who are on 50K a year. Why can’t the people who contribute most towards these schemes claim them as well.
I would be more concerned about the bums who just live off the dole and expect the government to give them everything.

Stop moaning about how people in low-socioeconomic backgrounds have it so hard from the government. You get given every government bonus and incentive known to man. Try getting taxed 46cents to the dollar and see it go to people who don’t even deserve it and you get shafted because you dont qualify. I’m sick the government punishing people that are successful and giving out handouts to people who are lazy. It should be a two way street.

jf says:

12:33pm | 04/01/11

A new year a new TChong. In 2010 a significant number of TChong’s posts advocated middle class welfare of some sort. This year he’s a new man.

Economist says:

12:44pm | 04/01/11

Markus and Mike T the reason I support CCR is that its tax and churn. If your earning more than $50000 a year the tax collected more than covers the $7500. The PPL is the incentive for not just dumping your child in day care and holding out for a year. The CCR is the incentive for staying in the workforce or at least part-time. The rebate itself continues to churn through the economy and is collected through other taxes, GST etc. Its the multiplier effect in action.  Hence it doesn’t really cost the government $7500. the rebate also helps show parents that they can afford to pay $20000 (minus rebate) a year for their child and they’re more likely to afford private school edcuation as well. The problem is you have single income families wanting something in return hence you get BB.

Markus the reason both parents are in the workfore is that there is a demand for labour.

Sarah says:

02:45pm | 04/01/11

I completely agree with Christopher.  I have worked my butt off for years paying taxes, in most recent years 46 cents in every dollar I earn.  I don’t begrudge my tax money going to people who, like me, have worked extremely hard and contributed a great deal more than the majority of the whingers who believe that PPL is “middle class welfare”.

I have never made a single claim for anything from the government.  I have earned everything I have fair and square.  This is an extremely good cause - I am not a bludger and I will be returning to work in 12 months and paying my taxes again - so get over it KH!

jf says:

03:23pm | 04/01/11

Sarah

46cents in every dollar Sarah? Do you not understand how are system of marginal tax rates works? Every cent up to $180,000 is taxed at less than the top marginal tax rate of 45% (that’s 45 cents in the dollar). Perhaps you should get an accountant to do your tax return.

However, to the matter at hand, I am perplexed by your justification of middle class welfare. After all, for the Government to pay those in the top tax brackets a benefit, the Government has to take the money from tax payers in the first place and at a proportionally greater rate for those on the top tax bracket. Surely it outrages and frustrates you to have your money taken from you only to get somewhat less of it back in the forms of concessions after it has gone through the public service. Surely you would be better off if the Government only took as much money as was necessary to pay for infrastructure and to help the genuinely needy and vulnerable and reduce the amount you pay in tax.

Steph says:

01:04pm | 04/01/11

Stopping the baby bonus altogether would be good. When we got it for our son, we put it into a savings account for when he’s older. We figured if we couldn’t afford a child, then why have one? If people can’t afford a cot, change mat and box of nappies, how the hell are they going to afford schooling, food and so on and so forth when the child is older? 5k is a nice start-up, but the cost of having a baby is pittance to what it’s going to be when they get to school.

cRook says:

08:24pm | 04/01/11

You didn’t just ‘get’ the baby bonus, Steph. You have to ask for it. If you didn’t need it, you could have not applied. By taking it, you are exactly the same as every person you have chosen to criticise.

SeaShel says:

08:43am | 04/01/11

Wow Ray… Fact doesn’t weigh much into your opinion on this matter huh??

Lets look to the term and reson for “Primary Care Giver” - Unless your Wife, Female Partner, Girl Friend etc. dies during child birth; biology does depict that she will be the primary care giver for at least the first 6 weeks of the childs life. I know no “Professional Working Mothers” who are going to bive birth and be physically back at work the next day.

There are too many false statements in your post to address…. I’ll stop.

D says:

03:33pm | 05/01/11

lol

You’re a twit.  Or a troll.  I know many baby boomers who aren’t superannuation independant - I believe compulsory superannuation contributions weren’t introduced until the 1990s.  For someone who has been working from the 1960s, there’s a decent part of their working life where superannuation payments may not have been occuring.

The rest of your misogynistic rant is really very funny.

TracyS says:

05:19pm | 06/01/11

PPL = payed PARENTAL leave
The baby’s father may well be the parent who takes the leave if that’s how things work out in a particular family…

Sarah says:

02:59pm | 04/01/11

Oh poor old Ray :(

You seem to overlook the fact that schemes such as the PPL scheme are there for the benefit of male partners/husbands too - you seem to think they exist merely for the pure indulgence of women. 

I’m glad noone else has responded to your ramblings - what a lot of bitter (albeit amusing) nonsense

Ray Graham says:

04:23pm | 04/01/11

Sarah can you please provide the detail of how the PPL is EQUAL for mothers and fathers other than a name change from ‘maternity’ to ‘parental’. Throw in an explanation of the Family Court, education and other associated liabilities that favour women. Thanks I’ll sleep better then, and think better of those protected species darlings

Women have a parasitic outlook to society and men.

Heath Karl says:

04:38pm | 04/01/11

Why does this fool’s moronic ideas get so over-represented on The Punch? Seven comments so far (7% of responses) are him in hysterics over the primacy of women in our society.

Surely one nonsense comment like “women are product negative in the workforce” is enough for one day.

Ray Graham says:

08:37pm | 04/01/11

Heath are you sure you mean ‘primacy’. I think you mean usurpers by stealth.

‘Product negative’ means they cost more than they produce. I wont call you a fool as that would be a complement for a monsyllabic moron who can do no more than a mathematical % calculation and then get it wrong. Sayonara

Heath Karl says:

12:06pm | 05/01/11

How can a woman ‘cost more than she produces” when she produces male children? Presumably you were the exception and came into this world via a Man’s bum.

Ray says:

01:16pm | 05/01/11

Jeeesus Karl you’ve got a very poor turn of phrase. As I said you are ‘done’ - done over slowly as in a slow roast.

D says:

03:40pm | 05/01/11

My husband accessed paternity leave when our daughter was born.  More of it than I did actually.  I was back in the workforce full time, paying my much higher tax (I’m the main income earner), while he stayed home and looked after our baby.  And did the housework.  He’s a damn good coo k too, much better than I.

He still is the primary carer.  Boggles the mind now doesn’t it, Ray.  Such a parasitic individual I am, working full time while my husband stays home and lives off my income. 

I did consider the Howard Government’s family allowance arrangements to be very discriminatory in its set up though.  The entitlement favours a female gaurdian over the child’s father, which I find extremely telling of the Howard government’s mindset.  The Howard Government wanted women at home popping out babies and structured their welfare system to push that agenda.  Although I imagine Ray will take exception to that interpretation of the Howard Government’s actions.  He thinks women made John Howard do it.

Ray Graham says:

04:26pm | 05/01/11

Big deal ‘D’. Why does all male comments against rampant favours to women become ‘misoginyst’,. Not very imaginative ‘D’, but the usual female default comment - means sweet FA. Your husband’s contribution is no excuse for habituaql preferences, incentives, legislation, funding and mind sets to favour women.

Despite your husband’s contibution I have no doubt like all women you would turn like a worm and avail yourself of all the pro female/anti male legislation for material, sibling and simple revenge, upon any relationship breakdown. That despite like all other darlings proclaiming your current love and devotion without ever recognising your husband’s input.

