Children inflict financial strain on balancing the budget. Pressurise infrastructure.

Should non breeders be financial compensated for keeping control over their primate urges and working at heading Australia's population to sustainable levels.

Should the Baby Bonus be dumped and a non-baby bonus born.

____ wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

Children inflict financial strain on balancing the budget. Pressurise infrastructure. Should non breeders be financial compensated for keeping control over their primate urges and working at heading Australia's population to sustainable levels. Should the Baby Bonus be dumped and a non-baby bonus born.

I never received one cent for either of my kids all those years ago...I want my share with interest.

____ wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

Children inflict financial strain on balancing the budget. Pressurise infrastructure. Should non breeders be financial compensated for keeping control over their primate urges and working at heading Australia's population to sustainable levels. Should the Baby Bonus be dumped and a non-baby bonus born.

What a good idea.
I don't have any kids so I could get some of my tax back.  :)

____ wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

Children inflict financial strain on balancing the budget. Pressurise infrastructure. Should non breeders be financial compensated for keeping control over their primate urges and working at heading Australia's population to sustainable levels. Should the Baby Bonus be dumped and a non-baby bonus born.

When my three were born it was an advance of about $300 to help with costs at birth. That is all i got and never saw a penny of first home buyers grants.

Trust the homo to be anti family

Verge wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:32am:

Trust the homo to be anti family

Not anti family. Are you saying all the families without sprogs are not families. What gives you the right to be so smug and condescending ?

Verge wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:32am:

Trust the homo to be anti family

Homos dont have families?
Thats news to me  ;D

adelcrow wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

Verge wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:32am: Trust the homo to be anti family Homos dont have families? Thats news to me  ;D

Homos adopt kids.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:39am:

adelcrow wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:38am: Verge wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:32am: Trust the homo to be anti family Homos dont have families? Thats news to me  ;D Homos adopt kids.

There are many gays and lesbians with kids..either from earlier relationships before they "came out" or by using a surrogate and Im sure there are other ways as well.

adelcrow wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:49am:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:39am: adelcrow wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:38am: Verge wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:32am: Trust the homo to be anti family Homos dont have families? Thats news to me  ;D Homos adopt kids. There are many gays and lesbians with kids..either from earlier relationships before they "came out" or by using a surrogate and Im sure there are other ways as well.

Yes,
well babies certainly don't pop out of bum holes!

Yeah. The reason I dont vote for any of them is none of them pay me to. There should be a payment for ppl with no children.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:05am:

Yeah. The reason I dont vote for any of them is none of them pay me to. There should be a payment for ppl with no children. SOB

I agree - people with no kids put less strain on society.
Give us the money.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Yeah. The reason I dont vote for any of them is none of them pay me to. There should be a payment for ppl with no children. SOB I agree - people with no kids put less strain on society. Give us the money.

I don't believe in rewarding failure.

Tha taxpayer shouldn't be funding you Bobby simply because you shoot blanks.

Some people argue that it is selfish to bring kids into such a world. They could be wrong or they could be right, but if we keep following the same path, I wouldn't want to see my kids suffer the consequences of a political and financial tsuname, wars, famine and disease.....horrid.

Good on you people who opt out of having children. You are selfless.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Yeah. The reason I dont vote for any of them is none of them pay me to. There should be a payment for ppl with no children. SOB I agree - people with no kids put less strain on society. Give us the money.

except that when your older, you funnel government money out of the system to help pay your pension, health care, dentures, glasses etc, but you have no kids to contribute to the tax system ... should you not in that case be paying twice the taxes of someone with kids? after all,my kids will contribute towards my care, who will contribute towards yours?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:27pm:

Some people argue that it is selfish to bring kids into such a world. They could be wrong or they could be right, but if we keep following the same path, I wouldn't want to see my kids suffer the consequences of a political and financial tsuname, wars, famine and disease.....horrid. Good on you people who opt out of having children. You are selfless.

Doesn't that depend on why they opt out in the first place?

If children are our future.....What future would we have without them???

The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945)

philperth2010 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:35pm:

If children are our future.....What future would we have without them??? The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945)

Giving their parents a 1 off payment to vote a particular way is brilliant! Go next gen!

