Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Who Actually Pays For Children?

There is a new political party on the block. This bright, shining, group of intellects, the Australian Childfree Party have some amazing ideas.

* Introducing a child tax as opposed to child allowance (the childfree should not have to pay for other people’s hobbies, i.e. having a child). For every newborn, an increasing levy is to be paid; and
* Using a similar taxation system to toll roads for institutions that are specifically designed for the childed, such as primary schools and playgrounds. Only those who use it have to pay for it.
.
.
* Accommodating for childfree and childed seating, carriages, flights, etcetera;
* Charging excise on tickets/fares for the childed;
* Subsidizing tickets/fares for the childfree; and
* Introducing the right to exclude children.



These are just a few. Actually, it all appears to be one idea - tax the breeders further to subsidize the non-breeders.

What a bright idea!

Just another lefty ode to human-hatred, if you ask me.

Ostensibly, their mission is:
* To spread the message:
o that not all women (and men) want to have children,
o that having children is not self-evident,
o that not having children is not strange, and
o that having or not having children is a choice

* To bring the childfree together (nationally and internationally)

* To inform society about childfreedom and to make it debatable

Sounds warm and fuzzy and inclusive, right?

Let's look a bit closer. WCA offer virtual internships. So if your school or university allows it, WCA will give you a project, or you can make up one of your own. Something like, say, webdesign for them, graphic design for them, copywriting, that sort of thing. Sounds more like donating your time and talents to them rather than WCA actually paying someone to do these things for them.

Of course, there will always be someone who buys into this idea, hence, Christine was very happy to share the love:
"It has been very exciting to work with such an organization! I've always been interested in social change, changes that not only help the world but also improve the quality of living for all creatures on this earth. I think that the WCA is a major player in that change.

Knowing this, I took this job very seriously. My job, as I saw it, was to make this idea of "Childfree living" appealing to common folk, those who are not usually quick to catch onto change in lifestyles and are in fact, stuck in their traditional mindsets. I can only hope that my contribution will further their goals and bring focus to their organization.

Working with Marije has been a real pleasure, she always gave me great feedback in a very sensitive-to-my-artistic-feelings way!:) She would respond to my emails, line for line with a comment or happy face which is very effective, it's detailed and helpful. The response was always swift, which, given the physical distance of our locations is a must. Our communication went really smoothly, despite my internet connection woes!

I would recomend interning for the WCA to anyone, it's a wonderful, real life experience AND people from a billion countries will get to see your work, which is highly appealing to every artist! I would only recomend that the next intern have a very reliable internet connection, and THEN, it would go even smoother!"


So here is the real mission. Anti-human propaganda. Help people to realise that their role is not to propagate the species, but to help us die out.

Okay, whatever floats your boat.

But who will be paying taxes while all these childfree people are wending their merry, unemcumbered way through senior life? Who will be contributing towards the health system, the legal system, the public service, the council rates, subisidised medicine and general welfare?

Ah, the progeny of people like myself.

The breeders.

Well, I guess that's one way to beat sharia. Breed yourself out of existence.



I was very tempted to turn this into a rant, but have restrained myself in the interest of keeping discussion moderate. Personally, I've no problem with people being childfree. It's all a matter of choice.

Bleating about what your decisions are costing you is a different matter. Political parties lobbying for the present rather than the future of our society is selfish in the extreme.

Taxing people with children because they seem to be getting more breaks is shortsighted and does not take into account what a child costs. It is not only monetary, it is more than that. One life stops, another begins. Taxation is irrelevant to that, and someone who doesn't have children cannot understand that.

48 Comments:

At 12:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I took a decision many years ago not to have children. I used to joke that it cost the price of a Ferarri to bring up a child from birth to 18. I used to say "wait til you see my Ferarri.."

But I dont have a Ferarri, and now i am too old for children.

What happened? I PAID FOR EVERYONE ELSE'S CHILDREN :(

 
At 9:35 AM, Blogger Two Passports said...

I've read stuff about this group before. Who do they think will support them in old age (or maybe I've been living in UK too long!)?

I am having a baby in May and whilst I respect their choices to be childfree, they should shut up and go back to drinking their espressos and lattes on Lygon Street.

By the way, I love your blog.

 
At 10:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, no one will support me on old age - which is why a huge amount of my salary is forcibly taken from me and placed into superannuation funds 

Whilst I respect anyone’s decision to have children, and I understand that parenthood gives great pleasure, I don’t understand why I should be the one who pays for it.

My personal tax is a massive 48.5%. On top of that I pay 10% GST, superannuation, medicare (included an extra $1000 levy) state taxes etc. I work about 2 hours a day for my actual disposable income, and about 10 hours a day for the governments disposable income.

I have this theory – If I pay for something it belongs to me (it’s a basic economic theory that underpins a capitalist society). So I own half a dozen kids somewhere……

Remember - the lower someone’s intelligence, the more likely they are to breed!!!

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

espressos and lattes on Lygon Street?

sorry, I am too busy in the fucking office to grab a coffee. i started at 7:20 and i doubt I will get home until about 8pm.

Whilst you lot are holding mothers meetings I am working to pay the taxes that feed you!!!!

There sohuld be something in tap water to sterilise the population, with the antidote only avaiable on deposit of $1 million.....

Earn your money THEN have your kids! dont expect me to pay for your bit of fun....

