Australian Politics Forum - The Non Baby Bonus

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #45 - May 6^th, 2012 at 10:18pm

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

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

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

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.

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

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #46 - May 7^th, 2012 at 7:08am

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26589
Australia

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #47 - May 7^th, 2012 at 8:57am

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Verge Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6329 Gender:	Re: The Non Baby Bonus Reply #48 - May 7^th, 2012 at 10:40am 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
Back to top	And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13 IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #49 - May 7^th, 2012 at 11:13am

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.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26589
Australia

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #50 - May 7^th, 2012 at 11:18am

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

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.

Thats because it was a vote buying scheme.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #51 - May 7^th, 2012 at 11:20am

____ 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.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #52 - May 7^th, 2012 at 11:25am

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

____ 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.

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

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #53 - May 7^th, 2012 at 11:25am

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

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.

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.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #54 - May 7^th, 2012 at 11:28am

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

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)

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/

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26589
Australia

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #55 - May 7^th, 2012 at 11:29am

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

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

____ 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.

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

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #56 - May 7^th, 2012 at 11:29am

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

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

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)

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.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

Frances Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3577 In a Castle in the Hills Gender:	Re: The Non Baby Bonus Reply #57 - May 7^th, 2012 at 1:58pm Oops - double post....
Back to top	Sure God created man before woman. But then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece. IP Logged

Frances

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3577
In a Castle in the Hills
Gender: female

Re: The Non Baby Bonus
Reply #58 - May 7^th, 2012 at 1:59pm

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.

Back to top

Sure God created man before woman. But then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece.

IP Logged