Hypocrisy is a terrible trait fine tuned by feminists. And I’m not trolling. I’m stating the bleeding obvious

Bilby says:

08:36am | 04/01/11

The concept of a partnership is obviously completely alien to you. You casually gloss over the fact that usually the woman is taking care of the aging parents, etc, because they’re the ones in a position to do so. Especially with kids there is a lot to do in life and it works out best if a family lives on about 1.5 wages. One person working full time outside the home to pull in the bulk of the money, and one person contributing to the finances, but also taking the bulk of the home and family work. It’s not bludging, it’s a partnership.

Talking about providing for sexual needs makes sex sound like an act of charity. No-one has needs, but most people have wants. Part of a partnership is trying to give each other what is wanted, over and above what is needed. I would say that’s the soul of romance.

Everyone has responsibilities. They’re not always 50/50, but there’s usually an ebb and flow over the years. Respect is the answer, not this constant “I’m a bigger martyr than you”.

Ray Graham says:

08:21am | 04/01/11

Yeah Bleeeeeding Heart, -  AND BANKRUPT like most countries projecting this absurdity Ireland, Enland, Greece, Italy and Scandinavian countries.

As for DH, ‘the doddle’ has been going on since Adam and Eve. 

‘The kids you don’t want to have’ - did you ask a man about this or is this a product of your feminist indoctrination since birth?

‘Men are for ever complaining and bludge off women’? Well at least BH you have a sense of humour even if no common sense. Women are the architects, conceivers and protagonists of whinging and bludging their way through PC preferential recognition and favours. Got it to an art form. In the ‘get yourself knackered’, the Family Court takes care of that - outsouced by women if you get my drift. And yes we do earn more than women - for doing more work, but that won’t last either, and let’s not go into that one.

‘sexual needs if you so desire’ well women would have to reinvent themselves without it. Small price to pay.

Markus says:

08:25am | 04/01/11

Maybe in twenty years time Australia might also be at the same level Europe is now with regards to economic stability…

Horthy says:

09:16am | 04/01/11

Bleeding Heart, ask yourself these two questions:

Why do you think the government didn’t make the companies ‘pick up the tab’? Some people would tell you it’s because then said companies would think twice about employing women.

If you think the employer should pick up the tab, then you are shifting responsibility onto them, from the ‘general populace’. is that really the point where you want to draw the line of responsibility?

DocBud says:

09:28am | 04/01/11

BH, I make money out of a person’s labour, not out of them sitting at home playing with their newborn baby. If I have to factor parental leave into salary packages, those who don’t take parental leave will lose out in order to subsidise those who do.

Short sighted says:

12:35pm | 04/01/11

Do you mean the same Europe which is so awash with debt that a significant number of the countries are now unable to fund their initiatives including this one?

St. Michael says:

05:35pm | 04/01/11

Ah, yes.  Behold! On the horizon, the great Man of Straw which is the argument that Paid Maternity Leave Schemes Bankrupted Every Country In Europe.

Were you folks all asleep during the GFC, or did you miss the part where it was poor investments and crappy regulation that caused Europe’s present problems, and not the maternity leave schemes in each case?

Kate says:

06:52pm | 04/01/11

If in twenty years time, Australia is at the same level as Europe is now, then I bet Australia might also be in the same incredible level of debt. But where will Australia look for handout? It’s not part of the EU, so unlike Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc etc, it won’t be able to look to France or Germany for a handout. Germany is already rethinking its role in the EU and the use of the euro, and France is so crippled by debt and about to fall in a deep chasm, one would have to think of any way other than their way would be a good option. Australia’s introduction of compulsory superannuation all those years ago means that the Baby Boomers WILL NOT be a drain on society. We DO NOT need more children in our already-overburdened country. We DO NOT need more middle class welfare. We need to give welfare to those in need at their time of need; we need to better support our schools and hospitals and other essential infrastructure; we need to stop having a culture of ‘gimme gimme gimme’ of government handouts. Lets make Australia a stronger, better, and sustainable country.

Mia Eriksson says:

06:53pm | 04/01/11

I totally agree with you . I live in Sweden, and we have such a good parental leave deal, 480 days that the parents can share in between. Our economy is strong and so is our welfare health. All you non-believers, look up all lists of the best contries to live in as fare as education, health, welfare and prosperity concerning economy and you’ll find Sweden and Norway, who’s welfare is well developed, in the top. It’s not a question about bragging, I just wish that the rest of the world could recieve the same level of welfare and benefits that we do. No one is risking to get sacked just because you go on parental leave, it’s becoming more and more something that the employers take for granted and that is being used by men and women in high positions. Who in their right mind woldn’t want to be able to spend the first crucial and important months with their child, bonding and creating that extremely important attachement that scientists have proven makes the whole difference in the developement of the child. .

Millo says:

12:42pm | 04/01/11

Why is it not ‘doable’ anymore? That is a ridiculous comment. It is certainly not doable when you have over spent on an over priced house and land package in a shiny new suburb, or can’t keep that credit card debt under control and ‘have’ to keep spending all your money on things you ‘need’ like foxtel and that fastest broadband available.

Also, you mention you wouldn’t like to be deiscriminated against in the workplace? Try being a man in the workplace these days.

Elphaba says:

03:19pm | 04/01/11

Millo, we’re obviously sampling different people.  Most modest income earners I know have had to go back to work because the cost of living is just too high.

Awww, you’re a man?  Boo-frickity-hoo.

Kye says:

06:59pm | 04/01/11

Milo, have you spoken to a low to middle income earner lately?  My husband and I both work full time in retail and rent a flat in an outer suburb.  We neither own new cars nor have fancy furniture and other indulgences.  My husband is studying part time at uni to try to qualify for a better job, however this will take several years. 
We’re planning to start a family in the next 12-18 months.  It will be extremely difficult for us to afford our rent, food, bills and petrol when we have to drop back to one wage.  This PPL will be a big help to us.

Shifter says:

02:24pm | 05/01/11

@Kye, based solely of what you’ve put forward, it seems to me that you and your husband can’t afford to have kids at the present point in time. I don’t presume to tell you what to do, but if I can’t afford something I generally go without.

NB: I’m not really keen on having kids either at the moment.

D says:

03:47pm | 05/01/11

Actually my family is capable of buying a house and having a family on a single, sub $100k income.

Although we do live in a ‘regional’ area, so the housing market may be more affordable.  However, I got rid of all our outstanding debt preior to having our baby, and the only thing we have now is a mortgage which we got when she was about 18 mths old.  We can afford to pay it on my single salary, so if my husband gets part time work when our girl is in school, that will pay it off faster.

We don’t own a plasma tv or a brand new car.  I know couples who have to both work because theyv’e mortgaged themselves on the assumption of two wages, spent a fortune on pretty shiney new things, rack up a massive credit card debt and then have a baby.  That is a choice, not a necessity.

Tom says:

08:26am | 04/01/11

“I can’t stand baby boomers”. Baby boomers paid taxes to support their older generation. What’s the matter fella, haven’t you got a spine?

Ray says:

08:28am | 04/01/11

To ICSBB, we wiped your arse when you were kids, we wipe your arse on the sporting field, and we wipe your arse in the workplace. Guess there’s got to be a balance some where.