 
At 11:10 AM, Blogger Nilk said...

I worked and supported myself for years, also. Paid lots of taxes, and super and the rest. I work part time now, so I'm not exactly a bludger.

I'm also not exactly a mindless breeder.

I know you're generalising, Anon (Ross?), but it is comments like that that weaken your points.

Sure, you're paying for a part my child. How about I send her your way for the holidays?

And who will be looking after you in your old age? Who will be the gerontologists, the nurses and assistants in the child free estate you live in? Who will be cooking your meals so that you don't have to?

Who will ensure that the roads are in good condition, the electricity and the phone work, there is food available for you to purchase with your hard-won cash.

Who will produce the entertainment you desire - whether aural or visual....

Other people's children will maintain your car, your teeth, your eyesight and if you need surgery on those pesky leg ulcers you may develop, well, it might be my daughter operating on you.

No doubt you were able to take advantage of higher education when it was more free than now, as I could have. I was too busy working 20 years ago, so I didn't go. Magilla won't be getting a free education, because so many in positions of 'authority' don't necessarily educate any more, and it's no longer free.

If I could afford to stay at home and school her there, I would. As it is, she'll be going to the local catholic school. And that will be subsidised by what little spare money I have.

I also don't go to mother's meetings. Your stereotyping isn't working too well at the moment.

The highest taxed segments are the white men - single and married, with or without children. We all know that, and it's a bloody shame.

As for the bleating that goes on by the childfree for equal time and access to breaks, well, I won't be getting paid this week because I'm home with a sick child. I gave up taking my child into the city because where we usually wandered, there were no facilities, and I got sick and tired of changing her in back alleys in the pram or in the boot of the car.

She might have no compunctions about getting her kit off, but sometimes it would be nice to be able to sit down with friends whose lifestyles mean they no longer know what to say to me without worrying about Magilla having an accident.

Yes, children do give great pleasure.

But... there are always the complaints from those who don't have children about how you raise your child.

There are the policies put in place about how your child should be raised - educated, disciplined, fed and entertained - by people who may not agree with your ideas or even have children of their own.

I'm not interested in the whining of people who find balancing a cheque book a stretch, or who think that taking a pup to obedience school is a major commitment.

I'm raising a member of the group who will cater to your shallow, selfish old age.

I don't drink espressos, I don't drink lattes. I enjoy my child, and everyone who comes into contact with her does also.

I work long hours and rarely get time for myself. Sometimes I whinge about it, but I did that before child, too, so it's irrelevant in the long run.

But since you are so defiantly against people having children unless they can raise them in a way you deem fit and capable, you can feel free to fuck off any time now.

/rant.

 
At 11:47 AM, Blogger C.L. said...

These are the children who'll be financing the country's sustenance when anonymous is 85. And parents pay all the taxes that anonymous does.

Doctrinaire non breeders are, by definition, bludgers on society and many of them are emotional cowards. And according to the Roe Effect, lefty losers are breeding themselves out of existence.

That's a good thing!

 
At 11:56 AM, Blogger MK said...

Australian Childfree Party!!

This has to be the height of a society that is so obsessed with itself and utterly incapable of making any sacrifices.

Where do these idiots come from, weren't they ever children. Perhaps they should set an example by aborting (find a cliff and try to fly) themselves out of existence.

If not for man's instinct to procreate these fools wouldn't even be around to form this waste of a political party.

 
At 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really don’t care what you say. Right now I am paying for your children, and I don’t have any choice in the matter. End of story……

What the hell give you the right to access the food that I reap for your offspring?

It goes completely against Darwin. If you cannot provide for children from within you own means – DON’T HAVE THEM!

a sacrifice is - by nature a voluntary issue. Taxation IS NOT!!!

(lets MAKE taxation voluntary over maybe 25% and see who pays!)

Having children is by its very nature a selfish action. Please don’t insult my intelligence by trying to claim that anyone says ‘lets not bother with a condom tonight honey, I am a bit worried about population growth in 2025”.

 
At 12:30 PM, Blogger Nilk said...

How exactly is having children a selfish act?

 
At 12:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And if I run through some of the comments:

1) “And parents pay all the taxes that anonymous does”.

Yes of course they do. Then the parents get a large part of it back – either in tax relief or as financial support. I DON’T!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) non breeders are, by definition, bludgers on society and many of them are emotional cowards.

WTF. Ok – please explain why non breeders are are bludgers? (this is going to be good……..)

As for emotional cowards – do you SERIOUSLY think there is much thought given to childbirth these days? Idiot!!!

3) lefty losers are breeding themselves out of existence.

LMAO – if you think I am left wing you have no idea of socialist policies. I am so right wing I think Hitler was a wimp….

4) society that is so obsessed with itself and utterly incapable of making any sacrifices.

As I pointed out, a sacrifice is voluntary. Taxation isn’t. Remove the compulsion on taxation and see who pays fro your offspring! Idiot!

5) No doubt you were able to take advantage of higher education when it was more free than now, as I could have. I was too busy working 20 years ago.

One Degree = free. One part time whilst I was paying taxes (I was working 20 years ago too). Two paid for in hard cash. One paid for by the army in exchange for service.

Unemployment benefit claimed in my life = $0. Taxation paid = massive amount.

