Dump baby bonus, says Anglican Church's key advisory group
John Masanauskas, Matt Johnston From: Herald Sun April 28, 2011 12:00AM


UPDATE 11.08am: SOME baby bonuses are being used to feed poker machine habits and buy plasma TVs and should be scrapped, key Independent MP Tony Windsor says.

Mr Windsor has backed calls from a church advisory group to get rid of the baby bonus to help slow down population growth.



The Anglican Church's key advisory group also wants migration cut.

In a submission to a federal population inquiry, the general synod's public affairs commission has described population growth as a taboo subject and "the elephant in the room".

The commission has proposed a halt to "any policy that provides an incentive specifically and primarily to increase Australia's population, notably the baby bonus".

Thanks for voting!

Should the baby bonus be dumped?
Yes 73.07% (464 votes)
No 26.93% (171 votes)
Total votes: 635

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/dump-baby-bonus-says-church/story-e6frf7jo-1226045857136


What Do YOU think ?????

Absolutely. Gone in 60 seconds.

Or at very least change the qualifications..

Paying bogans to bonk probably wasn't the original intention...

I don't often agree with "the church" but in this case they are spot on.

Anything to get their vote, gizmo.

Remember Costello? One for mum, one for dad and one for the country?

Who gets the seventh?

If only the Libs had put the best interests of children and families first in the first instance - and increased existing Family Tax Benefit payments across the early years of a child's life (and/or introduced a sensible Maternity/Parental Pay system) for low-middle income families...

Instead, they went for an ill-conceived, counter-productive and anti-social non-means-tested child-bearing incentive scam - as if putting a lump-sum payout on a baby's head was ever a good idea!?

To make matters worse, they also incentivised bean-counters to run high-cost govt-subsidised production line Child Handling Centres - and in the process destroyed the existing affordable and family-oriented community childcare system...

Go figure, eh!?

Quote:

Paying bogans to bonk probably wasn't the original intention...

I don't think they were ever too fussy with who the humper and the humpee was. As long as the result was a bouncing sprog.

Equitist wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

If only the Libs had put the best interests of children and families first in the first instance - and increased existing Family Tax Benefit payments across the early years of a child's life (and/or increased a sensible Maternity/Parental Pay system) for low-middle income families... Instead, they went for an ill-conceived, counter-productive and anti-social non-means-tested child-bearing incentive scam - as if putting a lump-sum payout on a baby's head was ever a good idea!? To make matters worse, they also incentivised bean-counters to run high-cost govt-subsidised production line Child Handling Centres - and in the process destroyed the existing affordable and family-oriented community childcare system... Go figure, eh!?

All upheld by the Labor Government

ditto.
dump the silly thing, irrespective of who is doing it, it remains a bad idea.

Too many single parents are 'benefit dependent'.   :(


The OECD has recommended childcare support programs be extended for working parents.



AUSTRALIA should make single parents meet tougher work, training and job search requirements before giving them welfare payments, according to the OECD. It also recommended the extension of childcare support programs for working parents.

Joblessness among sole parent families was a significant problem in Australia, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development said in its Doing Better for Families report published last night.

''The sole-parent employment rate is one of the lowest in the OECD, which contributes to an above-average poverty rate for sole-parent families,'' the report said.


''This issue is of particular concern as around one in five children live in such households, and projections show that the number is likely to increase by 20 per cent over the next 25 years.''

Australia had provided long periods of support to single parents with few conditions, and this had increased benefit dependency, the report said.

More recently, the age of the youngest child at which parents were entitled to income support was decreased. ''Australian policy should continue to support work, training or job search requirements for recipients of sole-parent benefits.''

The report also said that Australia spent less on childcare than most other member countries. ''Only 40 per cent of children aged less than six years [are] enrolled in formal childcare.

''Australia should consider extending its childcare support programs to provide more help to working parents,'' it said.

How many people are encouraged to have baby's that they shouldn't, by this very thing - The baby bonus.   :(  

What gets me is why they didn't try to get more out of it.

Like saying you could only get it if you were married, a church goer and owned three Australian made woolen jumpers.

They'd increase the birth rate, bump up the marriage rate, increase flagging church attendance and support both the wool and manufacturing industries.

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 1:43pm:

How many people are encouraged to have baby's that they shouldn't, by this very thing - The baby bonus.   :(

Not many at all, I think.

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 1:43pm:

How many people are encouraged to have baby's that they shouldn't, by this very thing - The baby bonus.   :(

Only an idiot would think this is why people have kids.

If my wife doesnt return to work until our oldest hits schools, we have forgone well over $350k in wages in that time, and that not factoring in further kids.

Yeah, we did it for the $5k  ::)

I may be wrong...but hasnt the baby bonus been replaced with maternity leave anyway? Isn't it one or the other, and considering the maternity leave pays more there isn't really a need for the bonus anymore?

Equitist wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

If only the Libs had put the best interests of children and families first in the first instance - and increased existing Family Tax Benefit payments across the early years of a child's life (and/or introduced a sensible Maternity/Parental Pay system) for low-middle income families... Instead, they went for an ill-conceived, counter-productive and anti-social non-means-tested child-bearing incentive scam - as if putting a lump-sum payout on a baby's head was ever a good idea!? To make matters worse, they also incentivised bean-counters to run high-cost govt-subsidised production line Child Handling Centres - and in the process destroyed the existing affordable and family-oriented community childcare system... Go figure, eh!?

You realise it hasnt been a lump summ payment for some time right?

Why does everything you dont agree with have to be labelled a scam?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

I may be wrong...but hasnt the baby bonus been replaced with maternity leave anyway? Isn't it one or the other, and considering the maternity leave pays more there isn't really a need for the bonus anymore?

Unless of course you are a non-working mother of course.

Why should only working mothers get a benefit from the government?

So do you support it Verge?

If so, why?

Verge wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:07pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 2:03pm: I may be wrong...but hasnt the baby bonus been replaced with maternity leave anyway? Isn't it one or the other, and considering the maternity leave pays more there isn't really a need for the bonus anymore? Unless of course you are a non-working mother of course. Why should only working mothers get a benefit from the government?

mmmm, one of the reasons I was against maternity leave being paid by the government, rather than by business, similar to annual leave/sick leave.

I see your point...

Please delete wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:08pm:

So do you support it Verge? If so, why?

Simply because I think our society should do more to keep a parent (honestly dont care which one either) in the role of primary care giver for as long as possible.

Its near impossible for someone else to give kids the care, attention, discipline and education when they have another 15 to deal with at the same time.

The role of double income families using the income to support lifestyles instead of supporting their childrens growth and development worries me.

Kids are easily influenced and lead astray also easily.
Parents need to be more than cash cows, and if government assistance allows them to do that, then good and well.

Simply, Im pissed to many mongrel kids are getting around the streets with idle hands while their parents are focussing on their careers or have to go back to work because a government sees their tax revenue instead of the investment in a kid who is brought up and not dragged up.

Someone wants to make life tougher for Muslims, and Sudanese to have babies - this is a clearly racially motivated idea.  The New Australians need to be given every chance to make it and a baby bonus goes some small way towards making their Australian dream a reality.  Lets have a generous social security system for all not just the rich whites. :)

I think you may find that both major party's are "impressed" by the same people, who's short-medium term interests are boosted by a continued hump-fest.

However, in the longer term, it is in no ones interest to have an exponentially expanding Population.

In fact, an exponentially expanding Population, is against the laws of Physics, Mother Nature always says no, at some point!

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:23pm:

I think you may find that both major party's are "impressed" by the same people, who's short-medium term interests are boosted by a continued hump-fest. However, in the longer term, it is in no ones interest to have an exponentially expanding Population. In fact, an exponentially expanding Population, is against the laws of Physics, Mother Nature always says no, at some point!

Show me the evidence that the baby bonus has resulted in a higher birth rate.  It had precisely zero influence on my families decision to have children, and I doubt it would influence anyone, barring a few mongrel lowlifes who would have got knocked up anyway.

Verge wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:17pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 2:08pm: So do you support it Verge? If so, why? Simply because I think our society should do more to keep a parent (honestly dont care which one either) in the role of primary care giver for as long as possible. Its near impossible for someone else to give kids the care, attention, discipline and education when they have another 15 to deal with at the same time. The role of double income families using the income to support lifestyles instead of supporting their childrens growth and development worries me. Kids are easily influenced and lead astray also easily. Parents need to be more than cash cows, and if government assistance allows them to do that, then good and well. Simply, Im pissed to many mongrel kids are getting around the streets with idle hands while their parents are focussing on their careers or have to go back to work because a government sees their tax revenue instead of the investment in a kid who is brought up and not dragged up.

How does a baby bonus address any of those issues?

It's money for TVs and juicers, not long term support.

We need to ensure that people who have children do it for the right reasons, and with the welfare and wellbeing of the child foremost.

The baby bonus (and the paid parental schemes) don't do that, in my opinion.

Stopping the immigration flow is the answer to population control, but to make it impossible for people who have come here in good faith to start a family and build a life is cruel and unusual punishment.  Cutting the baby bonus and keeping a high mass immigration intake is proof of white supremacist socio economic policies and keeping welfare in the hands of the whites.  Australia must maintain a generous openhearted social security system to built a cohesive inclusive nation based on equality - black or white. 8-)

Quote:

We need to ensure that people who have children do it for the right reasons, and with the welfare and wellbeing of the child foremost. The baby bonus (and the paid parental schemes) don't do that, in my opinion.

What possible way could this be done?  

And also, what business is it of anyone elses why someone chooses to have kids?

... wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:30pm:

Quote: We need to ensure that people who have children do it for the right reasons, and with the welfare and wellbeing of the child foremost. The baby bonus (and the paid parental schemes) don't do that, in my opinion. What possible way could this be done?   And also, what business is it of anyone elses why someone chooses to have kids?

Ok, I agree we don't "need to ensure that people ..." but we sure as heck don't need to pay anyone to do something that a) they want to do anyway, and b) should be prepared for.

Please delete wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Verge wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 2:17pm: Please delete wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 2:08pm: So do you support it Verge? If so, why? Simply because I think our society should do more to keep a parent (honestly dont care which one either) in the role of primary care giver for as long as possible. Its near impossible for someone else to give kids the care, attention, discipline and education when they have another 15 to deal with at the same time. The role of double income families using the income to support lifestyles instead of supporting their childrens growth and development worries me. Kids are easily influenced and lead astray also easily. Parents need to be more than cash cows, and if government assistance allows them to do that, then good and well. Simply, Im pissed to many mongrel kids are getting around the streets with idle hands while their parents are focussing on their careers or have to go back to work because a government sees their tax revenue instead of the investment in a kid who is brought up and not dragged up. How does a baby bonus address any of those issues? It's money for TVs and juicers, not long term support. We need to ensure that people who have children do it for the right reasons, and with the welfare and wellbeing of the child foremost. The baby bonus (and the paid parental schemes) don't do that, in my opinion.

To cut the rot of the TV's etc it is now paid at about $440 a fortnight over the 20 odd weeks.

There is no evidence out there that suggests people are doing it for the money.  Over the last five years compared to the previous five there has actually been a reducion in things like teenage pregnancy, so I dont think money is a factor in people pushing out kids.

If you can think of other ways in which parents can be parents without the financial restraints that are currently experienced, Im most certaintly all ears to debate them.  In a country where the spiralling costs of living with increases in fuel, food, utilities and real estate is the heart of what is killing off the stay at home parent, then any real government influence on those matters would be most welcomed.

We have had promises of shifting the tax burden, but ultimatley the taxation system is just cruel on single income families.  Things like the mining tax wont happen as Gillard is poo frightened of them and the carbon tax will just be another shot to the nuts for us.

Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

What gets me is why they didn't try to get more out of it. Like saying you could only get it if you were married, a church goer and owned three Australian made woolen jumpers. They'd increase the birth rate, bump up the marriage rate, increase flagging church attendance and support both the wool and manufacturing industries.

Well not perhaps the 'church goer' or 'woollen jumper' bits, but definitely at least 'employed'....married, not so much...
There's not much point to increasing the birth rate among 'welfare' recipients...not when we are facing an ageing population and a lack of work ethics...

