Welcome to Generation Fair

Rev says:

02:02pm | 27/12/10

I agree. 

All it is doing is transfrering the responsibility of welfare from government to enterprise, which is insane.

I read somewhere once that in real terms, Howard’s baby bonus cost ~$200k per child.  This scheme by Labor (and the Libs alternate version) will result in more, not less, discrimination of women in the workplace, and it boggles the mind that a female PM can’t see that.  When it comes to pregnancy, women will be discriminated against not only for the fact they have to take leave, but that the employer is obligated to pay them also.

If I was an employer, I would only hire a woman of child bearing age if she was significantly superior to the other applicants.

Winnie says:

02:06pm | 27/12/10

Would those evil bludging parents of today include your children?

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

06:53am | 28/12/10

the words evil and bludging werent used but my kids are all overseas paying their way around the world.
We owned businesses that employed 48 staff which we chose to sell instead of expand (they have now halved in size) and set up three small businesses that have lower turnover and no employees and run from home, this is a direct result of government policies incl, tax, super, payroll tax, parental leave schemes etc as i previously said damn easy to give away other peoples money to get yourself reelected.

Brian says:

09:03am | 28/12/10

I doubt very much that “Howard’s baby bonus cost ~$200k per child”, unless you can find me an example of a system with 2.5% efficiency (even governments aren’t THAT bad!) elsewhere, or the original source.

But enough on that. Let’s compare this to the pension: When it was first introduced the average life expectancy meant that most men wouldn’t get it at all, and overall each worker could expect to pay for 1-2 years of a pension. Now the life expectancy has increased, so the average worker can expect to pay for 20 years of a pension. Based on the logic used by many opponents of paid leave (I didn’t get it, so they shouldn’t) the pension age should be somewhere in the late 70’s.

Society changes, life changes, spending priorities change. My son was born in May - we got no maternity leave (we did get baby bonus), but I don’t begrudge those who will. Similarly, I expect the pension will be abolished for all but the poorest few percent of society by the time I retire, but I don’t begrudge those who get it now.

Rev says:

10:53am | 28/12/10

Brian - I’m trying to track it down, it was an interesting opinion to read.

The crux of the argument was that the ‘success’ of the baby bonus program should be measured by the net increase in births against the total cost.  At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of women who gave birth and qualified for the bonus would have done so, baby bonus or not.  Hence the $200k price tag per extra child in real terms.

And whilst the logic of ‘I didn’t get it, so they shouldn’t’ is prevalent, it isn’t the only argument.  I can understand why Sir Ronald (and myself) are frustrated with how our tax dollars are spent, because governments of all persuasions do such a terrible job of spending it.

Brian says:

02:11pm | 28/12/10

Ah, an interesting form of viewing the baby bonus, but by that logic I can see it costing $200k per child (we would have had my son regardless, for example). But if that IS the case, then we should look at the benefit that child generates. Assuming that benefit is measured solely through tax, and that the child earns the average wage (I’m assuming 50K, here) over a 50 year career, the child will pay $442,500 tax (at current tax rates, and taking no account of inflation), about 4.5% annual return on capital.

Not too bad, given that the real benefit to society will be much more than just the tax paid.

Rev says:

08:04am | 29/12/10

Sure, as a future taxpayer there is a benefit - but they’re also a user of government services.  I would agree that in the long run they would more than likely ‘repay’ the $200k figure though.  As for the intangible benefits a child brings…no argument!

But if creating future taxpayers was a concern, why not target skilled migrants in their 20s?

Brian says:

08:27am | 29/12/10

Agreed Rev - I’d love to target skilled migrants in their 20’s (in fact they already do…), but for some strange reason most of the society can’t stand the concept of immigration, and think we have too many immigrants already.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:13pm | 27/12/10

Ian M :  I agree , that is exactly how it was . We were happy with our lot and did not try to live beyond our means.

Phil says:

01:08pm | 27/12/10

Andrerw, you are spot on. Being the political fraud/looking through rose coloured glasses at lib policies what Ged doesnt mention is that if the Liberals policy whatever you thought of it was implimented then all companies could do away with their plans as a levy on large businesses for a short period would fund a fair dinkum scheme, not some dumbed down system which will pay many women more than they could get.
The unions will do anything to keep their buddies in power that way the gravy train of labor can continue, plus, and she doesnt mention this, one day most likely M/s Kearney will apply for preselection and given her helping will be parachuted into a safe labor seat/senate spot.
It is with this in mind that you must take most things union leaders say with a grain of salt.

Mother Rose says:

09:32am | 27/12/10

Wasn’t it Abbott and his cronies who want to pay a woman 75 thousand dollars to have offspring?
Get a grip AJ

AJ says:

12:26pm | 27/12/10

Mother Rose, if you look at the policy it rewards exactly those that should have children not the same amount for everone. Get some knowledge then come back to me.

