Auggie wrote on Feb 26
th, 2017 at 9:19pm:
Of course, situations change. That's why people need to be frugal and save money.
Regarding having children, no one should be forced NOT to have children. My point is that if you earn below a certain level of income that will put financial pressure on you, then I don't think that the taxpayer should pay to look after someone else's kid through subsidies for child care, etc. It's a parent's responsibility to look after their children, not mine or yours.
But in a society which is alleged to be functioning for the good of all through whatever means it chooses - whether that be anything in the range from pure capitalism to pure communism - why would a society wish to deliberately starve children when their support network of parents is unable to find work within that society? Nobody would be forced not to have children - just starved if they did. Jesus God, man - do you ever look into a mirror? We'll give you one just before you go to the firing squad so you can shave and look neat.
Do you truly have no understanding of the social security network (not safety net) that says that every individual is worthy of being fed and housed?
You may well have an argument over subsidies given to those above a certain level of income - as the government currently does - and you may well argue that the current standard is too high, and thus money is being handed unnecessarily to parents who can afford to pay for childcare etc for their own.
In that case you need to go back to John Howard and Peter Costello - whom some cite as our greatest PM and greatest treasurer for wasting the windfall from mining by providing child care etc to the middle classes who had no need for it, but who voted for them.
In a perfect world, id you can afford to send your kid to a private school - you pay for it. If you can afford to pay for a nanny - you pay for it.
There's a hell of a lot of money paid out so kids can go to private schools and have nannies and so forth, while their parents are in a very good income bracket, often including many who write off most expenses and costs of living as business expenses.
What you are pursuing, in reality, is a return to the good old days of the robber barons and the company stores.... and there is no way anyone with any intelligence at all would fall for a five year term for the fools we currently have in Parliament, or for no Senate to watch over their absurd antics and ideological games.
That you again, Ahovking? Never learn........