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:35pm: If children are our future.....What future would we have without them??? The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945) Giving their parents a 1 off payment to vote a particular way is brilliant! Go next gen! SOB

I was of the belief it will be paid every year no matter who is in office and it is an on going commitment to help parents with school age children meet costs.....If you have no children you do not have the cost of funding their education which is quite expensive.....The question is can the money be spent in a better way than giving parents direct assistance???

8-) 8-) 8-)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:35pm: If children are our future.....What future would we have without them??? The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945) Giving their parents a 1 off payment to vote a particular way is brilliant! Go next gen! SOB

I thought it was a one off payment to help with the expenses of raising kids?

Johnsmith wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:37pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:35pm: If children are our future.....What future would we have without them??? The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945) Giving their parents a 1 off payment to vote a particular way is brilliant! Go next gen! SOB I thought it was a one off payment to help with the expenses of raising kids?

Reminds me of the woman in a classroom last week. When asked about the boat photo the child bought for "news" the mother replies......"We bought it with the Baby Bonus".

Some people nearly choked especially when their families were working and could not afford to pay bills let alone buy a boat.

philperth2010 wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:37pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:35pm: If children are our future.....What future would we have without them??? The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945) Giving their parents a 1 off payment to vote a particular way is brilliant! Go next gen! SOB I was of the belief it will be paid every year no matter who is in office and it is an on going commitment to help parents with school age children meet costs.....If you have no children you do not have the cost of funding their education which is quite expensive.....The question is can the money be spent in a better way than giving parents direct assistance??? 8-) 8-) 8-)

Gee!!!! And to think I went to work to pay for my kids education and life.........

beware wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:48pm:

Johnsmith wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:42pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:37pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:35pm: If children are our future.....What future would we have without them??? The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945) Giving their parents a 1 off payment to vote a particular way is brilliant! Go next gen! SOB I thought it was a one off payment to help with the expenses of raising kids? Reminds me of the woman in a classroom last week. When asked about the boat photo the child bought for "news" the mother replies......"We bought it with the Baby Bonus". Some people nearly choked especially when their families were working and could not afford to pay bills let alone buy a boat.

boats are very good for kids ...gets them out into the fresh air, fresh fish for dinner , a bit ofd swimming... I'd say clever parents, thinking long term

The baby bonus was introduced because John Howard wanted to give an incentive to wealthy woman to have babies - apparently Liberal voters weren't procreating rapidly enough for his liking.

falah wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:52pm:

The baby bonus was introduced because John Howard wanted to give an incentive to wealthy woman to have babies - apparently Liberal voters weren't procreating rapidly enough for his liking.

It backfired on him. He thought he'd get a flood of little Liberals, but he ended up getting little lefties by the thousands.

Big nations=big poverty.

falah wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:52pm:

The baby bonus was introduced because John Howard wanted to give an incentive to wealthy woman to have babies - apparently Liberal voters weren't procreating rapidly enough for his liking.

The baby bonus was introduced to get women with babies to vote for john Howard.

SOB

beware wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:42pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:37pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:35pm: If children are our future.....What future would we have without them??? The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945) Giving their parents a 1 off payment to vote a particular way is brilliant! Go next gen! SOB I was of the belief it will be paid every year no matter who is in office and it is an on going commitment to help parents with school age children meet costs.....If you have no children you do not have the cost of funding their education which is quite expensive.....The question is can the money be spent in a better way than giving parents direct assistance??? 8-) 8-) 8-) Gee!!!! And to think I went to work to pay for my kids education and life.........

So did I.....The question is should parents of school age children be given government assistance with their education or could the money be spent on something else more deserving???

:-? :-? :-?

I see the LABOR PARTIES AT 27%   27%   27%

TIME TO FUMIGATE THE LODGE ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

FRED. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:12pm:

I see the LABOR PARTIES AT 27%   27%   27% TIME TO FUMIGATE THE LODGE ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Hey,Fred ,where ya been?