DocBud says:

08:51am | 04/01/11

Green-eyed monster writ large and causing sweeping generalisations.

We’ve made our money so can spend it how the hell we please, the beauty of a free society and a free market. Don’t like it? Tough, tell someone who cares, I sure don’t.

Richard The Lionheart says:

08:51am | 04/01/11

Ageing is a awful business. Agents from real estate, travel, pension funds, unheard of charities, ATO, church and family want your house and remaining cash. We must suffer pain and can’t opt out through euthanasia. Years of sacrifice to the tower of Babel. Gen Y can’t understand our values and we can’t understand their language. However we can vote and will never vote for parties that promote waste or lack common sense. We did not invent Political Correctness. Leave us alone. We are experienced in being thrifty, paying our own way and wise. The welfare state is doomed. Future governments will not be able to afford it. Start saving for your own retirement. You need about $1M each plus a house for starters.

Kylie says:

12:42pm | 05/01/11

The phrase ‘Political Correctness’ as we now use it was popularised in the 70’s and demonised from about the late 80’s. The first of the Gen X’ers were born in the mid 60’s and were still children at that point in time.  SO who did ‘invent’ political correctness, Richard?  Your parents generation??

Gregg says:

11:47am | 04/01/11

The apparent bitterness of the writer!!!!
How did you read that into Tory’s article which is reasonably balanced?

Mike T says:

09:44am | 04/01/11

@ Lisa

Being employed prior to and after your baby does not somehow justify the government/tax payer paying for you to have a child. You need to give me a better reson then “i pay taxes”..........

I pay taxes too…..but i dont demand the governement pays for things that i decide i would like to purchase…i if the government decides to pay for such things i would no doubt except them, say thankyou and probably be a bit sheepish. But I would never, scream from the roof tops that it’s my right to receive this because i pay taxes!!!!!!!!!!!

PS. It’s a little rich to place your parental leave in the same basket as funding spent on public hospitals, aged care, indigenous services etc…

Dont mean to have a go at you personally, but you comments highlight the reliance of Governements to pay for things that has filtered into our society…... If you cant afford to have a baby, then dont…i would like a speed boat, but i cant afford it, so guess what, i wont get one

Gregg says:

09:48am | 04/01/11

I can understand where you’re coming from Lisa and it is probably something like the old 80/20 rule and in this case you are one of the 80% that have paid taxes and have never really had to claim benefits though we all get them to a certain extent one way or another with some government expenditures on infrastructure etc. whereas the 20% could be those that have paid little by way of taxes [ and some for various valid acceptable reasons ] and have been more inclined to be recipients of welfare spending.
Life is kind of like that and while we have governments to supposedly put in place the checks, balances and safety nets.

I do not however subscribe to all taxes/benefits being great and there could be other reasons why European countries, their current economic woes aside have seen less of a change of women in the workforce and one is quite likely the greater closeness of many communities and families with multiple generations even living under the one roof so the bum wiping both ways can be spread more.

I can also concur that too much welfare is what does gradually erode a society and we are already seeing the rising costs of living that have come from living beyond our means for a number of decades, like for instance where are the newer power stations, dams and hospitals etc. of the past three decades when many were constructed in the three decades post WW2.
Instead of that we have had governements pandering to less taxes and selling off infrastructure to pay for that whilst at the same time the population has grown by about 50% or so.
Offering more welfare is no fix for the problem and just means that as a society we will be taking more money away from building needed infrastructure and providing greater services for the future.

Sure, it may be great to have babies being born and at the same time women in the workforce but the question arises is are we training people for the right occupations for building infrastructure or working in ivory towers and in the future as some pundits would have it, working from home.

And compared to what Europe may have, with our distances and small population we do need that infrastructure building to take place, current flooding being but just one example.

K says:

10:50am | 04/01/11

I am with you 100% in everything you’ve said Lisa! I am in exactly the same boat and think considering I don’t use a lot of the other services ‘my’ taxes go towards, claiming this one work entitlement is a small thing.

I’d rather PPL be paid to people who have actually been contributing to the workforce and paying taxes, than those dole bludgers who draw money from the government for no other reason than they don’t want to work.

A good friend of mine has been unemployed for nearly the whole time I have known him (8 years) for no other reason than ‘he hasn’t found the right job’ or he’s ‘not sure what he wants to do with his life’ (he’s almost 29 for pete’s sake!) and it really shits me and every one of my friends.

The fact is, the taxes we pay through working 40+ hours a week, go, in some way, towards funding his unemployment lifestyle. How is it possible that these people can dupe the system and continue to receive unemployment benefits when the only reason they aren’t working is because they don’t want to?

Perhaps if we stopped paying the dole to these people we wouldn’t need to worry about where the money is going to come from to fund the PPL!

Lisa says:

11:16am | 04/01/11

@Mike T

The point I am making is that I don’t whinge about the taxes I pay being used for other people’s choices or circumstances and thus I have no problem with other people’s taxes being used to pay for mine.

You obviously do not share the same philosophy - fair enough.  I’m curious though, what services do you believe you deserve in return for paying taxes?  Your demands on the services and benefits provided through public monies are probably different to mine.

Ray Graham says:

11:22am | 04/01/11

K, women have no right to challenge any concessions, as they are the gravy train recipients of a delusioned society. Like the cricket tomorrow - breast cancer day. I don’t recall a prostate cancer day. Aboriginals need help, not women on $150,000pa. Your tax is to provide services of need not of excess. I live at a beach side suburb (through a male baby boomers hard work) and see the mothers doing it tough at the beach or @ the coffee shop with the kid in a creche or in childminding, while they receive their procreation line retainers sponsored by the tax payer. Try Bondi Junction for example of the largesse.

Mike T says:

12:42pm | 04/01/11

@ Lisa.
You reference indigenous service, aged care, public health then refer to the fact that your choice (to have a baby) is no different to the way the taxes are handed out. Please point out how aged care, public health and indigenous services are choices.

What do i beleive taxes should be spend on?? i think they should be spend on things where the is a justifiable logic, ie health, infrastructure, education etc. I am Yet to hear one good argument as to why money should be given to women that want to have a baby regardless of wether it is needed or not. So far the arguments i have heard is
1) We need to boost the population to pay for the retirees - surley this is only going to exaagerate the problem in the future
2) I deserve it becasue i pay taxes - Is this it?? Is this the argumnet? If thats the only reason you can give me as to why tax money is given to women/couples that want to have a baby as opposed to other essential services (you know pointless things such as mental health, homeless etc) then thats not a good enough argument.

And please stop this feeling of entitlement because you pay taxes, do you relaise the amount of tax funneled into raiseing your baby even without the parental leave/baby bonus??? Im not compalining about this by the way, i think that society should contribute to health, education, childcare etc. But please have a think about it before you use the old argument “im entitled becasue i pay taxes”

I myself am going to have kids one day, i cant wait to be honest. Am i wrong to think that if im doing weel financially that i should not be asking the Australian Tax payer to pay whilst myself/Wife has time of work??

bleD says:

10:21am | 04/01/11

I agree with you Ihatenaivety. The bonus should stop at two children. I don’t buy the economists’ argument that we need more children to support the aged section of it. The world is already overpopulated and exponential growth has to be stopped at some point. Why not now?

