To breed, or not to breed?

Riddick · 22 November 2009

cutz said:
So sorry to hear that bro,

So you're out of pocket 2 weeks wages, why don't you take two weeks sick and call it even.

Unfortunately we have 6 weeks paid parental leave per child and a three week lump sum upon return to work policy. My allowance for two children would be essentially 12 weeks and 2 x 3 week lump sums or essentially 18 weeks pay. This would work out to about 20 grand. See now why I am angry?

gooner · 22 November 2009

Riddick said:
I am so angry. I am a senior employee at my firm. My firm employs about 600 people. I choose not to have kids and I am penalised financially by not being able to access paid family leave. If the average number of kids per family in Australia is just shy of two, then I should be allowed to access either the time and money or simply be paid the money in line with other employees who use the time to actually breed, for this number of kids. Then I wouldn't be forced to whinge about the discriminatory nature of paid family leave.
Damn I am upset tonight.

Yo! Take a chill pill

Parental leave is for people with children. How is that discriminatory? Throw away the condom/pill whatever and voila, 9 months later, you too can have parental leave. It's like sick leave. Is that discriminatory because I don't get sick? Of course not.

Having kids is hard work - employers want to attract and retain employees with children, given they are a large part of the workforce.

Disclosure: Three kids, 4,2, and 0

Julia · 22 November 2009

Gooner, that's a bit unfair of you. I reckon Riddick has a good reason to feel aggrieved.

Riddick, it sounds as though this is your firm's individual policy. What has been suggested (and I'm not sure where it's at in the legislative process) is a taxpayer funded maternity/paternity scheme of I think 18 weeks, in which the company pays the employee taking leave and also pays the replacement employee plus super for them, and then claims this back from the government.
You'd think this is somewhat of an imposition on the company's cashflow perhaps.

Then let's add to that the taxpayer subsidised child care, and the ongoing family payments via Centrelink, and people without children are sure as hell mightily subsidising those who choose to procreate.

Various ways of looking at it, I suppose. If the offspring grow up to be taxpayers, then they are assisting in providing the tax base for retirees.

I'd prefer a system whereby those who choose to have children pay for them, and we all fund our own retirements. However, nothing would ever be that simple.

gooner · 22 November 2009

Julia said:
Gooner, that's a bit unfair of you. I reckon Riddick has a good reason to feel aggrieved.

Riddick, it sounds as though this is your firm's individual policy. What has been suggested (and I'm not sure where it's at in the legislative process) is a taxpayer funded maternity/paternity scheme of I think 18 weeks, in which the company pays the employee taking leave and also pays the replacement employee plus super for them, and then claims this back from the government.
You'd think this is somewhat of an imposition on the company's cashflow perhaps.

Then let's add to that the taxpayer subsidised child care, and the ongoing family payments via Centrelink, and people without children are sure as hell mightily subsidising those who choose to procreate.

Various ways of looking at it, I suppose. If the offspring grow up to be taxpayers, then they are assisting in providing the tax base for retirees.

I'd prefer a system whereby those who choose to have children pay for them, and we all fund our own retirements. However, nothing would ever be that simple.

Julia,

If everyone followed Riddick's lead, then there would not be any children. And then it does not matter how many millions you have in your superannuation plan, you will not be able to retire. Because there will not be anyone to make your food, to fix your bad health, to sell you petrol.......... So arguably, the money given to families with children ensures that there will be people around to nurse Riddick when he can no longer look after himself.

Also, given this is Riddick's employer's decision to pay parental leave, it is really a matter for that company's shareholders. They probably consider it worthwhile to pay it to get the staff (who have been trained by the company) to return after having children.

Riddick · 22 November 2009

Julia said:
Gooner, that's a bit unfair of you. I reckon Riddick has a good reason to feel aggrieved.