Children = 0

Level of being pissed off at everyone benefiting from my efforts to improve my self and build a good career = 10/10.

 
At 12:51 PM, Blogger Caz said...

Nilk - anon is right; having children can be viewed as equally selfish as not having them. It's six of one and half a dozen in the selfish stakes, so it's a bit of a non-argument. Having children, at base, is the drive to leave your own DNA behind, simple as that. Procreation is driven by ensuring one's own survival, long after one has gone back to dust. Most people don't think of it that way, because most people aren't conscious of that thought, particularly women. I know far more men who happily own up to being driven by the immortality & the DNA bug. Women like to think they are driven by something "other" than such a base instinctive drive.

As for today's generations supporting us in our old age; sorry to disappoint everyone, but that ship has already come and gone. It has long been the case that in Oz we aren't breeding enough for future taxes to support much of anything. That's a fact. Immigration numbers will have to fill not only the tax void, but also the massive economic void.

 
At 1:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

but Caz - when I studied engineering we were assured that automation would replace people by 1980…. : )

But the unions didn’t like that at all. “machines replacing men” they squealed.

So automated long wall mining was held back in the UK. Arthur Scargil was happy to see men toil in disgusting conditions because they were union members, whereas long will mining plant were machines.

In Sydney we still have guards on the trains. Can ANYONE tell me what they do? Other than fill a position created by a union just to keep its numbers up?

This argument that we need high numbers of people is just a myth. A modern mining operation employs very few people. Car factories are automated.

The truth is, a large percentage of the population sits on its ass watching daytime TV whilst breeding even more daytime TV watchers!!!!

Population growth = myth!
Population re-skilling and motivating = required!

 
At 1:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a reproductive instinct inside all animals. It is the drive to reproduce.

Under normal Darwinian conditions, animals only reproduce whne conditions indicate that they can provide for the offspring. Thus many animals hav a breeding season – usually in spring, when the summer will bring with it warmer weather and bountiful food to sustain the offspring.

Sadly the last vestiges of this can be seen in third world countries. When women are so weak that they cannot provide for a child, they cease to ovulate. I have seen this, and it is heartbreaking – not that they cannot reproduce, but that we exist in a world where some of the members get so little food to eat that they shut down to this extent.

But in the West we actually encourage reproduction. The parents may be unemployed. They may be quite incapable of rearing a child. But hell, lets dig into a workers pockets, take some money and call it taxation.

Having a child is pandering to the reproductive instinct. Some girls are so addicted to it that they remain in a continual cycle, throwing out another child every 12 months. It is selfish beyond belief.

If I had he option of paying tax to Australian parents in the form of tax relief, child care, assistance etc. or of giving it to a third world woman who is so malnourished that her reproductive cycle has shut down at the age of 20, do you really think I would have to stop and think!

 
At 4:05 PM, Blogger C.L. said...

Moronic observation of the year: "Having a child is pandering to the reproductive instinct."

anonymous, I think it's best that you don't have children.

If you knew anything about the nexus between reproduction and the kind of work-place efficiencies you're raving on about, you'd know that hitherto powerful Japan, for example, is now officially worried about its poor fecundity. Eventually, this will have a deleterious effect on its economic dynamism. Fewer children, fewer robust workers, fewer new ideas, less innovation, more stagnation, more single old losers sitting around being cared for by others.

Most parents are workers - you persist with this bizarre dichotomy that differentiates the two demographics - and they do all the work (more, actually) and pay the same taxes as you.

If they get breaks, it's because they're the ones rearing the next generation of teachers, businessmen, doctors, labourers etc.

The ideologically childless, meanwhile - bludging on society - get away with a relatively free ride in life.

Incidentally, you can't have spent too much time in the company of Third World women. If you did, you'd know that they would regard your generational narrow-mindedness as pathetic, inexplicable and unmanly. In their societies, moreover, the village itself plays a role in the raising of children. They would have no cognitive difficulty appreciating the value of incentives and encouragement for would-be parents.

 
At 5:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what garbage. I have spent a lot of time in Japan, and i am married to a Japanese girl.

CL you are constantly spouting rubbsih and NEVER back a word of it up. Mate, if you dont know what you are talking about just shut up, cos you are make yourself look stupid!

Do Japanese get tax breaks for having children? NO THEY DONT! They have STRICT means testing - basically the child has to be starving before the government hands out any money.

http://www.ipss.go.jp/s-info/e/Jasos/Public.html

Mate - shut up or talk sense!

 
At 5:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moronic observation of the year: "Having a child is pandering to the reproductive instinct."

Back it up sunshine, or go and play with your kids (the ones I pay for)

 
At 5:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CL wrote

"Moronic observation of the year: "Having a child is pandering to the reproductive instinct.":


Mate, you are a big mouthed, small minded, uneducated idiot!!!!

READ THIS:

“It is probable that these two instincts in conjunction, the reproductive and the parental instincts, directly impel human beings to a greater sum of activity, effort, and toil, than all the other motives of human action taken together”.

Citation: William McDougall. "The Reproductive and the Parental Instincts." Chapter10 in An Introduction to Social Psychology (Revised Edition). Boston: John W. Luce & Co. (1926): 271-284.

You idiot! Why dont you stop having children and go back to school!

