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.

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.

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:


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:


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:

Freediver said Quote:


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

Freediver states Quote:


Please explain?

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?

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 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.

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.