DocBud says:

09:22am | 04/01/11

LN obviously don’t know the details of this policy. The taxpayer will fund it after 1 July 2011 but the employer will have to pay it if you have worked with them for at least 12 months prior to the expected date of birth and will then have to claim the payments back

Ray Graham says:

11:13am | 04/01/11

LN, after the initial priod the employer is going to pay it and claim it back through the government. So you are dumber than the bumb. What about the double dippers on industry based payments PLUS tax payer based payments. What about the women who come back and breeze along in part time or job sharing. Oh, that’s right men will take the burden as they don’t have the largesse of that option Contractors don’t want to deal with a recorded message they would prefer someone who’s there all the time. We’re taliking to Shang Gri La here.

St. Michael says:

11:06am | 04/01/11

... they’re only going to get the minimum wage for 18 weeks, Paul.  That not small enough for you?

Also, if the complaint is that the blokes carry the girls at work, doesn’t the addition of maternity leave actually reduce the burden on the bloke since there’s more money coming into the house and he can work less?

Cloud Strife says:

11:55am | 04/01/11

As opposed to the 30+ female who has been employed for over 12 years and has no intention to have kids?

The only time I’ve had to take time off to look after someone else is when I have to take my cat to the vet in an emergency (ie, when she degloved the tip of her tail).

So how exactly are you ‘carrying’ me and women like me, Paul?

Mike T says:

12:46pm | 04/01/11

@ St Michael

You continue to point out that this is needed to boost the birth rates to fund the retirees. You have just made the argument that it is minimum wage for 18 weeks.

My question is. How effective to you think minimum wage for 18 weeks is going to be in raising Australia’s birth rate?? Seriously try to keep a straight face when you type you response

RG says:

01:00pm | 04/01/11

Oh dear, where do I start?

Ok, firstly it takes a male and a female to make a baby, so the issue on juggling work/ family life impacts both sexes. I work with plenty of dads who take time off for their kids and who are straight out that door at 5pm! I know guys who have taken 6 months paternity leave, have gone part time and my work place even had a guy quit altogether to be with his baby.

Secondly, if you are having issues with a particular female employee or employees at you workplace, why not get your manager to deal with it, rather than blaming the entire female sex?

Lastly you believe that women should be paid less than men. Well there are plenty of studies that show that is exactly what is happening, so cheer up, yeah?

St. Michael says:

01:02pm | 04/01/11

@ MIke T: nice try, but you haven’t defined what “effective” means.  Let’s go to the absolute silly limits of your suggestion and ask this: is it going to result in our birth rate going above replacement rate on its own?

Probably not.  But then I doubt there’s one factor that can do that.  As it is, I reckon you still will see a tick upwards in the birth rate following this, because people are economically rational: see “The Logic of Life” for more on this.  Those teetering on the edge of deciding whether or not to have a child will now be able to tip towards having rather than not having.  That’s the group who’ll take the first plunge.  Following that there’ll be a bit more of a generational shift on it.

Turning away from the economics for a second, it’s also about basic humanity.  For all the employees under paid maternity schemes, there’s a massive number who are not.  I would much rather a scheme which gives the mother a decent chance at staying home for 18 weeks rather than chucking a 6 week old child into a day care centre.  Psychologists are pretty much in agreement on the damage that causes to the kid at that age.

Now, I’ll await you gleefully saying I’ve abandoned my argument, but you’d, again, be wrong.  I haven’t ever said maternity leave is needed to boost the birth rate.  You’re straw-manning my argument ... once again.  I’m saying that’s what governments believe.  Personally, I think this maternity leave scheme is a good thing, just not economically.  But not everything in existence is about economics.

Mike T says:

01:55pm | 04/01/11

@ St Mike

“I haven’t ever said maternity leave is needed to boost the birth rate.  You’re straw-manning my argument ... once again”

I must apologise as the statemnet you made below made me jump to the conclusion you were arguing that this Maternity scheme was needed to boost birth rates. You can probably forgive seeing that exactly what you have said.

“We need more taxpayers to fix the problem, hence more generous maternity leave schemes”

So now you have mentioned that Is isnt about births rates (aparently), but is about doing the humane thing (so the goal posts have obviously been changed seeing you have mentioned that it will do very little to boost brith rates). I happen to agree that women that are strugling should receive assistance, in fact i beleive anyone that is strugling should. Because of this belief i think that payments to people who want to have a baby and can afford it should not be given tax money that could go to other members of our society that could more benefit.  Is that a difficult concept to grasp or do are you of the belief that taxes dollars are infinite and thier is no opportunity cost of giving this money to people that do not require it.

You seem like an intellengent guy mike so i dont mean to attack you personally. There is so many worthy ways to use of tax money, there is so many deserving members of our society, many of whom are strugling. I am just after a good reason why this particular group deserves extra funding over others (mental health, dissabled etc). Since posting on here every argument i have heard is total BS, including such tripe as “i pay taxes so i deserve it” to the “its humane”. You need to do better

Romli065 says:

02:29pm | 04/01/11

Cloud Strife, I think Paul Neri is clearly aiming his arrow at the women “breeders” in the workplace, not at me and you (I too had a cat and have only taken a day off when the poor thing had to be put down).  And I have to say that I agree with Paul Neri on this one.  I have always felt a terrible inequity with women in the workplace who have children, as opposed to me who doesn’t.  They seem to get any number of concessions for their time and holidays whereas I’m expected to do the late meetings and after hours stuff just because I don’t have kids.  So what, I still have a life!  It’s really annoying to me that just because a woman has had a child she immediately becomes some goddess earth mother or some such nonsense, and different rules apply.  I think if you want to have kids, then plan your life - and your financial situation - to have kids.  Don’t expect the government and employers to subside your choices.  Nobody paid my mum to have us kids, and she worked both before and after her pregnancies.  My parents just lived with less money for the time that mum was at home. And they survived and we thrived and all is well with the world.  Why can’t that be the case anymore?

bbkay says:

03:25pm | 04/01/11

@ Romli065 and Cloud Strife:

Perpetuating cliches much?

St. Michael says:

05:09pm | 04/01/11

@ Mike T: I thought I’d already said.  The mother/bond child is still forming and a lot of important psychological development goes on in a child’s mind during that first 6 months of life, if not the first year.  Yet there’s been a lot of mothers who—because of the lack of a paid maternity leave scheme—have had to dump their baby into daycare at 6 weeks of age and go back to work.  It’s not just people on bare-bones incomes, either.  The damage done has been well chronicled; read some of Steve Biddulph’s books on parenting if you’re interested in the subject.

Children are our future.  Cliche, but true.  By having the mother able to take maternity leave, paid, whatever her job circumstances at the time, you do a lot of important preventative work that ultimately is going to pay off with better-adjusted kids and better outcomes for the community later on.  In other words: it’s not just a humanitarian argument, it is a social argument—which ultimately translates back into an economic argument if you want to run calculations on how much it costs the system later on to fix the damage rather than stop it at the front end.  You make families less financially stressed, because regardless of what the Pollyannas say, it’s impossible to fully predict the expense of bringing a new child into the world.  I know; we tried and planned and scrimped and saved, and it still is brutally expensive with a lot of blind spots for new parents.

