This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Bouncing Baby Bonus: counting 3k to 4k

Jump to new

krisbarry

Joined
5 August 2004
Posts
1,996
Reactions
0
Well as of 1 July 2006, the baby bonus increases to $4,000.

Personally I reckon the baby bonus is a great idea, at least I will be guaranteed a pension later in life.

There is much negative talk about the bonus, it creates un-wanted children, un-planned children, disrupts females eduaction/career plans etc.

I am sure more banging will occur after 1st of July so to speak

Care to Discuss?
 

Middle class welfare.

I'm agin it
 
A rubbish vote buying waste of money

Listen to blokes who earn $100's of thousands per annum talking about putting their baby bonus into a each way bet or trip to Noosa for the weekend and you may see it for what it is.

A joke.

If you are that poor that $3000 helps defray costs - you probably cant afford a child
 
Its a trick played on the young people....I mean $4,000 for a 16 year old kid is huge money but it will cost the mother probably 100 times that in a life-time to look after that child.

Of course we all know its a false economy, but it is working very well to increase child popping.

Like I said it will pay for my pension later on in life, as the pension is expected to dry up very shortly (in my lifetime, not unless we re-populate)
 
I have heard from people who got the baby bonus and they have said that it covers a lot of the baby expenses like nappies and food. Therefore not making too much a dent in the budget, at least initially.

I'm glad that there is some financial relief there for people having kids. Some of my friends are having kids now and their decision has nothing to do with the baby bonus, as it shouldn't, and this money will help them out.

For what it's worth, I don't think it is necessary and I am saddened that there will be people having kids just to receive a once off amount of money.
And having said THAT, I hope it's still around when I have kids.
 
I think it promotes another pregnancy in those who look at it just for that relatively small amount of money and thus perpetuates multigenerational welfare. I recall a woman asking for payment of an electricity account a couple of years ago who remarked that the eldest of her six children was about to turn 16, and therefore she had decided to get pregnant again in order to maintain the family budget. It would not have occurred to either her, her partner or any of the kids that to work was an option.

Julia
 
at least I will be guaranteed a pension later in life.
Click to expand...



you'll have 45 years of work to put towards your super, and all the money you make from shares.

Why will you need a pension?
 
Realist said:


you'll have 45 years of work to put towards your super, and all the money you make from shares.

Why will you need a pension?
Click to expand...

Because I will need to buy a house/unit out of my super and then make that super last till I am about 80 years of age...the average life expentancy for my generation. Hence the need for a part pension, to top up my own funds
 
Yet another person I know (male) has recently been trapped by a woman who sees having a baby as a means to literally finance her house renovations and an interstate holiday. She bought herself a nice new car too. It's pretty obvious that the maintenance money far exceeds the actual amount needed to look after the child.

I'll probably get flamed as being sexist for this but, since it is the woman who has ultimate control over the decision to have a child (excluding cases of rape etc) then I think any government handout should be paid to the father. This would at least reduce the incentive for single mothers to reproduce for economic reasons without harming those families genuinely needing financial help to raise children.
 

TRAPPED??? Has he ever heard of condoms or thinking of Consequences before one beds someone, there is certainly enough info out there.....mmmmmm, very expensive lesson. Maybe it should just be given to people who are married, that way they can share it.
 
Short of refusing to engage in sexual activity at all, in which case the species eventually dies out, there is basically no reasonable means that a man can use to protect himself from situations such as the one I described. Neither condoms nor marriage are effective in the event that the woman wants them to fail.

With such a high divorce rate, in some cases after an incredibly short period, it is hard to believe that in some cases one partner wasn't planning on that outcome right from the start. I've seen too many cases of women walking out shortly after a house is bought, they become pregnant, go on an expensive holiday etc to believe that $$$ aren't at least a consideration. It happened in my partner's family only last year.

I have nothing against single mothers as such, indeed that is my own family background. But there's a real problem IMO when it becomes financially attractive to make a career out of hanging around nightclubs looking for the drunkest man to take home. Likewise when a short marriage followed by divorce is a career choice. A very sad state of affairs to be encouraging.

Hence my view that handing out money can only make things worse for those who already see children as easy cash. Why not have the money deposited into a managed fund and given to the child when they leave school? Or used to pay for free education? Problem is that would actually help the child. And they don't vote.
 
Baby bonus- incentive for stupid people on welfare to continue popping out stupid kids. They now win twice- baby bonus and higher welfare payments for having more kids. Meanwhile normal people see it for what it is- a drop in the ocean when weighed up against the total cost of raising a child, so it doesn't influence their decision to have one. End result- Stupid people outbreed the rest of us.

Not good.
 
Believe me I know there are some very conniving women out there, it would have to be someone very stupid or yough to do it just for the $3000 plus.

Some of these men though, are just as stupid or ignorant to be sucked in by these women.....

I say, (and I don't know why it's not possible) we need to have a male pill(teamed with a condom) . That way men can have more control. I can tell you hubby and I would have our boys on it (when they are old enough). In the meaning time we keep teaching them about responsiblity and thinking about the consequences of their actions....as they do have choices about how thier future will be.
 
there is or was (tonight or last night) something about this on today tonight.
I dont care how old you are 15,16,17,18 or 50.... any dim wit that can add 2+2 should be able to work out that the $3000 or even $4000 will go REAL quick, whether you spend it on the baby, cars, renos, booze or drugs ect. it will be gone in a flash.
a baby is not a good asset!
 
I recall hearing on that adult talkback program that used to be on the radio on Sunday nights (the one that was banned by the Howard government) that the technology was basically there. That was probably 10 years ago now so I assume it's just another one of these medical things we're not allowed to have yet because it isn't profitable enough.
 

...so we all should be earning $100`s of thousands then?

Poor people have a right to have children just as the rich do.

The bonus is good for increasing the birth rate which is a huge problem for us in 40 years.

It should not be exloited though like the career welfare suckers will.
 
Well Professor certain cultures are outbreeding us, whilst collecting as much welfare as possable from us .
This insidious behaviour will in time instigate our own demise.

Bob.
 
Stop_the_clock said:
Personally I reckon the baby bonus is a great idea, at least I will be guaranteed a pension later in life.
Click to expand...

Yes as long as they have good jobs and are not on welfare.
 

Yes, it was only a few weeks ago I thought about the male pill and how far it must have come by now.....couldn't find much on the net....dam shame as that would help stop these women that only want a baby and 18 years of child support....this is why it is soooo important to talk to our children well before they are having sex and keep gently drumming it in. 5 seconds of pleasure can be an expensive 18 years. Boys need this infor...then if they go ahead, well then they can't conplain too much.
 
apparently in the news, there was a 14 yr old gal getting herself pregant just so she could get the $3000 bonus.! this is BIZARRE!! This system would work better if the government put some extra condition and clause in the system to exclude some people. that 14 year old would be less likely to get herself pregant if the rule states that the bonus is for 18+.
That 14 years old thinks $3000 is alot of money, but seriously, $3000 is nothing compared to the expenses of raising a child properly.
and whos is one to suffer? the child? herself??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...