FRED. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:12pm:

I see the LABOR PARTIES AT 27%   27%   27% TIME TO FUMIGATE THE LODGE ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

You've got it in the bag, eh Fred. Good on you. Yep, you've got Labor beat no worries at all. Just like you did in 1993. Couldn't lose that election either.  :D

skippy. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

FRED. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 3:12pm: I see the LABOR PARTIES AT 27%   27%   27% TIME TO FUMIGATE THE LODGE ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) Hey,Fred ,where ya been?

iM fishing on the EYRE PENINSULA AT the moment heading to WA  just pluged in the laptop for the first time   ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

FRED. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

skippy. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm: FRED. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 3:12pm: I see the LABOR PARTIES AT 27%   27%   27% TIME TO FUMIGATE THE LODGE ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) Hey,Fred ,where ya been? iM fishing on the EYRE PENINSULA AT the moment heading to WA  just pluged in the laptop for the first time   ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Oh, half your luck. ;)

Good on you people who opt out of having children. You are selfless.


Pity your parents didn't follow that line.

Just wondering - if I was given a "non baby bonus" and then got pregnant, would I have to give it back?

Frances wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

Just wondering - if I was given a "non baby bonus" and then got pregnant, would I have to give it back?

Who would you give the baby back to?

adelcrow wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:26am:

____ wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:25am: Children inflict financial strain on balancing the budget. Pressurise infrastructure. Should non breeders be financial compensated for keeping control over their primate urges and working at heading Australia's population to sustainable levels. Should the Baby Bonus be dumped and a non-baby bonus born. I never received one cent for either of my kids all those years ago...I want my share with interest.

EXACTLY   I will drink to that as well..LOL


for once woody makes sense..

its not always urges... some people cannot procreate..which is very sad and to have a child costs them a fortune... yet those who can pop them out like rabbits get rewards from the govt..

although in this case its taking place of the tax rebates or something a bit like our pay increase they take away our bonus to give it to us... a bit of smoke and mirrors...

anyway lets bang the drum for all those who are childless..and never get a bloody cent.

FRED. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

skippy. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm: FRED. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 3:12pm: I see the LABOR PARTIES AT 27%   27%   27% TIME TO FUMIGATE THE LODGE ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) Hey,Fred ,where ya been? iM fishing on the EYRE PENINSULA AT the moment heading to WA  just pluged in the laptop for the first time   ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

how about bringing us back a few... fred?...stay away from the laptop and get into serious fishing.

Johnsmith wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:32pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 1:29pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Yeah. The reason I dont vote for any of them is none of them pay me to. There should be a payment for ppl with no children. SOB I agree - people with no kids put less strain on society. Give us the money. except that when your older, you funnel government money out of the system to help pay your pension, health care, dentures, glasses etc, but you have no kids to contribute to the tax system ... should you not in that case be paying twice the taxes of someone with kids? after all,my kids will contribute towards my care, who will contribute towards yours?

We pay it ourselves through all our working lives through not only taxes taken out of our pay specifically for the purpose but from that super scam as well.

SOB

____ wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 6:44pm:

Frances wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 6:40pm: Just wondering - if I was given a "non baby bonus" and then got pregnant, would I have to give it back? Who would you give the baby back to?

I meant give the bonus back......

Frances wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

Just wondering - if I was given a "non baby bonus" and then got pregnant, would I have to give it back?

Do you have to give the baby bonus back if you have a miscarriage?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 6:50pm:

Do you have to give the baby bonus back if you have a miscarriage? SOB

Now you're being stupid.  To be eligible you have to register the birth in an Australian state or territory (there are other eligibility criteria too of course)

Frances wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 7:00pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Do you have to give the baby bonus back if you have a miscarriage? SOB Now you're being stupid.  To be eligible you have to register the birth in an Australian state or territory (there are other eligibility criteria too of course)

Jesus christ does no-one on this forum have a sense of humor?

