New posts

Reply to thread

Message

I suppose that's not an inevitable outcome. Poor doesn't necessarily mean amoral, often quite the contrary.
I understand your point, sails, just worry rather that we do have a tendency to expect the worst of people rather than the best and that's entirely counterproductive.

Agree entirely. The baby bonus was one of Costello's most poorly conceived thought bubbles.
His hypothesis was that more children would grow up to expand the tax base and therefore support the growing numbers in retirement. That would be fine if the people who would rear children to do that were the ones influenced by a few thousand dollars. They were not. The intelligent, thoughtful people with a strong work ethic would never have been induced to have a child they would not otherwise have because of a financial incentive.

But we did see the poorly educated, more difficult to employ young women seeing just the dollar signs.
We saw hundreds of them at the community centre where they came because they couldn't balance their budgets. Asking these pregnant young women what they would do with the baby bonus, it was inevitably stuff like "take all the kids to Dreamworld", buy new bikes for everyone etc etc. I can recall just one girl who said she would use it to buy essential baby needs and hopefully have some left over to open a bank account for the child.

Of course not all single mothers are hopeless and condemned for ever to poverty. But let's remember that it was only a couple of generations ago that there was no such payment for women alone. They had to work to survive or stay with an often bad marriage. I'm not suggesting there was anything positive about the latter alternative, but I do think there needs to be a limit to the demands on the taxpayer.

Now it seems to be the 'right' of every woman to have publicly funded IVF so she can have the child that she considers her god given right. Lesbians in particular are taking advantage of this. Then they receive the baby bonus and a taxpayer funded benefit.

We have many single mothers with six or more children who are pulling in via welfare considerably more than many working families who are paying the taxes to support them.

My concern is that the balance is becoming out of sync, and for that reason support the principle the government has in mind of getting people into work.
Far more useful in every way for a child to grow up seeing a parent or parents working productively than sitting around passively on welfare.

<blockquote data-quote="Julia" data-source="post: 745172" data-attributes="member: 1152">I suppose that&#039;s not an inevitable outcome.&nbsp; Poor doesn&#039;t necessarily mean amoral, often quite the contrary.I understand your point, sails, just worry rather that we do have a tendency to expect the worst of people rather than the best and that&#039;s entirely counterproductive.Agree entirely.&nbsp; The baby bonus was one of Costello&#039;s most poorly conceived thought bubbles.His hypothesis was that more children would grow up to expand the tax base and therefore support the growing numbers in retirement.&nbsp; That would be fine if the people who would rear children to do that were the ones influenced by a few thousand dollars.&nbsp; They were not.&nbsp; The intelligent, thoughtful people with a strong work ethic would never have been induced to have a child they would not otherwise have because of a financial incentive.But we did see the poorly educated, more difficult to employ young women seeing just the dollar signs.We saw hundreds of them at the community centre where they came because they couldn&#039;t balance their budgets.&nbsp; Asking these pregnant young women what they would do with the baby bonus, it was inevitably stuff like &quot;take all the kids to Dreamworld&quot;, buy new bikes for everyone etc etc.&nbsp; I can recall just one girl who said she would use it to buy essential baby needs and hopefully have some left over to open a bank account for the child.Of course not all single mothers are hopeless and condemned for ever to poverty.&nbsp; But let&#039;s remember that it was only a couple of generations ago that there was no such payment for women alone.&nbsp; They had to work to survive or stay with an often bad marriage.&nbsp; I&#039;m not suggesting there was anything positive about the latter alternative, but I do think there needs to be a limit to the demands on the taxpayer.Now it seems to be the &#039;right&#039; of every woman to have publicly funded IVF so she can have the child that she considers her god given right.&nbsp; Lesbians in particular are taking advantage of this.&nbsp; Then they receive the baby bonus and a taxpayer funded benefit.We have many single mothers with six or more children who are pulling in via welfare considerably more than many working families who are paying the taxes to support them.My concern is that the balance is becoming out of sync, and for that reason support the principle the government has in mind of getting people into work.Far more useful in every way for a child to grow up seeing a parent or parents working productively than sitting around passively on welfare.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Julia, post: 745172, member: 1152"] I suppose that's not an inevitable outcome. Poor doesn't necessarily mean amoral, often quite the contrary. I understand your point, sails, just worry rather that we do have a tendency to expect the worst of people rather than the best and that's entirely counterproductive. Agree entirely. The baby bonus was one of Costello's most poorly conceived thought bubbles. His hypothesis was that more children would grow up to expand the tax base and therefore support the growing numbers in retirement. That would be fine if the people who would rear children to do that were the ones influenced by a few thousand dollars. They were not. The intelligent, thoughtful people with a strong work ethic would never have been induced to have a child they would not otherwise have because of a financial incentive. But we did see the poorly educated, more difficult to employ young women seeing just the dollar signs. We saw hundreds of them at the community centre where they came because they couldn't balance their budgets. Asking these pregnant young women what they would do with the baby bonus, it was inevitably stuff like "take all the kids to Dreamworld", buy new bikes for everyone etc etc. I can recall just one girl who said she would use it to buy essential baby needs and hopefully have some left over to open a bank account for the child. Of course not all single mothers are hopeless and condemned for ever to poverty. But let's remember that it was only a couple of generations ago that there was no such payment for women alone. They had to work to survive or stay with an often bad marriage. I'm not suggesting there was anything positive about the latter alternative, but I do think there needs to be a limit to the demands on the taxpayer. Now it seems to be the 'right' of every woman to have publicly funded IVF so she can have the child that she considers her god given right. Lesbians in particular are taking advantage of this. Then they receive the baby bonus and a taxpayer funded benefit. We have many single mothers with six or more children who are pulling in via welfare considerably more than many working families who are paying the taxes to support them. My concern is that the balance is becoming out of sync, and for that reason support the principle the government has in mind of getting people into work. Far more useful in every way for a child to grow up seeing a parent or parents working productively than sitting around passively on welfare. [/QUOTE]

Verification