Please delete wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 8:38am:




oooooooh, that's just nasty! 

For low income families the Baby bonus can be the difference between babies being well provided for and going without essentials, I agree that it should not go to those who do not need it.

I find it a bit confusing that so many want to not assist first home buyers but are happy to provide building assistance to people who chose to build in a flood zone and want to do it again.

Do not make the error of assuming I would not assist them but maybe not at the expense of lower income families first home assistance, I would means test the payment as I am against welfare for those who do not require it.

<<whatsforme,
I didn't agree with anyone.

Is that because your lover nails isn't here?

You really are an obnoxious troll.

I agree boobie. Without you, nails, vegetable and a few others I maybe nice but hey there is plenty of fodder here to work with.

I find it hard to believe that you haven't been banned.

Banning is for mummys girls like you. Like I said...get some balls.

Freediver must be a really forgiving person.

Boobie freediver has balls and unlike you has a sense of humour

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 8:54am:



It depends how you use it, whether it was worthwhile.

I can honestly say hand on heart that the $5k we got for our first child in Australia was spent on baby related items.
Air con for the baby room, complete fit out of the nursery, cot, baby strollers, toys, clothes etc.

It was spent correctly. That's the point of it.

If people use it right, I have no problem with it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 9:35am:


You seem to be missing the point. It paid for an expensive unnatural environment for your baby that is harmful to it's health and the environment. People can spend an enourmous amount of money on new stuff for a baby that they grow out of in a few months time. Just because you spent it on the baby does not mean the handout was justified. This is someone else's money you are spending.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 9:49am:



You're going to have to run that by me again?
We bought baby items for our little girl, who was born in the middle of summer.

What exactly of those items are harming the baby's health??????

Because by the way she is now 2 and is very healthy.

freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 9:56am:


The Government takes $100,000 off us over a year.
If the baby bonus didn't exist - do you think our tax rates would go down?

No of course not. So we deserve the $5k back at least given we paid for it many times over.

As regards air con. If you think my little newborn was going to sleep in a room without aircon through a Melbourne summer then you can whistle dixie.
We bought it for her room and it was lovely and cool at 19C each night and through the afternoons. Even when it was 40C outside.

Quote:


Yes. For starters, they wouldn't have to introduce this new tax. This is a pretty feeble minded excuse for government largesse.

Quote:


I'm sure your daughter will thank you when she finds herself unable to go outside unless it is 19 degrees. You can always buy her an Xbox instead with what little is left of your wages after the government has taken them away and given them back.