Here's a can pf petrol to throw on the fire.
How about preserving assistance to young families - god knows they need it - but only paying it to legally married couples with a history of a stable relationship. This may include a period living together as well as, but in addition to, being married. It may also preclude any history of child neglect, domestic violence and so on.
Of course you would need another small army of bureaucrats, but it is the taxpayers' money and they should have a right to see that it isn't being squandered on humpors & humpees or professional baby factories.

"If you can think of other ways in which parents can be parents without the financial restraints that are currently experienced"

What financial constraints? - this is what gets me. I've yet to meet a woman who would worry about income if it meant having a child. The problem arises when they want children AND all the lifestyle choices.

If you want children, have them. If you want a dog, have that too.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Here's a can pf petrol to throw on the fire. How about preserving assistance to young families - god knows they need it - but only paying it to legally married couples with a history of a stable relationship. This may include a period living together as well as, but in addition to, being married. It may also preclude any history of child neglect, domestic violence and so on. Of course you would need another small army of bureaucrats, but it is the taxpayers' money and they should have a right to see that it isn't being squandered on humpors & humpees or professional baby factories.

The only issue I mainly see is the term marriage, when there is plenty choosing to not get married these days.

Maybe an admendment to your can of petrol could be proven long term relationship as opposed to actual marriage.

Black and Muslim families deserve a Fair go too.... :)

Quote:

If you can think of other ways in which parents can be parents without the financial restraints that are currently experienced, Im most certaintly all ears to debate them.  In a country where the spiralling costs of living with increases in fuel, food, utilities and real estate is the heart of what is killing off the stay at home parent, then any real government influence on those matters would be most welcomed. We have had promises of shifting the tax burden, but ultimatley the taxation system is just cruel on single income families.  Things like the mining tax wont happen as Gillard is poo frightened of them and the carbon tax will just be another shot to the nuts for us.

From one of the few poster I actually believe would support ANY government that moves to address these things.
Unfortunately Verge we are the minority, if Labor did it Maqqa & Cods would go postal, we'd get at least 10 more Matty & Jennys, & the howls from the Murdoch press & shock Jocks would ensure the very people it would help would be the most vocal & violent in opposing it.
I'd like to think if the Liberals did it Labor & the Greens would support it but I doubt it.

Please delete wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

"If you can think of other ways in which parents can be parents without the financial restraints that are currently experienced" What financial constraints? - this is what gets me. I've yet to meet a woman who would worry about income if it meant having a child. The problem arises when they want children AND all the lifestyle choices. If you want children, have them. If you want a dog, have that too.

Its easy to say their is no financial restrainted, however we are paying 8 times the household income for a home now instead of 3 decades ago is we are having a generation of children raised in childcare with little discipline, manners and love.

Fuel is reaching $1.60 a litre in places.  Food is freaking expensive and the price of power is going up every year without qualification.

Its easy to look at this as a financial matter.  What you think is an expense, and its entirely your position and respect that, I dont see it as one.

I see it as an investment.

I agree with verge but I want to see investment in good projects not fly by night ones, if you get my drift.

Verge wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 2:44pm: "If you can think of other ways in which parents can be parents without the financial restraints that are currently experienced" What financial constraints? - this is what gets me. I've yet to meet a woman who would worry about income if it meant having a child. The problem arises when they want children AND all the lifestyle choices. If you want children, have them. If you want a dog, have that too. Its easy to say their is no financial restrainted, however we are paying 8 times the household income for a home now instead of 3 decades ago is we are having a generation of children raised in childcare with little discipline, manners and love. Fuel is reaching $1.60 a litre in places.  Food is freaking expensive and the price of power is going up every year without qualification. Its easy to look at this as a financial matter.  What you think is an expense, and its entirely your position and respect that, I dont see it as one. I see it as an investment.

We all face those constraints. Personally I think this has become emotional rather than rational.

Please delete wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

"If you can think of other ways in which parents can be parents without the financial restraints that are currently experienced" What financial constraints? - this is what gets me. I've yet to meet a woman who would worry about income if it meant having a child. The problem arises when they want children AND all the lifestyle choices. If you want children, have them. If you want a dog, have that too.

And here it is folks, the basic problem of our society in 14 words.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:48pm:

Quote: If you can think of other ways in which parents can be parents without the financial restraints that are currently experienced, Im most certaintly all ears to debate them.  In a country where the spiralling costs of living with increases in fuel, food, utilities and real estate is the heart of what is killing off the stay at home parent, then any real government influence on those matters would be most welcomed. We have had promises of shifting the tax burden, but ultimatley the taxation system is just cruel on single income families.  Things like the mining tax wont happen as Gillard is poo frightened of them and the carbon tax will just be another shot to the nuts for us. From one of the few poster I actually believe would support ANY government that moves to address these things. Unfortunately Verge we are the minority, if Labor did it Maqqa & Cods would go postal, we'd get at least 10 more Matty & Jennys, & the howls from the Murdoch press & shock Jocks would ensure the very people it would help would be the most vocal & violent in opposing it. I'd like to think if the Liberals did it Labor & the Greens would support it but I doubt it.

Sadly people just think its bogan single Mums who will use it as a cash cow and its another welfare cost.

Personally I thought society had come along a lot further than bashing anyone who gets welfare, but I was proven wrong when in the last month both Abbott and Gillard went the good old bash.

If we can drop cash in to help those in the poo, and to help parents be parents to invest in the future of this country, well, welcome to another generation of even more rude, selfish and undisciplined mob.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 2:44pm: "If you can think of other ways in which parents can be parents without the financial restraints that are currently experienced" What financial constraints? - this is what gets me. I've yet to meet a woman who would worry about income if it meant having a child. The problem arises when they want children AND all the lifestyle choices. If you want children, have them. If you want a dog, have that too. And here it is folks, the basic problem of our society in 14 words.

Not sure whether you agree or disagree, smithy.

Ask any Kid if they'd rather come home to mum, go to child care or home to an empty house, I think we all know the answer.
Have we as a society really benefited from the duel income??
Sure more of us drive BMW's, have boats, travel overseas etc but how has that actually helped our society?
I'm having a hard time thinking of anything other than increased taxation revenues, which are just wasted for the most part.

The problem is, as it has always been, if you offer some people a way to make a quick amount of money - more than they have ever known - you will end in problems that we all have to contend with.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 3:11pm:

Ask any Kid if they'd rather come home to mum, go to child care or home to an empty house, I think we all know the answer. Have we as a society really benefited from the duel income?? Sure more of us drive BMW's, have boats, travel overseas etc but how has that actually helped our society? I'm having a hard time thinking of anything other than increased taxation revenues, which are just wasted for the most part.

Not at all, but our corporate overlords sure have.

It just disappoints me how quick the Government can be to kick migrant families when they are just starting out...more social engineering to preserve the Nordic master race? :( :'(

Please delete wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

Verge wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 2:56pm: Please delete wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 2:44pm: "If you can think of other ways in which parents can be parents without the financial restraints that are currently experienced" What financial constraints? - this is what gets me. I've yet to meet a woman who would worry about income if it meant having a child. The problem arises when they want children AND all the lifestyle choices. If you want children, have them. If you want a dog, have that too. Its easy to say their is no financial restrainted, however we are paying 8 times the household income for a home now instead of 3 decades ago is we are having a generation of children raised in childcare with little discipline, manners and love. Fuel is reaching $1.60 a litre in places.  Food is freaking expensive and the price of power is going up every year without qualification. Its easy to look at this as a financial matter.  What you think is an expense, and its entirely your position and respect that, I dont see it as one. I see it as an investment. We all face those constraints. Personally I think this has become emotional rather than rational.

We all do face them, Im not doubting that, but there is those who feel them far more than others.

I was given a good anology the other day for supporting families.  He was an old guy who is a keen fisherman and his words were along the lines of this;
The government should look at families like they did the Murray River.  For years they took all the snags out, let people do what ever they wanted and all we got was a bunch of greedy people who made a lot of money, river bank erosion and no fish.
Now they have woken up, stopped anyone from taking out the snags, put them all back in and the people have been doing restock the Murray campaigns for some time now to get the fish numbers back but we are still only 10% of the way to to repairing 30 years of damage, and we've been at it for 15.

Only an idiot would think this is why people have kids.

If my wife doesnt return to work until our oldest hits schools, we have forgone well over $350k in wages in that time, and that not factoring in further kids.

Yeah, we did it for the $5k.
That is all well and good for you, but what about the unemployed, and the low income workers on $570 gross a week?.  Yes maybe ( SOME DID IT)  for the $5k.   :(                

We,have to give every Australian an equal welfare wage so there is no inequality between races and class then we can all be happy and no complaints.  Too many people are greedy. :)

Maybe I'm just getting old but as I said I see NO ADVANTAGE to the duel income family except for tax revenues & as Wes pointed out the Corporate Elite.
Bring back the days where 1 man or women's wage is enough to cover a mortgage/car/shop/holiday.
Of course to do this we all must go thru something even worse than the Great Depression of the 30's.

Quote:

Bring back the days where 1 man or women's wage is enough to cover a mortgage/car/shop/holiday. Of course to do this we all must go thru something even worse than the Great Depression of the 30's

Or stop living beyond your means.

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

Only an idiot would think this is why people have kids. If my wife doesnt return to work until our oldest hits schools, we have forgone well over $350k in wages in that time, and that not factoring in further kids. Yeah, we did it for the $5k. That is all well and good for you, but what about the unemployed, and the low income workers on $570 gross a week?.  Yes maybe ( SOME DID IT)  for the $5k.   :(

Bullshit.  $5k is ten weeks worth of the minimum wage.

And what about my wife who now doesnt even have a wage mate?

$5k is a spit in the Ocean when you have to raise a family for and a child for a minimum of 18 years, and the current trend appears to be even more.

To even suggest the $5k is a motivating factor shows such ignorance and naivety.

skippy. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:

Quote: Bring back the days where 1 man or women's wage is enough to cover a mortgage/car/shop/holiday. Of course to do this we all must go thru something even worse than the Great Depression of the 30's Or stop living beyond your means.

No Skip we are well past the stage of personal choice.
When your mortgage is $350K (small to average by todays standards) that requires over $2000 p/month just to service that, at today's rates.

skippy. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:

Quote: Bring back the days where 1 man or women's wage is enough to cover a mortgage/car/shop/holiday. Of course to do this we all must go thru something even worse than the Great Depression of the 30's Or stop living beyond your means.

If everybody stopped living beyond their means, it would bring about a great depression, seeing as how so much of our society/industry/commerce is based on the 'consume consume consume' ethic.  

skippy. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:06pm:

Quote: Bring back the days where 1 man or women's wage is enough to cover a mortgage/car/shop/holiday. Of course to do this we all must go thru something even worse than the Great Depression of the 30's Or stop living beyond your means.

The days smithy is referring to was when a family home cost 3 times the annual income.

Its now 8.

I dont think its a case of living within your means, more so now days the cost of means is just blowing out at an unsustainable rate.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Maybe I'm just getting old but as I said I see NO ADVANTAGE to the duel income family except for tax revenues & as Wes pointed out the Corporate Elite. Bring back the days where 1 man or women's wage is enough to cover a mortgage/car/shop/holiday. Of course to do this we all must go thru something even worse than the Great Depression of the 30's.

It might take that to do it. It used to be enough for one parent to work, then we needed both to work, now I know situations where both parents work and do extra jobs or overtime to make ends meet. What next? send the kids out to work?

Is that what the pollies mean when they say working families.....the WHOLE family.

Even if we went through the great depression mark II, would we be happy when we come out the other side, would we learn a lesson never to be greedy again?

Verge wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:11pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 4:06pm: Quote: Bring back the days where 1 man or women's wage is enough to cover a mortgage/car/shop/holiday. Of course to do this we all must go thru something even worse than the Great Depression of the 30's Or stop living beyond your means. The days smithy is referring to was when a family home cost 3 times the annual income. Its now 8. I dont think its a case of living within your means, more so now days the cost of means is just blowing out at an unsustainable rate.