 
At 5:28 PM, Blogger Caz said...

c.l - I am loath to quibble, but quibble I must. Fact: single people are the most highly taxed demographic, bar none, and by a country mile.

Disclosure: I am a Mother, and have worked all my life.

I have always been aware that single people are singularly disadvantaged in the tax system. I would have to be pretty moronic NOT to realise that single people subsidise families.

In addition to the pure cash flow from singles to families, via the government as 'redistributor' in that process, singles and childless people subsidise families in the work place too, and as with taxes and the provision of community infrastructure, the subsidy is extremely high.

Paid maternity leave? I have worked in many companies and watched many women go through multiple pregnancies, with three mths paid each time, and have always been tempted to ask for a non-breeding bonus, ie, I WON'T be needing 6 or 9 mths of paid leave to have a set of children; I won't be working 9.30 to 4.00 pm; I won't be taking time off to attend children's events; or to care for a sick child; etc, so "hey how about a bonus just for turning up everyday, and working 9 to 10 hrs?" Yes, that sounds mean of me, particularly as I am a Mother. But, I have spent the past 15 yrs putting in long and unpaid hours to fill the void left by newer Mums and newer Dads who get paid the same, but who take extreme advantage of their "parenthood" status - you'd think they were the only people to have ever had to juggle a family & a full time job - well, crap, I was doing exactly the same, but as a SINGLE parent.

Who do you think gets to pick up the slack in the workplace when all those parents take their maternity / parternity leave, and work very set hours?

Responsible parents? Good, so they should be! Irresponsible employees? Yes, and I know my resentment has run very high at times.

PS - I have to admit that I have taken time off during the last two years, to care for my adult daugher, but that was on time in lieu, or using rec leave. Not "free" days off, just because I'm someone's parent.

 
At 5:39 PM, Blogger C.L. said...

Well, I have a PhD, anonymous. YOUR USE OF CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS LEADS ME TO THINK YOU'RE RATHER BENEATH ME ON THE EDUCATIONAL HIERARCHY!!!!!

And I'm not your mate.

And I made no comment on Japanese incentives for marrieds. I commented on the concern in Japan about what happens when lunatic ideas like yours start affecting demographic trends.

To wit:

Japan sounds alarm on birth rate.
Worry on the lowering of the already low birth-rate in Japan.

TRY KEEPING UP WITH THE NEWS EINSTEIN!!!!!

 
At 6:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Listen halfwit……..

Japan is no more and no less worried about birthrate than ANY developed nation. The acid test – does Japan subsidise child rearing?

NO!!!!!!!!

In fact Japan has many complex reasons for its low birthrate – many actually connected with Japanese men, and nothing to do with funding reproduction.

It is also important to note that unmarried mothers are virtually unknown in Japan, whereas in Australia single mothers are endemic.

You have a PhD. LMAO – did you buy it off the internet?

I doubt you finished high school……

 
At 6:47 PM, Blogger C.L. said...

Try keeping up with the news my uneducated friend.

Oh, and stop bludging on the hard-working families of Australia - get back to work EXCLAMATION MAN!!!!!

 
At 7:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don’t seem capable about responding to my reproductive instinct post. it the egg covering your mouth?

The invention of television gave the world an incredible opportunity, that was squandered. Your posts are living proof that the internet is another squandered chance. Instead of serious research, or access to facts at our fingertips, we have bigoted idiots like you clogging it up with your blog and with unsubstantiated bilge.

Why don’t you show fathering children and posting crap, and start learning something.

Just out of interest I have just been offered a substantial contract in a different part of the world. Good money, 1 month on and one month off. There are some security risks, and I will be away from my wife for a month at a time.

So why would I even consider the position? Because it is a zero tax position! I am SICK of paying 48.5% tax, and seeing lazy arse bums living off my back.

So its going to be “Sayonara” CL, “Jaa, mata ashita aimashou”. You will just have to pick up the slack by higher taxes of YOUR fucking earnings!!!

 
At 8:59 PM, Blogger C.L. said...

Our educated friend, anonymous, presents his "serious research":

There sohuld (sic) be something in tap water to sterilise the population, with the antidote only avaiable (sic) on deposit of $1 million...

And with so much time on his hands here at Nilk's blog every day, I have to suspect that anonymous could be a BLUDGER!!!!

On the plus side, Australia's average IQ will rise when he jets out. Sayonara Mr Bond.

 
At 9:24 PM, Blogger Caz said...

Anon - like everyone else, you really do need to be a little more careful about the "endemic" single mother crap.

Firstly, the overwhelming majority of women who are "single" mothers in this country, on or off welfare payments, are divorced women.

Let me spell this out in simple terms: most single mothers did not have children on their own, they were married, and nthey ever had any intention of being without a partner, nor for their children to be without a full time father in their life. These statements would also be true for almost every mother who has had a child on their own - its a circumstance, not an intention. Most single mothers did NOT end up that way because they were 17 yrs old and thought that the sheer luxury of trying to keep body & soul together, as well as raising a child on a couple of hundred dollars a week would be a fun lark.

In additon, and this point is also an important one: while the numbers of single mothers / fathers on welfare seem to never decrease, the CHURN is very high. It's not the same people, for decades on end. Quite some years ago the average for a sole parent on welfare was about 2 years; I have zero knowledge of the figures now. The high churn is due to sole parents going back into the workforce, and / or re-partnering.

