To the 100,00-odd, predominately young voters, who courtesy of Get-Up, will be making their first quivering steps towards the polling booth in a couple of weeks - let me apologise on behalf of the two major parties.

Downtrodden: without 2.1 kids, a Commodore and a labrador, forget about it.

They’re just not that into you.

For both Labor and the Coalition, the love is gone for younger voters. In fact, the two major parties seem to have forgotten these voters whose sway at the ballot box last time around was lauded as having helped unseat a decades-old reigning political force in their mad scramble for the “family” vote.

We are in the midst of a campaign where no baby is safe from being mauled in front of the nation’s media and our shopping centres are haunted by pamphlet-proffering politicians secreting family-friendly policies out of every pore.

This campaign has been dominated by a particularly desperate grasping for the votes of the so-called “Howard Battlers”. Unmoored from allegiance with either party, this nebulous group of supposedly aspirational lower and lower-middle class voters has been hunted like soon-to-be-extinct prey by Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.

Both of the campaigns have firmly placed the traditional family at the centre of the political narrative.

Appealing to Mum’s and Dad’s hip pockets as they tour the country sharing “ordinary Australians’” concerns about mortgages and school uniforms and paying for that holiday to the Sunshine Coast, Gillard and Abbott have neglected anything but a cursory nod to those voters whose lives face different challenges.

It may have become stock in trade for electioneering, but this emphasis and constant reiteration of the centrality of the family, in policy-making, creates a sense of value and worth around only one segment of the community, at the expense of others who fall outside these bounds.

In the race to the middle, are Gillard and Abbott aware of how disenfranchising and exclusionary their rhetoric is for those not intimately acquainted with the stresses of teething or for those who don’t owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the bank?

Every time our dear leaders mount a rostrum for a spot of speech-making they address only those who have been fortunate enough to maintain both a relationship and ongoing employment.

But, in doing so there is growing sense of alienation amongst other voters who have been sidelined in the politicians’ scrabble to wear the most genuine mask of concern about the rising cost of school uniforms; as they take their furrow-browed expressions on a national tour in an attempt to dispense empathetic nods about mortgage woes.

Oh, to have been a first-time voter in 2007!

Sure Kevin Rudd and the Labor party wheeled out the “working families” line until a vast swathe of the electorate had to stop themselves dry-retching at the mention of it, but there seemed to be a wider, more inclusive political conversation going on that embraced Gen X and Gen Y.

For the first time in younger voters’ political memory they were posited in a proactive place in the wider conversation. This was a rejection of the worn-out stereotype of apathetic, disengaged layabouts whose only ambitions were to amble through an Arts degree or appear on Master Chef.

Better informed, better connected and with a sense of empowerment and entitlement to be in the thick of the political conversation, the Xers and Ys staked a role in the last election that helped Rudd oust John Howard.

Candidates across the country were so seemingly keen to connect with younger voters it was as if some brave new status-updated dawn of political dialogue was upon us as they raced to tap out the best Twitter quip or create the most popular Facebook group,

So too did Rudd’s pick’n’mix of election issues - the environment, work choices, education - connect with those in their teens, 20s and 30s.

Currently there are approximately 2,000,000 Australians who live in single person homes.

5,438,000 adult Australians do not have children.

Anyone willing to make even the most slapdash attempt to snag these votes?

Kevin, all is forgiven if you bring back the love.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

52 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Craig says:

      06:45am | 12/08/10

      Well at least Google is running an alternative election for 16-18 year olds. A vote for Google is a vote for young people!

      On the other hand, a vote for a major political party is a vote for a grubby power-hungry mob of baby boomers seeking to hold onto their traditional values in the face of growing environmental, technological and economic pressure to change how countries operate.

    • BP says:

      09:42am | 12/08/10

      Craig
      Grubby power hungry baby boomer here. Please explain to me how voting againt either of the major political parties will improve your life. As I see it, voting green is a wish to go back to the days of no power (or limited access to power from wind and solar sources), no travel except by foot, no flights, no banks. If you do not believe me go to the greens website and look at their wish list. Like fairies at the bottom of the garden, they live by moonlight and shadows.

    • Aimee says:

      05:07pm | 12/08/10

      To BP - there are many other minor parties besides just the Greens!