And really not that long ago 70's to about 85 I'd say

And weren't we told that the recent GFC was 'worse than the great depression'?

hearing that really made me question whether the great depression was great at all.

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

Only an idiot would think this is why people have kids. If my wife doesnt return to work until our oldest hits schools, we have forgone well over $350k in wages in that time, and that not factoring in further kids. Yeah, we did it for the $5k. That is all well and good for you, but what about the unemployed, and the low income workers on $570 gross a week?.  Yes maybe ( SOME DID IT)  for the $5k.   :(

Quite possibly the stupidest comment Ive read from you to date and thats saying something.

Thats about 9 weeks of the average wage mate, what about the other 17 years, 43 weeks you have to support the kid for?

... wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:13pm:

And weren't we told that the recent GFC was 'worse than the great depression'? hearing that really made me question whether the great depression was great at all.

That was a retarded Treasurer ramping up his so called efforts stopping a recession.

What kind of a wanker says its worse than the great depression when we didnt even get a recession?

Verge wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:15pm:

... wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 4:13pm: And weren't we told that the recent GFC was 'worse than the great depression'? hearing that really made me question whether the great depression was great at all. That was a retarded Treasurer ramping up his so called efforts stopping a recession. What kind of a wanker says its worse than the great depression when we didnt even get a recession?

I just get more & more depressed everytime I see or have to think about
Swan/Gillard/Abbott.
Is this really the best we've got????
Seriously is this going to be our choice come 2013?
Someone run me a warm bath , I'm going to buy some Lenord Cohen & razor blades :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLq7Aqd_H7g

Verge, are you not forgetting that some of these young girls have no comprehension of the next 18 years. It doesn't enter their frame of reference.
And it's no accident when there's one or two in the stroller and another one on the way.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:23pm:

Verge, are you not forgetting that some of these young girls have no comprehension of the next 18 years. It doesn't enter their frame of reference. And it's no accident when there's one or two in the stroller and another one on the way.

I doubt these types could keep their legs shut, 5 grand or no 5 grand.

It's all very ironic, this whole rate race treadmill that we find ourselves on...

It is heartening to see political foes coming together on so many aspects...

Perhaps there is hope that we will again become a society first and an economy second - and that people will be valued above and beyond being soul-less and individualistic units of economic production and consumption...

She'll be in highest room of the tallest tower - yer, like that's ever gonna happen...!?

Did anyone see Today Tonight tonight. There was a 14 year old girl on there that admitted to having a baby just to get the baby bonus! What are these kids being taught? Another thought about the idea of a baby because she thought the $3000 would set her up. They obviously have no idea of how much things cost in this world. I find this offensive that they are using our taxpayers money like this. My husband and I worked hard (both shift workers) before we had children to set ourselves up with a house and car etc.  
~EmsMum~
22-06-2006, 10:16 PM
thats insane a 14 year old had a baby just to get the bonus, some people really have no idea these days!
TabouliRasta
22-06-2006, 10:20 PM
When I was 14 $3ooo.oo would've sounded like an insane amount of money.
SuperWoman
22-06-2006, 10:23 PM
I saw that too. Could'nt believe it . Made me mad:mad: !

Who has a baby for money? It freaks me out that so many of them had babies just for the $3000. Unbelievable!!!!
vanillabean
22-06-2006, 10:23 PM
Yeah, I guess $3000 would be a lot to a 14 year old, but that would be lucky to buy all the stuff needed for a new baby, let alone look after them.
vanillabean
22-06-2006, 10:24 PM
What made me angry was when she was asked what she would spend the money on, she had the hide to say herself!!!
TabouliRasta
22-06-2006, 10:26 PM
Sorta the point I was making was that she's 14.....a baby herself. I just feel sorry for her. She'll have a tough road ahead.
vanillabean
22-06-2006, 10:28 PM
Yep, like they said, babies having babies
CJJHRA
22-06-2006, 10:34 PM
that is very sad, doing it for the money. This girl needs some educating, but sadly, probably wouldnt listen, Just hope in years to come she doesnt regret the decision.
bigglet
22-06-2006, 10:35 PM
I feel for the parents of these kids having babies because a lot of the responsibility falls on them. :(
SamanthaJane
22-06-2006, 10:40 PM
I really dont like that "babies having babies" comment, i find it quite hurtful...

I know people in my area (one girl is 28, the other girl is 34) and had a baby because the $3000 seemed like a really "kool" bonus. Its not just the young ones who are getting pregnant, just because the money is there.   :(

My mother's friend's second baby is due in September, she took advantage of the $3000, and knew it was going up to $4000 this year, so strategically started TTC after November last year.   :(

Who knows what people are thinking when they do these kinds of things. Surely they must not understand the costs of having a child.

But please, lay off the "babies having babies" comments, it really isnt fair. It's not going to help this girl get through the hard road ahead of her.
brizbabe
22-06-2006, 10:50 PM
Samantha :yelclap: well said.

People have babies for all sorts of reasons (not just out of love) but we shouldn't judge and to be honest I wouldn't trust Today Tonight (TRASH TV) to be a truthful, unbiased report on anything. It sensationalises EVERYTHING to get people to watch its'carp reporting!!!:mad:
vanillabean
22-06-2006, 10:54 PM
I agree, it is not just younger ones that are having babies for that reason and I am sorry that the comment was hurtful to you.
Tamz
22-06-2006, 10:55 PM
What peeves me off the most is the Junkies that get pregnant so they can get 3k to shoot up their arm!!!!!!! then there is a poor child that is brought into this world with a druggie mother.:mad: :mad:   :(

i think the baby bonus should be somthing that is given to families where it is not likely to be used for drugs, alcohol or for their own personal use. IYKWIM

Tamz
JenNT
22-06-2006, 11:19 PM
As far as I was aware, they introduced the payment to younger mothers as well as indigenous in instalement form rather than a lump sum.Wonder if this still applies.:confused:
PhAnToM
22-06-2006, 11:46 PM
I was actually surprised and annoyed when we went to book our hospital last year while I was pg with DS. The midwife (who was lovely but...) made some comment about how we were soooo "lucky" because the baby bonus is now $3000. :confused: :(  

DH actually got annoyed and said "that is less than 1 term's fees for the school this child will be going to." :rolleyes:
Yes it is nice to receive any amount of money to help contribute towards expenses etc. But please don't go trying to make out that you know, we can now go but a little island off the Carribean! This was our second child, so we knew how much everything costs too.
bigglet
22-06-2006, 11:52 PM
while I was pg with DH.

Wow Lut.... pregnant with your DH..... that's a first! :laughing:
Mamaduke
23-06-2006, 12:00 AM
I knew of girls in the town I grew up in that got pregnant because they wanted a steady income (single mothers' pension) and unless you moved out of town, it was probably the only steady employment there was available.
This was before any 'baby bonus' came in...they were just looking forward to getting a housing commission home, a healthcare card and a pension.
I don't think that the baby bonus has meant girls who wouldn't normally get pregnant are now getting pregnant, they'd be the same type of girls who, like the above example, think that living on welfare is 'a bit of alright'...:confused:  
Ashleigh<3
23-06-2006, 12:13 AM
I do agree with Samantha on what she posted. :yelclap:

As for waiting to catch a train down to Sydney recently, two mothers with strollers and toddlers, hurried past me and I couldn�t help but over hear one of the mother�s yelling at the other about not having enough �methadone�.  

Speaking of Shrek...


... wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 4:23pm: Verge, are you not forgetting that some of these young girls have no comprehension of the next 18 years. It doesn't enter their frame of reference. And it's no accident when there's one or two in the stroller and another one on the way. I doubt these types could keep their legs shut, 5 grand or no 5 grand.

Settle down, Donkeys - that'll do...

Thankfully, the stats don't back up your assertions - by far, the biggest impact that the ill-conceived Baby Bonus had upon child-bearing was amongst older women...

Contrary to my own predictions, teenage pregnancy rates did not increase (although there was a slowing of the trend of decline in teenage pregnancies)...

I have a friend from Poland who when she found out Australia paid $5000 for a child wanted to come immigrate here so we could start a baby business.

...
...

BTW, that was a joke.

Quote:

Yeah, I guess $3000 would be a lot to a 14 year old, but that would be lucky to buy all the stuff needed for a new baby, let alone look after them.

Ya reckon?????????  

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 4:34pm:

Did anyone see Today Tonight tonight. There was a 14 year old girl on there that admitted to having a baby just to get the baby bonus! What are these kids being taught? Another thought about the idea of a baby because she thought the $3000 would set her up. They obviously have no idea of how much things cost in this world. I find this offensive that they are using our taxpayers money like this. My husband and I worked hard (both shift workers) before we had children to set ourselves up with a house and car etc.

Hey numnuts, teen pregnancies have decreased over the last five years from the previous 5, so your today tonight article doesnt mean jack schitt.

Now go away, the adults are talking, and all you do is embarrass yourself imcrook with sensationist bullshit and never an independent thought.

YES, the baby-bonus should be scrapped.

AND the money should go STRAIGHT towards a
DECENT raise in the No-Start 'benefit'.

PARITY WITH PENSIONS, NOW!!!!
NOTHING LESS IS ACCEPTABLE!!!!

What a shame there are some people that don't know, what it is to be a LOW INCOME WORKER.  For some people $5 k is not a lot of money, for other people it is quite a lot of money.  Low income workers, don't have anywhere near the saving capacity of someone on higher wages.  It may well be only 10 weeks of wages for a low income worker, but take out the living expenses.  Rent, food, power, phone, car running costs.  Now how much is left over for saving?, and how long does it take for them to save $5 grand.  For some a very very long time.   It does seem some people, are not in the real world.   :(  

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 5:13pm:

What a shame there are some people that don't know, what it is to be a LOW INCOME WORKER.  For some people $5 k is not a lot of money, for other people it is quite a lot of money.  Low income workers, don't have anywhere near the saving capacity of someone on higher wages.  It may well be only 10 weeks of wages for a low income worker, but take out the living expenses.  Rent, food, power, phone, car running costs.  Now how much is left over for saving?, and how long does it take for them to save $5 grand.  For some a very very long time.   It does seem some people, are not in the real world.   :(

yes $5K is a lotta money, but thankfully all but the most retarded realise a child will cost them 1000 times more over their lifetime.  

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 5:13pm:

What a shame there are some people that don't know, what it is to be a LOW INCOME WORKER.  For some people $5 k is not a lot of money, for other people it is quite a lot of money.  Low income workers, don't have anywhere near the saving capacity of someone on higher wages.  It may well be only 10 weeks of wages for a low income worker, but take out the living expenses.  Rent, food, power, phone, car running costs.  Now how much is left over for saving?, and how long does it take for them to save $5 grand.  For some a very very long time.   It does seem some people, are not in the real world.   :(

And for the parents who wont have an income for years?

For the parents who worked, had kids then didnt return?  Those who dont want to return because they believe that a solid home is worth more than a paid job?

You dont give two craps about anyone other than trying to get your dole payments increased, and its not going to happen by scrapping the baby bonus you tool.

Do you have any idea what kids actually cost, do you even have kids?

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

Only an idiot would think this is why people have kids. If my wife doesnt return to work until our oldest hits schools, we have forgone well over $350k in wages in that time, and that not factoring in further kids. Yeah, we did it for the $5k. That is all well and good for you, but what about the unemployed, and the low income workers on $570 gross a week?.  Yes maybe ( SOME DID IT)  for the $5k.

So you think that ONLY fully employed people have children???

Yes that is very true, but never the less it would still encourage SOME people to have kids that would normally not have, or for that matter should have kids.   :(  

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 5:23pm:

Yes that is very true, but never the less it would still encourage SOME people to have kids that would normally not have, or for that matter should have kids.   :(

Its such a small minority its not even worth mentioning.

The mere fact you think its material shows you must only hang out with morons or believe everything you see on today tonight.

Those that have kids for money have been doing it for years, its call child support.

And why not a little bonus, just to help things along.  Of course one could always have two for $10 grand, if they wanted.   ;D    

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 5:31pm:

And why not a little bonus, just to help things along.  Of course one could always have two for $10 grand, if they wanted.   ;D

You really dont have a decent contribution in you do you.