SOB

It's so selfish of people to have kids and the government assist them with the cost of the education. Hell let's cut all funding to schools to because children are just a drain on people's taxes.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:

Jesus christ does no-one on this forum have a sense of humor? SOB

You find miscarriages funny?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:

Frances wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 7:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Do you have to give the baby bonus back if you have a miscarriage? SOB Now you're being stupid.  To be eligible you have to register the birth in an Australian state or territory (there are other eligibility criteria too of course) Jesus christ does no-one on this forum have a sense of humor? SOB

Warning this is a Jimmy Carr clip. Of course it's offensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwXpJvGvORQ&sns=em

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 6:48pm:

Johnsmith wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:32pm: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 1:29pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Yeah. The reason I dont vote for any of them is none of them pay me to. There should be a payment for ppl with no children. SOB I agree - people with no kids put less strain on society. Give us the money. except that when your older, you funnel government money out of the system to help pay your pension, health care, dentures, glasses etc, but you have no kids to contribute to the tax system ... should you not in that case be paying twice the taxes of someone with kids? after all,my kids will contribute towards my care, who will contribute towards yours? We pay it ourselves through all our working lives through not only taxes taken out of our pay specifically for the purpose but from that super scam as well. SOB

Nope, that goes to all the services you use for the first 65 years of your life and some of what your parents use ... you keep taking, someone has to keep paying

Johnsmith wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:18pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 6:48pm: Johnsmith wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:32pm: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 1:29pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Yeah. The reason I dont vote for any of them is none of them pay me to. There should be a payment for ppl with no children. SOB I agree - people with no kids put less strain on society. Give us the money. except that when your older, you funnel government money out of the system to help pay your pension, health care, dentures, glasses etc, but you have no kids to contribute to the tax system ... should you not in that case be paying twice the taxes of someone with kids? after all,my kids will contribute towards my care, who will contribute towards yours? We pay it ourselves through all our working lives through not only taxes taken out of our pay specifically for the purpose but from that super scam as well. SOB Nope, that goes to all the services you use for the first 65 years of your life and some of what your parents use ... you keep taking, someone has to keep paying

How could it when a portion of the taxes of people that decide to not have children goes to paying cash payouts to other people who choose to have children and choose to incur the costs of raising their children. Also taxes go to other costs like educating other people's children.

Johnsmith wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:18pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 6:48pm: Johnsmith wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:32pm: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 1:29pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 11:05am: Yeah. The reason I dont vote for any of them is none of them pay me to. There should be a payment for ppl with no children. SOB I agree - people with no kids put less strain on society. Give us the money. except that when your older, you funnel government money out of the system to help pay your pension, health care, dentures, glasses etc, but you have no kids to contribute to the tax system ... should you not in that case be paying twice the taxes of someone with kids? after all,my kids will contribute towards my care, who will contribute towards yours? We pay it ourselves through all our working lives through not only taxes taken out of our pay specifically for the purpose but from that super scam as well. SOB Nope, that goes to all the services you use for the first 65 years of your life and some of what your parents use ... you keep taking, someone has to keep paying

That is not how its supposed to be though is it. The money is supposed to be there that we paid in. Where is it? Gone in baby bonuses i expect.

SOB

Yeah, gone in baby bonuses, not silly things like health, education, military, roads, infrastructure, low income and aged assistance, yeah your right, all you tax dollars went to in a 5000 payment to help families who don't qualify for paid maternity leave.

Suppose your against that too

falah wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:52pm:

The baby bonus was introduced because John Howard wanted to give an incentive to wealthy woman to have babies - apparently Liberal voters weren't procreating rapidly enough for his liking.

The baby bonus was introduced to help populate the country given there exists in Australia a gap now between the old and young in demographics.

The concept for me was a reasonable one.

The idea though of capping it at a certain income doesn't make sense if you keep that line.

If you want the right sort of people to have children - i/e stable, middle income family units - why would you prevent them getting it - and the wrong sort of people we want to stop having children - single parent teenagers - do qualify??

That's where it has got absurd.
We're rewarding the wrong type of people.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

falah wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:52pm: The baby bonus was introduced because John Howard wanted to give an incentive to wealthy woman to have babies - apparently Liberal voters weren't procreating rapidly enough for his liking. The baby bonus was introduced to help populate the country given there exists in Australia a gap now between the old and young in demographics. The concept for me was a reasonable one. The idea though of capping it at a certain income doesn't make sense if you keep that line. If you want the right sort of people to have children - i/e stable, middle income family units - why would you prevent them getting it - and the wrong sort of people we want to stop having children - single parent teenagers - do qualify?? That's where it has got absurd. We're rewarding the wrong type of people.

Thats because it was a vote buying scheme.

SOB

____ wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

Children inflict financial strain on balancing the budget. Pressurise infrastructure. Should non breeders be financial compensated for keeping control over their primate urges and working at heading Australia's population to sustainable levels. Should the Baby Bonus be dumped and a non-baby bonus born.

The fact that you're not pouring your own earnings into the bottomless pit that is children is it's financial incentive. 

So, no.  The "non baby bonus" is perhaps you're silliest idea to date - and theres some pretty stiff competition on that score.

... wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

____ wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:25am: Children inflict financial strain on balancing the budget. Pressurise infrastructure. Should non breeders be financial compensated for keeping control over their primate urges and working at heading Australia's population to sustainable levels. Should the Baby Bonus be dumped and a non-baby bonus born. The fact that you're not pouring your own earnings into the bottomless pit that is children is it's financial incentive.  So, no.  The "non baby bonus" is perhaps you're silliest idea to date - and theres some pretty stiff competition on that score.

Children cost a fortune, that is clear.
Whatever help the Government can give, is a good thing.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

falah wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 2:52pm: The baby bonus was introduced because John Howard wanted to give an incentive to wealthy woman to have babies - apparently Liberal voters weren't procreating rapidly enough for his liking. It backfired on him. He thought he'd get a flood of little Liberals, but he ended up getting little lefties by the thousands. Big nations=big poverty.

No, true lefties fertility levels are waaay down.  What he actually got was a flood of blowins and deadshits who vote left for the gibsmedats promised to them.  A subtle, but vital distinction because when the sit-down money runs out, they don't believe in the system so will turn on it once its usefulness has been outlived.

Frances wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 7:00pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Do you have to give the baby bonus back if you have a miscarriage? SOB Now you're being stupid.  To be eligible you have to register the birth in an Australian state or territory (there are other eligibility criteria too of course)

You do know they "pay out" in the case of stillborn babies don't you?


Quote:

Baby Bonus is paid to customers following the birth (including stillborn babies) or adoption of a child. It recognises the extra costs incurred at the time of a new birth or adoption.

http://www.familyassist.gov.au/payments/family-assistance-payments/baby-bonus/

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

... wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 11:20am: ____ wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 10:25am: Children inflict financial strain on balancing the budget. Pressurise infrastructure. Should non breeders be financial compensated for keeping control over their primate urges and working at heading Australia's population to sustainable levels. Should the Baby Bonus be dumped and a non-baby bonus born. The fact that you're not pouring your own earnings into the bottomless pit that is children is it's financial incentive.  So, no.  The "non baby bonus" is perhaps you're silliest idea to date - and theres some pretty stiff competition on that score. Children cost a fortune, that is clear. Whatever help the Government can give, is a good thing.

Heh. Yup. Apparently so. Thats why they are replacing the "claim back what you paid" with a lump sum. Cheaper for govt. Looks good for elections. Worse off for most families.

SOB

... wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:28am:

Frances wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 7:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 6th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Do you have to give the baby bonus back if you have a miscarriage? SOB Now you're being stupid.  To be eligible you have to register the birth in an Australian state or territory (there are other eligibility criteria too of course) You do know they "pay out" in the case of stillborn babies don't you?

That's a very grey area.
By the way, anyone who has had a stillborn child will tell you receiving a cash payment is probably item number 1,500,000 on their mind at the time.

Oops - double post....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

By the way, anyone who has had a stillborn child will tell you receiving a cash payment is probably item number 1,500,000 on their mind at the time.

Exactly.

And, in any case, miscarriage and stillbirth are not really the same thing, although there would be a bit of an overlap between them.

In Australia, a stillborn weighing more than 400 grams, or more than 20 weeks in gestation, must have its birth registered.  Most stillbirths occur in full-term pregnancies.  Miscarriage is not, as far as I am aware, legally defined, but is generally considered to be the natural end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or fetus is incapable of surviving independently, that is, prior to 20 weeks of gestation. A miscarriage would not be considered to be a stillbirth unless it met the above definition of one and, unless it did, would not require registration.