    • Jimmit says:

      08:30am | 12/08/10

      “For the first time in younger voters’ political memory they were posited in a proactive place in the wider conversation”. Posited in a proactive place in a conversation?? Wow, sounds like you’re still ambling through that Arts degree there, Daniela.

    • Super D says:

      04:02pm | 12/08/10

      And more to the point they were never actually involved in any conversation, the wise old heads of the Labor party just exploited their youthful naivety to sell them shiny Kevin-07.

    • Martin Luther says:

      08:42am | 12/08/10

      This is really shallow analysis and if I was still in my teens and twenties I would consider it an insult. The real political concern for the young, is to ensure that my baby boomer generation does not pay for luxury in their remaining years at the expense of leaving massive debts for the youth of today to pay off.
      That was the point of some of the things done by Costello such as the future fund that has been squandered by Rudd.
      The young are not well served with competent intelligent young journalists but then there aren’t very many older competent intelligent journalistseither!

    • Tim says:

      10:34am | 12/08/10

      Haha,
      you’re joking right?
      So all those middle class handouts that Costello gave to boomers and families were all part of trying to not leave a massive debt?
      Yeah right.
      I would vote for anyone that promised to remove the vast amounts of welfare distributed to people who can look after themselves. Unfortunately there isn’t any party who will do so.

    • DocBud says:

      03:28pm | 12/08/10

      Tim, if someone pays $50000 tax and gets $2000 back through some government payment, how is that welfare? I’d like to see a lot less pilfering out of my back pocket by governments and council (council tax bill is $2900 for 6 months) in order to give to those who think they have a right to live at other’s expense.

    • Tim says:

      05:21pm | 12/08/10

      Docbud,
      once you have paid tax all rights you had to that money have gone, its not a personal savings scheme. There is no “I deserve to get some back”.
      If you want to make an argument about lowering taxes, then OK but the government giving money selectively back to certain people can only be described as welfare.

    • DocBud says:

      07:33pm | 12/08/10

      Tim, well that’s really my point, they take far to much of the stuff by force so I’m all for those who are screwed over getting anything back they can. I’d much prefer that they didn’t take it in the first place, if it passes through the government’s hands it inevitably decreases in value. Tax planning costs money and time, if they took a lot less to pork-barrel in the marginals and to solve problems that have nothing to do with government, most people wouldn’t even bother trying to maximise the efficiency of their tax.

    • Phil says:

      08:49am | 12/08/10

      What trhe youg must realist is that yes today there is not much on offer, but if they have hopes and aspirations, then good policy now will benefit them in the future.
      If and when they have a family hopefully child care will be right, health will be better catered for, good incentives will be in place, tax cuts will come.
      The pie is only so big, it can only be cut in so many ways. If they pander to the young who are generally carefree looking for that next trip overseas, drinks on Friday and who can they snuggle up to next in bed.
      Yes the young are important. Would not most young prefer their families get a boost rather than themselves.

    • Tom says:

      09:25am | 12/08/10

      As a young voter, I would prefer that parties focussed on things like economic management and well - researched infrastructure spending (i.e. not a broadband network with no business plan underpinning it) than the ridiculous glut of middle class welfare/pork barrelling that both major parties are seemingly jumping over themselves to provide.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:30am | 12/08/10

      so we are all generally selfish, drunks and constantly looking for a ro*t Phil? Thanks for that. I am all for the bigger picture but how does a family “getting a boost” help me? All it opens me up to is discussions on Family Tax Benefit A & B at the BBQ on the weekend. Rather, I am paying for private health care and saving every spare penny I have ensuring that my only debt is the roof over over my head and when I do have children I can cover the costs of living and the mortgage only one wage. If that means I have to wait to have babies until I am 30 - so be it. It also means that my 2004 Ford Fiesta will do me for the next ten years - even with a baby seat crammed in the back. If more people realised that the “hopes and aspirations” that you speak about cannot be obtained in warp speed and you don’t “just have to have” a Toyota Landcruiser to fit in a stroller and some groceries - the world would be in a much easier place to live.