 
At 9:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please read my earlier post! I did NOT mention single mothers being unemployed!!!!

I wrote about tax relief, child care and family assistance…..

I agree that parents churn in and out of welfare. This is not my issue. Half of Australia is on welfare!

My issues relate to tax relief, subsidized child care and family assistance. Parents do NOT churn in and out of these financial packages. They go on until the child reaches 16. Have enough kids and you can extend it until you get a pension.

 
At 10:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cl, put up or shut up you insignificant little wimp.

either comment upon my post on parental instincts or shut up.

like a little schoolgirl you hide behind your screen shouting "Ya bo sucks" instead of backing up your position with a reasoned argument backed up with facts.

FYI - I work an average 60 hours a week, and I strongly suspect that I pay considerably more than you do in taxation.

 
At 10:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To prevent misunderstandings, my single mother comment related to the low childbirth numbers in Japan. Abortion is a common method of contraception in Japan. Many girls have had 4 or 5 terminations.

Where an Australian single woman would keep her pregnancy, a Japanese woman would have a termination. (The birth control pill is illegal in Japan, and condoms are rare).

This is because of social pressure against single parents in Japan.

I fully understand why single parents exist, and have no issue with this concept.

 
At 10:29 PM, Blogger Nilk said...

Guys, can we keep this polite, please? I'm okay with the occasional rant, but I thought we were all on the same side.

I guess we can all hang separately.

Grrrr.

Regarding subsidized childcare and parenting payments etc, I'm cool with lessening the childcare subsidies, but parenting payments have been around forever in the form of child endowment and the like.

Ross, if you are not interested in subsidising other people's expenditure - time, energy, upbringing and the rest - in your future, why are you here?

This is a serious question.

My child is an investment in all our futures. She will be a valuable part of my future and yours. She'll be paying tax, she may be your doctor or lawyer or checkout chick.

You won't be supplying anything like that, and in a user pays system, what are you contributing to the system apart from $$?

 
At 10:34 PM, Blogger C.L. said...

The educated anonymous and his "reasoned argument backed up with facts":

There sohuld (sic) be something in tap water to sterilise the population, with the antidote only avaiable (sic) on deposit of $1 million...

Remember - the lower someone’s intelligence, the more likely they are to breed!!!

What the hell give (sic) you the right to access the food that I reap for your offspring?

Having children is by its very nature a selfish action.

I am so right wing I think Hitler was a wimp...

The truth is, a large percentage of the population sits on its ass watching daytime TV whilst breeding even more daytime TV watchers!!!!

[An interesting feat - ed].

Having a child is pandering to the reproductive instinct. Some girls are so addicted to it that they remain in a continual cycle, throwing out another child every 12 months. It is selfish beyond belief.


And in the 'Get Me A Violin And Cry Me A River' category:

But I dont (sic) have a Ferarri, and now i (sic) am too old for children.

I PAID FOR EVERYONE ELSE'S CHILDREN :(

Unfortunately, no one will support me on old age (sic) - which is why a huge amount of my salary is forcibly taken from me and placed into superannuation funds.

i (sic) started at 7:20 and i (sic) doubt I will get home until about 8pm.

I work an average 60 hours a week...

Waaaaaa!!

 
At 12:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CL - just explain to me, in reasoned logical terms, why I should pay extra taxation so that someone else can have financial assistance with the upkeep of their family.

Before you make comment upon the old “who will be your doctor/nurse when you are 80” argument, lets look at the facts:

Western nations sufferer about 12% visible unemployment. True unemployment, including part time workers who work only a few hours a week to make governments look good, and including artificial employment created via unions etc, is probably nearer to 25%. Take a stroll through a shopping mall any days of the week and ask yourself – “who pays for these people who are not at work”. Some of course are shift workers, holidaymakers etc. however I think you will agree that we have far more people than we have employment for.

Pop into an unemployment benefit office and take a look – I am told they are like a football crowd most days of the week.

So – if we accept that we have a far greater population than we have employment vacancies, it stands to reason that we should, if not actually discouraging birthrates, not take steps to encourage them.

In the natural world natural selection would take effect. Those parents who worked hard, obtained good jobs, had secure homes, would be the ones to reproduce. This is not occurring in Australia 2006.

No licence, no education, no security, no forethought is required to have a child. I have known girls get pregnant deliberately, because they thought it would force the father to marry them, or at least remain with ‘his” family and provide for them. In my experience this seldom happens. And to be honest I don’t care. If the father was so useless that he could get the girl into that situation, it is doubtful if he will be a decent father.

But my real anger centers around a system that has developed which actively punishes me for getting a good education and striving to get ahead, and yet rewards anyone who produces a child.

And for your information I do work an average of 60 hours a week. Did you want television tonight? I didn’t, I was working on a proposal that has to be presented tomorrow….. I will not even bother billing the client for the hours, because after tax, it simple isn’t worth it.

Maybe I should just sign on the benefits, get a couple of 18 year olds pregnant, put in a decent compo claim, and be like most of Australia. Living off someone else’s back.

But I give you fair warning. The higher taxed workers are leaving Australia in droves. Companies pay 30% tax, and they wont stand any increase. So mate, open your wallet and put in a few hours overtime, cos you are about to pick up the slack. I am sick of it.

 
At 12:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CL - can I take you post to mean you now accept the concept of parental instinct?