In your case, I would love to build a time machine, go back in time and pay your father $5k to leave you on the sheets.

Honestly...5 grand is bugger all these days. If someone is going to pump out kids for 5 grand a pop then they are dumb as door knobs.

Equitist wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

If only the Libs had put the best interests of children and families first in the first instance - and increased existing Family Tax Benefit payments across the early years of a child's life (and/or introduced a sensible Maternity/Parental Pay system) for low-middle income families... Instead, they went for an ill-conceived, counter-productive and anti-social non-means-tested child-bearing incentive scam - as if putting a lump-sum payout on a baby's head was ever a good idea!? To make matters worse, they also incentivised bean-counters to run high-cost govt-subsidised production line Child Handling Centres - and in the process destroyed the existing affordable and family-oriented community childcare system... Go figure, eh!?

yeah yeah.. your right and what a pity you didnt put in that the rudd and Co didnt take into account the children when they

INCREASED THE BABY BONUS  AND NOT ONLY THAT CAME UP WITH THE LAME BRAIN PAID MATERNITY LEAVE... also to BUY VOTES..


what the!!!! are you talking about nem?.... the Lab s have made it ten times worse..

in your haste to put everything the Libs did down.. you tend to leave out the compounding... dont you?..

when this was first brought in our birthrate was dropping..and it was an insentive to have more home grown aussies than to have those imported from overseas.. and then to persuade them to become aussies..

like we were doing a few weeks before the Olympic Games.. so we had more non speaking english contestants..lol..

I agree it wasnt well thought out... in hindsight.. people get ugly they take advantage...it should only have ever been a one off..and most certainly have had more thoughts about what it would do to silly girls..but hindsight is a wonderful thing... I bet this stupid bunch we have in now wish they had it...lol

... wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 28th, 2011 at 2:23pm: I think you may find that both major party's are "impressed" by the same people, who's short-medium term interests are boosted by a continued hump-fest. However, in the longer term, it is in no ones interest to have an exponentially expanding Population. In fact, an exponentially expanding Population, is against the laws of Physics, Mother Nature always says no, at some point! Show me the evidence that the baby bonus has resulted in a higher birth rate.  It had precisely zero influence on my families decision to have children, and I doubt it would influence anyone, barring a few mongrel lowlifes who would have got knocked up anyway.

I believe the Baby Bonus was brought in around May, 2004.

Year        TFR (Total Fertility Rate)
2008      1.970
2007      1.930
2006      1.814
2005      1.789
2004      1.761
2003      1.747
2002      1.755
2001      1.729
2000      1.756
1999      1.755
1998      1.762
1997      1.778
1996      1.796
1995      1.822
1994      1.842
1993      1.859
1992      1.888
1991      1.849
1990      1.902
1989      1.838
1988      1.831
1987      1.845
1986      1.868
1985      1.923
1984      1.84
1983      1.924
1982      1.929
1981      1.935
1980      1.891
1979      1.907
1978      1.949
1977      2.007
1976      2.06
1975      2.148
1974      2.321
1973      2.491
1972      2.743
1971      2.945
1970      2.859
1969      2.887
1968      2.886
1967      2.847
1966      2.885
1965      2.973
1964      3.154
1963      3.343
1962      3.431
1961      3.548
1960      3.451
1959      3.44
1958      3.421
1957      3.421
1956      3.33
1955      3.275
1954      3.191
1953      3.193
1952      3.181
1951      3.059
1950      3.067
1949      2.986
1948      2.985
1947      3.076
1946      2.986

1946-1964 were the Baby Boomer years.

Link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate_and_fertility_rate_in_Australia

Most sensible arguments I have seen on here are from Verge and I completely agree with them.

People do NOT have children to grab a welfare payment increase, because simply the baby bonus does little more than cover the start of the additional increase in household expense.

The tax system as it stands in Australia heavily penalizes the single income family unit without doubt.
If there can even be a little move towards addressing that it is to be welcomed - if that is through a baby bonus then so be it.

We received the baby bonus for our first child as I have mentioned before - and we used it correctly.
Think for a second - we had for over a decade been a double income couple with the relevant lifestyle.
We all of a sudden needed cot, baby clothes x100, change table, nursery kitted out, stroller, baby car seat etc etc - double income no kids couples dont tend to have that - ask Buzz how many of them he has....

Therefore when we received the $5k, that's exactly what we spent it on.

Now also think - we now have our little girl for the best part of 18-21 years with us. How far has that $5k gone in that time?

Look at it the other way - we've gone from $400k gross income down to half of that.
So a $200k drop made up with $5k, so we're $195k in the hole first year and then $200k the rest until my wife returns to work in say 4 years time.....

All of a sudden that $5k doesn't quite seem like all the world does it?

Bit of perspective for goodness sake.

On those numbers, if anyone is having a child for the sake of $5k then they are either heartless, stupid, insane or all of those things.

I support a baby bonus and will continue to do so.

I most certainly DO NOT support a baby bonus, for someone on your wages.   :(

wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 5:50am:

I most certainly DO NOT support a baby bonus, for someone on your wages.   :(

and for once I agree with crook.. its a nonsence to give people on very high incomes $5k peanuts to them as you have pointed out andrei..$5k to someone on 30k would mean a great deal..I dont like means testing overall but in this case yes I do..imagine giving James Packer the baby bonus.

ALL WEALTHfare should be means-tested.

And the money saved should go STRAIGHT to providing a
REAL increase for pensioners, the unemployed, and
single-parents.

The whole concept of a baby bonus is flawed, as so many have pointed out, the only people who would be influenced to have a child for a 5k bonus, are so ill equipped to deal with their own life, let alone be responsible for an other, that they should probably be paid NOT to have kids.

As for the question of creating a better Tax system to relieve some of the burden on middle income Australia, most agree it is long overdue, yet when a proposal like the increased mining tax was announced, the people of middle Australia were swept up by Liberal Party politicking to support the super profits of the mining companies, rather than the rights of average Aussies who are seeing their country's finite mineral wealth exploited, with ever diminishing returns for the nation, and ever greater returns for multi nationals, and the obscenely wealthy.
Go figure.

Re: Dump The baby bonus ????
Reply #83 - Today at 9:25am     The whole concept of a baby bonus is flawed, as so many have pointed out, the only people who would be influenced to have a child for a 5k bonus, are so ill equipped to deal with their own life, let alone be responsible for an other, that they should probably be paid NOT to have kids.




that almost has a Nazi ring to it...bit of a long bow you are drawing there.

The govt. have promised that the budget this year will be tough. Those entailed to medical research are deeply concerned about significant cuts to their budgets which are rumoured.

It is absurd to cut the budgets from necessary programs such as medical research whilst maintaining the funding for unnecessary programs such as the baby bonus.

cods wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 9:30am:

Re: Dump The baby bonus ???? Reply #83 - Today at 9:25am     The whole concept of a baby bonus is flawed, as so many have pointed out, the only people who would be influenced to have a child for a 5k bonus, are so ill equipped to deal with their own life, let alone be responsible for an other, that they should probably be paid NOT to have kids. that almost has a Nazi ring to it...bit of a long bow you are drawing there.

I am constantly amazed by your inability to understand what is being said, cods.
So at least you have that ability. ;)

The question should not be 'are people having kids just to get the money?' it should be 'is this money going to help the child?
I belive the answer is yes - even if they do spend it on a new TV - that's still a few hundred $ of their wages that they won't need to spend on a new TV down the track, freeing other funds up to spend on the children.  In my case, it was welcome but not really necessary, but for a single parent on minimum wage it could make all the difference.  Means testing it might be a good idea, but dumping it outright is cold heartedand will make the cycle of poverty that little bit harder to break.

There is more and better savings that can be made by taxing the High End - especially on breaks they get for golden handshake payouts ect - there is billions to be saved that could get the budget back into the black and be used to help pensioners and the unemployed.  They have no entitlement to tax breaks on this income which should be taxed like any other. :)

The baby bonus is a key component in helping families to transition for a comfortable double income life as a couple into the single income family unit.

We needed (and used correctly) the $5,000 payment we received.

When you consider that we paid over $10,000 per month in tax as a couple it is not as if we didn't pay for it many times over is it?

Would you rather see decent, middle income families get help or would you rather drop outs, who contribute little and are basically just oxygen stealers who do nothing for their handout other than exist.

I know who I would rather help.

Decent, ordinary, hard working Australian families providing for the next generation.

How old fashioned eh?

Much better to give it to losers, deadbeats and other assorted scum who turn up in boats.

Prevailing wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

There is more and better savings that can be made by taxing the High End - especially on breaks they get for golden handshake payouts ect - there is billions to be saved that could get the budget back into the black and be used to help pensioners and the unemployed.  They have no entitlement to tax breaks on this income which should be taxed like any other. :)

You obviously no nothing about how ETP's are treated or taxed do you?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:43am:

The baby bonus is a key component in helping families to transition for a comfortable double income life as a couple into the single income family unit. We needed (and used correctly) the $5,000 payment we received. When you consider that we paid over $10,000 per month in tax as a couple it is not as if we didn't pay for it many times over is it? Would you rather see decent, middle income families get help or would you rather drop outs, who contribute little and are basically just oxygen stealers who do nothing for their handout other than exist. I know who I would rather help. Decent, ordinary, hard working Australian families providing for the next generation. How old fashioned eh? Much better to give it to losers, deadbeats and other assorted scum who turn up in boats.

Cmon, let's be honest - you didn't NEED it at all did you?  If you still reckon you did,  you need a crash course in running a household budget.  I earn half of what you do, I've got a mortgage and 2 kids, and yet the baby bonus from my 2nd is still being spent on an overseas holiday, because the kids have everything they need and more.  It was nice to get, but I didn't need it, but I am not so naive to think that there aren't others who would benefit immensely from it, or that a persons value is linked to how much money they have.

Mate I can categorically tell you that the baby bonus we got went on -

Stroller
Cot
Clothes
Pram
Toys
Nursery fit-out

Not a cent of it was spent on anything other than our new arrival.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:51am:

Mate I can categorically tell you that the baby bonus we got went on - Stroller Cot Clothes Pram Toys Nursery fit-out Not a cent of it was spent on anything other than our new arrival.

That's not what I'm getting at - you were quite capable of buying them all out of your own pocket weren't you?  

Besides - $5 grand for that?  I suppose if you have to have the $2000 antique, rare hardwood cot and $1500 24K gold-plated pram, and all designer labels for clothes they may only wear once, it could conceivably amount to $5 grand.  Most people are more sensible though....I guess it reflects how little you really did need it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:51am:

Mate I can categorically tell you that the baby bonus we got went on - Stroller Cot Clothes Pram Toys Nursery fit-out Not a cent of it was spent on anything other than our new arrival.

That doesn't justify it's existence at the expense of reduced medical research funding as is tipped to be stated in the 2011 fed budget.

Parents to be were buying that kind of stuff without the baby bonus most of these years past... including periods of higher inflation and unemployment than what is known now.

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:56am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 11:51am: Mate I can categorically tell you that the baby bonus we got went on - Stroller Cot Clothes Pram Toys Nursery fit-out Not a cent of it was spent on anything other than our new arrival. That's not what I'm getting at - you were quite capable of buying them all out of your own pocket weren't you?   Besides - $5 grand for that?  I suppose if you have to have the $2000 antique, rare hardwood cot and $1500 24K gold-plated pram, and all designer labels for clothes they may only wear once, it could conceivably amount to $5 grand.  Most people are more sensible though....I guess it reflects how little you really did need it.

That's not the whole list obviously but when you take the nursery fit out saw about $1k for just aircon unit alone it does add up.

We're both accountants, we know how to budget. We spent it wisely and we did need it.

When you consider in 2007 how much tax we paid into Australia - can you honestly tell me we had not paid for that baby bonus tens of times over???