As a more general measure, I’d be saying that prevention is proven as better than a cure, economically and socially.  At its best I do see paid maternity leave as that.  It is a payment designed to be preventative.  It’s always harder to discern the benefits of prevention simply because if it works you shouldn’t see any problem arise - and, as with health, as with the disabled, as with the mentally ill, it is always easy to see the 10% of cases of illness rather than the 90% of the healthy.  I would be far prouder of a statistic that 95% of mothers feel they can comfortably take 3 months at least off their jobs to care for their kids than a statistic that says we have a 95% success rate at intervening with dysfunctional kids whose problems in part were caused by the mother/child bond not forming due to parental absence from work.

Mike T says:

06:06pm | 04/01/11

@ Saint Mike

So no response to being caught out telling porky pies with the whole “i never said comment” ???

In regards to children being our future. you are 100% correct. Do you not see a problem in encouraging low income earners to have more children who will strugle both financially and time wise as soon as the 18 weeks is over????

Citing stats around the benefits of increased parenting time at home is all well and good but adds no weight to the argument of a paid parental scheme. I have no doubts that a 4 day weekend would reduce the stress to the average worker, and i have no doubt that having a govt paid lawnmowing service would reduce the level of hayfever suffered by citizens….but just like the scheme none of these give me cause as to why the govt should pay for a couples that can afford to fund thier own children.

“as with the disabled, as with the mentally ill, it is always easy to see the 10% of cases of illness rather than the 90% of the healthy.  I would be far prouder of a statistic that 95% of mothers feel they can comfortably take 3 months at least off their jobs to care for their kids than a statistic that says we have a 95% success rate at intervening with dysfunctional kids whose problems in part were caused by the mother/child bond not forming due to parental absence from work”

Wow, just wow so 90% of the mentally ill and dissabled are recieving excellent care??? And 95% of mothers are comfortable that they can take 3 months leave????? what???? of course they are comfortable they are being paid…...If you gave ANY group time of work and paid them would these figure be any lower???? 

Over and out mate, you at the point of desperation, changing your argument, now making up stats…..you have had around 10 cracks to bring some logic to the argument and have brought nil. have a good night

Cloud Strife says:

06:37pm | 04/01/11

@bbkay

Because we have cats? I also have a partner, so we can’t both be crazy cat women (mainly because he is a man).

Romli065 says:

08:16pm | 04/01/11

Yes, I have a boyfriend too, 9 years.  The single woman with cat cliche it may be in the eyes of some, but it’s true that we get discriminated against by the nature goddesses of this world.  I chose not to have children and I shouldn’t be punished for this choice.

Paul Neri says:

08:08am | 05/01/11

What the world needs is more pets not bloody children. Here are the reasons why people breed:

(i) too backward to understand contraception (hence the cycle of the lower orders replicating themselves);

(ii) money - child support payments;

(iii) vanity - potentially making a Britney Spears or a Mozart;

(iv) nailing a man - “I’m having your baby, stay with me”.

(v) attention seeking - the hallmark of the female and having a baby is just one more means of attracting oohs and aahs.

(vi) self-image fulfilment - this is what women in our society do and besides, Cindy has a baby and I want one too.

(vii) work shy - let my husband die of stress while I dump the kids in child care and swan about coffee shops and take aromatherapy sessions.

(viii) seeking parental approval - “I gave you a granchild mummy and daddy and now I’m gunna let you babysit the little sucker, oh yes I am!”.

As a snipped male I saunter out into the wider world where beautiful women try to lure me into breeding with them and I feel smug that I have denied them a means to their self-centred end!

Romli065 says:

09:03am | 05/01/11

Paul Neri, I think I love you!!  You summation of why women breed (well let’s be honest and say MOST women) is brilliant!  So much so that it almost brought tears to my eyes, and a little LOL too.  Thank you.

Paul Neri says:

09:48am | 05/01/11

I think you do too (love me) Romlio65. I guess it’s because I’m so, I dunno, lovable. Why else would my (sadly deceased) pets always present at their food bowls with eyes swimming with affection?

(ix) purpose - the human being needs purpose in its life. By creating need (a child) it can respond to that need and in the process feel useful and indeed sanctimonious: “I’m making all these sacrifices for another human being. I’m so unselfish unlike that DINK-pig Paul Neri who only has himself and his partner to worry about!”. Trouble is, their goodness is artificial. There was no need until they created it. Much like a fireman who lights a fire and then wants a pat on the back for putting it out.

(x) fear of death - leaving a little bit of yourself behind that is living, cheats death in some peoples’ minds.

TracyS says:

04:58pm | 06/01/11

@Paul Neri - as a woman who does not have children, I have worked extra hours whilst men who are fathers go home to their sick kids as well so it is not just gender specific.

St. Michael says:

11:37am | 04/01/11

Might it have been the fact that the cost of living since 1800 or so has risen just a little, NicoleG?

The old always say how the good old days were much better.  You do realise that also means economically?

NicoleG says:

12:14pm | 04/01/11

If you think I’m old, you must be about 16 and judging by your gimme, gimme, gimme attitude, I’m right. You want kids, pay for them yourself. Don’t expect everyone else to pick up the tab.

Pamella Lani says:

12:49pm | 04/01/11

A big hug for NicoleG…..... I agree you you 100%..........

St. Michael says:

12:51pm | 04/01/11

Ah, but I do, NicoleG: My wife and I both pay in both pre and post tax dollars for my kids (post and pre) and everyone else’s (pre).  And I’m happy to do so since it means there’s less likelihood I’ll have to pay for everyone else’s kids later in taxes to pay for jail cells or unemployment benefits.

So no, you’re wrong.

Do you own your house outright, Nicole? How much did you buy it for? How much would you demand for it if you sold it today? It’s Baby Boomers speculating on property prices that created the current property bubble in the Australian market, mate.  You’re not one of them, are you?

Romli065 says:

02:32pm | 04/01/11

Thanks NicoleG, I agree with you 100%, well said!

JulesG says:

02:42pm | 04/01/11

Good onya Nicole, you tell ‘em - snotty nosed little buggers

NicoleG says:

03:36pm | 04/01/11

No I don’t own my house outright. I paid a sh!t load less for it than it’s worth now. If it was for sale now I’d want a sh!t load more for it. No I’m not a baby boomer, I’m a gen x. You seem to have a real problem with the older generation. Why? Just remember it was the baby boomers who bought you in to this world, feed you, clothed you, put a roof over you head, educated you and wiped your ass. Show some damn respect.

St. Michael says:

04:52pm | 04/01/11

@ NicoleG: As people like yourself frequently say: do something deserving of respect and then it’ll be given.  For the record my parents raised me, not the Baby Boomers.  And they sure as hell didn’t have the Baby Boomers attitudes to the world, either.

Far as I can tell, the Baby Boomers never had a worldwide war or a depression to confront.  In such blessed circumstances, they gave us nuclear proliferation, treated the free love movement as a fad and then abandoned their principles en masse when they figured out money was more fun.

From the Boomers comes Greed is Good, Spending the Kids’ Inheritance, Grey Nomads, and greedy old fools who lost their savings in dodgy investment schemes because they didn’t want to see past the dollar signs in their eyes.  The current crop of politicians are, to a large extent, Baby Boomers.  Take another look at how they’ve royally f!cked up the world and the planet (the two aren’t the same thing.) before you lionise these silly people en masse as a generation.  There’s a reason they call the generation that gave birth to the Boomers as the Greatest Generation.