Riddick, it sounds as though this is your firm's individual policy. What has been suggested (and I'm not sure where it's at in the legislative process) is a taxpayer funded maternity/paternity scheme of I think 18 weeks, in which the company pays the employee taking leave and also pays the replacement employee plus super for them, and then claims this back from the government.
You'd think this is somewhat of an imposition on the company's cashflow perhaps.

Then let's add to that the taxpayer subsidised child care, and the ongoing family payments via Centrelink, and people without children are sure as hell mightily subsidising those who choose to procreate.

Various ways of looking at it, I suppose. If the offspring grow up to be taxpayers, then they are assisting in providing the tax base for retirees.

I'd prefer a system whereby those who choose to have children pay for them, and we all fund our own retirements. However, nothing would ever be that simple.

Thanks Julia.

I'm not down on people with kids and I certaily do not believe for one moment it is easy to raise kids, however... I fit into almost the most taxed and least benefitted section of society, the middle class double income non breeder. Now I don't mind working - I enjoy my jobs but seemeingly, even though I am a good social contributor, with my own chunk of investment dollars and will definitely be self funded when I retire in 35 years, It just smacks of inequality that institutionalised descrimination is so ingrained in our social system. you cannot by law discriminate against someone for religion, sexual orientation, marital staus, sex etc, but the government is quite happy to discriminate against a sector of its own population and there seems to be no avenue for recourse.
Why then do governments feel the need to subsidise almost every stage of child rearing, give parents special rights that non breeders cannot access. Should we not be encouraging people who can afford to have kids and discouraging those who cannot afford them?
If you break it down in tot he old needs and wants arguement, then it is clear that children are no longer needs. ie if you don't have them you won't die. They quite clearly fit in to the want category.
I want another boat and another 30 days mountaineering tacked onto my 15 days at the end of the year, but unlike having children there is no subsidy program available for me.
I'm sure to hear howls of protest from people with kids and the usual arguements about population shrinking etc, none of which hold water. A quick look at standard of living will demonstrate in Australia and the US, standard of living is highest when the population is stagnant, not growing.

Julia · 22 November 2009

gooner said:
Julia,

If everyone followed Riddick's lead, then there would not be any children. And then it does not matter how many millions you have in your superannuation plan, you will not be able to retire. Because there will not be anyone to make your food, to fix your bad health, to sell you petrol.......... So arguably, the money given to families with children ensures that there will be people around to nurse Riddick when he can no longer look after himself.

Now, gooner, you know quite well that will never happen. People will always want to have children.
There is a valid argument for admitting more skilled migrants to Australia to do all the things you list above. That way we would not be adding to the global over-population problem.

I seem to recall in the days long before there were taxpayer funded subsidies for having children and seeing them through their first sixteen years, people still had children as they could afford them, and old people still retired on government pensions. So I wonder what is so different today that we are obliged to pay people to procreate?

Also, given this is Riddick's employer's decision to pay parental leave, it is really a matter for that company's shareholders. They probably consider it worthwhile to pay it to get the staff (who have been trained by the company) to return after having children.

That's a good point, and makes some sense. If it's confined to being a policy decided by individual companies then I have no argument with it, but I do have an argument with tax payer funded maternity leave on top of all the family payments, baby bonus etc.

jbocker · 23 November 2009

Riddick said:
Unfortunately we have 6 weeks paid parental leave per child and a three week lump sum upon return to work policy. My allowance for two children would be essentially 12 weeks and 2 x 3 week lump sums or essentially 18 weeks pay. This would work out to about 20 grand. See now why I am angry?

Had three kids and no paid leave for me. Should I be angry too?
To all who read this, if having kids was about the money or having paid leave then dont PLEASE dont breed.

Wysiwyg · 23 November 2009

Riddick said:
Why then do governments feel the need to subsidise almost every stage of child rearing, give parents special rights that non breeders cannot access. Should we not be encouraging people who can afford to have kids and discouraging those who cannot afford them?