Self absorbed, and self entitled feeling nits always say that Andrei.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 10:37am:

cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 9:30am: Re: Dump The baby bonus ???? Reply #83 - Today at 9:25am     The whole concept of a baby bonus is flawed, as so many have pointed out, the only people who would be influenced to have a child for a 5k bonus, are so ill equipped to deal with their own life, let alone be responsible for an other, that they should probably be paid NOT to have kids. that almost has a Nazi ring to it...bit of a long bow you are drawing there. I am constantly amazed by your inability to understand what is being said, cods. So at least you have that ability. ;)

really you dont concider.. someone probably a bureaucrat deciding whether someone is so ill equipt, that  they should be PAID not to have children..


yes the difference between Nazi Germany and what you have said.. is the gas chamber..

how dare you suggest only those that would be influenced are ill equipped! what exactly give you the right to make such a remark??.. then pass the buck to someone who takes offence about it..


dont be amazed by my remarks take a good look at your own.

you obviously think you are grander and superior to everyone else..

nothing like having tickets on oneself.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

Self absorbed, and self entitled feeling nits always say that Andrei.

Tell me then how you could justify us as a couple when PAYG paying over $9,000 in tax every month and then telling us we can't have $5k of that money to spend on our child.

How on earth can you justify taking that amount in tax and giving it to losers?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

When you consider in 2007 how much tax we paid into Australia - can you honestly tell me we had not paid for that baby bonus tens of times over???

When you consider in 2007 how many worthy federal programs were under funded - can you honestly tell me that we should be redirecting much needed tax dollars into much less important tax concessions for the middle and working classes which history has shown are more than capable of providing for their newborns without govt. welfare???

Sappho wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:02pm: When you consider in 2007 how much tax we paid into Australia - can you honestly tell me we had not paid for that baby bonus tens of times over??? When you consider in 2007 how many worthy federal programs were under funded - can you honestly tell me that we should be redirecting much needed tax dollars into much less important tax concessions for the middle and working classes which history has shown are more than capable of providing for their newborns without govt. welfare???

I am asking how you can possibly justify taking over $9,000 in tax per month of a single couple.

Then turn around and tell that same couple they are not entitled to help.

This is the problem with a place like Australia.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

When you consider in 2007 how much tax we paid into Australia - can you honestly tell me we had not paid for that baby bonus tens of times over???

One of the purposes of tax (besides funding overseas junkets for paper shufflers) is that it be spent on initiatives to help those less fortunate.  I pay a lot more tax than I benefit from too, but theres' no avoiding that.  I don't begrudge some of it going to give kids who need it a better start, but I don't want it going to buy an ivory dummy for a kid whos parents earn $400 grand a year.  Means test it, with the cut off being $1 more than my annual income.  ;)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:11pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:09pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:02pm: When you consider in 2007 how much tax we paid into Australia - can you honestly tell me we had not paid for that baby bonus tens of times over??? When you consider in 2007 how many worthy federal programs were under funded - can you honestly tell me that we should be redirecting much needed tax dollars into much less important tax concessions for the middle and working classes which history has shown are more than capable of providing for their newborns without govt. welfare??? I am asking how you can possibly justify taking over $9,000 in tax per month of a single couple. Then turn around and tell that same couple they are not entitled to help. This is the problem with a place like Australia.

look never being a recipiant of anything like baby bonus.. FHB. and now paid maternity leave... its hard for me to equate anyone being paid to have babies.. however from memory didnt it start out as $3000?..and yes I see the point you make .. but now at the end of the day this has now blown up to be big bucks..with paid maternity leave as well. and this doesnt have to be paid back via tax.. which I find just a wee bit bizarre... we are constantly giving to this generation they will have govt money un till the child is 16 or something like that..even childcare is funded.. so just where does this generosity stop???..for all we know James Packers wife collects as well.isnt there something like $7000 childcare they can claim..thats on top of being paid to have the child.

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:49am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 11:43am: The baby bonus is a key component in helping families to transition for a comfortable double income life as a couple into the single income family unit. We needed (and used correctly) the $5,000 payment we received. When you consider that we paid over $10,000 per month in tax as a couple it is not as if we didn't pay for it many times over is it? Would you rather see decent, middle income families get help or would you rather drop outs, who contribute little and are basically just oxygen stealers who do nothing for their handout other than exist. I know who I would rather help. Decent, ordinary, hard working Australian families providing for the next generation. How old fashioned eh? Much better to give it to losers, deadbeats and other assorted scum who turn up in boats. Cmon, let's be honest - you didn't NEED it at all did you?  If you still reckon you did,  you need a crash course in running a household budget.  I earn half of what you do, I've got a mortgage and 2 kids, and yet the baby bonus from my 2nd is still being spent on an overseas holiday, because the kids have everything they need and more.  It was nice to get, but I didn't need it, but I am not so naive to think that there aren't others who would benefit immensely from it, or that a persons value is linked to how much money they have.

wesley a few short years ago no one dreamed of being paid to have children....its got nothing to do with affording...its all ab out morality now..

I agree this should be stopped once and for all.. but now its all tied up with the paid maternity leave and thats even more outrageous than the baby bonus.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 11:43am:

The baby bonus is a key component in helping families to transition for a comfortable double income life as a couple into the single income family unit. We needed (and used correctly) the $5,000 payment we received. When you consider that we paid over $10,000 per month in tax as a couple it is not as if we didn't pay for it many times over is it? Would you rather see decent, middle income families get help or would you rather drop outs, who contribute little and are basically just oxygen stealers who do nothing for their handout other than exist.I know who I would rather help. Decent, ordinary, hard working Australian families providing for the next generation. How old fashioned eh? Much better to give it to losers, deadbeats and other assorted scum who turn up in boats.

Leaving aside the inherent offensiveness of that comment, I'd
rather see the NEEDY get that money.

Sole-parents, the unemployed, and pensioners.

That baby bonus is equivalent to nearly six months 'benefit'
for someone on on No-Hope. These people NEED and
DESERVE that money.

Someone on $200,000+ clearly neither needs NOR deserves it.

Quote:

Leave it to us accountants. I can (and have) made a profitable department make a loss on paper and a loss-making entity report a profit. All above board too. We are magicians. I earned $32,500 in Australia in 2008 you know....  Grin

Andrei's post in another thread, just before writing this response in this thread.


Quote:

I am asking how you can possibly justify taking over $9,000 in tax per month of a single couple. Then turn around and tell that same couple they are not entitled to help. This is the problem with a place like Australia.

Andrei

So, what happened between 2007 and 2008, did you learn a new magic trick?

Even if your wife stopped working, and your income was cut in half, the resultant 54k claimed to have been paid in tax is 21.5k more than you declared as earnings for the next year.

All above board, of course, and I am sure it is morally defensible too in some plane of consciousness I luckily do not share with you.

cods wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:20pm:

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 11:49am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 11:43am: The baby bonus is a key component in helping families to transition for a comfortable double income life as a couple into the single income family unit. We needed (and used correctly) the $5,000 payment we received. When you consider that we paid over $10,000 per month in tax as a couple it is not as if we didn't pay for it many times over is it? Would you rather see decent, middle income families get help or would you rather drop outs, who contribute little and are basically just oxygen stealers who do nothing for their handout other than exist. I know who I would rather help. Decent, ordinary, hard working Australian families providing for the next generation. How old fashioned eh? Much better to give it to losers, deadbeats and other assorted scum who turn up in boats. Cmon, let's be honest - you didn't NEED it at all did you?  If you still reckon you did,  you need a crash course in running a household budget.  I earn half of what you do, I've got a mortgage and 2 kids, and yet the baby bonus from my 2nd is still being spent on an overseas holiday, because the kids have everything they need and more.  It was nice to get, but I didn't need it, but I am not so naive to think that there aren't others who would benefit immensely from it, or that a persons value is linked to how much money they have. wesley a few short years ago no one dreamed of being paid to have children....its got nothing to do with affording...its all ab out morality now.. I agree this should be stopped once and for all.. but now its all tied up with the paid maternity leave and thats even more outrageous than the baby bonus.

yes, but a few short years ago, your average house cost 3x average wage, and now it's 8x.  These gains in wealth have overwhelmingly been made by the baby boomer generation at the expense of the next gen.  Throwing $5K to those just starting out doesn't even cover a fraction of the relative increases in the cost of living caused by the established players.  

cods wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:20pm:

I agree this should be stopped once and for all.. but now its all tied up with the paid maternity leave and thats even more outrageous than the baby bonus.

If you ever slide out from under your rock, you would realise that outside of the USA , parental leave is the "norm" in pretty much every other country in the WORLD



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Dump the unnecessary baby bonus and replace it with FREE bowel cancer testing kits, and flu vax on the NHS. Another sneaky little thing the government has done behind our backs. The flu vaccination has been on the NHS list for as long as I can remember....not any more. I suppose they had to cut back on a lot of health funding to pay for AFL lol

Paving the way for private health yes.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:28pm:

Quote: Leave it to us accountants. I can (and have) made a profitable department make a loss on paper and a loss-making entity report a profit. All above board too. We are magicians. I earned $32,500 in Australia in 2008 you know....  Grin Andrei's post in another thread, just before writing this response in this thread. [quote]I am asking how you can possibly justify taking over $9,000 in tax per month of a single couple. Then turn around and tell that same couple they are not entitled to help. This is the problem with a place like Australia.

Andrei

So, what happened between 2007 and 2008, did you learn a new magic trick?

Even if your wife stopped working, and your income was cut in half, the resultant 54k claimed to have been paid in tax is 21.5k more than you declared as earnings for the next year.

All above board, of course, and I am sure it is morally defensible too in some plane of consciousness I luckily do not share with you.[/quote]


In 2008 I became a domiciled non-tax resident of Australia with the agreement with the ATO.
I had a company domiciled in the Channel Islands, employed to provide a service, I then worked for that company and took a wage which I declared in Australia.

The difference was I became a non-resident because I had a clear intention to return to the United Kingdom.

I didn't claim the baby bonus, it was in my wife's name. I was not entitled to it in 2008.

Like I said to you, I do not believe, nor engage in, tax evasion.
That's illegal and as a member of the ICAEW I would be thrown out should I do so.

Kat wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:25pm:

Someone on $200,000+ clearly neither needs NOR deserves it.

Someone on $200,000 has clearly PAID FOR IT ALREADY.

What the bugger has some oxygen stealing unemployed loser done for the country and what has he done to deserve it?

They just exist, that's about it.

Well done, thank you for existing, here have some money.....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:55pm:

Kat wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:25pm: Someone on $200,000+ clearly neither needs NOR deserves it. Someone on $200,000 has clearly PAID FOR IT ALREADY. What the bugger has some oxygen stealing unemployed loser done for the country and what has he done to deserve it? They just exist, that's about it. Well done, thank you for existing, here have some money.....

And of course, nobody born to poor parents could ever hope of achieving anything at all eh?  

I pity you for your attitude that a persons value can be measured in dollar terms.

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:37pm:

cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:20pm: I agree this should be stopped once and for all.. but now its all tied up with the paid maternity leave and thats even more outrageous than the baby bonus. If you ever slide out from under your rock, you would realise that outside of the USA , parental leave is the "norm" in pretty much every other country in the WORLD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

I dont FN care...

and I dont live under a rock thank you and for someone who lambasts andrei for daring to compare our lifestyle with the Yanks.. well you have a lot of room to talk.

and as you have never had children what the hell would you know.

you are always telling everyone how clever and well off you are.. well your not that clever and I couldnt careless how well off you are..

so if you dont have something decent to say.. please shut up.

what is it with the retards from the left... never a decent thing to say always spitful and got nothing to do with the topic...

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:59pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:55pm: Kat wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:25pm: Someone on $200,000+ clearly neither needs NOR deserves it. Someone on $200,000 has clearly PAID FOR IT ALREADY. What the bugger has some oxygen stealing unemployed loser done for the country and what has he done to deserve it? They just exist, that's about it. Well done, thank you for existing, here have some money..... And of course, nobody born to poor parents could ever hope of achieving anything at all eh?   I pity you for your attitude that a persons value can be measured in dollar terms.

I don't value a person in terms of money.
I value people in terms of what they do.

We've all had tough times in our lives haven't we? Me included.

It's just I have no time for idle losers.

