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


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

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

So do you support it Verge?

If so, why?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


How does a baby bonus address any of those issues?

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

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

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

Quote:



What possible way could this be done? 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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