I am not letting you off the hook...

 
At 12:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"parenting payments have been around forever in the form of child endowment and the like".

Income tax has only existed in Australia since 1942..... (Is that argument not to pay taxes : )

Seriously, we need to overhaul taxation rates in this country. And by overhaul I mean reduce taxation levels. And to reduce them, we need to make people fiscally responsible.

The first step in this process was superannuation. For the first time the government forced people to take financial responsibility for their retirement.

The second step was the HECS system. The government forced the people to take responsibility for the cost of their education.

The third step, which is only partially completed, is to force people to pay for medical insurance. At my earnings level, I am forced to take out private medical insurance or pay a $1000 levy on my tax.

The next step is to force people to take responsibility for their children. Just like funded retirement, just like tertiary education, it is not the responsibility of the members of the state to fund someone else’s children. It is a personal decision to have children, and it is a personal thing to pay for them.

This WILL happen. Sooner or late the gravy train will pull into the siding and end its journey.

 
At 1:58 AM, Blogger C.L. said...

Let me off what hook? You posted a book citation to convey a truth about parental instinct. What do you want me to say - well done?

My beef with you, anonymous, is that you more or less swaggered in here and started in with patronising and - to some extent - demeaning remarks about mothers with children. If you'd been as measured in your remarks as you have been just now, I would have contributed in the following manner.

You do pay too much tax, I agree. I also agree society shouldn't too easily incentivise having children irresponsibly. I would have added - and I will always insist on this principle - that regardless of the best case scenario regarding childbirth, we will always have children born to single mothers or unprepared parents. Women are very often not responsible for these situations and don't deserve to be caricatured as latte-sipping lay-abouts watching television. Most adults can, if they're honest, truly say "there but for the grace of God, go I." So I don't believe in judging women in the terms you've used.

Furthermore, your vision of an ideal past where only appropriate parents - understood in Darwinian terms - reproduced is historically simplistic. What was somewhat different in the past is that there were social prohibitions and prejudices against having children out of wedlock. I think society made a mistake in imagining that the "compassionate" approach to such a phenomenon was throwing money at it and telling everyone they needn't bother observing any social-moral obligations. In the long run, all that does is produce generations - plural - where family members don't acknowledge any linkage or sense of responsibility to wider society. But there have been many happy families who were poor, who were not - strictly speaking - ideal in a financial or practical sense or others who were judged harshly for their recklessness. Often, in the past, this had more to do with snobbery than it did with reality.

I think we should a) try to rebuild a sense of consequences and responsibility in young people; but b) not at the expense of assisting single mothers and poorer people cope. Children are precious and we should help them transcend their disadvantages. We also have the right to demand that their parent(s) do all they can do to improve themselves. Most of the women especially are just longing for that shot at something that’s better and more settled for themselves.

Look, I respect that you work hard and that you don't want to give nearly half of your money to the government. But you cite Darwinism more than once. There is the related phenomenon of "fight of flee." I sense that, in some respects, you want to flee from a society for which you have contempt. Everyone feels like that sometimes but I tend to think we should fight the good fight - in all its complexity. Seems paradoxical but we have to rebuild our sense of community (in a way you'd appreciate) but not at the expense of trashing people and certainly not single mothers. I think it's a crummie society that would turn its back on such women or look down its collective nose at them.

You raise some other points I have no objection to. It would be good to push youngsters into medical insurance from a very young age – I absolutely agree with you.

Anyway, it's late. You've asked me a reasonable question and I've sought - probably not very well at 1 am - to answer. To summarise, I think your ideas for building a more self-sufficient society are unobjectionable and even praiseworthy. We just don't need to realise that objective by scapegoating people.

And I have no children, not having met the girl of my dreams as yet. Or perhaps I should say, not having replaced her as yet.

 
At 2:02 AM, Blogger C.L. said...

Erratum: "fight OR flee"

 
At 9:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my case I took a decision not to have children. One GF had an abortion, the rest of the time I have been a responsible adult. I have no children from the 13 years of my first marriage, and I have a stepson via my Japanese wife, who lives in Japan. Ironically, although I pay him a considerable amount of money each month, I cannot claim any of it back in tax relief. I am thus trapped through no fault of my own between two ideologies – Australia with its high taxation to fund socialist programs, and Japan with its lower taxation and means testing of support!

In terms of swaggering in and making patronising remarks, we live in a society where we hear what we want to hear. If the headlines don’t shock us we don’t read the article. If I had made my initial post as measured as my last, I doubt you would have understood the depth of feeling or extent of the problem.

I am extremely concerned about taxation levels and ‘bracket creep” in Australia. This was under discussion as far back as the Bob Hawke days, and still nothing has changed. We are in grave danger of having a government and public service that is “addicted” to taxation.

Every day more educated young people leave Australia to work overseas. Some relocate to experience a different part of the world. But many simply find that their efforts in this country are not being rewarded. We must fix this, and fix it now.

I can give you a quick example of what I describe as the “Australian mentality”: I was on contract at Telstra for several years. When I started they had 90,000 employees, when I left they had 48,000 and the quality of service had remained constant. But what shocked me was Testra’s attitude to compensation claims. Any claim under $18,000 was not contested. It you put forward a claim they would settle out of court with a one off payment of $18,000. So almost every employee put in a claim. It was seen as a “right” or a “bonus”. Over coffee I would hear my team discuss how they were going to spend the money – holiday, house deposit, pay off part of the mortgage etc.