I also believe people who have paid into the country deserve to get assistance as well.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:55pm:

Kat wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:25pm: Someone on $200,000+ clearly neither needs NOR deserves it. Someone on $200,000 has clearly PAID FOR IT ALREADY. What the bugger has some oxygen stealing unemployed loser done for the country and what has he done to deserve it? They just exist, that's about it. Well done, thank you for existing, here have some money.....

Well, maybe they've WORKED for the last thirty or
foryt years, but have lost their jobs. Ever think of that?.

Why DO you people persist in your ignorant misconception
that, simply because someone is unemployed, that they
always HAVE been, and/or always WILL be?

That attitude/belief is ignorant, arrogant, untrue, discriminatory
and downright offensive.

cods wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:37pm: cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:20pm: I agree this should be stopped once and for all.. but now its all tied up with the paid maternity leave and thats even more outrageous than the baby bonus. If you ever slide out from under your rock, you would realise that outside of the USA , parental leave is the "norm" in pretty much every other country in the WORLD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave I dont FN care... and I dont live under a rock thank you and for someone who lambasts andrei for daring to compare our lifestyle with the Yanks.. well you have a lot of room to talk. and as you have never had children what the hell would you know.

I take the time to RESEARCH, before I open my mouth
You should give it a GO

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:20pm:

cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:03pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:37pm: cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:20pm: I agree this should be stopped once and for all.. but now its all tied up with the paid maternity leave and thats even more outrageous than the baby bonus. If you ever slide out from under your rock, you would realise that outside of the USA , parental leave is the "norm" in pretty much every other country in the WORLD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave I dont FN care... and I dont live under a rock thank you and for someone who lambasts andrei for daring to compare our lifestyle with the Yanks.. well you have a lot of room to talk. and as you have never had children what the hell would you know. I take the time to RESEARCH, before I open my mouth You should give it a GO

I'd rather you actually contributed to Australia financially first please.
:)

You and I come from the same background - difference is you have done half what I have.

Get out and get a job you fking lazy oik.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 12:11pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:09pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:02pm: When you consider in 2007 how much tax we paid into Australia - can you honestly tell me we had not paid for that baby bonus tens of times over??? When you consider in 2007 how many worthy federal programs were under funded - can you honestly tell me that we should be redirecting much needed tax dollars into much less important tax concessions for the middle and working classes which history has shown are more than capable of providing for their newborns without govt. welfare??? I am asking how you can possibly justify taking over $9,000 in tax per month of a single couple. Then turn around and tell that same couple they are not entitled to help. This is the problem with a place like Australia.

What on earth is a single couple?

That aside... if a couple is paying out $9000 in tax as a net figure... that is after any tax rebates or returns... then they are not in need of financial help because the income that would be needed to generate such a tax bill is significant.

You seem to want to justify your entitlement to what you don't need over and above seeing those tax dollars go towards social policy and people in dire need.

Just imagine what could be done for those with mental health issues if money given as the baby bonus was redirected towards mental health policy.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:22pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:20pm: cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:03pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:37pm: cods wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 12:20pm: I agree this should be stopped once and for all.. but now its all tied up with the paid maternity leave and thats even more outrageous than the baby bonus. If you ever slide out from under your rock, you would realise that outside of the USA , parental leave is the "norm" in pretty much every other country in the WORLD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave I dont FN care... and I dont live under a rock thank you and for someone who lambasts andrei for daring to compare our lifestyle with the Yanks.. well you have a lot of room to talk. and as you have never had children what the hell would you know. I take the time to RESEARCH, before I open my mouth You should give it a GO I'd rather you actually contributed to Australia financially first please. :) You and I come from the same background - difference is you have done half what I have. Get out and get a job you fking lazy oik.

Despite your SCURRILOUS attempts at SLANDER - I HAVE a job
And I KNOW you are aware of that

And I've paid FAR more tax into this county in MY lifetime - than you EVER will in YOURS

I have heard it all now.

Now you want the money going to the nutjobs?

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:33pm:

Despite your SCURRILOUS attempts at SLANDER - I HAVE a job And I KNOW you are aware of that And I've paid FAR more tax into this county in MY lifetime - than you EVER will in YOURS

Strange - refer to slander then talk about my country being different to yours?

Oh yeah, you don't like dual nationals do you......

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:34pm:

I have heard it all now. Now you want the money going to the nutjobs?

I want the money going to those who are most vulnerable and most in need.

Sappho wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:37pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:34pm: I have heard it all now. Now you want the money going to the nutjobs? I want the money going to those who are most vulnerable and most in need.

I find it offensive a country thinks a couple should pay $9k in tax per month.
No matter where this money goes.

Quote:

Just imagine what could be done for those with mental health issues if money given as the baby bonus was redirected towards mental health policy.

Am I the only one who sees some potential benefit to paying the baby bonus to 'low income' parents?  Just imagine what could be done for a whole range of issues if parliamentary pensions, or needless layers of bureaucracy were trimmed instead!  
Why do frivolous perks for public servants and 'jobs for the boys' never get mentioned as examples of funds that could be better re-directed to those in need, while things that DO assist - like the baby bonus are staring down the barrel?  Stockholm syndrome?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:34pm: I have heard it all now. Now you want the money going to the nutjobs? I want the money going to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. I find it offensive a country thinks a couple should pay $9k in tax per month. No matter where this money goes.

That is not what is at issue.

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

Quote: Just imagine what could be done for those with mental health issues if money given as the baby bonus was redirected towards mental health policy. Am I the only one who sees some potential benefit to paying the baby bonus to 'low income' parents?  Just imagine what could be done for a whole range of issues if parliamentary pensions, or needless layers of bureaucracy were trimmed instead!   Why do frivolous perks for public servants and 'jobs for the boys' never get mentioned as examples of funds that could be better re-directed to those in need, while things that DO assist - like the baby bonus are staring down the barrel?  Stockholm syndrome?

I have long pointed out the fact that Wayne Swan saw no issue whatsoever in flying his entire team in first class at a cost of $60,000 to the taxpayer for a London conference.

That obscene amount was the same time he was telling us how it was a tough year and cuts would need to be made.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Quote: Just imagine what could be done for those with mental health issues if money given as the baby bonus was redirected towards mental health policy. Am I the only one who sees some potential benefit to paying the baby bonus to 'low income' parents?  Just imagine what could be done for a whole range of issues if parliamentary pensions, or needless layers of bureaucracy were trimmed instead!   Why do frivolous perks for public servants and 'jobs for the boys' never get mentioned as examples of funds that could be better re-directed to those in need, while things that DO assist - like the baby bonus are staring down the barrel?  Stockholm syndrome? I have long pointed out the fact that Wayne Swan saw no issue whatsoever in flying his entire team in first class at a cost of $60,000 to the taxpayer for a London conference. That obscene amount was the same time he was telling us how it was a tough year and cuts would need to be made.

Yes, and Rudd flying 100+ cronies, including his personal hairstylist  to copenhagen for the climate wankfest.  But we couldn't touch that could we?  Nar...better to deny young families a few bob to assist raising their children, than to deny the PM a hairdresser for a week.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:34pm: I have heard it all now. Now you want the money going to the nutjobs? I want the money going to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. I find it offensive a country thinks a couple should pay $9k in tax per month. No matter where this money goes.

Want to let us in on how much was made to be paying $9000 in tax?
Or would that sorta ruin the poor me act?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:38pm: Sappho wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:34pm: I have heard it all now. Now you want the money going to the nutjobs? I want the money going to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. I find it offensive a country thinks a couple should pay $9k in tax per month. No matter where this money goes. Want to let us in on how much was made to be paying $9000 in tax? Or would that sorta ruin the poor me act?

No I don't think that has any value to what we are discussing.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:34pm: I have heard it all now. Now you want the money going to the nutjobs? I want the money going to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. I find it offensive a country thinks a couple should pay $9k in tax per month. No matter where this money goes.

Get over yourself you selfish prig, you carry on like you are the only one who ever had to pay tax, we all do, but you are so blinded by greed you obsess about how much you could turn that 9k into if the government didn't take it.
You could have solid gold bum wipers, because everyone knows whoever dies the richest wins.

I have friends who were paying more than that as individuals, before you even joined the workforce you blooming great sook.
Fortunately they were appreciative of the ability for hard work they had which left them more than enough for a very nice lifestyle, and they didn't invent offshore companies to minimise their tax, or whinge about it either. They also did pro bono work for deserving causes as well, while working often more than 100 hours a week, because they did engage with this society, and knew they were doing very bloody well out of it, and were happy to give back so it could improve things for all.

Bloody leftie lawyers hey, aren't they disgusting?
Give me a leftie lawyer over a Coalition accountant anyday.

wes<<Yes, and Rudd flying 100+ cronies, including his personal hairstylist  to copenhagen for the climate wankfest.  But we couldn't touch that could we?  Nar...better to deny young families a few bob to assist raising their children, than to deny the PM a hairdresser for a week. >>
............................................................

Oh! if I remember right, we touched on that well and truly.....even the lefties had a whinge.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 2:00pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:38pm: Sappho wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:34pm: I have heard it all now. Now you want the money going to the nutjobs? I want the money going to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. I find it offensive a country thinks a couple should pay $9k in tax per month. No matter where this money goes. Get over yourself you selfish prig, you carry on like you are the only one who ever had to pay tax, we all do, but you are so blinded by greed you obsess about how much you could turn that 9k into if the government didn't take it. You could have solid gold bum wipers, because everyone knows whoever dies the richest wins. I have friends who were paying more than that as individuals, before you even joined the workforce you blooming great sook. Fortunately they were appreciative of the ability for hard work they had which left them more than enough for a very nice lifestyle, and they didn't invent offshore companies to minimise their tax, or whinge about it either. They also did pro bono work for deserving causes as well, while working often more than 100 hours a week, because they did engage with this society, and knew they were doing very bloody well out of it, and were happy to give back so it could improve things for all. Bloody leftie lawyers hey, aren't they disgusting? Give me a leftie lawyer over a Coalition accountant anyday.

Love this post.  Too bad it's wasted on Hicks :(  Tomorrow he'll go on talking about how it's unfair he pays tax all over again :(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:54pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:53pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:38pm: Sappho wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:34pm: I have heard it all now. Now you want the money going to the nutjobs? I want the money going to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. I find it offensive a country thinks a couple should pay $9k in tax per month. No matter where this money goes. Want to let us in on how much was made to be paying $9000 in tax? Or would that sorta ruin the poor me act? No I don't think that has any value to what we are discussing.

Of course not, but lets play anyway. :)
9 x 12 = 108
108K p/annum in tax
Tax in country is roughly 27% of gross with everything factored in but lets make it easy & cut you some slack & make it 30%
$360000 p/annum before tax
$252000 after tax

Yep lucky we gave you that 5K otherwise you might have gone under :D

Come on smithy, that was an extra weeks wages, and like he said, he needed it to buy nappies. ;D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:54pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:53pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:38pm: Sappho wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:37pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 1:34pm: I have heard it all now. Now you want the money going to the nutjobs? I want the money going to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. I find it offensive a country thinks a couple should pay $9k in tax per month. No matter where this money goes. Want to let us in on how much was made to be paying $9000 in tax? Or would that sorta ruin the poor me act? No I don't think that has any value to what we are discussing. Of course not, but lets play anyway. :) 9 x 12 = 108 108K p/annum in tax Tax in country is roughly 27% of gross with everything factored in but lets make it easy & cut you some slack & make it 30% $360000 p/annum before tax $252000 after tax Yep lucky we gave you that 5K otherwise you might have gone under :D

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

Of course not, but lets play anyway. :) 9 x 12 = 108 108K p/annum in tax Tax in country is roughly 27% of gross with everything factored in but lets make it easy & cut you some slack & make it 30% $360000 p/annum before tax $252000 after tax Yep lucky we gave you that 5K otherwise you might have gone under :D

But smithy, you don't seem to be appreciating that the poor bugger has to now pay 91cents per litre in petrol!  

and don't forget his air conditioning bill because he has to have it on 24/7.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Come on smithy, that was an extra weeks wages, and like he said, he needed it to buy nappies. ;D

And as I pointed out, and which was conveniently ignored, is
the FACT that this $5K is FOUR MONTHS' worth of 'benefit' for
a single unemployed person.