    • Debbie says:

      09:14am | 12/08/10

      Not just young folk who are cut out. Everyone who isn’t earning above average salaries or who doesn’t have dependant children are now classified as “non-citizens” of this land.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:16am | 12/08/10

      Society tells us that if we are single there is something wrong with us and if we don’t have children, well - we just “have no idea”. Just look how it is an issue for JG - how does she relate to the “average australian”. I am a Gen Y and just starting to get to the friends/family having babies bit - even though I am a long way off it. I am not able to discuss money matters, social issues or complain about my bad day, because apparently nothing ever bad happens in my life, I am not struggling and “I’ll find out when I have kids”. The fact that I have a mortgage as big as two income families doesn’t ever get a mention. As a childless young Australian I feel like a worker bee. There to make honey for the good of the hive and if I disagree with the process I’ll be gotton rid of.  That is the political and social influence that I hold - nothing, because we are too caught up discussing how “children don’t get cheaper as they get older”. No mention of how hard it is once you turn 18 and are thrust into this world. I will not hold my breath for anything to come my demographic’s way in this election or in the near future. It is a sad truth. So I guess I’ll just do what the rest of society does. Have a baby, spruik how tough I have it to my underlings and start voting with the trends of middle class welfare.

    • Ads says:

      09:32am | 12/08/10

      You say the young, but what you really mean in this is single/childless people.  There is a massive transfer from us single people to families - baby bonuses, extremely generous paid leave, childcare rebates - the list is endless.

      I swear we could knock 5-10% off all tax rates if we cut out this middle class welfare - then we can spend our money on what we want - be it family or whatever

    • Bitten says:

      09:38am | 12/08/10

      Meh. So politicians aren’t out there blatantly kissing my arse or that of my peers. So what? I’ve got my own life to make and thankfully it is not an endless whine about how tough life is and how ‘da gubbament’ should pay for every single one of my choices because my life is just sooooo hard.

      I’ll still vote. But I’m going to vote based on who I think can be better trusted to run the country and administer policy that governs the lives of the Australian people. I am NOT going to vote based on who will pay more of my bills for me.

    • Steve_of_Cornubia says:

      09:51am | 12/08/10

      Wow, a youngster with a complaint! I haven’t heard fro one of those since, oh when was it? Oh yes, earlier today.

      Come back to me when you’ve been through ALL phases of life - child, teen, young adult, married, parent, empty-nester, grandparent, retiree, lonely widow(er) and you understand that all carry their own pleasures and pains, hopes and disappointments, rewards and penalties. NONE of them are easy, even with Labor’s bountiful beneficence.

      Maybe our current generation of young people will carry this tendency to whinge through their whole life, poor little dears.

      Y’know, I eally only became truly aware of politics, parties and policies when I got into my 50s. Before then, I was too busy working hard and supporting my family to have the time or inclination. It’s hard to pay much attention when you’re head down and bum up trying to keep everyone hppy, healthy and safe.

    • fairsfair says:

      10:45am | 12/08/10

      I have my violin out Steve and this one goes out to you. Of course everyone has ups and downs and no stage of anyone’s life is “easy”. Nobody is professing that we are the hardest done by - my biggest gripe is that the current crop of middle class parents are getting more than they ever have. Rather than propping the cost of living with more and more middle class welfare - the issue needs to be addressed - like most Aussies, I am not flush with cash at the moment and my costs of living are not considerably less than the costs of a family (which is contrary to what families would tell you). I still have a mortgage, car, power, food, water etc all on one wage - But I get no help and that is ok - because it is my choices in life that have lead me to where I currently am. I don’t want a handout, I don’t want to be patronised. I want someone to stand up for my rights (all rights) not just ease the burden on a select few and subsequently make it harder for the rest of us. Oh, and I also think it is a good thing that the Youth of today take an interst in the direction of their country. We are currently working hard to pay for your pension just as you worked hard as a young adult. It is time we had mature discussion about the facts of life instead of playing the “I had it harder than you” game.

    • Eleanor says:

      12:26pm | 12/08/10

      “Y’know, I eally only became truly aware of politics, parties and policies when I got into my 50s. Before then, I was too busy working hard and supporting my family to have the time or inclination. It’s hard to pay much attention when you’re head down and bum up trying to keep everyone hppy, healthy and safe.”

      We young ‘uns just can’t win, can we Steve? If we’re vaguely politically savvy, it indicates that we’re obviously not putting in 80 hours of a week of work/study and have too much time to keep up with the news and are lazy. If we’re not, we’re politically apathetic and therefore have no right to complain if we don’t like the election’s outcome.