The Baby Boomers were the first, and last, generation that will be able to spend more in its lifetime than they earn, and the rest of us will be left to pick up the tab.

The fact you paid a lot for your house and now you want a lot more for it proves my point, though.  Wage growth has not kept up with property prices, and it’s making younger generations bleed.  People sitting back on top of the things they got in cheaper times often pontificate to the younger generation how it’s all still doable and all still obtainable.  Several generations of Reserve Bank governors disagree; first home ownership isn’t quite so simple now.

Grow up.

NicoleG says:

05:55pm | 04/01/11

So it’s the baby boomers fault that the world is FUBAR and the planet is screwed? Your logic(?) is flawed and you have no idea. You’re clearly bitter because other people have what you want. Get a better job that pays more and you can have what you desire. And if you have any more kids, pay for them yourself. Either that or you’re more than welcome to deposit 20c of every dollar you earn in to my bank account to pay for my kids. Fair?

Gladys says:

01:56pm | 05/01/11

Well said, NicoleG.

marley says:

04:26pm | 05/01/11

@StMichael - well, no, the boomers didn’t have a war or worldwide depression to confront.  That’s if you don’t count Vietnam, the Cold War, or the 73 oil crisis and the 81 recession.  Come to think of it, none of the subsequent generations have anything much to complain about on that front either.

Nuclear proliferation?  Not the boomers, boyo - that was the preceding generation.  Remember, Bill Clinton was the first boomer president. By the time he came on the scene, nuclear proliferation was an issue only in places like Pakistan and North Korea.

Spending money, and foolish investments?  Sure, but is this unique to the boomers?  I seem to recall the infamous South Sea Bubble, back in 1720.  Just a bit before the days of the boomers.  There are foolish boomers, just as there are foolish Xers and foolish Yers.  You can’t tell me the current generation’s credit card debt level is all on essentials.

And what exactly is wrong with being a grey nomad?  Beats blowing your weekly pay on clubbing or drunken cruises.

As for screwing up the world, well, environmental vandalism didn’t start with the boomers and it sure won’t end with them.  Not so long as Gen Y and Gen Z have a taste for iPods and iPads and plasma TVs.  And the political screwups - yup, many and frequent.  If you know anything at all about history, you’ll probably find that’s a repetitive pattern - humanity has an unfailing capacity to make things worse.  Don’t blame it all on the boomers, or you’ll miss the foul ups your own generation is in the process of committing.

St. Michael says:

11:50am | 04/01/11

Nice, but I still prefer V’s aphorism that “People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.”

DocBud says:

02:41pm | 04/01/11

Yes, it applies to adoption.

Ray says:

01:24pm | 04/01/11

St Michael, most baby boomers are self sunded retirees. Just like you are self delusional. Women hold society to ransom. Does China have maternity (forget the parental bit) leave.

St. Michael says:

02:02pm | 04/01/11

@ Ray: Figures, darling.  You have none, and you’re wrong.  Senior’s Voice, who you’d expect to know, says that by 2050 75% of all retirees—self-funded or otherwise—will be partially dependent on the pension.  75% means 3 out of 4, in case you didn’t know that already.  Which means it’s not “most” baby boomers who are self-funded.  Link: http://www.seniorsvoice.org.au/cms_resources/Documents/news/pension_attitudes.pdf

Try using Google before hammering randomly on the keyboard and clicking “post”.  It only took me 3 minutes to dig that one up.

By the way, so-called “self-funded retirees” still benefit from government largesse, in that they still get the Health Care Card and the Pensioners’ Travel Concession cards.  Those are government benefits worth a decent amount of cash.  Check the government’s own websites on that.

Women holding society to ransom ... Family Court go against you, did they?

As for China having maternity leave: China also taints its baby milk with melamine, fertilises its crops with human faeces, and has a high murder rate for newborn female infants because of its stupid one child policy.  Economics doesn’t mean everything.  Even so: try for some meaningful comparisons, genius.  Thank you for playing!

Ray Graham says:

02:56pm | 04/01/11

St Michael. So you are relying on figures making predictions to 2050. We can’t even get it right for next year let alone 2050, And in 2050 history will ask WTF were these people doing, Another pearl of wisdom ranking with the stolen generation. That’s not the stolen indigeanous generation, but the generation(s) of children stolen from their fathers, aided and abetted by the Family Court and apurtenent legislation
If you are self funded like me I am still pay a degree of tax but you are NOT, I repeat NOT entitled to the Health Card or Pensioners Travel Concession. I may get SENIORS travel concession from the State Govt. Health Card is means tested but not to the extent of $150,000 for paid maternity leave.

China, well there’s a plethora of comments here quoting European countries paying maternity leave. Most are broke and China is at the top of the pack thank you very much. China has its faults but so do we. Largesse of concessions to women for starters, PLUS a culpably tainted education system that favours women or do you have memory fade as well as delusion. As for the Family Court it’s just one of the many forms of castration of men available to women. I’ve quoted others if you care to look. But no may be you’d like to Google

People can use figures to misrepresent anything, such as 17% less pay for women than men, but hey why worry about a few fudges those figures become folklore after being repeated a few times.

I’d like tp say ‘genius to you ‘Mick’ but that would be tountamount to the largesse of maternity leave. Just act your age instead of your shoe size.

St. Michael says:

04:40pm | 04/01/11

@ Ray: Darling, you were the one who said “most baby boomers are self-funded retirees” without anything to back it up.  You still haven’t produced anything to back that assertion—although by what you’ve said, by “most”, I now assume you mean “Me.”  Those typographical errors are a problem, aren’t they?

But thank you for confirming you are profiting from government largesse, as I said before.

By the way, read the link again.  It’s your mob predicting 3 out of 4 retirees partially dependent on the pension by 2050, not mine, sport.

You really hit the hilarity button with “China has its faults, so do we!”  I don’t think the comparison’s valid, darling.  But in keeping with your line of thought, did you know Nazi Germany had a fantastic economy ahead of World War Two?  All those lovely German people just getting on, quietly, not bothering anyone else, not getting into spats over rights or freedoms.  They just got on and kept making watches.  Feel free (as you can’t be in China) to add that to your list of silly comparisons.

I’ve no desire to get into your “The Wife Took My Shotgun Off Me In The Divorce And Now I Feel Aggrieved And Feel All Women Have It Easy” mindset, so let’s just leave that swamp unwaded, hmmmm?

Otherwise, do go and have a Bex and a lie down.  You’ll feel much better afterwards, I promise.

Ray Graham says:

08:30pm | 04/01/11

Dear Mike so now you are equating China with Germany. I’ll give you one thing you are flexible. WWII had nothing to do with reproduction other than to produce the Aryan superior race . And I’m profiting from government largesse to the extent of an occasionaql $2.50 train fare from Wyee to Newcastle.

Your shotgun family court analogy shows a sign of dementia so may be you should be funded for a carer, and may be that’s where you see the benefit of funding female liabilities to produce funding machines for your terminal care.

For your info I’m simply sick of women and their never ending claims for concession, special treatment, harrassment claims when they don’t get promoted or appointed, or they see an opportune nest egg at the end of the rainbow etc and some when they’re on $150,000pa. Unfortunately we indoctrinate our replacement female population from birth with the discrimination card.

You are also promoting a stereotype for men who state an opinion by intimating violence aka shotgun reference.