And they NEED and DESERVE it FAR more than
someone on $200K+ a year.

I find it sickening that someone on $200K+ can begrudge that
$5K to someone who needs it FAR more than they do.

Some of you really do have NO idea.

Quote:

Yes, and Rudd flying 100+ cronies, including his personal hairstylist  to copenhagen for the climate wankfest.  But we couldn't touch that could we?  Nar...better to deny young families a few bob to assist raising their children, than to deny the PM a hairdresser for a week

CHRIST  - you people are full of CRAP !


Rudd broke TWO traditions, for PM's travelling overseas

1/ He doesn't take his own personal doctor along
He would use a consulate or embassy doctor, if required

2/ He stays at Australian embassies, rather than expensive hotels

I'm sorry, Kat, I know you hate it when people say these sort of things...

But there really, truly, ARE people out there who rote the welfare system....whether it's Newstart or DSP pensions...it DOES happen...

And when you see people who are, generally, semi-professional shoplifters walk into a shop, with a newborn in a 2nd hand pram, and buy 2 Xboxes, a DVD player, a big screen TV and 3 cartons of cigarettes with the 'baby bonus' money....it becomes incredibly obvious...


There ARE people around who work the system, and do everything possible to stay on benefits that they don't deserve......it's a small percentage, true.....but they DO exist.....Deal with it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

I'm sorry, Kat, I know you hate it when people say these sort of things... But there really, truly, ARE people out there who rote the welfare system....whether it's Newstart or DSP pensions...it DOES happen... And when you see people who are, generally, semi-professional shoplifters walk into a shop, with a newborn in a 2nd hand pram, and buy 2 Xboxes, a DVD player, a big screen TV and 3 cartons of cigarettes with the 'baby bonus' money....it becomes incredibly obvious... There ARE people around who work the system, and do everything possible to stay on benefits that they don't deserve......it's a small percentage, true.....but they DO exist.....Deal with it.

How can you buy all that stuff on a fortnightly payment system mate?

Its hasnt been a lump sum payment for ages.

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

Quote: Just imagine what could be done for those with mental health issues if money given as the baby bonus was redirected towards mental health policy. Am I the only one who sees some potential benefit to paying the baby bonus to 'low income' parents?  Just imagine what could be done for a whole range of issues if parliamentary pensions, or needless layers of bureaucracy were trimmed instead!   Why do frivolous perks for public servants and 'jobs for the boys' never get mentioned as examples of funds that could be better re-directed to those in need, while things that DO assist - like the baby bonus are staring down the barrel?  Stockholm syndrome?

An excellent post lost amongst a wank fest.

Verge wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:02pm: I'm sorry, Kat, I know you hate it when people say these sort of things... But there really, truly, ARE people out there who rote the welfare system....whether it's Newstart or DSP pensions...it DOES happen... And when you see people who are, generally, semi-professional shoplifters walk into a shop, with a newborn in a 2nd hand pram, and buy 2 Xboxes, a DVD player, a big screen TV and 3 cartons of cigarettes with the 'baby bonus' money....it becomes incredibly obvious... There ARE people around who work the system, and do everything possible to stay on benefits that they don't deserve......it's a small percentage, true.....but they DO exist.....Deal with it. How can you buy all that stuff on a fortnightly payment system mate? Its hasnt been a lump sum payment for ages.

It was a few years ago, before they did the first 'mini-fix'( about 2006 or 2007, in truth), true...But the basic concept remains the same..

Even so, an extra $400 per fornight, on top of the single parent benefit and whatever the 'child endowment' payment is called this week is not to be sneezed at...

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 2:48pm:

Quote: Yes, and Rudd flying 100+ cronies, including his personal hairstylist  to copenhagen for the climate wankfest.  But we couldn't touch that could we?  Nar...better to deny young families a few bob to assist raising their children, than to deny the PM a hairdresser for a week CHRIST  - you people are full of CRAP ! Rudd broke TWO traditions, for PM's travelling overseas 1/ He doesn't take his own personal doctor along He would use a consulate or embassy doctor, if required 2/ He stays at Australian embassies, rather than expensive hotels

Is that so?  Even if he didn't take a personal dcotor, he DID take his hairdresser, dessert chef and 4 photographers.  But they're all essential aren't they?


Quote:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should downsize his Copenhagen bandwagon if he's serious about cutting emissions, says the federal opposition says. Newly-appointed shadow minister for climate action, Greg Hunt, said Mr Rudd could do without a hairdresser, dessert chef and four photographers at the United Nations climate summit in Denmark. "I would challenge Mr Rudd today to reduce the size of his bandwagon... by 25 per cent," Mr Hunt told Sky News' Sunday Agenda. "If he wants to make a real reduction in emissions, reduce the size of your delegation Mr Rudd." Mr Rudd on Friday defended the 114-strong Australian delegation against criticism that it was too large. Mr Hunt said reports suggesting the contingent was staying in a hotel where a bowl of soup cost $50 showed Mr Rudd was wasting money."If he wants to make a real saving for the Australian budget, he probably doesn't want an extra 25 people paying $50 for a bowl of soup," he said. "And I guess its probably $200 for a nice bottle of chardonnay that they'll sit down and have every evening. "So be serious, reduce the size of the delegation, let's debate Tony Abbott before you go, and that way we can be focused on the real things, talk to Australian families about what will be the impact on them." http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-criticised-over-copenhagen-entourage-20091213-kpza.html

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

Is that so?  Even if he didn't take a personal dcotor, he DID take his hairdresser, dessert chef and 4 photographers.  But they're all essential aren't they? Quote: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should downsize his Copenhagen bandwagon if he's serious about cutting emissions, says the federal opposition says. Newly-appointed shadow minister for climate action, Greg Hunt, said Mr Rudd could do without a hairdresser, dessert chef and four photographers at the United Nations climate summit in Denmark. "I would challenge Mr Rudd today to reduce the size of his bandwagon... by 25 per cent," Mr Hunt told Sky News' Sunday Agenda. "If he wants to make a real reduction in emissions, reduce the size of your delegation Mr Rudd." Mr Rudd on Friday defended the 114-strong Australian delegation against criticism that it was too large. Mr Hunt said reports suggesting the contingent was staying in a hotel where a bowl of soup cost $50 showed Mr Rudd was wasting money."If he wants to make a real saving for the Australian budget, he probably doesn't want an extra 25 people paying $50 for a bowl of soup," he said. "And I guess its probably $200 for a nice bottle of chardonnay that they'll sit down and have every evening. "So be serious, reduce the size of the delegation, let's debate Tony Abbott before you go, and that way we can be focused on the real things, talk to Australian families about what will be the impact on them." http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-criticised-over-copenhagen-entourage-20091213-kpza.html

...so all you have is a statement made by ... Greg Hunt? Question: does he know what 100 km2 is yet?

Wayne Swan -

Entire team flew with him in FIRST CLASS to London.

Cost to the Taxpayer -

$65,000.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:26pm:

Wayne Swan - Entire team flew with him in FIRST CLASS to London. Cost to the Taxpayer - $65,000.

Hickory not paying his tax, cost to the tax payer?

;)

Four Labor staff in $60,000 first-class trip

WHILE the world slid into recession, the Federal Government spent almost $60,000 flying four senior staff first class to London to attend a G20 meeting held to deal with the credit crunch.

The Age believes that staff on the flight accompanying Treasurer Wayne Swan were Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's economics adviser Andrew Charlton, Mr Swan's chief of staff Chris Barrett, senior media adviser Matthew Coghlan and media officer Lou Cullen.

It is normal practice for government staff to fly business class — but official guidelines allow them to travel in the same class as a minister or parliamentary secretary when they are travelling on the same service.

The Coalition yesterday seized on the information as evidence of wasteful spending in a tough financial climate. But the Treasurer's office hit back, accusing the Opposition of hypocrisy for criticising staff travel arrangements that also applied under the Howard government.

In response to a question on notice from Liberal senator Michael Ronaldson, Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting.

"I find it unbelievable that with the global financial crisis and a $58 billion deficit, the Treasurer and Prime Minister allow their staff to swan around in the pointy end of the plane, drinking champagne and eating canapes," Senator Ronaldson said. He added: "This is typical of the Rudd Labor Government — demand belt tightening from the Australian people, but then allow this sort of wasteful indulgence for its own staff."

Earlier, Senator Ronaldson sent out a press release correcting his earlier claim that eight people had travelled first class.

A spokesman for Mr Swan said that Mr Ronaldson's comments were hypocritical, as Mr Swan's travel arrangements were "exactly the same as the previous Treasurer's travel arrangements, including for staff."

He said the travel was acceptable because it was for important preparatory work. "The Treasurer attended the meeting of finance ministers of the world's largest 20 economies convened to develop urgent global responses to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, accompanied by four ministerial staff," the spokesman said.

Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting.




FKING DISGRACEFUL

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:

But there really, truly, ARE people out there who rote the welfare system....whether it's Newstart or DSP pensions...it DOES happen... And when you see people who are, generally, semi-professional shoplifters walk into a shop, with a newborn in a 2nd hand pram, and buy 2 Xboxes, a DVD player, a big screen TV and 3 cartons of cigarettes with the 'baby bonus' money....it becomes incredibly obvious...

Costello made TWO fundamental ERRORS when he started the "Baby Bonus"



1/ It should have been means tested (or have been added to taxable income)


2/ It should have been either given in the form of ...

a/ Ten fortnightly payments of $500

or ...

b/ Vouchers redeemable at a wide range of baby supply and children's clothing outlets

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:26pm:

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:20pm: Is that so?  Even if he didn't take a personal dcotor, he DID take his hairdresser, dessert chef and 4 photographers.  But they're all essential aren't they? Quote: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should downsize his Copenhagen bandwagon if he's serious about cutting emissions, says the federal opposition says. Newly-appointed shadow minister for climate action, Greg Hunt, said Mr Rudd could do without a hairdresser, dessert chef and four photographers at the United Nations climate summit in Denmark. "I would challenge Mr Rudd today to reduce the size of his bandwagon... by 25 per cent," Mr Hunt told Sky News' Sunday Agenda. "If he wants to make a real reduction in emissions, reduce the size of your delegation Mr Rudd." Mr Rudd on Friday defended the 114-strong Australian delegation against criticism that it was too large. Mr Hunt said reports suggesting the contingent was staying in a hotel where a bowl of soup cost $50 showed Mr Rudd was wasting money."If he wants to make a real saving for the Australian budget, he probably doesn't want an extra 25 people paying $50 for a bowl of soup," he said. "And I guess its probably $200 for a nice bottle of chardonnay that they'll sit down and have every evening. "So be serious, reduce the size of the delegation, let's debate Tony Abbott before you go, and that way we can be focused on the real things, talk to Australian families about what will be the impact on them." http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-criticised-over-copenhagen-entourage-20091213-kpza.html ...so all you have is a statement made by ... Greg Hunt? Question: does he know what 100 km2 is yet?

I don't even know who Greg Hunt is, nor do I care.  It doesn't change the fact that Rudd blew an absolute shitload of money on preening himself on the world stage.  You can try to argue the fact, but that would be suicidal, because it's undeniably true.  It isn't even central to the issue of the baby bonus.  My point was simply that if people are worried about tax $$$ being wasted, you should look at what our elite are doing, rather than whinging that young, new families are getting a leg-up.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:30pm:

Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting. FKING DISGRACEFUL

Less the cost of business class to which they were entitled.

Call it $30K.

Two nights in Rome or London hotels for John Howard, as I recall.

It is a load of baloney, a dumb idea from a pollie I liked, I wish he were back now, but it is still a crap idea that was just a vote buying scam that Labor are too weak to drop.

Any whose income is low enough that they need assistance can get it through a revised family payments system.
The supposed rationale behind having a bonus was to lift the birth rate, which is a debatable issue in itself, as to whether or not doing so is a good idea, but it did not even provide any ongoing benefit in that regard.

So it was an election gimmick, let's move on and hope they come up with something better.