Jade says:

08:31am | 27/12/10

i’m fairly sure that if you get the maternity payment you don’t get baby bonus…

I don't care if you're Arthur or Martha says:

04:54pm | 27/12/10

I couldn’t care less what your sexuality is. Why is your ‘Gay Tax Dollar’ any different to my tax dollar? Before you scream ‘homophobe!’, several of my best friends are gay. But why do gays have to drag their frigging sexuality into everything? What what the hell does your sexuality have to do with paid parental leave? I personally know plenty of gays who have kids and who have received benefits so how about leaving your sexuality out of it. Sheesh

Kate says:

05:55pm | 27/12/10

@I Don’t Care if you’re Arthur or Martha:

Please don’t feed the trolls.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:23pm | 27/12/10

Drew :  ” Well thats my 2 cents worth. “

Two cents !  bloody robbery . !

Gay tax dollar !  -  is this a new grab line from the Gay Lobby or just a brain explosion from a fruitloop.  ?

PaulB says:

01:24am | 28/12/10

Gay tax Dollar (GTD).  Nice.  Didn’t think that one through did you girlfriend?

Brian says:

09:06am | 28/12/10

Consider it a down-payment on your pension, which will be paid by these offspring, rather than your own (note that if you have your own, including adoption, you’d be eligible for the baby bonus).

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:16am | 28/12/10

@Brian (if you are the same Brian that posted at 9.03am about 4 blogs up)

First you are saying that the pension will be mostly abolished: “Similarly, I expect the pension will be abolished for all but the poorest few percent of society by the time I retire, but I don’t begrudge those who get it now.”

Now you are saying that future pensions will be paid by taxes from these offspring (which is complete BS and would make it a ponzi scheme if it was true)

Make up your mind

Brian says:

02:29pm | 28/12/10

I know not the age of Drew (and yes, it’s the same Brian) and therefore whether or not he’ll get a pension. This comment was more ‘throwaway’ though, although the point remains (replace ‘pensions’ with ‘medical care’ if you’d prefer).

In any case, who IS paying the pensions? The government doesn’t exactly keep it in trust. Old age pensions with extending lifespans IS basically a ponzi scheme, and will fall down in exactly the same way when the number of people already in the scheme (pensioners) grows without increasing numbers at the bottom end (new births/immigration)

Paul says:

09:48am | 27/12/10

Not to mention the cost of running a Zeppelin, feeding the Tasmanian Tiger and sending the kids to the local Copernican kindy.  Young people today, eh?

T says:

09:54am | 27/12/10

I’d much rather support working women to have kids, than hand out baby bonuses to a bunch of people on Centrelink.

Colin J Ely says:

10:56am | 27/12/10

Proof CJ, proof? Or have you just been standing out in the Queensland sun too long without your solar topee on?

CJ Morgan says:

02:51pm | 27/12/10

@ T - fair point, but why should we be paying anybody to have kids?

@ Col - proof?  It’s a blog comment, mate.  If you want evidence, go here: http://www.population.org.au/ .

I certainly wouldn’t my little part of Queensland to end up like Melbourne, where you live!  Mind you, Anna seems hell-bent on making it so…

Winnie says:

02:14pm | 27/12/10

Right… If YOU can’t get a handout, NO-ONE should.  Everyone should be as unselfish as you!

Jason says:

12:50pm | 28/12/10

I’m also totally selfish in this regard.  For my handout, I would like properly maintained roads, sufficient trains on the line which run on time, power that doesn’t fail 3 times every summer and available beds in hospitals.  I am happy to share my handout with the rest of the nation.  Funny -  that stuff was what I thought paying some of the highest tax rates in the world was for in the first place, not to subsidise other people’s personal life choices.  The one thing the world does not need is more people.

Ryan says:

11:26pm | 01/01/11

@Jason: then you need to stop Labor spending money like its water, how much is being spent just on illegal boat arrivals?

Bitten says:

10:31am | 27/12/10

What? Responsible entities? They’re only interested in getting the soundbite and the votes, they don’t care how much damage they do with their policies to get it. Now that I have arrived squarely in adulthood, I am so disgusted by the behaviour of so many adults - irresponsible, greedy, grasping and selfish. Enough is never enough for most of them.

Chris says:

07:09pm | 27/12/10

Good one cam. I know a NZ couple who just happened to be expecting a child soon after arriving here.
The whole tax and welfare system need an overhaul.
The government needs to do something about the overpriced housing industry and Inflated costs of utilities.
But of course that would be the fair and as if the pollies, RE agents and fat cats want that.
The whole system is a lopsided joke.
Have a kid and get a handout. Have another and get a bigger handout.
Don’t have any and get taxed to the hilt.