So we are moving from the topic to unfounded character assassination and attack the messenger style, which is a sure sign of admitting you are done.

Mike T says:

11:46am | 04/01/11

“It has to do with demographics, not middle class welfare, bucks for babies, or so-called positive discrimination in favour of women” True demographics is the driver behind the decision, but the other points are all real and valid as they ARE occuring, even if by a secondary means.

“We need more taxpayers to fix the problem, hence more generous maternity leave schemes” as you are so adament that exponential growth numbers are the best solution im assuming that we must keep such growth for many years as the life expectancy increases are not heading south??? surley a better solution would be to look at avenues how the elderly are funded rather then adding to the problem for future generations by further breeding. Im perplexed how you can use the term fix the problem by using a means which will only fuel it in the long term.

My last point, is do you actually believe that paid parental leave will add signifigantly to the birth rate??? im yet to see any figures or logic to suggest that it will. Very low income earners already have signifigant welfare (ie single mothers) so the they have no real extra incentive. So are we thinking that the middle/upper class couples who were not going to have kids will now change thier mind becuase they can have leave aftr the birth???? You have to be kidding right.

Just another case of handouts to people that dont really need it. This country is turning to BS. Anyone that is well travelled and has the opportunity to see which other countries are prospering and those that are going backwards will know that we are following every mistake of those that are heading south. unfortunately we just cant see it yet

Gregg says:

12:09pm | 04/01/11

@ Saint Micky
” Tory doesn’t say it explicitly “
She kind of does but with a bit in between when you read:
” The misunderstanding that this is just welfare arises because before the election both the Government and the Opposition wanted only to talk about supporting families and giving children the best start in life. The ageing stuff is harder to sell, and it sometimes puts Boomers offside. “
....................
..........
” Australia needs every person possible working productively to see us through the Baby Boomer bubble. Otherwise a smaller number of us will be left staggering under the weight. “

And that’s the ” theory for the future ” and that’s something governments attempt to govern for, either shorter term and sometimes longer term, sometimes not so good or deplorable but with the future it’ll always be more difficult to determine what is best and it seems we are forever not attempting to learn from the past, even now when the global economy is still going down the gurglar.
It is always more is better to maintain more people employed so they can spend more and pay more taxes.

You say that baby boomers ought to come out of retirement and first there has to be a job for them, another issue, a huge issue for anybody past 45-50 who finds themselves on a restructuring scrapheap and many of those people are the ones who have learnt to be thrifty and independent and would like to see governments spending far less on all sorts of things.
That way, some of their taxes paid for over many years of productive employment may have been more securely pidgeonholed for later life care but our governments are the alst to know about being thrifty and so why should they be trusted in planning something for the future.

St. Michael says:

12:33pm | 04/01/11

@MIke T: “surley a better solution would be to look at avenues how the elderly are funded rather then adding to the problem for future generations by further breeding. Im perplexed how you can use the term fix the problem by using a means which will only fuel it in the long term.”

By “look at avenues for how the elderly are funded” you are basically saying put more tax on taxpayers, or cut the benefits they get.  It is as simple as that.  Governments can only obtain additional cash by either raising additional taxes on their constituents or by cutting spending in other areas.  There’s no other way.  So feel free to look and explore all you like - you’ll find nothing to fix the problem other than one of those two methods.

Also, as with many silly opinionistas, you tried to straw man my argument.  I didn’t say exponential growth numbers are the best solution.  I said that’s what governments of both stripes are trying to do. And we are partially to blame for that because whilst we’ve got morons out there who believe immigration is uniformly bad, the only way the government politically has left to increase the tax base is to breed more taxpayers. 

“My last point, is do you actually believe that paid parental leave will add signifigantly to the birth rate??? im yet to see any figures or logic to suggest that it will. Very low income earners already have signifigant welfare (ie single mothers) so the they have no real extra incentive. So are we thinking that the middle/upper class couples who were not going to have kids will now change thier mind becuase they can have leave aftr the birth???? You have to be kidding right.”

Strunk and White’s corpses have just hit 3000 rpm, but let’s get down to your ... question.  The benefit is set at the minimum wage.  It is not aimed at people earning less than the minimum wage, whom you rightly say have welfare schemes to help tide them over.  I would have thought that would be obvious even to yourself.

Low income and middle income earners, though, do.  They will therefore at least feel more at ease to take time off to look after their kids after they’re born rather than put all the financial strain on the one partner who’s left working.  (By the way, the child benefits from a less strained household, but I guess you wouldn’t know about that.)  And actually all the research suggests women are more likely to have another child if they feel financially secure especially just after the birth.  You need to read a bit more widely than you have if you’re looking for this research, dear.

“Just another case of handouts to people that dont really need it. This country is turning to BS.”

Well, then, I hope you enjoy the next 20 years or so, because either your taxes are going up, or the health system is going down the tubes—because of the Baby Boomers, not the mothers you seem to have such a hard-on against.  How old were you again?

St. Michael says:

12:43pm | 04/01/11

@ Gregg: I didn’t say Baby Boomers ought to come out of retirement.  I said if they want to get sanctimonious about welfare and community largesse being given to young Mums they should perhaps forego their own accumulated largesses which are entirely legal.  Oh, they can’t do that because of various issues like workplace prejudice or attitudes out of step with the commercial world? Gosh.  Guess they understand what new mothers feel like.

I actually think maternity leave payments are a good thing—just not economically.  Whinge about expense and largesse all you like; we need more mums at home looking after their kids, not chucked into day care centres at 6 weeks of age because the mother has to go back to work.

But I do think the Federal Government has royally screwed up the idea of providing the funding to employers who then have to pay it on to their employees.  If the experience with child care benefit funding is anything to go by, there will be a lot of shonky employers who’ll keep the money for themselves and say “Take me to court, I’m bankrupt” if an employee asks where her maternity payments are.  God knows the Federal Government certainly doesn’t give a damn about things like that.

Getting back to the Baby Boomer Pension Scheme: there’s no solution to the problem.  The simple fact is eventually someone will cut entitlement to the Age Pension, and cut it deeply.  It’ll be a politician who will then lose the next election, but eventually one of those lying idiots on the Hill will take the least worst solution which is to piss off a big section of voters rather than risk the country running into bankruptcy.  Which is not to give them any points for courage: it’s just a matter of what they fear more, losing an election or losing the entire country.  And the default for all politicians is option (1).

Shane From Melbourne says:

06:14pm | 04/01/11

This entire argument is crap. Since the current baby boom produced by the baby bonus and paid parental leave isn’t going to become productive taxpayers for 15 to 20 years (assuming the jobs are available) then the taxation system will collapse under the stress of trying to support both the baby boomers (pensions, health system) and next generation (baby bonus, paid parental leave, maternity wards, primary school places, child care places etc.) For the government to believe that only a few generations (x, y, z) can support two large unproductive generations is absolutely insane.

NicoleG says:

06:52pm | 04/01/11

Agreed 100% !

Tripper Smurf says:

02:25pm | 04/01/11

Scandinavian countries are also able to fund their generous welfare programs off the back off higher Income Tax rates….  I for one would much prefer it to choose where my money is spent as much as I can and therefore would not support an increase in tax to support this or any other welfare program.

Otherwise we will end up like Europe.