    • Henry Trollins says:

      02:02pm | 12/08/10

      Great call Steve. Come back to me when you’re dead if you want to talk about ALL phases of life.

    • Steve_of_Cornubia says:

      06:37pm | 12/08/10

      Hmmmm, seems our young ‘uns are even dimmer than I thought…..

      1) As a ‘middle class’ parent myself, I can swear on the my mother’s life that I have taken not ONE cent in welfare or support from any government IN MY LIFE.  If ever I wasn’t earning enough, as happened on more than one occasion, I either went to uni (in my thirties, part time while working full time) to get a better job or, as I did after one of my SIX redundancies, became an industrial roofer for 30 months, sawing up asbestos sheets and balancing 60 feet above the ground on icy steelworks. Did you know that, when your hands are so cold that you can’t use them properly, you can break the ice on a pudle, put your hands in the icy water for a minute or so, then rub them together quickly for a few seconds and ‘voila’ they’re warm enough to work again for 15 mins or so. Good eh? The arthritis isn’t so good.

      2) Not being ‘flush with cash’ was not a temporary condition for me or my peers, but a constant state until I managed to break out of my perilous state at the age of 36, thanks to studying 15hrs a week at uni while working 40hrs a week, with a wife and two kids. Nervous breakdown? You betcha.

      3) NOBODY is working hard to pay for my pension except me. One of the reasons the young chap down the road (living with his parents) drives a $60K car and I drive a $26K car is that I can’t afford the flash car AND a pension. I doubt I’ll have enough as things stand though, but never fear, I have a plan to downsize, so your tax dollars are safe.

      4) I can assure you that I HAVE had it harder than you, for many, many years. I could tell you some tales, but you’d lose interest after five seconds and besides, Monty Python did it already. I could start with my childhood, and old coast on teh bed through a UK winter because we couldn’t afford enough bedding. Ever been there?

      5) Henry Trollins has some major issues in his life. I didn’t believe in ghosts before, but now I’m REALLY hoping I can come back, just for Henry.

      Seriously guys, you have NO IDEA what it is like to struggle. I can’t blame you because your thoughts are probably shared in some degree by my own children. Whereas when I left home to start my new life as a newlywed at 19yo and found the poverty that is independant living very similar to living with my parents (equally penniless), you poor youngsters these days have been spoilt to such a degree that the normal travails of independant life seem terribly unfair.

      A little story. I bought a boat a couple of years ago. I’ve always wanted a boat. Nothing flash - diesel engine and it struggles to make headway in a breeze - but I had to pretty much wipe out every spare cent I had to buy it. The young guy in St George who helped me with the transaction ruefully remarked how he couldn’t afford a boat.

      I pointed out that I had waited until I was 52 and post-heart attack (near-death experiences can persuade you to stop putting things off) before I bought mine, and hoped he wouldn’t have to wait as long.

      I don’t think he understood. You guys probably don’t either.


      NOBODY is paying for my retirement other than myself.
      2) Times are hard, yet airsfair is buying his/her own home on a single income. This was not an option for me when I was young, when it took TWO incomes to do that.

    • fairsfair says:

      07:56pm | 12/08/10

      Steve, you have totally missed what I and most of the rest of my generation is trying to say. I don’t understand how discussing the merits of spending federal funding on services that impact the broader population -over lining the pockets of middle class families has become a platform for you to whinge about how dim us “young ‘uns” are and your memoir. If anything I thought that you would agree with us - you as you claim did not get any govt handouts - why do you feel that it is ok for it to be going on now? I applaud you for being a self funded retiree and liquidating your assets to stay that way - but you are a rare breed in that sense. I reitterate what I said earlier. A mature discussion is required - and that certainly is not happening here.

    • Tim says:

      02:10pm | 13/08/10

      Steve,
      That’s Looooxxxxury.
      When I was a lad, I had to lick our driveway clean wif me tongue and then walk 20 miles to school.

      Also I think you need to know that the plural of anecdote is not data.

    • Observer says:

      10:03am | 12/08/10

      “....young who are generally carefree looking for that next trip overseas, drinks on Friday and who can they snuggle up to next in bed.”

      “Generally” as in a gross generalisation?