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:26pm: ... wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:20pm: Is that so?  Even if he didn't take a personal dcotor, he DID take his hairdresser, dessert chef and 4 photographers.  But they're all essential aren't they? Quote: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should downsize his Copenhagen bandwagon if he's serious about cutting emissions, says the federal opposition says. Newly-appointed shadow minister for climate action, Greg Hunt, said Mr Rudd could do without a hairdresser, dessert chef and four photographers at the United Nations climate summit in Denmark. "I would challenge Mr Rudd today to reduce the size of his bandwagon... by 25 per cent," Mr Hunt told Sky News' Sunday Agenda. "If he wants to make a real reduction in emissions, reduce the size of your delegation Mr Rudd." Mr Rudd on Friday defended the 114-strong Australian delegation against criticism that it was too large. Mr Hunt said reports suggesting the contingent was staying in a hotel where a bowl of soup cost $50 showed Mr Rudd was wasting money."If he wants to make a real saving for the Australian budget, he probably doesn't want an extra 25 people paying $50 for a bowl of soup," he said. "And I guess its probably $200 for a nice bottle of chardonnay that they'll sit down and have every evening. "So be serious, reduce the size of the delegation, let's debate Tony Abbott before you go, and that way we can be focused on the real things, talk to Australian families about what will be the impact on them." http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-criticised-over-copenhagen-entourage-20091213-kpza.html ...so all you have is a statement made by ... Greg Hunt? Question: does he know what 100 km2 is yet? I don't even know who Greg Hunt is, nor do I care.  It doesn't change the fact that Rudd blew an absolute shitload of money on preening himself on the world stage.  You can try to argue the fact, but that would be suicidal, because it's undeniably true.  It isn't even central to the issue of the baby bonus.  My point was simply that if people are worried about tax $$$ being wasted, you should look at what our elite are doing, rather than whinging that young, new families are getting a leg-up.

Diplomatic relations and being a world player is very important.  I loved the fact that whilst Howard hid and only ever licked Bush's a$$, Rudd went out there and tried to be central.  

And if that meant spending money then so be it.

In any case, considering I don't have a problem with the baby bonus anymore because it will only be paid to basically the unemployed I don't really know why I'm bothering in this thread. Only to make note of your ridiculous quotes, that's all.

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:31pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:02pm: But there really, truly, ARE people out there who rote the welfare system....whether it's Newstart or DSP pensions...it DOES happen... And when you see people who are, generally, semi-professional shoplifters walk into a shop, with a newborn in a 2nd hand pram, and buy 2 Xboxes, a DVD player, a big screen TV and 3 cartons of cigarettes with the 'baby bonus' money....it becomes incredibly obvious... Costello made TWO fundamental ERRORS when he started the "Baby Bonus" 1/ It should have been means tested (or have been added to taxable income) 2/ It should have been either given in the form of ... a/ Ten fortnightly payments of $500 or ... b/ Vouchers redeemable at a wide range of baby supply and children's clothing outlets

1. I agree.

2. No, because anyone with children would know that these stores like pumpkin patch are ridiculously overpriced, and would be even more so if subsidised by the tax payer.  
Most clothes for kids get worn once or twice, and then they grow out of them, so baby markets are the ideal way for parents of older kids to get rid of stuff they don't need, and for parents of younger kids to pick up nearly unused toys and clothes at a fraction of the price of new.  But I guess in our throwaway society, it doesn't matter if things are perfectly good, if they don't still have a price tag on them, they belong in landfill...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:30pm:

Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting. FKING DISGRACEFUL

And the SAME arrangements were used under PREVIOUS governments
But being a LABOR government, it was a NATURAL for the front page of "The Australian"

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:39pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:30pm: Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting. FKING DISGRACEFUL And the SAME arrangements were used under PREVIOUS governments But being a LABOR government, it was a NATURAL for the front page of "The Australian"

Shame my story is from The Age then isn't it?


If I recall rightly you refused to say it was a waste of taxpayer money - did you not?

Bias much?
;D

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 2:48pm:

Quote: Yes, and Rudd flying 100+ cronies, including his personal hairstylist  to copenhagen for the climate wankfest.  But we couldn't touch that could we?  Nar...better to deny young families a few bob to assist raising their children, than to deny the PM a hairdresser for a week CHRIST  - you people are full of CRAP ! Rudd broke TWO traditions, for PM's travelling overseas 1/ He doesn't take his own personal doctor along He would use a consulate or embassy doctor, if required 2/ He stays at Australian embassies, rather than expensive hotels

LOL YOU WISH.... IN FACT THE VERY FIRST FLIGHT HE TOOK OVERSEAS... HE REFUSED TO TAKE A DOCTOR... he was going to save us money remember...HOWEVER SOMEONE ON THE PLANE WAS TAKEN ILL.. SO FROM THEN ON HE ALWAYS TOOK A DOCTOR..

btw he also travelled I believe more than any PM...as for staying at an Embassy again I think that was during his heady first days...all very much publicised...Washington I believe such hardship.

now  he still thinks he is PM>.. and demands to be treated likewise...and as we all know rudd can be very demanding.when this guy finally leaves politics he is going to cost us a motza...

personally I dont care what the PM has or hasnt got... it goes with the job they should always have whats the best we have to offer..

the others well not always..

Quote:

In any case, considering I don't have a problem with the baby bonus anymore because it will only be paid to basically the unemployed I don't really know why I'm bothering in this thread. Only to make note of your ridiculous quotes, that's all.

So you're being a cock, for the sake of being a cock.  
Yep, that's our alevine.  

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:43pm:

Quote: In any case, considering I don't have a problem with the baby bonus anymore because it will only be paid to basically the unemployed I don't really know why I'm bothering in this thread. Only to make note of your ridiculous quotes, that's all. So you're being a cock, for the sake of being a cock.   Yep, that's our alevine.

In a nutshell you have described our Russian friend to a tee.

Please delete wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:35pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:30pm: Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting. FKING DISGRACEFUL Less the cost of business class to which they were entitled. Call it $30K. Two nights in Rome or London hotels for John Howard, as I recall.

And $30K is a "drop in the bucket" considering it was a working office" - all the way - in last minute preparation and fine tuning for the GFC crisis meeting of OECD countries

Considering the way AUSTRALIA fared through it, I'd say it was a good investment

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:31pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:02pm: But there really, truly, ARE people out there who rote the welfare system....whether it's Newstart or DSP pensions...it DOES happen... And when you see people who are, generally, semi-professional shoplifters walk into a shop, with a newborn in a 2nd hand pram, and buy 2 Xboxes, a DVD player, a big screen TV and 3 cartons of cigarettes with the 'baby bonus' money....it becomes incredibly obvious... Costello made TWO fundamental ERRORS when he started the "Baby Bonus" 1/ It should have been means tested (or have been added to taxable income) 2/ It should have been either given in the form of ... a/ Ten fortnightly payments of $500 or ... b/ Vouchers redeemable at a wide range of baby supply and children's clothing outlets

Yes, or 1/ used as a 0.50c on the dollar reduction of whatever benefit the person was on.. (like a lump sum advance)

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:35pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:30pm: Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting. FKING DISGRACEFUL Less the cost of business class to which they were entitled. Call it $30K. Two nights in Rome or London hotels for John Howard, as I recall. And $30K is a "drop in the bucket" considering it was a working office" - all the way - in last minute preparation and fine tuning for the GFC crisis meeting of OECD countries Considering the way AUSTRALIA fared through it, I'd say it was a good investment

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Try again.

cods wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:43pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 2:48pm: Quote: Yes, and Rudd flying 100+ cronies, including his personal hairstylist  to copenhagen for the climate wankfest.  But we couldn't touch that could we?  Nar...better to deny young families a few bob to assist raising their children, than to deny the PM a hairdresser for a week CHRIST  - you people are full of CRAP ! Rudd broke TWO traditions, for PM's travelling overseas 1/ He doesn't take his own personal doctor along He would use a consulate or embassy doctor, if required 2/ He stays at Australian embassies, rather than expensive hotels LOL YOU WISH.... IN FACT THE VERY FIRST FLIGHT HE TOOK OVERSEAS... HE REFUSED TO TAKE A DOCTOR... he was going to save us money remember...HOWEVER SOMEONE ON THE PLANE WAS TAKEN ILL.. SO FROM THEN ON HE ALWAYS TOOK A DOCTOR.. btw he also travelled I believe more than any PM...as for staying at an Embassy again I think that was during his heady first days...all very much publicised...Washington I believe such hardship.

And you can VERIFY that ?
Or just ANOTHER of your "furfies"  

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:39pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:31pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:02pm: But there really, truly, ARE people out there who rote the welfare system....whether it's Newstart or DSP pensions...it DOES happen... And when you see people who are, generally, semi-professional shoplifters walk into a shop, with a newborn in a 2nd hand pram, and buy 2 Xboxes, a DVD player, a big screen TV and 3 cartons of cigarettes with the 'baby bonus' money....it becomes incredibly obvious... Costello made TWO fundamental ERRORS when he started the "Baby Bonus" 1/ It should have been means tested (or have been added to taxable income) 2/ It should have been either given in the form of ... a/ Ten fortnightly payments of $500 or ... b/ Vouchers redeemable at a wide range of baby supply and children's clothing outlets 1. I agree. 2. No, because anyone with children would know that these stores like pumpkin patch are ridiculously overpriced, and would be even more so if subsidised by the tax payer.   Most clothes for kids get worn once or twice, and then they grow out of them, so baby markets are the ideal way for parents of older kids to get rid of stuff they don't need, and for parents of younger kids to pick up nearly unused toys and clothes at a fraction of the price of new.  But I guess in our throwaway society, it doesn't matter if things are perfectly good, if they don't still have a price tag on them, they belong in landfill...

"2. No, because anyone with children would know that these stores like pumpkin patch are ridiculously overpriced, and would be even more so if subsidised by the tax payer. "

It's not really necessary to shop at professional baby stores...K'mart or Big W would do...

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:35pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:30pm: Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting. FKING DISGRACEFUL Less the cost of business class to which they were entitled. Call it $30K. Two nights in Rome or London hotels for John Howard, as I recall. And $30K is a "drop in the bucket" considering it was a working office" - all the way - in last minute preparation and fine tuning for the GFC crisis meeting of OECD countries Considering the way AUSTRALIA fared through it, I'd say it was a good investment

Yep surplus to debt in 18 months.

Way to go convicts.

:)

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 3:39pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:30pm: Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting. FKING DISGRACEFUL And the SAME arrangements were used under PREVIOUS governments But being a LABOR government, it was a NATURAL for the front page of "The Australian"

Don't get too tense about it buzz...When it was LIBERAL government, the 'other' half of the media was complaining about it..

No matter which of the 'big' parties is in, thhe 'other half' of the media carries on about it..

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:10pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:50pm: Please delete wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:35pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:30pm: Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting. FKING DISGRACEFUL Less the cost of business class to which they were entitled. Call it $30K. Two nights in Rome or London hotels for John Howard, as I recall. And $30K is a "drop in the bucket" considering it was a working office" - all the way - in last minute preparation and fine tuning for the GFC crisis meeting of OECD countries Considering the way AUSTRALIA fared through it, I'd say it was a good investment Yep surplus to debt in 18 months. Way to go convicts. :)

And one of the LOWEST unemployment rates in the WORLD
And the ONLY OECD member not to have gone into recession

Well what was a half decent thread soon disinergrated into absolute crap and a "how big is your weiner" contest didnt it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 4:12pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:39pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29th, 2011 at 3:30pm: Mr Swan said the Government had spent $58,915.70 on return first-class flights for four staff from Canberra to London for the meeting. FKING DISGRACEFUL And the SAME arrangements were used under PREVIOUS governments But being a LABOR government, it was a NATURAL for the front page of "The Australian" Don't get too tense about it buzz...When it was LIBERAL government, the 'other' half of the media was complaining about it.. No matter which of the 'big' parties is in, thhe 'other half' of the media carries on about it..

WHAT OTHER HALF OF THE MEDIA IS THAT??
The Melbourne Age has traditionally been a bit more rational, but what other media outlet do we have that is not heavily biased against Labor?