St. Michael says:

02:11pm | 04/01/11

What about unexpected pregnancies, Steph? Especially for devout religious families or just people who believe it’s wrong to abort a foetus? Or the young Mum whose husband runs out on her when she becomes pregnant?

You can carp on about individual responsibility all you like, but life sometimes does not work that way.

Tripper Smurf says:

02:29pm | 04/01/11

Relgion is ultimatley another choice.  One that has been bred into a large proportion of the populace, but a choice nonetheless.  Why should the rest of us pay for someone else’s choice? 

As for the single mother issue, as someone who grew up as the child of someone in those circumstances, there is more than adequate welfare/ housing that is made available to you to ensure that you are not left destitute.  Single Parent Payments are available to all single parents who earn below 150k a year. 

So again why do we need to pay for the choice of people to procreate in an already overpopulated world?

Steph says:

05:32pm | 04/01/11

St. Michael, the act of conception is voluntary and the resulting actions are well known. You tell me.

As for the Catholics (which I believe are the only sect of Christanity that believe contraception is bad), they often have the church helping them. In fact, that’s what churches are (partly) there for. Not just Catholic ones, but protestant ones too. Churches are more often involved in the children’s lives than a once off payment from the govt. (I’m not referring to payouts from the Church, I’m talking about grocery deliveries from donations in the congregation, members of the church coming round to do repairs and maintanence, including lawn mowing, around said families home, etc)

With the single mother issue… with proof the father is… well, the father… of said child/ren, then there’s child support. Some mothers milk it, and while I disagree with the lengths women will sometimes go to take every dollar of the fathers, the fact remains it’s still an option.

Tamra says:

07:02pm | 04/01/11

Tripper Smurf, please understand that Single Parent Payments cut out at about $38k, after that it is just the same Family Tax Benefit that every other family in Australia has the capacity to claim, based upon income tests.

Tripper Smurf says:

11:33am | 05/01/11

Tamra…. thats my point exactly.  These payments are available to single parents should they decide to not work/ or cannot work up til the child is a certain age.  Are you saying that these payments cutting out when the parent is earning more than 38k a year a bad thing?  Sorry but Im not happy to subsidise another working person for their life choices.

The Family Tax Benefit (which is higher if you are a single parent) is another example of what is wrong with this country when it comes to middle class welfare programs.  People earning just below the average wage should not need assistance from the taxpayer.

Tamra says:

03:58pm | 05/01/11

Tripper… I agree that it should cut out, but it certainly doesn’t cut out at $150k… that was my point, it cuts out completely at about $38k (and reduces from about $14k). 

The FTB that a single parent household can claim is EXACTLY the same as that for any other family.  A single income, double parent household gets the same FTB part B that a single parent family gets, it was designed to counter the loss of the second tax free threshold while raising kids, and is calculated on the households income.

Steph says:

07:04pm | 04/01/11

Better than Labor voters, who get money for merely existing.

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:45pm | 04/01/11

You think this is anger? Wait till next election where the hate towards parties advocating middle class welfare will be palpable. Plan on an even higher informal vote….

MrsK says:

10:50am | 05/01/11

An informal vote is a total cop out. If you are not willing to be part of the process, you are ill-placed to criticise.

I simply don’t understand the resentment towards the PPL. I’m really happy for you if you raised your children without PPL, you worked hard and raised happy, healthy children. Think how this will benefit your children and make it a little easier for them. It isn’t middle class welfare, it is the smallest of payments as an encouragement to stay in the workforce.

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:35am | 05/01/11

@ MrsK- rubbish. If all parties advocate a policy I don’t agree with, paid parental leave as middle class welfare (the only difference between parties is who pays for it) then I have no other option but an informal vote. Why would I vote for a party that advocates something I vehemently disagree with? I disagree with it I believe that welfare should be for the truly needy, I disagree with it because governments do not properly budget for a population boom, I disagree with it because Australia cannot environmentally handle another population boom, I disagree with the ponzi scheme of paying for the baby boomers pensions and health care with another population boom, I disagree with it because it treats one segment of the population (families) differently from other segments (singles, couples with no kids, gays, pensioners), I disagree with it because it causes division and resentment between segments of Australians when we need unity for the times ahead. I curse the day John Howard started building the middle class welfare state.

St. Michael says:

05:11pm | 04/01/11

Bear in mind we’re not at replacement levels of population at the moment.  By definition that means we’re going to have more older people than those of taxpaying age as time goes on.

As for the next master stroke of policy planning, that’s easy.  When a politician overcomes his or her yellow streak sufficiently to see the country’s about to go bust, then—and only then—they will cut the Age Pension.

Ray Graham says:

01:43pm | 05/01/11

Bemused, tell me why women should be allowed to double dip, as in an industry based benefit PLUS a taxpayer based benefit when in particular they earn $150,000pa. This is simply about women nothing more nothing less. Not about family, children or fathers. Please do not attempt to compare any fundraiseng to the monopoly of breast cancer fundraising. Why isn’t it shared with prostate cancer funding. Men’s sport provides the major contribution to breast cancer. Why covet the lot.

No particular woman has hurt me other than working in a Federal environment dominated by affirmative action, quotas, quarantining of positions for women , and preferential job selection processes. I felt unwelcome in my own workplace because of it, despite providing sound mentoring to my female and all staff.

Women are just self centred, icons of conceit, who can see nothing but their own preordained entitlement. Sad really but as I said indoctrinated from birth. It’s why men still rise to the top, because they know no one is going to do it for them.

Ray Graham says:

03:10pm | 05/01/11

Bemused, you may wish to also consider what it is like for 10-15 years to be raising kids dependent on my salary without an option for another well paid job because the doors are shut. Despite having contributed for 25 years you are suddenly deemed disposable despite your contribution, integrity and ability as you are career terminated, in favour of ill experienced prima dona females who know they can do no wrong. This because promoton of females is a performance criteria for assessment of higher executives at political behest. Day in day out. Women exclusive workshops to create women exclusive networks and then appoint women exclusively to men to for mentoring advancement. 

These women after promotion work part time or job share and you guessed it the responsibility comes back to the male in the office. Contractors don’t want to deal with a recorded message with the work ethics statement of ‘I’ll get back to you’.

Movember? Well there’s a non event if ever there was one.

So it’s not a female that’s got me good. It’s women who have got men good, by the short and curlys, and won’t relent or deny to avail themselves of the abhorently one sided workplace or societal legislation that facilitates vexacious or vengeful actions with ease. Or just 18weeks off while men carry the load.

Syl says:

11:02am | 05/01/11

Hahahaha Kudos for the Red Dwarf reference.

Also, I agree.

bm says:

02:29pm | 10/01/11

Where to begin.. some, like mine don’t live in the same state or town. Some are continuing to work as late as they can, like mine… there are a myriad of reasons the grandkids aren’t spending the day with Nanna. It’s not so simple

Shane From Melbourne says:

01:15pm | 05/01/11

As opposed to the cheap housing, free education and walk in jobs the baby boomers got? I’ll take the baby boomers situation, thanks. This is the generation that virtually invented the selfish meme and passed it on to succeeding generations. Baby boomers screwed up the world, they just don’t want to admit it,,,,

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:25am | 07/01/11

Absolute Rubbish. Bad policy is bad policy. I’ve already posted above why it is bad for the nation and ultimately unsustainable.