      Some of the child-burdened must be awfully embittered to hallucinate these stereotypes of the hedonistic lifestyles of the young (or not so young) and childfree. Most of us are just ordinary folk with our usual costs of living, just like you. Only most of us childfree folk do not smugly intone that we deserve to maintain a DINK level of consumption and have our baby too at taxpayers’ expense.

      I have heard the sneering at the childfree folks who have the temerity to sleep in on Saturdays or the occasional dinner out without being driven to distraction by a wailing and Quietly Fussing (tm) baby but it is disingenuous to suggest that these people ought to pay more taxes/be ignored by policy-makers as this will somehow address this imagined inequity.

      Householders making small children have never had it so good and yet the yuppie kvetching continues because these people want their baby and to eat out too and someone, anyone but them, must pick up the tab. Australia has the second highest cash handouts (as a proportion of GDP) to households with children in the OECD. Sharman Stone recently told Fran Kelly that Abbott’s levy on businesses to fund his $3bn per annum—yes, three billion dollars—paid parental leave scheme will eventually be paid by taxpayers. It is middle-class welfare, plain and simple. Call me old-fashioned but I fail to see why people on minimum wage ought to be subsiding the mortgage repayments of the already comfortable. I always thought that welfare was intended for the needy, not the greedy.
      Children today are tomorrow’s taxpayers I often hear. Possibly. If children are social goods then taxpayer assistance should be socialised in the form of better medical care, education and other socialised assistance aimed at children and any reasonable person can see that will be not only more efficient but of benefit to society. But wads of cash inflating the *expendable private wealth* of childed households it not good social policy, it is social engineering. It is inefficient, inequitable and, in the long run, unaffordable.

    • Pearl says:

      11:24am | 12/08/10

      Hear, Hear!
      Now, where did I leave that bed fellow?

    • Steve says:

      10:25am | 12/08/10

      The childless always subsidise families with children because the family vote swings to whichever party promises the most to ease their self-indulgent belief that having a child should entail fewer sacrifices than they presently have to make.

      As a voter group they always want more from the government because they don’t have the discretionary cash they had before the kids came along.  And boy, do they miss it!

      Unfortunately, enough of the childless group always fall for the self-serving furphy of “think of the chilrdren”.

    • James1 says:

      11:18am | 12/08/10

      Personally, I don’t miss the money.  Children are far more valuable, and bring far more pleasure, than money.  The types you are talking about should never have had children if they were worried about the costs.

      Please don’t tar all parents with the same brush - most of us love our kids more than anything, and despise the minority to which you refer.

    • Tim says:

      11:38am | 12/08/10

      I’m sorry to say it James1 but I believe you would be in the minority. I don’t think i’ve ever seen a parent complain that the government has given them enough money.

    • Markus says:

      11:40am | 12/08/10

      Families who are exploiting FTB A and B, Baby Bonus, CCB and CCR to the full extent of their entitlement are not in the minority as you may think.

    • James1 says:

      12:11pm | 12/08/10

      Gentlemen,

      I was referring in particular to the parents that miss their discretionary cash once they have children. On the (valid) points you are making, if the government was going to throw money at singles, would you refuse it on principle?

    • Tim says:

      12:45pm | 12/08/10

      No of course not James but I wouldn’t be out there asking for more either.
      I don’t want the government giving anyone money they don’t need.

      I would argue that the point Steve makes is valid. The reason so many parents are constantly putting their hands out for more cash is because they want to minimise the forced change in their spending habits after having children.
      Having children entails a financial sacrifice but as you say the benefits can outweigh the negatives.
      I believe a growing proportion of parents believe that their lifestyles shouldn’t change after having children and that the government should fund their shortfall.

    • Anne71 says:

      01:01pm | 12/08/10

      @James1 - as a child-free single working full time I don’t think the government should be giving me handouts. But I do resent the amount of money being thrown at families who are quite capable of paying their own way. The amount of middle class welfare in this country is simply disgusting when you look at the growing numbers of homeless people around Australia. Those people, and the pensioners living below the poverty line, is where I would much rather see my tax money going, rather than to someone who is capable of living comfortably enough off their own income.  It’s blatant vote-buying, pure and simple.

    • James1 says:

      01:19pm | 12/08/10

      Tim,

      Perhaps I had hoped the better angels of our nature would shine through, but I must admit you have a point that there is a growing sense of entitlement.  I think that the Coalition’s PPL scheme is testament to that.