I do agree on this point. The employer requires the employee to be at work within a predetermined time and to perform the required duties in return for money. What people do outside work hours is their business and should not involve either party. Law demanding an employer pay for an employee's reproduction phase is utterly ridiculous.

gooner · 24 November 2009

Julia said:
Snip

I seem to recall in the days long before there were taxpayer funded subsidies for having children and seeing them through their first sixteen years, people still had children as they could afford them, and old people still retired on government pensions. So I wonder what is so different today that we are obliged to pay people to procreate?

Snip

Subsidies have been around for a long time. Found the history below at

http://www.womensactionalliance.com.au/taxation.html.

So effectively Riddick and others without children have benefited by getting education and cash when they were young, but now wish to deny it to others.

Until 1941, assistance to families in Australia was provided solely through a system of tax deductions. Then, in 1941, Child Endowment was introduced, the first cash payment direct to the primary carer. It operated with the assistance available through the tax system, which through the 1950’s and 60’s included deductions for such things as medical, dental, chemist bills, health and life insurance, home and water rates and educational expenses.

In 1976, Child Endowment and all tax concessions for children were replaced with a single payment direct to the primary carer, Family Allowance. Family Allowance was not means tested or indexed. This led to substantial erosion during a period of high inflation. At about the same time the Dependent Spouse Rebate replaced all previous deductions for spouses.

In 1983, the Family Income Supplement was introduced. This was an income-tested per child payment made to low-income families. The increasing emphasis on low-income families over these years, coupled with the fact that Family Allowance was now worth very little in real terms, led to the means testing of Family Allowance in 1987. This was the end of any form of universal assistance to families for children in Australia.

In 1994, the Dependent Spouse Rebate was replaced by the Home Child Care Allowance, a payment made directly to a non-earning spouse. Also during the 1990’s, indexation of all family payments was introduced.

In 1997, the Howard Government returned to the concept of family assistance provided through the tax system, with the introduction of Family Tax Payment (Part A) for children, and (Part B), for a non-earning spouse, and Family Tax Assistance (Parts A and B) for low-income families. These payments could be taken either as direct payments, or as tax rebates.

Julia · 24 November 2009

Thanks for that, gooner.

It would be interesting to know how much used to be paid in total in previous generations, say as a percentage of the average wage, compared to today.

And now we pay $5000 baby bonus, plus subsidise child care, and soon will be paying maternity leave.

It's these latter that I was referring to.

awg · 24 November 2009

Riddick said:
Thanks Julia.

I'm not down on people with kids and I certaily do not believe for one moment it is easy to raise kids, however... I fit into almost the most taxed and least benefitted section of society, the middle class double income non breeder. Now I don't mind working - I enjoy my jobs but seemeingly, even though I am a good social contributor, with my own chunk of investment dollars and will definitely be self funded when I retire in 35 years, It just smacks of inequality that institutionalised descrimination is so ingrained in our social system. you cannot by law discriminate against someone for religion, sexual orientation, marital staus, sex etc, but the government is quite happy to discriminate against a sector of its own population and there seems to be no avenue for recourse.
Why then do governments feel the need to subsidise almost every stage of child rearing, give parents special rights that non breeders cannot access. Should we not be encouraging people who can afford to have kids and discouraging those who cannot afford them?
If you break it down in tot he old needs and wants arguement, then it is clear that children are no longer needs. ie if you don't have them you won't die. They quite clearly fit in to the want category.
I want another boat and another 30 days mountaineering tacked onto my 15 days at the end of the year, but unlike having children there is no subsidy program available for me.
I'm sure to hear howls of protest from people with kids and the usual arguements about population shrinking etc, none of which hold water. A quick look at standard of living will demonstrate in Australia and the US, standard of living is highest when the population is stagnant, not growing.

No howls of protest, more laughter

Here is a REDHOT tip for free, as you are the OP.

You will be miles ahead financially if you dont have kids, hundreds of thousands per kid!