AnthonyG says:

08:53am | 28/12/10

can u please send me up some of that weed.. and while your at it can u send some to Canberra. then we can all talk sense

St. Michael says:

12:49am | 28/12/10

...As evidenced by the immediate response to my own post.

Brian says:

04:11pm | 28/12/10

You are probably right in that you’re likely to be among the worst hit by this (sorry, but every policy hits SOMEONE), but the government only has relatively little choice.

They are faced with increasing costs related to the aging population (medical, pension, carers etc), and therefore have to find the funding for it. They have four real options:

1) increase the amount of money taken from each taxpayer. For obvious reasons this one isn’t popular, no one wants to pay more tax. Most people complain we pay too much already.

2) decrease expenditure elsewhere to allocate to this sector of spending. This is also fairly unpopular, as it would result in longer hospital waiting periods, or worse roads, fewer schools and so on. Most people have the feeling that the government does nothing but waste money, but few could do better themselves.

3) decrease entitlements related to aging. Very unpopular, particularly with older members of society (and understandably so, particularly for those who were ‘pre-superannuation’).

4) increase the number of taxpayers. This needs to be either immigration or new births, and we all know how popular immigration is… Thus they must try to stimulate new births.

The only other option is bankruptcy, which is a really, really bad thing for a nation. It may not be popular but really, what choice do we have?

On a side note, assuming average wages, current tax rates and current couples pension rates a person who works from age 20 to age 65, then receives the pension from 65 to 80 will have received 49% of their lifetimes tax payments in pension alone, let alone roads, education, healthcare…

cRook says:

05:07pm | 28/12/10

If you choose not to contribute to the sustainability of our society, then this is *your* payment.

john says:

07:22pm | 28/12/10

@Brian & @cRook

Are you sure you guys are not pro Labor party spin doctors?

I simply don’t buy that Australia is facing an untenable situation to warrant baby stimulus. What rubbish.

Phil says:

09:16pm | 28/12/10

Diana

I trust that you have an income of at least $ 150,000 and that your super contributions are at least 15%. Otherwise its the babies about to be born that will pay your pension. I also hope you have health insurance and dont rely on medicare to take care of you.

I respect your decision to be child free, but for the short term added wealth and benefits it brings, who is going to wipe your ass when you are 90? Or are you going to be super rich and pay a maid to keep you in your home.

I never received one cent from the guvmint and didnt even think I might have qualified for a payment from them till my kids were 7. I am not against PPL but think labors scheme is dumbing down the labour market, looking to assist the lowest common denominator. I would love another child and the PPL scheme is not an initiative to have another sprog. but FFS dont berate women who can not afford to have a child without assistance against those that choose not to have children.

I agree that child birth is a choice, FFS it cost me at least 8K each but that is the best money I ever spent, I have two loving daughters. I would pay 500K for the son which my wife miscarried to have him back today. I know my kids cost me plenty, but I dont care. Work harder, strive further, nothing worth attaining is easy or everyone would have gotten it,

Brian says:

08:11am | 29/12/10

John,

I have not voted labor once in the seven elections that I have been eligible to vote for. You may not believe me, as this is a relatively anonymous forum, but it’s the truth. In fact, I think they’ve done a pretty rubbish job, but that doesn’t mean I can’t support SOME of their policies.

Tim says:

09:15am | 29/12/10

Phil,
there isn’t going to be a pension by the time my generation is old or at best it will be a shadow of what it is now. The only reason the pension is the level it is now is because political parties are too scared of the baby boomer generation just coming into retirement.
If they were realistic, the government would instantly raise the pension age and reduce the pension amount to reduce the strain it causes on the budget.
What you are asking for is that the current generation should pay for the last generation’s pension and the next generation’s upbringing. A transfer of wealth from childless couples and single people into parent’s pockets because they don’t want to take responsibility for their own choices. Children are a private good.
And all this talk of wiping 90 year olds bums in retirement is ridiculous.
I can guarantee that the children of the entitled middle classes of today won’t ever stoop to wiping bums. They’ll import migrants for that.

Diana the huntress says:

01:26pm | 29/12/10

Exactly, Tim. And I love the ones who say, “Well, it’s a good thing not everyone feels that way or the human race would die out!” And why, exactly, should we be worried about that? I am pragmatic about human extinction. If *any* species has it coming, it’s us. Humans, in my opinion, have become entirely too sentimental and arrogant about our place in things. In fact, extinction is no better or worse than *gasp* breeding is! Any mammal can breed, any mammal can die out. It’s the way of things.

Brian says:

08:26am | 29/12/10

People have children because they want to, not to contribute to society, that is true. But that doesn’t change the fact that they DO contribute to society. It’s like saying ‘major corporations only donate to charity to look good’ - it may be true, but the charities still get the money, so is it such a bad thing?

john says:

01:11pm | 29/12/10

@Brian, there is always a flip side to the same point “But that doesn’t change the fact that they DO contribute to society.”
I take it you don’t also mean a vast majority of those children who become the second generation to spawn a third generation of welfare families across the welfare labor belts across Australia?

The terms “they” , it, those etc have great pronoun problem potential when not being specific, like these 2 characters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1hZGDaqIw&feature=related

Brian says:

02:42pm | 29/12/10

John, I’d challenge your ‘vast majority’ comment, but there are no figures with which to challenge it… or make it. There can’t be, as they haven’t been born yet (if you want to focus on those born due to parental leave) or haven’t yet got to working age (if you focus on those born due to the baby bonus).

My wife’s mother has worked for about one month a year for the last two decades, yet my wife started work at 15, and only stopped when having our son. I’m sure there are many, many others like her. Those who become ‘welfare families’ need to be controlled by other methods to convince the adults to work (better training and enforcement of dole conditions for example), not necessarily to cease breeding.

john says:

09:56pm | 29/12/10

@Brian, be that as it may, there are over 500,000 children in jobless families in 2006. {page 10} http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/aus/aw09/aw09.pdf since the baby bonus was introduced I would not be surprised it might be considerably more now.

I correct my ‘vast majority’ question of it being across the welfare labor belts across Australia, and suggest that it actually IS, and the paid parental leave is only going to make this situation worse and create a 4th generation of welfare families.

I doubt this is the Australia people want for the future.

 

 

Are you proposing

Diana the huntress says:

01:30pm | 29/12/10

And the childfree women get shafted, for actually committing to our careers.

Tim says:

10:02am | 29/12/10

So it is all about women’s “Choices”?
It must be fun to have such a sense of entitlement, that it is now expected that taxpayer money should be used to fund women’s life choices.

Lisa H. says:

02:29pm | 29/12/10

What becomes of the woman who fill in as place-holder in a job for the woman who is on maternity leave? Is she not as worthy of certainty in her lifestyle as the woman who has just given birtth?

Brian says:

02:59pm | 29/12/10

Lisa H, if she accepts a role with a contracted end date (as most maternity leave replacement positions are), then she has certainty. Or, more correctly, the incertainty there (whether the mother will come back) can only result in her being employed longer than the initial contract, and works in her favour.

The same applies for those taking long service leave, or leave for a major medical issue.

Lisa says:

07:01pm | 29/12/10

In places where I’ve worked, women on maternity leave have moved their return dates, cancelled their return, come back early, or renegotiated for a job share position depending on their preferences. I know several women who have shared their dissatisfaction with the ad-hoc nature and ‘unknowns’ associated with filling maternity leave posts.

Brian says:

02:53pm | 29/12/10

I agree entirely. I earn a very good wage as a degree qualified professional working long hours in isolated locations, while my wife currently does not work.

Before my son was born she did, with the result that my wage (approximately $100K) plus her wage ($40K) left us taxed about two and a half thousand dollars more than a couple with two workers on $70K.

Now, we are about $13,000pa worse off than a couple with two people on $50K, despite the same family income. I readily accept that with my wife out of the workforce she is not contributing as much monetarily to society (I’d argue she’s contributing by raising our son well), but to the extend that we should lose THAT much more?

Lisa H. says:

11:19am | 31/12/10

Cheers Brian.
I am surprised that so little of our national conversation about family policy brings up theconcept of income splitting for families.

Income splitting is a meaningful system that recognises what courts and families have long recognised ... that families are economic groups that function and co-operate as a whole.

The Australian government certaintly understands that concept when it is means-testing families on gross income for Family Tax Benefit and baby bonus!!

And yet, when it comes to the other side of that coin, it expects income earners of a family to pay as individuals.

Its a glaring hypocrisy that sticks in my craw and completely infuriates me.

Particularly with all the back-slapping and political jawboning about supporting families!

Nothing else, to my mind, shows up the self-serving nature of politicians in familly policy quite so well.

Brian says:

02:56pm | 29/12/10

Depends, she could be refering to the concept that those who ARE having children are becoming less and less intelligent? (insert smiley face meant to show joking nature often ignored by others here)

Tracy says:

11:15am | 30/12/10

I stand corrected Diana! Regardless of poor language use and the ‘snobbery’ of the concept…I would like to see more women raise children to become good citizens and tax payers (rather than tax recievers!). But yes…the idea was poorly expressed:):)