      Anne,

      I agree on the middle class welfare, but I don’t think we should throw more money after bad either.  Everyone has access to enough money to live, and if they prefer to spend it on alcohol and live on the streets, I see no reason why we should increase that.

    • fairsfair says:

      01:45pm | 12/08/10

      I think the coalition PPL scheme is more a means to keep small business competitive in the labour market. I don’t agree with it on the grounds that it is middle class welfare, but I do agree with it in that small business will be able to compete for skilled workers. Face it - if you were chosing between two jobs of similar salary a PPL from the big boys would most likely make the decision for you (if you were planning on kids in the future that is). I would love to see the government implement the PPL and then retract some of the silly things like the ever increasing Baby Bonus and other attempts at pacifying the masses.  It would say to people - there, we gave you a kickstart now make you own way through life. Then with freed up funding if you got sick you could get world class medical care, when your child got to school age you could comfortably place them in your local state school and not need an extra $800 to buy yourself the status simble that is an embroidered blazer and matching wide brimmed hat because you just have to have your child in the private school system.

    • Observer says:

      03:12pm | 12/08/10

      “Everyone has access to enough money to live, and if they prefer to spend it on alcohol and live on the streets…. “

      @ James 1, for someone who normally makes intelligent comments that is a terrible and ill-informed generalisation. A recent report on ABC Radio National points to a new growth among the homeless—single older childless women. These are not alcoholics or deadbeats but are employed people who, through circumstances, find themselves homeless. They end up couch surfing or living in cars and make up a significant proportion of the “invisible” homeless. Not all homeless people are street-dwelling dead beats or misfits.

      Your statement “Children are far more valuable, and bring far more pleasure, than money” supports the notion children are indeed a benefit—that is they are a private benefit enjoyed only by their parents. If only more parents realised this.

      Both Tim and Steve have raised valid points and I do not think that childless singles are asking for wads of cash but rather, why with all the hand-wringing about the nation’s most vulnerable people (including children) is money instead being directed to those who are already comfortable.

      A decade of government rhetoric about “working families” has created a sense of entitlement among those making small children and has marginalised those who do not. Tim basically summed it up when he said: “I believe a growing proportion of parents believe that their lifestyles shouldn’t change after having children and that the government should fund their shortfall.”

    • Anne71 says:

      06:10pm | 12/08/10

      James1: “...and if they prefer to spend it on alcohol and live on the streets, I see no reason why we should increase that.”  Except they’re not all spending money on alcohol, James. A lot of them don’t have any money at all. A lot of homeless people end up on the streets through no fault of their own. They certainly don’t need smug, self-satisfied “working family” types like you looking down your noses at them. Perhaps you should put in a few hours of volunteer work at a homeless shelter, and hear some of the stories, and then you might feel a little more compassion for those in our society who don’t have it as good as you do.

    • Steve says:

      11:42am | 12/08/10

      Fair point - and I don’t know of any parent that would hand the little ones back. 

      It is a small voter group, but quite motivated in its expectations.

      One of the biggest divides in human life is between those with children and those without.  Having kids - and I don’t - is truely life changing.  You don’t go back.

    • Barry says:

      01:03pm | 12/08/10

      As I Uni student, I’m happy to state that most young people will vote for whoever gives them the most money thus allowing them to buy maximum amount of piss.  It’s just the fickle selfish nature of the youth of today.  Most don’t really care about policy apart from a small minority of environmentally-focused young people.  Oh, and major parties uni students have plenty of money it’s just they spend way too much on alcohol.  Put the money towards something where it is truly needed.

    • Ray Graham says:

      01:05pm | 12/08/10

      I agree it is the large army of welfare recipients that needs trimming. My neighbour had a minor heart issue and he an invalid pensioner while his wife is a ‘carer’, for a 60 year old malley bull touring Australia by caravan. Fit as me.

      But that aside we need to jetison the handout mentality and inject into infrastructure, invest for the future mentality.

      As an example I cannot see why we cannot establish a National Mining Company to harvest, develop and manufacture our natural resources rather than ship our resources to overseas eg China. Once all mining was 51% Australian owned. What happened to that? Compete with the big companies, and have quarantined profits assisted by operating concessions. Profits to be quarantined into development funds not welfare hand outs. Difficult for women who are the figurehead of handouts with baby bonus, maternity leave etc. but a quantum leap towards reality. 