This “Australian mentality” extends into many corners of life, and includes parenting. The attitude (and believe me I know a lot of parents with this attitude) is one of – well it’s the governments responsibility to look after me and look after my children. This is not the case. The government did not take the decision to have a child. The people of Australia did not take the decision. The parents took that decision. Sadly, in many cases it was a very foolish decision. I know long tern unemployed people who have three young children. Their decision was not based upon economic of societal common sense but on a feeling that they had a “right” to have children, and Australia had a “responsibility” to provide for them.

My comments upon how fiscal responsibility are not my ideas. This is a global change away from the socialist concepts that were developed in the 1950s. Many have already been implemented in Australia. Each time they were implemented there was resistance from the affected members of society. I objected to a second “retirement tax”. Now I accept superannuation as a fact of life. Students objected to HECS. Now they just get on with selecting a subject that will enable them to repay the debt. Removal of family financial assistance will no doubt meet resistance from those it will effect. But like the other changes, it will happen – indeed it has to happen.

 
At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incidentally, here in Sydney I know a divorced woman with two young children. She claims family support for them, is on a pension, owns a very profitable company, owns a million dollar plus house and drives a Porsche.

I subsidise her children. Is this really fair?

 
At 10:55 AM, Blogger Caz said...

Anon - in your last example, owning a business should rule that woman out of claiming a parents pension. The value of the family home wouldn't. One can only guess that she is not disclosing her business interests to Centrelink.

On the Darwinian front: by survival of the fittest, Darwin wasn't talking about the best, the brightest, the toughest, or anything else (all of which falls into social Darwinism thinking), he was simply talking about fecundity. The fecund win in the survival stakes; the fecund inheret the earth.

 
At 1:53 PM, Blogger MK said...

Anon you sound like an arrogant and bitter person, you stated that if not for you patronising and insulting comments we would not have read what you had to write.

Yet your last comment makes perfect sense and i would agree with most of what you said. If only you had stated that in the first place, you would have earned my (and i'm sure others as well) respect and support.

But this does not excuse your previous posts, particularly the one where you stated "I am so right wing I think Hitler was a wimp…", you claim to be more educated, and let me say you probably are, but i know a lot of educated fools. Perhaps you are not aware of what Hitler is known for, the attempted extermination of jewish people, many millions were killed by Hitler and his thugs.

And you think he wasn't bad anough, perhaps that is why you prefer to remain anonymous. With an attitude like that, i think we are all better off that you have no children. You were threatening to leave all of us and take your taxes with you, sorry about the ferrari, please don't hold back, and i am sure we and our 'wretched' children will survive without you.

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger Caz said...

Nilk - your last paragraph has puzzled me for days.

You raise the point about the cost of children being more than monetary; it's a life changing event. I still can't see what that has to do with redistribution of taxes to families, nor the flagged idea of taxing people at higher rates because they have children.

Yes, tax is irrelevant to the 'value' of all life changing events (birth, death, marriage, divorce, job lose, accidents, illness, and so on).

"Taxing...does not take into account what a child costs."

Are you suggesting that the various family benefits are a way to compensate families for the 'cost' of a life changing event, but only those involving giving birth?

just *curious*

 
At 2:53 PM, Blogger Nilk said...

Caz, I have no idea what that all means. It all made perfect sense at the time, but obviously I should have sat on it first.

I have to apologise for the gibberish, as I don't have the time to address my comment properly.

I'm away working this weekend, and have bucketloads of stuff to accomplish before tonight. Sorry for copping out on you like that.

I am officially as confused as you are. :)

 
At 3:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

a) I am not going to revisit the Hitler thing, other than to say that people should read the history of Germany between the wars, and understand the demography and geography, to understand why Hitler started some of his actions. If you want to do the research I can help you. As I pointed out elsewhere:

1) anti Semitism is not unique to Hitler. It was alive and well 500 years before Hitler rose to power.
2) Far more people have died at the hands of other lunatics, than Jews died at the hands of Hitler.

b) kind of matthewk to allow me to leave Australia. I leave it considerable better off for my tax contributions. I am sure he will be happy to put the extra hours in to make up for the lost income. A lot of Australians think like I do. They are living in Hong Kong (16% flat tax), Singapore (22% max taxation), Malaysia (29%) or even places like Russia (13%).

c) Arrogant? - maybe I am a little. I would however say that the ultimate in arrogance is people who tell me that they are doing me a big favour by taking the money off my hands!

d) Bitter? Damn right I am bitter. If I had been paying Hong Kong rates of taxation by now I would be retired with a very healthy investment income that would be driving employment in Australia. But of course the local mothers meeting know more about economic management than I do, so I had better shut up and get on with some work!

e) Incidentally you sound pretty bitter about Hitler!

I don’t care if you call me stupid, arrogant, bitter, or selfish. Its my money… not yours. If you care so much about paying parents so that they can breed, start handing out cash on street corners to mothers with kids!

 
At 3:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

owning a business should rule that woman out of claiming a parents pension. The value of the family home wouldn't. One can only guess that she is not disclosing her business interests to Centrelink.