I think I understand the logic of your feelings however, know one likes subsidising others

Was taking the p!ss out of someone recently, thanking them for subsidising me, they are single, no kids, earn too much for Kevs $900, wound them right up about welfare mothers in shopping malls etc tehehe.

As to maternity leave, a hard fought issue for women and mothers.

If I was an employer, I would not want to pay it though

All part of the democratic system..Paradise, as one fellow poster commonly reminds us,

so dont waste time being mad, enjoy the pleasures your situation allows, such as travel and other financial and lifestyle benefits,

in case you have an "accident", or change your mind, which definitely occurs, I have seen some staunchly anti-breeding people change their minds.

ps. I once worked with a very smart guy, a financial advisor.

He was going thru divorce, and remarked to me "each kid is an investment property"..as a callow youth, even I was a bit shocked at this, however, having now had a few of both, I think he slightly underestimated, ie that is each kid is more expensive than acquiring a rental property

Tink · 26 November 2009

There you go, look at all the money you save.

THE cost of raising children has hit the $1 million mark as parents fork out for expensive toys, lessons and technology, research suggests.

Social researcher Mark McCrindle said the Federal Government's estimate of $384,543 to raise a child to 18 was wrong.

Adding the cost of electronics, private tutoring and sports and dance classes, and considering the average child now stayed at home until 24, the real cost to the Australian parent of raising children was $1,028, 093, he said.

Nyden · 26 November 2009

Tink said:
There you go, look at all the money you save.

THE cost of raising children has hit the $1 million mark as parents fork out for expensive toys, lessons and technology, research suggests.

Social researcher Mark McCrindle said the Federal Government's estimate of $384,543 to raise a child to 18 was wrong.

Adding the cost of electronics, private tutoring and sports and dance classes, and considering the average child now stayed at home until 24, the real cost to the Australian parent of raising children was $1,028, 093, he said.

I think most people have already known that original estimate to be wrong, for quite a while, actually.

That's just horrible, and to think - by not having children, I could own a really nice boat. Snip-snip, here I come.

Julia · 26 November 2009

Tink said:
There you go, look at all the money you save.

THE cost of raising children has hit the $1 million mark as parents fork out for expensive toys, lessons and technology, research suggests.

Social researcher Mark McCrindle said the Federal Government's estimate of $384,543 to raise a child to 18 was wrong.

Adding the cost of electronics, private tutoring and sports and dance classes, and considering the average child now stayed at home until 24, the real cost to the Australian parent of raising children was $1,028, 093, he said.

Surely Mr McCrindle can't be suggesting that young adults who live at home until they are 24 are not financially self supporting?
If the parents are still supporting them at that age, it's their own fault.
Not doing any child a favour by encouraging such dependence.

Happy · 26 November 2009

Children 24 yo at parent's home even if contribute to cost of living don't spend as much as they would have to when living on their own.

Effectively it is as if they earn more.

Riddick · 26 November 2009

Tink said:
There you go, look at all the money you save.

THE cost of raising children has hit the $1 million mark as parents fork out for expensive toys, lessons and technology, research suggests.

Social researcher Mark McCrindle said the Federal Government's estimate of $384,543 to raise a child to 18 was wrong.

Adding the cost of electronics, private tutoring and sports and dance classes, and considering the average child now stayed at home until 24, the real cost to the Australian parent of raising children was $1,028, 093, he said.

A private school in melbourne I am associated with, in the top eschelon of private schools in the country charges about 17k per year for high school years 7 - 12. This is basic tuition only. Everything else, sport, laptop, uniforms, excursions etc are extra. Conservatively 20k a year would be the figure I would put on it. Thats 120k+ solely for a very small part of the child's development. I think the $1million for a child up the age of 24 is conservative if you choose private education for your child. That a pile of dollars.

Maybe it would be more effective to invest that 1mil, then spend in on cleaners and carers in your old age rather than the supposed benefits children bring you when you are old. Like choosing the best nusing home for you so the greedly blighters can divide up your life savings....

Wysiwyg · 27 November 2009

An example of poor human breeding choice has manifested in the residence next to me. The occupants moved in 3 weeks ago and I couldn't help but notice they have a recently born child. What also came to my attention is the father has a persistent phlegm issue (cough, cough spit) and you wouldn't guess where that comes from. Yes a smoker. Now the lil' tacker has to breathe the smoke, smell the stench and listen to the coughing.

To breed or not to breed? Some people just can't handle their own lives let alone be responsible for helpless offspring.

Tink · 28 November 2009

Riddick said:
A private school in melbourne I am associated with, in the top eschelon of private schools in the country charges about 17k per year for high school years 7 - 12. This is basic tuition only. Everything else, sport, laptop, uniforms, excursions etc are extra. Conservatively 20k a year would be the figure I would put on it. Thats 120k+ solely for a very small part of the child's development. I think the $1million for a child up the age of 24 is conservative if you choose private education for your child. That a pile of dollars.

Maybe it would be more effective to invest that 1mil, then spend in on cleaners and carers in your old age rather than the supposed benefits children bring you when you are old. Like choosing the best nusing home for you so the greedly blighters can divide up your life savings....

LOL Riddick, I wouldnt trade my kids in for the world, no matter how much money they cost.

Some things in life just dont have a money value

inenigma · 28 November 2009

Riddick said:
Thanks Julia.

I'm not down on people with kids and I certaily do not believe for one moment it is easy to raise kids, however... I fit into almost the most taxed and least benefitted section of society, the middle class double income non breeder. Now I don't mind working - I enjoy my jobs but seemeingly, even though I am a good social contributor, with my own chunk of investment dollars and will definitely be self funded when I retire in 35 years, It just smacks of inequality that institutionalised descrimination is so ingrained in our social system. you cannot by law discriminate against someone for religion, sexual orientation, marital staus, sex etc, but the government is quite happy to discriminate against a sector of its own population and there seems to be no avenue for recourse.
Why then do governments feel the need to subsidise almost every stage of child rearing, give parents special rights that non breeders cannot access. Should we not be encouraging people who can afford to have kids and discouraging those who cannot afford them?
If you break it down in tot he old needs and wants arguement, then it is clear that children are no longer needs. ie if you don't have them you won't die. They quite clearly fit in to the want category.
I want another boat and another 30 days mountaineering tacked onto my 15 days at the end of the year, but unlike having children there is no subsidy program available for me.
I'm sure to hear howls of protest from people with kids and the usual arguements about population shrinking etc, none of which hold water. A quick look at standard of living will demonstrate in Australia and the US, standard of living is highest when the population is stagnant, not growing.

Sounds to me like someone hasn't got anything better to whinge about.... Are you from the United Kingdom ??

inenigma · 28 November 2009

Nyden said:
Snip-snip, here I come.

Unfortunately, I had had the snip..... My wife (she was my GF back then) subsequently got preggers... I was quite sus about the whole thing, but, there's no denying now that my daughter IS my daughter as she is the spitting image of me (poor child). I didn't want children. I had been snipped. I have a daughter..... You don't hear me whinging about it. I think some people have way too much time on their hands....

To breed, or not to breed?

Riddick

gooner

Julia

In Memoriam

gooner

Riddick

Julia

In Memoriam

jbocker

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

gooner

Julia

In Memoriam

awg

Tink

Nyden

G.E. Money Genie

Julia

In Memoriam

Happy

Riddick

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

Tink

inenigma

Oh Sh*t.... That didn't work.

inenigma

Oh Sh*t.... That didn't work.

Similar threads

To breed, or not to breed?

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

Everyone wants money

In Memoriam

G.E. Money Genie

In Memoriam

Everyone wants money

Oh Sh*t.... That didn't work.

Oh Sh*t.... That didn't work.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency