Carried over from the anti-intellectual thread: http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164078969

Is the baby bonus really working - is it increasing the fertility rate, or is there some other cause? And is it even a good thing?


It's funny, with all this talk of a baby boom I can't find a nice graph of our fertility rate anywhere. I did find a table of births per 1000 people, which indicates our birth rate is actually going down:

Crude Birth and Death Rates for Selected Countries
(per 1,000 population)
 Birth rate                                                          Death rate    
Country  2006 2005 2004 1990  1985  1980  1975  2006 2005 2004 1990  1985  1980  1975  
Australia  12.1 12.3 12.4 15.4  15.7  15.3  16.9         7.5 7.4 7.4 7.0  7.5  7.4  7.9  

source:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004395.html

I have one baby. I was definitely pleased to get the Baby Bonus. But if I hadn't wanted to have a baby, there is no way I would have had a baby just for the Baby Bonus.

Some of the women I have chatted with online have been influenced by the increases in the Baby Bonus, ie each July it goes up $1K so they have aimed to have their baby due in the second half of the year.

I've had to pull this together from three sources, two ABS web pages and an SMH article. I could only get a consistent figure for the actual number of births. The first set of figures are for the calendar year (I think) and the last two are for the financial year ending june that year. The last set is from the SMH article.

How many births go unregistered, and would the money change this?

Year  Registered Births (x 1000)

1993      260.2      
1994      258.1      
1995      256.2      
1996      253.8      
1997      251.8      
1998      249.6      
1999      248.9      
2000      249.6      
2001      246.4      
2002      251      
2003      251.2      

1999      250      
2000      249.3      
2001      247.5      
2002      247.4      
2003      247.4      
2004      254.6      

2005      255.6      
2006      264.3      

Or, as a nice giraffe:

http://ozpolitic.com/births.gif

I think that the baby bonus works to give some an excuse and even a justification for not being careful enough about birth control.

I wonder how many more births to unmarried young mothers there were after the baby bonus was introduced.

I think the ABS has figures on how many of the births were to unwed mothers. It's like 30% these days.

I've been thinking about this question for a while now. I think it is a bad idea, but it is a complicated argument to make and there are a lot of concepts to get your head around. Anyway, this is what I have come up with:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/population-sustainability.html

John Howard made it sound like this was a world first, however the Germans also have a system that offers up to 7200 euros, which is about to increase to 25200 euros (about $33000) on January 1. It is spread out over 1 year and is proportional to their former salary (over 2/3). There is some concern that parents will take steps to delay labor that could put their babies at risk.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2006 at 4:59pm:

Carried over from the anti-intellectual thread: http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164078969 Crude Birth and Death Rates for Selected Countries (per 1,000 population)  Birth rate                                                          Death rate     Country  2006 2005 2004 1990  1985  1980  1975  2006 2005 2004 1990  1985  1980  1975   Australia  12.1 12.3 12.4 15.4  15.7  15.3  16.9         7.5 7.4 7.4 7.0  7.5  7.4  7.9   source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004395.html

This explains the increase on immigration over these years. And for this country to go through a boom we must have taken on a lot of immigration. No wonder everyone is uptight about integration.

I felt the baby bonus had a dramatic impact. Because we live in an ageing society, that rarely have babies. The baby boomers are passing on, death rates will increase and so will immigration. We are beaten because we don't procreate enough.

In fact you can blame feminism for this. The last decline of population you could blame poverty.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/population-sustainability.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Babies-inconvenient-for-some-Abbott/2007/01/06/1167777308987.html

Australia's high abortion rate reflects women whose lives are under control but who view childbirth as a "terrible inconvenience", Health Minister Tony Abbott says.

Great article on population sustainability. You are correct but do you believe in restricting technology as the answer?

No. It looks like our population is going to plateau naturally, regardless of what technology does.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/baby-bonus-is-a-waste-of-money-academic/2007/04/18/1176696900954.html

The federal government's baby bonus is being wasted on babies that would have been born regardless, says a Queensland academic.

The baby bonus, currently a payment of $4,000, has been offered to mothers upon the birth of their child since July 2004, and will rise to $5,000 from July 2008.

"You're paying mothers the same amount for every child, including the first one, whereas clearly a lot of people would have had the child anyway, so it's not very well targeted in that sense."

The economics lecturer suggests the government offer little or no payment for first children and increased payments for each subsequent child, similar to Singapore's baby bonus program.

"If the baby bonus was restricted to second or third children, or at least paid a smaller amount for the first child like the Singaporean model, it could have the same effect at the margins at much less cost to taxpayers," he said.

In any event, Prof Guest believes the baby bonus is not needed.

"We just don't need to increase the birthrate in Australia ... because there's no foreseeable chance of Australia's population actually falling," he said.

"Australia's on an increasing population path."

He argues a baby bonus-fuelled population boom now would offer future economic benefits at a cost to current generations.

This is just a personal opinion from this academic that obviously hasn't put any research into it. For example his comment;


Quote:

"We just don't need to increase the birthrate in Australia ... because there's no foreseeable chance of Australia's population actually falling," he said.

This is because it is propped up by immigration.

Also he said;


Quote:

"Australia's on an increasing population path."

Increasing yes, but this is now because of the baby bonus as well as no reduction in immigration.

What type of argument is this?


Quote:

He argues a baby bonus-fuelled population boom now would offer future economic benefits at a cost to current generations.

Where is his facts regarding costs to current future generations? Everything that the Howard government has done has been aimed at consolidating the future for this great country. What is being saved from unemployment decline is being invested into the future of Australia by way of baby bonus's and other important areas.

Yes, he does make a point that maybe it should be primarily for the second, third, etc. child but I believe the Stats supplied by freediver proves that their is an increase in baby's since the baby bonus conception. People who would have waited another few years before thinking about having a baby would have been prompted by the baby bonus. People who already had the national average of 2 children would have been prompted to have a third and etc.

Where is his facts regarding costs to current future generations? Everything that the Howard government has done has been aimed at consolidating the future for this great country.

I think that's a bit naive. Everything he has done has been aimed at getting re-elected. Handouts like this are a bad idea. He should have lowered taxes instead. That would have 'consolidated the future' far more effectively. The population situation did not warrant this huge expense. There are far more real and imminent threats to the country.

For one, a higher population (or density) reflects lower taxes.
For two, the baby bonus came out 3 years before scheduled election.
and for three, lowering of taxes would only be countered by the reserve bank by increasing interest rates hurting the mortgage belt.

For one, a higher population (or density) reflects lower taxes.

How?

For two, the baby bonus came out 3 years before scheduled election.

That doesn't mean it is good for the country or not a vote grabber.

and for three, lowering of taxes would only be countered by the reserve bank by increasing interest rates hurting the mortgage belt.

So you think high taxes are good for the economy?

Freediver asks how higher population (or Density) can lead to lower taxes. It is quiet simple if you think about it. We have a large infrastructure for such a small population. Increased the population means more revenue, due to increased spending, to pay for services like infrastructure. It works on the same principal as bulk buying.

Freediver also couldn't understand why the baby bonus isn't a vote grabber. It would be a vote grabber if Howard used it to get elected and he didn't. It was a great idea because Howard could see how immigration was effecting this country in a negative way. The baby bonus gave him an opportunity to grow home grown talent instead of importing it. The Australian public, or atleast the media, has voiced there concern with increase of immigration. Howard has put us on a road of reducing immigration unlike what the labour party wants to do and has always tried to do. I'm sure if Rudd said that he was going to dismantle the baby bonus it would be political suicide.

So what you are saying Freediver is that the baby bonus is bad for this country. Please enlighten us how?

Who said we now have high taxes? We actually have medium taxes when compared on a world platform.

Freediver, read your first posting and try to stick with the topic you started about the baby bonus instead of turning this thread into a tax thread.

I am familiar with the concept of bulk buying. I just don't see how it applies. The higher the population, the greater the role of government needs to be in managing society. Also, the greater the population, the fewer natural resources are available per person.

It would be a vote grabber if Howard used it to get elected and he didn't.

Just because he didn't impliment right before an election does not mean he didn't use it to get elected. If that were the case, he wouldn't have gradually increased it. You say he implimented it 3 years before the election, but it is still not fully implimented.

It was a great idea because Howard could see how immigration was effecting this country in a negative way.

Then reduce immigration. Immigration is bad for many of the same reasons that a high birth rate is bad.

So what you are saying Freediver is that the baby bonus is bad for this country. Please enlighten us how?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/population-sustainability.html

(Not to mention the waste of taxpayer funds of course).

Who said we now have high taxes?

Where else will the government get the money from? Print it?

Freediver, read your first posting and try to stick with the topic you started about the baby bonus instead of turning this thread into a tax thread.

It cannot be separated from a tax issue because the obvious alternative to wasting taxpayer's money is to reduce taxes.

The resources needed to supply one individual in a town is more than the resources needed to supply one individual in a city. Town = low population - City = high population.

Freediver Said
Quote:

Just because he didn't impliment right before an election does not mean he didn't use it to get elected. If that were the case, he wouldn't have gradually increased it. You say he implimented it 3 years before the election, but it is still not fully implimented.

It was fully implemented but like everything it will be fine tuned throughout the years but the rollout was done and that means it was implemented. It is quite funny when i see people call vote grabbing over this type of issue because it just brings the bias out in you. Whatever Howard implements people like you, who don't support him, will call vote grabbing no matter how good it is for this country. You sound like you would rather send Australia back to the dark ages before you gave howard a slap on the back.

Freediver also said
Quote:

Then reduce immigration. Immigration is bad for many of the same reasons that a high birth rate is bad.

Immigration is what sustains our population so please explain why a high birth rate cannot counteract it considering we have a higher death rate than birth rate.

I said
Quote:

Who said we now have high taxes?

Freediver said
Quote:

Where else will the government get the money from? Print it?

Maybe you meant to say something else here Freediver because it is a very silly statement, please explain your comment.

How can the reduction of taxes be an alternative to wasting taxpayers money? I presume when you say wasting tax payers money you mean that the baby bonus. Is it because you plan to have no more children yourself so you yourself cannot reap the benefits? Is it because you have already had children and regret that you have missed out on the baby bonus? The baby bonus allows parents to be able to buy nappies, bottles, dummies and everything else that comes along with having babies without puting them in too much financial hardship. it is not just about increasing population but also making sure that the children of this country are properly cared for without intruding on civil liberties.

You certainly come across as an advocate for Only The Rich Can Have Children ;D ;D ;D

It was fully implemented but like everything it will be fine tuned throughout the years

It is not being fine tuned, it is still being rolled out. It goes up another $1000 next year. That is not 'fine tuning'. That is rollout.

Whatever Howard implements people like you, who don't support him, will call vote grabbing no matter how good it is for this country.

Wrong, I call it vote grabbing because it is bad for the country and can only be explained by politics. Howard is moving the liberal party away from sound economic management and towards handouts. Taking with one hand and giving with the other.

Immigration is what sustains our population so please explain why a high birth rate cannot counteract it considering we have a higher death rate than birth rate.

I am not saying it can't counteract it. I'm saying both are bad.

Maybe you meant to say something else here Freediver because it is a very silly statement, please explain your comment.

The government has to tax people in order to hand out money.

How can the reduction of taxes be an alternative to wasting taxpayers money?

I'm not sure how to put it any simpler.

Is it because you plan to have no more children yourself so you yourself cannot reap the benefits? Is it because you have already had children and regret that you have missed out on the baby bonus?

No, it is because it is bad for the country.

You certainly come across as an advocate for Only The Rich Can Have Children

Our wealth is a large part of the reason for the low birth rate.

Freediver states
Quote:

Our wealth is a large part of the reason for the low birth rate.

Please explain?

Have you noticed that globally, wealth and security are the strongest predictors of a low birth rate? There is a strong tendency among wealthy people to marry late and have fewer kids later in life.

Yes, but wealthy people only represent a very minor percentage. One of the reasons for a low birth rate could be because people have put more emphasis on their careers. Keep in mind more babies are born into poverty not wealth.

Our death rate has contributed and the main factor is that there are many more older people around due to the baby boomers who have got to a stage where they are not having babies but they didn't procreate enough during their time.

In reality it is a culmination of a lot of things. How can you think that wealth is the driving force to making babies?

Yes, but wealthy people only represent a very minor percentage.

You are taking a different view to wealthy. I see 99% of Australians as being wealthy.

One of the reasons for a low birth rate could be because people have put more emphasis on their careers.

Not because careers matter more than children, but because lifestyle does.

I wouldn't say lifestyle I would say it is because a majority have a mortgage and both partners need to work. When one of their careers has reached it's pinnacle, or close to (financially), one of the partners then can have time off to raise the child. The child is then being born into a partnership that can afford them and give them the necessary devotion. Most people are actually being sensible before having children, making sure that they can provide adequately for their children, with just not only food and items but health and education. People understand that their career is the only thing that gives them security to raise a family.

What type of people do you segment into wealthy when you say 99% of us are wealthy? Keeping in mind, most home owners with a mortgage are struggling and another 2 to 3% interest hike will see many broken homes.

I mean they aren't hungry, they have adequate shelter and are enjoying life. It's not that they need to wait that long to raise children well. They just don't want to give up their comfort in order to do so.

I think you really need to get out and about a little bit freediver. What is assumed adequate for you is not adequate for many others. Because we are all individuals with individual thought processes we will all have an idea of what is adequate. The lifestyle between generations have changed where the emphasis is on affordability well into the future not just today. My partner and I plan to have children in the near future because this affordability is becoming a reallity for us. I'm 42 and she is 34. The baby bonus wasn't going to persuade us to have children, the fact that time is running out and we both have careers which gives us security are the main factors for our decision. What you need to do is ask people "what's holding them up" and "what was the decisive factor for you to have children?" instead of assuming that people would rather have their toys. The answers you get will probably be so diverse that it may even change your opinions, if that's possible.

What's the difference between 'affordability well into the future' and comfort? I'm not talking about people having their toys, though a lot of people who claim they cannot afford chuildren yet spend a lot of money on items that, if you asked them, they would place secondary to having children.

Very true freediver a lot of people do buy more luxuries than what they would if they had children or were saving to have children.

This actually brings another factor into this debate. Like I said previously it is a culmination of many factors and to highlight just one factor is ignorance.

Another factor is that when the current generation of 30 to 40 year olds were growing up they had nothing, mainly deriving from a low socio economic group, and as the country became more wealthier we began to see people move away from their needs to cater to their wants. Probably one of the underlying factors for obesity. A typical example is when someone from a low socio economic group has a windfall, like winning lotto, they are broke again inside 2 years (this is actually the majority of winners). When you grow up you have dreams of what you are going to do when you are rich. When the money comes in your off like a bull at the gate. Generally, budgeting and saving is a dirty word at this time. (I believe we should be teaching budgeting, saving etc. in our schools to save the next generation from waste).

As you can see there is no one quick fix as many factors come into play. The baby bonus is and always will be an incentive to curb our birthrate decline but it will not solve all the different underlying problems that causes the low birthrate of today.

So much in the system needs to be changed for the good of mankind and it is sad that this will definately be a very long way off. As I have previously stated in other threads, it is the foundations of all areas that need to be changed not just fine tuning unworkable branches.

I think a major hole in the public perception is that people think the aging population is a one-off change and that once life expectacy stabilises the problem will go away. People think the problem is that one generation - the 'baby boomers' - is getting old and we need to support them. The problem is not the change in life expectacy, it is a high life expectacny. It is not the 'aging' process itself, but a permanent increase in the average age and the proportion of older people. Thus temporaily increasing the birth rate will not help as in 80 years time we will just have an even bigger problem. This is a permanent situation that we need to adapt to for the long term, and a constantly increasing population is not a long term solution. It just delays the problem and makes the inevitable 'crunch' even worse. One day we will have to deal with a lot of old people and only enough young people to maintain the population, not to constantly increase it. This is much easier to handle with a reasonable population than when we are overpopulated.

The first of the baby boomers are 62. Increasing the birth rate now is not going to help support them. These children will be a drain for the next 15 or 20 years. We will be investing in their education right when the supposed problem will be at it's worst.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/riots-against-chinese-onechild-policy/2007/05/21/1179601321974.html

Villagers rioted in southwestern China, attacking officials and burning cars, in protest against attempts to enforce strict family-planning policies.

The villagers in Shabei county in Guangxi, one of five "autonomous" regions in China, clashed with officials and police armed with guns and electric cattle prods, pulling down a wall surrounding the government office, turning over cars and burning part of its main building, witnesses told Reuters.

The protests were linked to local government moves to intensify family-planning policies, villagers said. Some couples with more than one child must pay fines of up to tens of thousand yuan (thousands of dollars), the villagers said.

China launched its one-child policy in 1980 to curb a ballooning population, now at more than 1.3 billion.

The restrictions, which vary from city to countryside, have bolstered a traditional preference for boys, and have drawn fire from Western countries and human rights watchdogs after widespread reports of forced abortions and female infanticide.

"The family-planning officials were just like the Japanese invaders during the war. They took everything away, and destroyed or tore down the houses if people could not pay the fines," said one villager surnamed Wu.

"In some families, even the gate and bowls were taken away, leaving them with an empty house."

The government has said the number of "mass incidents" in the country - a term that includes protests, petitions and demonstrations - reached about 23,000 last year.

I think there are too many people in the world , the declining birth rates is a good thing.

There is a phrase for how a colony of rats in a limited space will breed to a max number .
The total number will decrease a bit, then be stable. They don't over populate the area.

Are we at that stage ?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Aussie-population-to-top-21-million/2007/06/05/1180809497036.html

Australia's population is set to top the 21 million mark later this month as data released on Tuesday shows births in 2006 were the highest since 1971.

The preliminary results from the 2006 Census shows the Australian population grew 1.4 per cent during the 12 months ended December 31, 2006, as the country recorded 265,922 births, the second highest on record.

However, registered deaths were the highest ever recorded at 133,900 in 2006.

Migration also increased Australia's population with preliminary overseas migration figures accounting for an additional 147,700 people in the year.

The first detailed results of the 2006 census will be released on June 27.

I bet, that a HUUUUUGE chunk of the newborns were islamic.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 5^th, 2007 at 11:12pm:

I bet, that a HUUUUUGE chunk of the newborns were islamic.

Unfortunately yes.  :'(

Quote:

Unfortunately yes.  :'(

But they wont tell us that. >:(

wrote on Jun 6^th, 2007 at 6:04pm:

Quote: Unfortunately yes.  :'( But they wont tell us that. >:(

Of course not... 'they' want to give the impression that everything is okay. Look folks... multiculturalism is okay... no problem here.  ::)

I thought our population reached 20 million in 2001. so that would mean an increase of one million in six years. Not good. :-[
Does my theory of islamic birth rate work out? YES.
And lets not forget that muslims are doing this the world over.
Bin laden has stated that islam will be the dominant religion on earth by the year 2020.
And if he's wrong about 2020, he wont be too far off the mark.

SOMETHING  MUST  BE  DONE.

Quote:

Bin laden has stated that islam will be the dominant religion on earth by the year 2020. And if he's wrong about 2020, he wont be too far off the mark.

Well... if we keep bending over backwards for them in this country and 'submitting' to them... they very well could be.

Quote:

Well... if we keep bending over backwards for them in this country and 'submitting' to them... they very well could be.

Like i said

SOMETHING  MUST  BE  DONE .

ah but muslims have been having 5+ children each in australia for longer than the last few years. The increase in 2006 points towards the baby bonus as being a major factor.

Germany's general population is on the decline, coinciding with this growth of islamic turks (we are talking millions) have emerged in nation as they were the only ones having children. Turks now make up i think 4% of the population there, and are the second largest ethnic group in germany. These are turkish people living in germany, who identify themselves as turk, not german. (for proof of this look no further than the turkish national soccer team who is made up of turks born in germany who refused to play for the land of birth and instead opted to play for turkey).

I think the howard government in true liberal fashion has decided that population growth in some communities is innevitable, and to counter this he is getting in early and trying to prop up the nations population growth as a whole, to keep the balance.

Quote:

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 11th, 2007 at 10:50am: ah but muslims have been having 5+ children each in australia for longer than the last few years. The increase in 2006 points towards the baby bonus as being a major factor. We knew that, and now the results are here. [quote]Germany's general population is on the decline, coinciding with this a very very large minority of islamic turks (we are talking millions) have emerged in nation as they were the only ones having children. Turks now make up i think 10% of the population there. These are turkish people living in germany, who identify themselves as turk, not german. (for proof of this look no further than the turkish national soccer team who is made up of turks born in germany who refused to play for the land of birth and instead opted to play for turkey).

Thats an absolute shocker. I hope the Germans rise up again.


Quote:

I think the howard government in true liberal fashion has decided that population growth in some communities is innevitable, and to counter this he is getting in early and trying to prop up the nations population growth as a whole, to keep the balance.

Got any stats pender, love to read them.

Ausnat wrote on Jun 11^th, 2007 at 6:53pm:

Quote: Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 11th, 2007 at 10:50am: ah but muslims have been having 5+ children each in australia for longer than the last few years. The increase in 2006 points towards the baby bonus as being a major factor. We knew that, and now the results are here. [quote]Germany's general population is on the decline, coinciding with this a very very large minority of islamic turks (we are talking millions) have emerged in nation as they were the only ones having children. Turks now make up i think 10% of the population there. These are turkish people living in germany, who identify themselves as turk, not german. (for proof of this look no further than the turkish national soccer team who is made up of turks born in germany who refused to play for the land of birth and instead opted to play for turkey). Thats an absolute shocker. I hope the Germans rise up again. [quote]I think the howard government in true liberal fashion has decided that population growth in some communities is innevitable, and to counter this he is getting in early and trying to prop up the nations population growth as a whole, to keep the balance.

Got any stats pender, love to read them.
[/quote]

sorry ausnat i misred a table the figure, the current population of turks in germany is around 3 million.

Quote:

sorry ausnat i misred a table the figure, the current population of turks in germany is around 3 million

Lets not forget the other muslims, Lebs, syrians, saudi's afghans etc....
Apparently Germany has around 400 mosques, and on Deutschewelle tv news the muslims are complaining that they dont have enough say in what goes on- Well their mosques dominate the scene and laws have changed to make them happy so why are they complaining.
Its a worry to see Europe, our common land of ancestory being invaded by turkish hordes.
All that was prevented by my ancestors 500 years ago has been in vain.

Maybe with a population of rabid Muslims and rabid environmentalists, they will eventually clash wiping all of the fundamentalists from the face of the earth.

Those pasty white vegans should start drinking cement and harden the f*uck up. No one ever won a war by p!ssing and moaning the opposition to death

;D

Quote:

Those pasty white vegans should start drinking cement and harden the f*uck up.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

ausnat as anti christian as you are you really have to thank the pope  and teh very Christian Isabella for saving europe from islam.

It was the pope led operation of lepanto which stopped the growth of islam.

and the spaniards defeated them by land.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2007 at 9:46pm:

ausnat as anti christian as you are you really have to thank the pope  and teh very Christian Isabella for saving europe from islam. It was the pope led operation of lepanto which stopped the growth of islam. and the spaniards defeated them by land.

Im not anti-christian. My ancestors fought for christ against the turks in the 1400's.
But I do believe in darwin.

good on u

But i am against fanatical christians, jehova witnesses, mormons and creationists.

at least you didnt call jehovas witnesses and mormans christians.

even fanatiacal ones.

cuz they arent.

they are cults.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 9:16pm:

at least you didnt call jehovas witnesses and mormans christians. even fanatiacal ones. cuz they arent. they are cults.

They ARE CHRISTIANS.

to be christian you must by defentition believe in the trinity, and thus that jesus is divine. there are a few other things aswell.

these "cults" do not, thus by defenition they are not christian.

anway i know your game :D you enjoy a good argument, and you are trying to rile me up.

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 9:46pm:

to be christian you must by defentition believe in the trinity, and thus that jesus is divine. there are a few other things aswell. these "cults" do not, thus by defenition they are not christian. anway i know your game :D you enjoy a good argument, and you are trying to rile me up.

No, you are just an idiot. they still believe in christ therefore are christian.

i used to be like that... when i was 15..

Classic Liberal wrote on Jun 12^th, 2007 at 9:57pm:

i used to be like that... when i was 15..

Happy 16th birthday pender!
::)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Education-plan-may-cut-birth-rate-Labor/2007/06/13/1181414377447.html

Students may delay starting a family as a result of government moves to allow universities to charge higher HECS fees for some courses, a federal Labor MP says.

The federal opposition objected to a plan to increase the fees to the maximum level for commerce, economics and accounting courses.

Labor is also opposing moves to remove the cap on full-fee paying domestic places.

The two plans are contained in legislation that passed the lower house and gives effect to a raft of higher education changes announced in the May federal budget.

Labor MP Kate Ellis said HECS fees were identified as a problem during a recent parliamentary inquiry into balancing work and family life.

"(We) heard evidence about the impact that HECS fees was having on young peoples' decisions to have families," she said.

"On the one hand we have a treasurer who is quick to stand up and tell the people of Australia they should have one for the mum and one for the dad and one for the country, but lets look at what's impacting on decisions.

---

UK families should stop at two: report

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/UK-families-should-stop-at-two-report/2007/07/11/1183833599566.html

The British government is facing calls to discourage families from having more than two children to help the environment.

The Optimum Population Trust, a UK-based think tank, made the call in a new report unveiled, saying record growth in Britain's birth rate was having an adverse impact on the environment.

The report's author, Professor John Guillebaud, said the government should introduce "stop at two children" or "have one less" policies.

---

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

http://www.vhemt.org/vhemt.gif

"May we live long and die out"

Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

There is an article on page two of today's Australian warning about the 'dark side' of the baby boom, claiming that birth rates in poorer suburbs are twice those in rich suburbs, and that one in seven children now risk risk growing up in poverty. Is this the sort of social engineering we really want? If the poor are having far more babies, doesn't that mean that throwing money at parents to get them to breed is misguided at best?

Rather than scrapping the baby bonus, Labor is going to throw even more money after it, promising $32.5million to help these children become 'school ready'. No idea what that means.

---

Population should be 50 million: Beattie

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Population-should-be-50-million-Beattie/2007/09/04/1188783226277.html

Australia should aim for a population of 50 million through "significant migration", says Queensland Premier Peter Beattie.

Addressing a business luncheon at the Brisbane Club on Tuesday, Mr Beattie said the current ageing population of 21 million was too small to meet future needs.

"In terms of the general issue of migration - I know there are pressures on, and all that stuff, in terms of the environment - I think 21 million Australians is not enough," he said.

"I am someone who supports significant migration into this country.

---

Super baby bonus for third kid: Fielding

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Super-baby-bonus-for-third-kid-Fielding/2007/09/17/1189881383148.html

Family First Senator Steve Fielding has proposed a bumper baby bonus to encourage families to have more children.

Senator Fielding, one of 16 children, said parents would receive $10,000 for their third child under his proposal.

He said Australia had a real problem because it was not producing enough new young Australians.

The government's baby bonus is a one-off payment of $4,133 for each child.

---

Uni debts don't hurt baby-making: study

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Uni-debts-dont-hurt-babymaking-study/2007/09/19/1189881546229.html

The theory that university graduates delay having children or limit the size of their families because of higher education debts is unfounded, research shows.

Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) debts have no discernible effect on Australia's fertility rate, nor on the number of children people expect to have, Fairfax newspapers report.

The Australian National University research found women's attitudes to motherhood and how highly they rated paid work, how religious people were, their ethnic background, how many siblings they had or where they lived were much more important factors affecting their decision to have children.

The study, which compared university-educated women with and without HECS debts but similar in other significant ways, said it was well-known university-educated women had fewer children than women with no post-school qualifications.

The fertility rates of both groups had been falling for many years but the introduction of HECS in 1989 did not accelerate that decline.

The research was published in the latest issue of the Journal of Population Research.

---

Teenagers bashed into having 'bonus babies'

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22577686-5013404,00.html

TEENAGE Aboriginal girls in north Queensland who use birth control are being bashed by their partners because they want the girls to get pregnant so they can grab the $4000 commonwealth baby bonus cheque.

Lara Wieland, who runs a health clinic on the Atherton Tablelands near Cairns, warned the same violent treatment of girls could also be occurring in poorer, non-indigenous centres.

---

More Chinese defying one-child policy

http://news.smh.com.au/more-chinese-defying-onechild-policy/20080107-1kl5.html

Authorities in central China have expelled 500 people from the ruling Communist Party for defying the country's one-child policy, state media says.

More than 93,000 people in Hubei province violated the policy last year, including hundreds of officials, lawmakers and political advisers, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

It said 395 offenders were dismissed from their posts but it wasn't immediately clear if they were included in the 500 who were expelled from the Communist Party. It also wasn't clear if the other offenders were penalised. Fines are another common punishment.

Telephone calls to the provincial family planning commission and provincial Communist Party office were not answered.

China has been trying to crack down on officials and the wealthy who ignore its strict family planning laws. Being expelled from the party is a very serious punishment.

Under a policy implemented in the late 1970s, most urban couples are limited to one child and rural families to two to control population growth and conserve natural resources.

China's 1.3 billion people account for 20 per cent of the world's total. The government has pledged to keep the population under 1.36 billion in 2010, and under 1.45 billion in 2020.

But rising incomes mean some newly rich - such as businessmen and entertainment stars - can afford to break the rules and pay the resulting fines.

Taxpayers may fund maternity leave: govt

http://news.smh.com.au/taxpayers-may-fund-maternity-leave-govt/20080130-1p0m.html

A business group has urged the government to investigate expanding the baby bonus scheme as an alternative to creating a national system of taxpayer-funded maternity leave.

The federal government is pushing ahead with its election pledge to hold a Productivity Commission investigation into a possible paid maternity leave scheme.

freediver wrote on Jan 30^th, 2008 at 5:53pm:

Taxpayers may fund maternity leave: govt http://news.smh.com.au/taxpayers-may-fund-maternity-leave-govt/20080130-1p0m.html A business group has urged the government to investigate expanding the baby bonus scheme as an alternative to creating a national system of taxpayer-funded maternity leave. The federal government is pushing ahead with its election pledge to hold a Productivity Commission investigation into a possible paid maternity leave scheme.

I assume the mushrooms will fund that?  Is this another Liebor shot at making the poor poorer?

http://news.smh.com.au/more-support-needed-to-make-babies/20080226-1uug.html

The baby bonus may have helped boost birth numbers but couples need more support if Australia is to halt its fertility rate slide, a new report warns.

A new federal government-funded study has confirmed the fertility rate has stabilised in the historically low range of 1.81 children per woman.

This is slightly higher than the all-time low of 1.73 recorded in 2001, probably thanks to increasing financial parenting incentives like the one-off baby bonus payment, introduced in 2004.

This is interesting FD.  So if many people are being responsible about having children mainly because of economic and moral circumstances and the $5,000 (this year) hasn't tempted them - then who has it tempted, because there are plenty of women around with babies?

I'm not sure about the 'responsible' angle from an economic perspective. How much money do you need to bring up a child? People have just set themselves unreasonable standards, that's all. Too many children today are spoilt and overweight. I doubt there are many that are too poor to contribute to society. I suspect a lot of poorer children end up with better values and being harder workers.

Quote:

Too many children today are spoilt and overweight. I doubt there are many that are too poor to contribute to society. I suspect a lot of poorer children end up with better values and being harder workers

I agree.  It was pointed out in one of the other threads (complaints by the Business Council to the Government) - that out of the unprecedented amount of revenue collected by the Howard government - most of it went on tax cuts and private subsidies, instead of infrastructure.  So now we have a population of children under 16 where  40% of them are overweight or obese and birth rates are reducing annually, yet money is still being thrown at the middle classes and upwards in various forms of welfare.

It does appear as though poorer families - and I have seen this plenty of times first hand - do have better values and work ethics.  Our great inflation rate is thanks to all those young people from lower socio economic areas who have provided the service in the multi retail outlets that our economy relies so heavily on.  

then who has it tempted, because there are plenty of women around with babies?

I suspect a lot of poorer children end up with better values and being harder workers.

It does appear as though poorer families - and I have seen this plenty of times first hand - do have better values and work ethics.

I don't think the level of unqualified bullsh!t is quite up to the standards on this site.

Please try harder you two

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 26^th, 2008 at 12:27pm:

then who has it tempted, because there are plenty of women around with babies? I suspect a lot of poorer children end up with better values and being harder workers. It does appear as though poorer families - and I have seen this plenty of times first hand - do have better values and work ethics. I don't think the level of unqualified bullsh!t is quite up to the standards on this site. Please try harder you two

Still trying to impress Aussie Nationalist... you attract some dubious attention    ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well you and he are on much the same level



This is AN- he likes you----------------------->>>> http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/retard.jpg

You suck at teh funnay...

as long as I laugh, who cares about you f..kknuckle... ;)

as long as I laugh

The mantra of the lunatic..how apt  ::)

IQ & BK - you both know how to destroy threads with all these personal and childish remarks.  How about the more intelligent of the two of you ignore the other when an inflammatory remark is made?

Every time this forum starts to pick up - the bickering starts.  This isn't acceptable anymore - remember - neither are the ugly pictures.

Hi mantra ,
How have you been ?

Unfortunatley, the extra babies are on average to the poorer, stupider people.
So we have paid money to dumb down the population.

Apparently about  $ 1/2 million is the going rate to bring up a kid nowadays.
My experience makes me say - "Surely it is more than that ?"

Hi Sprintcyclist

In many cases this is true and the lure of $5,000 to those parents who are looking for the next fix or drink is too tempting.  The baby bonus was introduced in 2004.  These figures for the increase in child abuse have been taken from 2002.  There are some later figures from 2004 onwards - somewhere - I will eventually find them.


Quote:

Foster care cases up 51pc since 2002 A new report has recorded a marked rise in the number of Australian children placed in care because of abuse. The study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) looks at children placed in care because of abuse. It found that the number of children placed in care has risen by 51 per cent since 2002 to more than 28,000. The report, Child Protection Australia 2006-07, showed that nationally, there were 18,880 children in out-of-home care in 2002, increasing to 28,441 children in 2007. The number on care and protection orders rose 43 per cent over the same period. Half of the children were placed in foster care and nearly half were living with relatives.

 

and


Quote:

Reports to NSW child welfare authorities have "exploded" in the last five years, with one in 15 children now in need of care and protection. However, the ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, expressed relief that the number of deaths was not greater in view of the "explosion'' in reports to the department. He said the number of reports meant that "almost one in 15 children were currently reported to DOCS'' and about 14 per cent of all families were the subject of reports. "They are staggering figures,'' he said. The number of reports had increased by 50 per cent since the government launched its five-year $1.2 billion DOCS reform package in 2002.

http://www.sdn.org.au/downloads/071109%20REL%20Child%20Protection%20Commission.pdf

India to pay cash for baby girls to stem abortions

http://news.smh.com.au/india-to-pay-cash-for-baby-girls-to-stem-abortions/20080304-1wvf.html

The Indian government plans to give cash incentives to the families of baby girls in an effort to limit the number of abortions of females because of a preference for sons.

Staggered payments would be made to families to "encourage them for better upbringing of girl child and to educate her", women and child development minister Renuka Chowdhury said in a statement released late Monday.

India has only 927 females for every 1,000 males -- far lower than the worldwide average of 1,050 females.

UNICEF says India continues to lose almost 7,000 girls every day through abortions, while the British medical journal The Lancet has put the loss of females at 10 million over the past two decades.

In India, sons are typically regarded as breadwinners but girls as a burden because of the matrimonial dowry demanded by a groom's family.

India has strict laws against sex-selective abortion, but there have been only a handful of prosecutions as medical practioners are reputed to have made it a profitable business.

---

Baby bonus safe, Rudd says

http://news.smh.com.au/baby-bonus-safe-rudd-says/20080314-1zen.html

The baby bonus is safe, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.

Economists have called for a review of family payments, calling the baby bonus an "unbelievably expensive" way to boost the birthrate.

Parents having a baby between now and June 30 will receive a $4,187 payment, no matter how much they earn.

From July, the payment will rise to $5,000.

---

Burden of Aging Population "Less Than Feared," Study Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0608_050608_aging.html

Higher life expectancy and falling birth rates have raised alarm bells in developed countries, where many analysts fear future generations could be financially crippled by the cost of supporting a graying population.

Yet a new study suggests the situation isn't nearly as bad as it seems. The report adds that current generations needn't make massive changes to the way they live to avoid becoming a burden on society in their old age.

This finding is based on the idea that the number of years people have lived—the current way a population's average age is estimated—is less important than the number of years people have left to live.

Here's an example of how this concept works: If the remaining life expectancy for a 30-year-old in 2005 is the same as for a 40-year-old in 2055, then the future 40-year-old can expect to stay alive for as many more years as a 30-year-old today can expect to live.

When applied to a country like Germany, this new method puts a whole new perspective on things. The average age in Germany is expected to rise by around 12 years between 2000 and 2050, suggesting a rapidly aging population. But when remaining life expectancy (the new model) is taken into account, there's little change.

The researchers said that in many ways older people will be much healthier in the future and will behave as if they were much younger. Such a scenario has far-reaching implications for society—from the planning of retirement communities to government pension provisions.

---

from crikey:

Peter Saunders, social research director at the Centre for Independent Studies, writes: Re. "Time for a baby bonus rebirthing" (Friday, item 6). Attacking the baby bonus without asking what family policy should be aiming to achieve is meaningless. Criticising the baby bonus without analysing any of the other payments and services available to families is just simplistic. The baby bonus is one element in a maze of family subsidies, and we need a thorough review of the whole lot - Family Tax Benefit, part A, Family Tax Benefit, part B, Child Care Benefit, Child Care Rebate, Baby Bonus, parental leave, the whole shebang. Never mind the trees, let’s look at the wood. Should families with children have more disposable income than those without? If ‘yes’, the next question is whether it’s better to give them hand-outs or reduce their tax. Then we should ask whether financial help should be tied to particular kinds of behaviour (mum must go out to work to get child care subsidies; mum must stay home to get FTB part B), or whether families should be left to decide for themselves how to spend their money. When we work through these questions, we might conclude that one of the least-bad ways of helping families is to offer untied, non-means-tested payments (or tax credits) which they can spend as they see fit. That’s the baby bonus. Let’s have a serious review of family policy, rather than sounding off in a populist fashion about seemingly easy targets.

---

Racism or social engineering? White about white women in remote communities?

Keep baby bonus from indigenous mums, says Nelson

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23395950-29277,00.html

THE baby bonus should not be given to mothers in remote Aboriginal communities but paid instead into an education trust fund, Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says.

The bonus of several thousand dollars could have a devastating effect on an impoverished Aboriginal community, Dr Nelson said.

This just keeps getting more and more absurd. First we have Nelson sprouting racist policy. Now the government is going to have first and second class parents. How are they going to decide? They'll spend $1000 on bureacracy for every $5000 handout.

Baby bonus vouchers, not cash, for some

http://news.smh.com.au/baby-bonus-vouchers-not-cash-for-some/20080319-20bd.html

The federal government says irresponsible parents will no longer receive the baby bonus as a lump sum payment.

Instead they will be given vouchers to buy essential items so the money is used to make their children's lives better.

Families Minister Jenny Macklin says the government intends keeping a closer eye on how the bonus is spent and those who do not spend it appropriately will have the money quarantined.

It is ludicrous.  Who's going to decide whether a mother is unfit or not?  You could have a group of women who decide to gang up on another one who they don't particularly like and complain to the authorities.

DOCS is snowed under and can't attend to even half of the complaints they receive, but now there will be even more.

It would be interesting to see if any women from a higher socio-economic environment are penalised - hardly likely - they already have the cash to feed their habits.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 6:14pm:

This just keeps getting more and more absurd. First we have Nelson sprouting racist policy. Now the government is going to have first and second class parents. How are they going to decide? They'll spend $1000 on bureacracy for every $5000 handout. Baby bonus vouchers, not cash, for some http://news.smh.com.au/baby-bonus-vouchers-not-cash-for-some/20080319-20bd.html The federal government says irresponsible parents will no longer receive the baby bonus as a lump sum payment. Instead they will be given vouchers to buy essential items so the money is used to make their children's lives better. Families Minister Jenny Macklin says the government intends keeping a closer eye on how the bonus is spent and those who do not spend it appropriately will have the money quarantined.

we are still in the teething stage of this policy. i would think that looking at how other nationms hav successfully implemented this policy would be a good diea for our governments instead of trial and error though.

China to Reconsider One-Child Limit

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/asia/29china.html

BEIJING — China is studying how to move away from the country’s one-child-per-couple restriction, but any changes would come gradually and would not mean an elimination of family planning policies, a senior official said Thursday

The official, Zhao Baige, vice minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission, told reporters at a news conference that government officials recognize that China must alter its current population-control policies.

“We want incrementally to have this change,” Ms. Zhao said, according to Reuters. “I cannot answer at what time or how, but this has become a big issue among decision makers.”

---

What happens if China’s “one child” is left behind?

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/32162

Based on a senior official’s remarks, it looks like China may soon relax its one-child policy. That has raised fears among some demographers that the country will experience a massive baby boom once the reproductive shackles come off, and hence “could overturn predictions of an imminent end to global population growth,”� in the words of New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin.

Almost one in five human beings is Chinese (1.3 billion out of a global total of 6.7 billion), so the country matters immensely to human numbers. But there’s an assumption embedded in this discussion that deserves to be challenged.

How do we know it’s the one-child policy that actually explains China’s current low fertility? Could factors outside of the heavy-handed government framework of fines and sanctions continue to keep Chinese families small even if that framework becomes less heavy-handed?

After all, families are small (and getting smaller) in lots of countries where governments don’t dictate their size. And surveys indicate that three out of five Chinese under the age of 30 want no more than two children, with very few wanting more than three.

The government estimates (and not all demographers trust this) that Chinese women now have an average of 1.8 children each over their lifetimes. That alone tells us the one-child policy is ineffective at driving births down to a national rate anywhere close to one child per woman.

Paradoxically, women in Taiwan and in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macao actually have about one child on average, and the one-child policy has never been a factor for these populations. True, they’re not fully comparable to China’s population as a whole, but their hyper-low fertility does speak to the feasibility of achieving lower fertility based not on coercive policies but on the reproductive choices of couples and individuals and good access to family planning services.

Chinese fertility rates began falling long before the one-child policy went into effect in 1979. Women had an average of more than six children in the early 1950s, and that average had fallen by more than half by the late 1970s. It has continued to fall since the introduction of the one-child policy, but less rapidly than in those earlier decades and no more rapidly than fertility has fallen elsewhere in the world.

No one would argue that China’s one-child policy has no impact at all on the country’s population growth. But to attribute a demographic “savings”� of 300 million “never-born”� people to that policy, as some Chinese officials have done, is to ignore the many other reasons women have fewer children than their mothers or older sisters did. These reasons—which I explore in a book available next month, More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want—include women’s aspirations to educate themselves and find satisfying employment, not to mention decent access to effective contraception.

China’s hothouse economic growth and improving social welfare programs are also likely to continue to encourage smaller families. Just possibly, so does the keen awareness among its citizens that the country’s environmental challenges are closely related to its giant and still-growing population.

Chinese women and couples undoubtedly want the same high-quality health care and contraceptive options that women do elsewhere in the world. Whether an end to global population growth is imminent has much more to do with policies in all countries that help people reach those aspirations than with policies in any one country, no matter how populous, that dictate how many children a woman can have.

Robert Engelman is Vice President for Programs at the Worldwatch Institute and author of the forthcoming book More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want, published by Island Press.

---

There are plenty of other means tested handouts for new parents that overcome this problem:

Means-testing baby bonus 'ridiculous'

http://news.smh.com.au/meanstesting-baby-bonus-ridiculous/20080506-2b97.html

Deputy federal opposition leader Julia Bishop says means-testing the baby bonus would be "ridiculous" and could create an administrative nightmare.

The Rudd government has hinted next week's budget may contain measures limiting high-income earners from accessing welfare payments, including the baby bonus which rises to $5,000 from July 1.

"Would you means-test it on a woman's pre-baby income, or would you means-test it on her post-baby income, or would you income-test her partner? What about single mothers?

http://news.smh.com.au/calls-for-meanstested-baby-bonus/20080507-2brk.html

Tuesday's federal budget should rein in so-called middle class welfare to stop the "churn" of taxpayers' money coming straight back to them, a business leader says.

Greig Gailey, president of the Business Council of Australia, says it is not appropriate to hand out benefits, such as the baby bonus, regardless of income.

The federal opposition has defended the non-means tested payment, but Mr Gailey says it is time to spend taxes more wisely.

"If you look at the position of what one might describe as the middle-ranking taxpayers, something like about 30 per cent of the tax they pay actually comes back to them," Mr Gailey told ABC Radio.

"That sort of churn I think is highly questionable in terms of its efficiency and I think providing un-means tested benefits like the baby bonus is a good example, (it) really isn't appropriate in our view.

Another leading business group - the Australian Industry Group - is also backing calls to means test the baby bonus.

Family benefits should be integrated into one program, which should include paid maternity leave for working women.

Ms Ridout backed the government's tough talk on the need to slash budget spending to contain inflation.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson has denied Australia is facing an inflation crisis, saying it was nothing more than a story "concocted" by the Rudd government.

But Ms Ridout said inflation was a problem and federal governments had been spending too much.

Government expenditure had grown at an average of 6.5 per cent over the last five years.

"That's too high in an economy that's already at full stretch," she said.

"I think this budget has to have a focus on inflation, inflation's around four per cent."

I think I posted a newspaper article somewhere about an anticipated increase in the number of children with special needs. I think Rudd was promising to allocate more funding before the election. Now I can't seem to find it. Does anyone remember anything about this?

I believe that there should be some kind of license to have children.
Current level of education and advancement begs for some kind of special preparation for partnership.

Sounds bit harsh, but quite often we have 3rd generation of permanently unemployed person with a group of children fathered by different fathers.
Quite often we have drug addicts with children, children who rarely break out of the way they were raised up.

We have a number of people who should not parasite the society and quite simply should not be allowed to breed.

Happy wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 12:00pm:

I believe that there should be some kind of license to have children. Current level of education and advancement begs for some kind of special preparation for partnership. Sounds bit harsh, but quite often we have 3rd generation of permanently unemployed person with a group of children fathered by different fathers. Quite often we have drug addicts with children, children who rarely break out of the way they were raised up. We have a number of people who should not parasite the society and quite simply should not be allowed to breed.

No need to license them, let em have as many as they want.

Just make them all work.

Quote: Calanen

"No need to license them, let em have as many as they want.

Just make them all work"

This would be great move.

(I would even extend that to prison inmates
Why should we pay for their mistakes, but getting off topic here)

Because justice is expensive. It is not the sort of thing you want to skimp on.

Happy wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 12:00pm:

I believe that there should be some kind of license to have children. Current level of education and advancement begs for some kind of special preparation for partnership. Sounds bit harsh, but quite often we have 3rd generation of permanently unemployed person with a group of children fathered by different fathers. Quite often we have drug addicts with children, children who rarely break out of the way they were raised up. We have a number of people who should not parasite the society and quite simply should not be allowed to breed.

Lol. Your breeding program would create the kind of dumbasses who think growth of economy is better than growth of production and quality of life.

No thanks. We have enough sheeple.