She is doing this as a company Director, all assets being owned by the company. The company pays 30% taxation, and owns the Porsche.

Having hidden the assets behind a shelf company (as do many seriously wealthy people in Australia) she is able to continue her psnsion.....

 
At 5:14 PM, Blogger Caz said...

Nilk - ah, many of my thoughts should be sat on - and squashed - so I know the feeling.

Anon - I don't understand that thinking in anyone who is, in fact, "wealthy"; the paperwork, the hassles, all for a paltry sum of money from CentreLink; a sum money of which she & her children have NO NEED. Sure it may cover the cost of a couple of new frocks for this woman each year...but, but, but...

Most people are thrilled to NOT be answering to CentreLink! Greed is an ugly and strange thing. Great example to her kids, eh?

 
At 6:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah but, that is how they get to be wealthy….

I could (and should) form a shelf company, and lease assets from the company to me. I would pay 30% tax on company earnings (saving me 18.5%), and would get tax incentives on the leasing. I could base the company in Tokyo in my wifes name, and pay the salary equally between her retired parents – thus splitting the income and achieving minimal Japanese taxation rates.

To do so would be illegal under Australian taxation law, which has this amazing clause which says “in the spirit of the law”.

• But I know a Chinese couple doing exactly the above. Last year the girl made several trips to Beijing, each time bringing in USD35,000.

• I know people who have a two bedroom apartment. They claim one bedroom as an office, but sub let it to overseas students (2 x Korean girls are living in the office) So he is claiming tax relief on a room, and also getting tax free income from it!!!

• I know guys who make more dealing on Ebay than they do in their day job, and pay no tax on it.

• I know hookers who make $600 a night (4 customers) and pay no tax…..

Everyone is doing ok breaking the law to minimise tax. I am honest, and pay 48.5%.

Yes I am stupid…….

 
At 3:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeeweezuss, some people have far too much time on their hands. The user pays party for breeders has even less chance of just attracting attention as my free beer for everyone party. At least my party is aimed at happy optimists, not sad, self-obsessed losers.
-- Slatts

 
At 5:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Losers is the right term. Financial losers, because they are being forced to pay for the results of other peoples sexual exploits.

No one has as yet told me why I have to pay - other than claptrap about offspring who will look after me in my old age.

as the growing global population continues to plunder un-renewable resources we should be encouraging people not to reproduce, instead of the other way round....

Ross

 
At 4:30 PM, Blogger Jai Normosone said...

I too made the decision way back when I was 10yo (I'm a stubborn little shit at times) that I wanted nothing to do with kids when I grew up.

It's not until about the last 18 months or so that I worked out that kids aren't so bad and that it's the parents that make a child. About the same time I realised that I don't need to make my own when there are already living, breathing children out there with a mum that may be doing it tough.

Why make a new one when I can improve the life of one that's already here?

 
At 2:54 AM, Anonymous Sy23 said...

I really don't want to get into insulting people with children - as Nilk said, surely we can keep it polite.

I wish people with children all the best, and hope their children grow up into happy, prosperous adults. However, surely some of the parents who post here can see just how hollow their cliches are. viz:

"Childless people are selfish" - er, just how do you make that one out? Are my genes really so great that choosing not to procreate is doing the world a disservice? Or do you REALLY think the race is in danger of dying out through underpopulation? Yes, my child MIGHT have grown up to be the one who cured arthritis - it might also have been a serial killer! It's a lottery.

"My children will take care of you in your old age" - er, well, no, actually. How do you know your particular children won't grow up as tax cheats, welfare beneficiaries, or otherwise non-productive citizens? It may or may not be their fault, nonetheless, there's no guarantee for me when I get too old to work. Personally, I'd sooner have back all the tax money I've put in to pay for your tax cuts, parent allowances, baby bonuses, childcare subsidies and other handouts, and take my chances.

"You must be a sad person" - again, no. On the contrary, I'm just glad my condoms and other birth control worked. Much as it may surprise you, not EVERYONE wants to share their life with one or more screaming, babbling, incontinent, snot-nosed, smelly, demanding little bundle of, er, joy. And yes, this even extends to temporary sharing, when your little treasure goes into ultra-decibel meltdown when I'm trying to have a quiet coffee. But the temporary annoyance is balanced by the joy of schadenfreude realising that I can walk away from it any time I want - and you are stuck with it until your little darling finishes university.

"Parenting is a natural urge - all animals do it" - probably true. Mind you, they also eat their meat raw, lick their own anuses, shit in the open air and walk around naked. And none of them receive handouts for reproducing. Be consistent, guys.

"Yes, I agree many children are revolting - but mine are SSSOOOO cute" - again, no. I'm sure your offspring are the centre of your universe, the meaning of life, the psupose of creation... to everyone else, they are a particularly loud, smelly tamagotchi. Even if they are too polite to tell you so.

and the real doozy "Abortion and birth control are against the will of (insert deity of your choice)... " hmmm. Was this the (reinsert deity) that allowed Auschwitz, the Black Plague, natural disasters all over the world and lets dictators and evildoers get away with their actions without any form of punishment? Maybe whatever scripture you're reading was penned by someone with a bizarre sense of humour, no?

Thanks for reading, guys, it's been fun. I'm now off for a quiet, bratfree rest. Enjoy your children. And spare a thought for those of us paying for your baby-bounties.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home