      I am also annoyed that self funded retirees are ignored like our young. The self funded retirees who worked all their life and provide for themselves. with no handouts. Admittadly there has been tax bnefits, but all should be more encouraged to provide for themsel;ves.

      Our short sighted politicians only worry about the immediate, which is their own job security.

    • BT says:

      02:46pm | 12/08/10

      I work in the construction industry. A lady walked in to the office today who is worth 40 billion dollars. Seriously. Those are the people you should all be screaming at, not each other.

    • Anne71 says:

      07:11pm | 12/08/10

      BT - if that lady earned those 40 billion dollars through her own efforts why should anyone scream at her? I have no problem with people spending money they have earned through their own hard work. I do, however, have a problem with people on good, often double incomes receiving government handouts. Welfare should be solely for those who, for whatever reason, cannot support themselves. The rest of us should work and pay our own way. If having kids means you can’t buy a new car for a few years, or go overseas for a holiday, too bad. Don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.

    • BT says:

      04:21pm | 13/08/10

      @Anne71 she doesn’t work at all - that’s why she had time to come into the office! The people at the highest end of the tax scheme pay only 1% tax while the suckers at the lower end of the spectrum pay vast amounts more than that - how is that fair? Wasn’t there one year when Kerry Packer managed to pay only 50c tax or something? Anyway - I think you are making a few assumptions here, I don’t have kids (and am extremely annoyed at the ridiculous baby bonus) and pay my own way all the time - in fact being childless means I pay the way for others to have children. I have never owned a new car and the two holidays overseas that I have had in my life were the result of working two jobs when I was in my early 20’s.

    • BobM says:

      02:58pm | 12/08/10

      The assumption is that at some time in the fiuture, these young voters may become part of a family, whichever way family is defined. Contrary to what young people think, you don’t stay young forever,

    • Matt says:

      04:41pm | 12/08/10

      Everyone grows old, but it doesn’t mean you have kids. The current statistic is that 27% of Gen Y and X will never have children, almost 80% by choice.

      That’s a lot of people who are sick of the government spending their taxes on the lifestyle choices of parents.

    • Matt says:

      04:38pm | 12/08/10

      “Currently there are approximately 2,000,000 Australians who live in single person homes.

      5,438,000 adult Australians do not have children.”

      Fantastic quote. Thank God someone has noticed that large numbers of Australians are not part of a “working family” and couldn’t give two shits about the price of school uniforms or childcare.

    • steve parker says:

      04:52pm | 12/08/10

      Didn’t you notice the youth mental health announcement - a great piece of policy backed by Australia’s leading mental health experts. No, probably not.

    • Observer says:

      06:41am | 13/08/10

      Oh yeah a few hundred mil vs the $4bn Paid Parental Leave scheme of Abbott’s in addition to the billions already spent on Baby Bonuses , Fam Tax A and B. Nice one.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:41pm | 12/08/10

      Work harder all you single and childless couple wage slaves. Somebody has to pay for all this middle class welfare…...

    • dead to me says:

      05:54pm | 12/08/10

      Young voters were tricked by Kevin 07 and hopefully they won’t be tricked by Gillard ‘10. She must be laughing at the silliness of youth.

    • ant says:

      08:49pm | 12/08/10

      People without kids are becoming second class citizens. Not just young people either, plenty of middle aged and old people, who aren’t Working Families. But their taxes are harvested, and handed over to these families.  These families live in houses that many single income people will never be able to afford. and yet, our taxes are handed to them.  It is obscene. I guess they get away with it because enough young people expect that one day, they’ll benefit too, when they have children.  but it’s fundamentally unfair.

    • Working family man says:

      11:22am | 14/08/10

      Working families are creating future tax payers. The childless need to be taxed higher to offset the fact they simply consume resources and die. If Children are like trees then the childless are like compost.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

@KevCorduroy @SallyHitchiner it's a great idea I doubt he'd go for it though far too laid back

ToryShepherd

. @mcguiremi is journo of the year! #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

.@mariamosco @msmarto Super Smarto. And Shirley Stott Despoja into the Hall of Fame #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

Best print journo to @mcguiremi woot! #samediaawards

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter