Font size: A+ A-

Community > Blog > Mid year money

Mid year money

23rd Oct 2012

Yesterday Treasurer Wayne Swan shared details of the MYEFO – or Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The Treasurer has introduced further cuts in order to keep his promise of delivering a surplus. The proposed savings will be achieved by monthly company tax payments, reductions in the private health insurance rebate and cuts to the baby bonus for second and subsequent children.

Labor will need to negotiate with Independents in order to have its savings plans passed and to have any chance of achieving the promised surplus. There is no hope of support for these measures from the Opposition, with spokesperson Christopher Pyne declaring, "A Labor government will never deliver a surplus while Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard are at its head."

The full report

ABC News

Getting paid to have a baby

Part of the proposed cuts to deliver a budget surplus is the reduction of the baby bonus. How serious a cut this is depends upon your news source. The Sydney Telegraph has said it will be ‘pared back’, while parent company, News Limited’s website tells us it is being ‘slashed’. Either way, it is being reduced from $5000 to $3000 for second and subsequent children and this is predicted to affect about 87,000 Australian families.

This blog is short and sharp.

Since when should you have to be paid to have a baby?

At the risk of harking back to the ‘old days’, that is exactly what I will do when I say having a child was a decision most of my generation took so seriously we actually saved for it!

Since the baby bonus was first introduced by former Treasurer, Peter Costello in 2004, many families have benefitted from these generous payments. This bonus makes some sense from the point of view that it is a helping hand for those wishing to have children – and may well encourage a new ‘baby boom’ to even up our population as it becomes older. But if young couples are depending upon a $5000 handout to have second or third or fourth children, then perhaps they need to think through whether having another baby is the smart thing to do. As most parents acknowledge, having children takes more time, money and commitment than they ever realised. So if a government handout is a major factor in your family planning, then perhaps it’s time to think again.

What do you think?

Is the baby bonus so important that it should be left alone?
	Yes
	No

goldengirl
23rd Oct 2012
11:15am

These people think they are losing out...but hey, there was NO baby bonus in my day!!!!! (Can I apply retrospectively??) They are still getting something, as well as paid maternity/paternity leave !!!!!!
Bottom line is...if you cant afford it, use contraception!!!

biddi
23rd Oct 2012
12:25pm

Absolutely, goldengirl!!

student
23rd Oct 2012
3:11pm

middle class welfare is alive and strong :)

doclisa
23rd Oct 2012
3:21pm

you are correct. Why in an overcrowded world do we want to pay people to have babies...
one baby a family should be world wide policy.

yorkie
23rd Oct 2012
10:19pm

I'm with goldengirl. We brought up 3 kids and they went to private School for most of their Schooling, and on to College or University - we were not high income earners, in fact very average - and DID NOT get any Baby Bonus, and did not really expect any Government handout. We wanted kids and so we worked hard to bring them up and look after them. I was happy to hear my kids a few months ago say to friends - mum and dad brought us up well and we never went without, even going on holidays. It is all a matter of working your finances out or as my grand-father would have said 'cutting your coat according to your cloth'

Jen
23rd Oct 2012
11:20am

It only affects second and subsequent births. $5000 is ample to provide the necessities of new parenthood: cot, high chair, stroller, etc. Surely most of these things can be re-used for subsequent children? Therefore, I think this is a good move. The country needs babies yes, but I doubt a drop of $2000 will affect very many (who know full well, it's yes, simply a bonus.) We need to spend the available taxpayers' money where there is the most need.

doclisa
23rd Oct 2012
3:23pm

the world does not need babies. We have an overpopulated planet.
The country needs to do things for the whole population.

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
11:39am

It was always a bad policy. It is an elitist, exclusive policy assuming only children born to Australian citizens have a right to live here. We are moving to the point of no return on over-population in the world, having gone from 700 million world-wide in 1700 to 7 billion today what are parents bringing children into? A planet which is on the verge of being unable to sustain any more people. Mankind has wrought such damage on the creation, but we never learn.

Whilst ever there are abortions and starving children in the world we do not need to pay people to have babies. We will soon need to reward them for staying childless.

For governments it is all about "the economy" one of the modern day "gods" - regardless of what these little souls will inherit. Man cannot eat money.

student
23rd Oct 2012
3:19pm

MEK, I think this is a way to populate Australia. Australia is a vast and roomy country and we need a larger (working) population to pay not only for the Baby Boomers as they retire (and get sick etc) but for future generations coming through. One day we will come to the end of our resources and what happens then?? We will all have to move to beautifull NZ :)

doclisa
23rd Oct 2012
3:24pm

i agree too many people.

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
3:28pm

student

I understand the reasons, but there are other ways of populating without bringing children into a very uncertain future.

The way we are going with the destruction of the planet I wonder if there will be "future generations?" I guess that is my point. We cannot act in a vacuum we are first and foremost global citizens regardless of any considerations of nationality. The world belongs to all of us, our indulgence is at the cost of the developing world and while we "populate" every 7 seconds a child dies on the planeet of starvation or disease. Don't we have a responsibility to those too?

student
23rd Oct 2012
3:46pm

MEK, I hear you :) Do we have a responsibility?? Yes, yes we do. But your point about the plane, I honestly don't know what is going to die first, earth or the people. I know the reasons (or a couple) for populating every corner of the world, we need people. We need people to work, and they need to work so they can buy things they produce. Man is a greedy creature and now he is out of the box, he can't be put back in. Unfortunately you (and I) are but a minority who care for the air/water/O2 and the children. There will be future generations and there will still be people like us who care for others and the planet. But there will still be those who disagree, and that's ok.

Does MEK stand for More Earthly Kindness ?? :) Bless you :)

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
3:57pm

student
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

No I don't stand for "More Earthly Kindnes"s, I just know the Creator and know how He weeps for what we are doing to His beautiful creation. Greed drives us, but it is not the way He made us to be.

I believe what He said, He will not let this situation go on forever, He has a plan and I put my hope in Him, not in mankind. :) He is the hope of us all and the only one. But man likes to pretend He does not exist . I know, I did once too. :0) I love His creation, people, animals, nature, all of it. Knowing the Maker makes all the difference to one's perception. :0)

Egyptian
23rd Oct 2012
12:10pm

Delivering a surplus seems to be an obsession with the Labor government only because they can't stand the flack they will receive if they don't. The Opposition will give them hell if they don't deliver a surplus. Even now when the government is trying it's best to deliver this surplus the opposition is already giving it hell because it considers the budget cuts will be all lies and tricks and of course when these cuts were announced, the opposition probably did not have access to the budget cut documents. It's a matter of finding where to cut costs and probably the baby bonus reduction for the second/subsequent child/children warrants it. I don't know of a single person and/or couple who are aged and on pensions currently that agrees with this extravagant baby bonus. Everyone I know indicates that it shouldn't be there. It's a far cry from the allowance received many moons ago by the current members of this website.
To me, I would rather it was $5,000 for the first baby and $2,000 for a second baby. Any more babies thereafter should be provided for by the persons having them and not the taxpayers of this country. We are over populated world-wide and it will be our demise in the end. For the life of me I cannot understand the logic in having large families today when there is so much uncertainty with employment. Why should the taxpayers of this country subsidise families with more than two children. If these couples want large families pay for them themselves.

doclisa
23rd Oct 2012
3:25pm

I agree.
Why do we have more than one child in an overpopulated world. They should just get rid of the bonus.

student
23rd Oct 2012
3:32pm

I was just thinking, the Baby Bonus replaced the Child Endowment of yesteryear. If you start limiting children/family, then we become like China, and I know a young Chinese woman married to an Australian man and her parents are beside themselves with the knowledge their daughter can have more than one child!! The young lady and her husband both work and plan on having a child next year. The young woman does not have family here to help when she has a family so the B.Bonus will help with child care costs so she can return to work.

Again people are being stereo-typed just as pensioners are stereo-typed. There is enough to go around and I know some are more needy than others, but that will always be the way.

biddi
23rd Oct 2012
12:21pm

Time to cut your suit according to your cloth. Do babies really cost so much money??
For once, I support Labor on this decision.
MEK : I applaud you ..... the world is horribly over-populated but pollies never dare
give it a mention. Thank God there are people like MEK who do speak out. Don't parents realise or even care what they are doing by bringing in even more kids to this world?
I believe over-population is the key to all the problems on this earth. Poor animals,
poor Mother Earth .......

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
12:27pm

Thank you biddi - I despair of where mankind is hurtling as scary speed. For what?????????

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
12:28pm

Oops - at scary speed I meant. :0)

Peepo
23rd Oct 2012
12:39pm

One of the reasons they cost so much these days is because all clothes and equipment has to be a brand name. Who still knits, sews or makes toys for their kids. Or cook their own food, or swaps cots etc with your friend?

Peepo
23rd Oct 2012
12:43pm

PS: Maybe the government should buy young mums a sewing machine, with lessons.

philharmonic
23rd Oct 2012
1:16pm

Most of them dont & do not want to know how to use one among any other things that look like there is a bit of work & brainpower involved.

evilmonk
26th Oct 2012
4:46pm

peepo - i have the sewing machine - now if only i could find somewhere to get lessons...

vivity
23rd Oct 2012
12:42pm

I don't see why anybody who desires a child should expect payment for doing so, we were all happy to manage with basic prams which even tho' available today are not what is desirable as they are not elitist enough! When this bonus was brought in in 2004 I thought it it crazy and think it entirely reasonable that anyone wanting a child should be prepared to accept the initial cost themselves and become aware choosing to have a child is going to mean cost to themselves for a long time. If help is going to anyone it should be limited to natural occuring multiple births because they really need help.

armyboots
23rd Oct 2012
12:55pm

totally agree

Nan Norma
27th Oct 2012
8:07pm

I had a natural multiple birth and never got a single cent from the government. I truly did have to go begging for help from friends. Nothing is good enough for todays parents except the most expensive of everything. Many children have enough toys to provide for a childcare centre.

JJ
23rd Oct 2012
12:43pm

In full agreement with all of the above. I do recall getting a bonus of five pounds (I think) when our first child was born, and that was very welcome because we had nothing at all! There was something for the second, but it was certainly a reduced amount. So I don't begrudge a reasonable bonus for a first child nowadays, but it shouldn't be required for subsequent births. And family allowances are pretty generous I think. Couples would be more able to afford to care for their children if they were prepared to restrict their own desires for luxury indulgences.

DAWNIE
23rd Oct 2012
1:05pm

The other item in the "save the surplus" news is the reduction in the Private Health Insurance subsidy. This could affect many pensioners who battle to keep private insurance because of the difficulty of getting beds in public hosptals. We have one of us with a serious illness and pay health insurance to be sure that hosptal care can be gained quickly, as pensioners there will have to be a hard decision made if the drop in the subsidy is too great. Of course a cut like that will be self defeating in many ways, it will put the burden back on the state govt's instead of the health funds, not well thought out!!
Dawn

Nanna52
23rd Oct 2012
1:12pm

I agree there is help for those who need it through paid maternity leave and family allowance. I think that the implications of other cuts are lost with the concentration on the baby bonus cuts. With serious health problems and unable to work I am struggling to pay for private health insurance as it is. Increased costs will lead to more people leaving the system and further strain on the public health system. This will have a greater impact on our standard of living than decreasing the baby bonus.

student
23rd Oct 2012
3:58pm

Paid Maternity leave is so, because the economy needs people working and spending. Personally I would rather see NO incentive to return to work and leave the little one in baby-care. If the Gov. wants to pay parents, pay them (only one) to stay home with the baby until it is atleast 3. I admire and salute young parents today.

Grateful
23rd Oct 2012
1:14pm

The "baby bonus" was introduced as a cynical vote winner and I can still see the smirk on Peter Costello's face when he introduced it. It had nothing to do with child or parent welfare, it was just for the almighty young couples' vote.
And what happened to it, it was denegrated into being called the Harvey Norman bonus when most of it went to single, unemployed mothers who spent it on plasma t.v.s and Rolls Royce pushers, the new status symbol.
I would not be unhappy with a $1,000 payment (not a BONUS) for the first baby, to assist with the purchase of a cot and pusher but, having children is a huge responsibility and the fundamental responsibility is being able to AFFORD to care for them. Just like any other "desirable" if they can't afford them then they have to accept the reality that they simply can't have them.

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
1:21pm

Grateful

Perhaps vouchers to buy equipment may be preferable to cash?

student
23rd Oct 2012
4:06pm

the Baby Bonus has always been middle class welfare :)

... and we all have children for our own selfish reasons :)

as for vouchers ... unfortunately that could lead to a black-market in vouchers (cashing vouchers) Most people don't abuse the system. I agree with Grateful re: Rolls Royce of pushers :) WOW!! Some pushers cost more than my car!!

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
4:13pm

Yes student, gone are the days of the old family pusher or pram, or heaven forbid - a second hand one. Tis a population serving materialism for sure.

AmandaR
24th Oct 2012
12:21am

Well said Grateful.

I can recall the justification given for the bonus when it was implemented and then increased to $5000 and it was a thinly veiled gift to secure the middle class vote. Today when the opposition came out to criticise the cut they didn't even bother to refer it back to their own justification for implementing it in the first place.That is, to encourage more families to have more babies and to provide financial support for women who had limited maternity leave. Instead, the opposition made a total fluff of it by making reference to the high cost of purchasing multiple prams, had a lame stab at the labour party for not understanding the cost of having children, and then compared the cut to the Chinese one-child policy. Great political minds they are not.

But, I do welcome the cut even though I don't think they went far enough. The upper limit of the means test should be lowered, the bonus for the first child should be a maximum of about $2500 and $1000 for every child thereafter would be my recommendation - if I was ever asked, which I never will be!

The decision to have children should not be based on how much you can get paid by the government.

evilmonk
26th Oct 2012
4:37pm

so sick of reading about the so-called spending of the baby bonus on tvs etc. I know of one family that used it to do vital repairs on their car, new mattresses for the kids beds (not new beds, just mattresses) and threw out the old ones they had got from the op-shop, and filled their freezer and cupboards with food. Not one cent went on any electrical goods, smokes, pokies, booze, drugs etc. They didn't buy anything for the baby except a new car seat for their car, they reused everything from the older kids (cot, clothes, cloth nappies, pram etc etc etc).
That money made a huge difference to the family, fixing the car enabled the dad to get a better job as he wasn't reliant on his pushbike anymore, the food in the cupboards kept them going until the wife was able to go back to work, and they haven't looked back since (and their income is now too high to get any payments from centrelink).
A good news story ;)

armyboots
23rd Oct 2012
1:18pm

The world has changed - we lived in a world where we worked hard and looked after our family. Today we live in a "what's in it for me" society. Why should we work and look after our kids when the government will house, feed and pay us to have more kids, Why work when we can get Centrelink payments - and the more kids we have the more Centrelink pays us. So we now have a generation of people who have never worked a day in their lives and are bringing their kids up with the same mentality. Oh and by the way it's not the Gov. paying for this but all of us who have worked our whole lives and paid taxes and all the ones working now paying taxes. These may seem harsh words but in reality it's a harsh world and some people need to get off their bum's and get their hands dirty.

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
1:23pm

Good point armyboots.

lauren
23rd Oct 2012
1:29pm

Who remembers getting 10 shillings @ month? I thought that was wonderful at the time, andI I started up a little bank account for my boys.

Peepo
23rd Oct 2012
1:53pm

Yes, very handy when they needed shoes.

student
23rd Oct 2012
4:14pm

OHHHHHHH you are dating yourself!! :) I can remember either $2-60 or $12-60 a fortnight .. and it was magic!! I managed to feed us, clothe us, pay the bills and still have money over. .... but it was my Emergency money. When things were tight and hubby wanted to know how we would manage, it was always the Secret $'s that came through. If I had only spent the endowment on the children they wouldn't have had such good quality clothes or the extras they had. It didn't cover the cost of raising children, but it helped, and that is what the Baby Bonus does now.

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
4:18pm

student

You ever thought of going into politics? We desperately need good managers. :0)

seth
23rd Oct 2012
1:57pm

There should be a means test on all government help, instead of now looking at all handouts as a right, look at what it actually is for, to help those who are in need. Regarding private insurance, if that is your choice, then be prepared to pay for it, mostly everyone is covered by medicare, which is often used even by those with private ins, when possible. What ever is available is always paid for by someone else, it is not the ruling gov't's money, but is the peoples money collected through taxes.

armyboots
23rd Oct 2012
2:03pm

Who remembers when you didn't tell anyone if you had to go on THE DOLE ???

alamoe417
23rd Oct 2012
2:05pm

I dont think there should be a baby bonus at all. Its the decision of 2 people whether they can afford to have children, not for the taxpayer to pay for them, nor do I believe there should be paid work leave following a birth for 6 months. Some families with 6 and more children scoop so much in child allowances, the father does not need to work, this is encouraging laziness, and quite honestly all the peoples taxes are rising, pensioners scraping through, its a real joke.

seth
23rd Oct 2012
2:13pm

armyboots, you are showing your age, I remember when you only received food vouchers, no money. pre 2ww. A baby bonus would have been a dream, paid maternity leave, impossible.

armyboots
23rd Oct 2012
2:45pm

lol

Min
23rd Oct 2012
2:15pm

We all survived without it even if we used secondhand products sometimes . Young girls often get pregnant because of it (walk down the streets of Hervey Bay and see them all together with their prams) and then generations of people remain on Centrelink because you learn what you live. It has to stop somewhere.

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
2:53pm

Min
And I think we are better people for knowing that just because you want, does not automatically mean you get. Kids used to raise money with bottles, papers, paper runs etc. We had standards and discipline and were taught respect for others and their property.

Ozetwo
23rd Oct 2012
3:06pm

Reduce it to $1000 for the first child and means test it. That would be enough to get a few items at an expensive time for a young family starting out.
It was only ever introduced as a vote purchasing gimmick by Costello anyway. If a government payment is going to decided whether people reproduce or not perhaps it would be best if they didn't.

PlanB
23rd Oct 2012
3:18pm

I agree with most of whats been said so far on the Baby Bonus but will be back later to add

PlanB
23rd Oct 2012
3:26pm

student
23rd Oct 2012
3:19pm

report
MEK, I think this is a way to populate Australia. Australia is a vast and roomy country and we need a larger (working) population to pay not only for the Baby Boomers as they retire (and get sick etc) but for future generations coming through. One day we will come to the end of our resources and what happens then?? We will all have to move to beautifull NZ :)

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Australia might be a BIG country but there is not much of it that is livable and we also have a BIG problem with water

armyboots
23rd Oct 2012
3:53pm

The operative words being"Working Population" not people putting their hands out and squeezing every last cent they can get out of the government.

student
23rd Oct 2012
4:32pm

you're right armyboots, Australia is a large country with a lot of arid land, however, if you are referring to the Baby Bonus people as ...putting their hands out and squeezing every last cent they can get out of the government....most of the claimants of the Bonus would be working couples or the mother working atleast. No, I don't have stats or a reference for it but my guess is that you. like many other people, are stereo-typing the recipients of the Bonus as young, single women. I can remember when this came in (Howard Government and introduced by Mr. Costello) and the middle class loved it! Good on 'em! It was to help semi-professional and professional women to return to the work force I'm glad to see the Government is helping everyone, not just a small section of the community. Are you saying only working women (before and after the birth) should get the bonus??

armyboots
23rd Oct 2012
5:20pm

Please don't put words into my mouth or read things that are not there. I'm all for helping families with children, working mothers or not. What I'm saying is that we need to get people out of the mindset of we don't need to work because we're better off on benefits syndrome which seems to have taken over here in Australia. I see this every day. People are referred for retraining and a lot are just not interested in obtaining any type of credentials and would rather be somewhere else. For your information as a Baby Boomer I have been a working mother my entire working life and have paid taxes my entire working life with no baby bonus. I also think Australia is the best country in the world and one of the few countries where if you work hard you can still be assured of a secure future.

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
3:50pm

PlanB

Yes we have not been wise in our use of this scarce resource, but whether people are born here or come here as young migrants/refugees - if the population grows by whaever means the problems will be the same.

In many developing countries people cannot just turn on a tap - they have to walk hours just to get drinking water - the burden of providing this falls mainly on women and children.

Sylvia
23rd Oct 2012
4:51pm

Every child born should be a wanted child, that would be ideal, but will never be attained while all these handouts are put in front of people who do not think things through,and a child is yours for life, and is going to cost a whole lot more than they get as a "Bonus"! Put the responsibility back to the parents, we had to budget and make sure we never wasted , no throw aways for us! We soon learnt to economise, I think none of our generation are worse off for the experience. Today to have a child can be a choice, not like many years ago when we didn't have the pill, or were not even allowed to have contraception advice.It is a different world, and it is not for the better, We struggled to give our kids chances, now every one thinks this is their right! look around at the result. My dear father said to us, "The world does not owe you a living" we grew up knowing we were repsonsible for our actions. No excuses!

Taskid
23rd Oct 2012
5:00pm

Sylvia

Your Father sounds a very wise man. :0)

vivity
23rd Oct 2012
5:31pm

Just looked it up the baby bonus is Income tested:-

Income Test
Baby Bonus is payable if your family's estimated combined adjusted taxable income is $75 000 or less in the six months after your child is born or enters your care.

I am gobsmacked that is a very generous parameter.

AmandaR
24th Oct 2012
12:35am

Yes, it is ridiculously high.

Princess Mary
23rd Oct 2012
5:40pm

How grateful new parents should be today to be given all this money to have a baby. It was tough when we started our family in 1969 - our first son. Then lost a baby at birth - our daughter. And then our second son in 1973. Can't remember receiving anything - but perhaps we did? Only my husband worked...to provide for us as a family, pay our mortgage, etc etc. The banks were sensible in those days only allowing borrowing of 2/3rd of the mans wage. So we owned our block of land, and built the house with the money allowed by the bank. I did go back to work part-time when the second boy went to school - and we somehow survived - were things so much different in the olden days? of 1969-73? Or have the younger people of today want more to start off with? And expect more help? Or is owning a home so much harder? Not sure if wages are so much higher than we received back then.........

Grateful
23rd Oct 2012
6:18pm

And our LEADER in waiting, Tony Abbott, has had to apologise AGAIN for another mysoginst stupid comment. How embarrasssing is that man? Imagine him as the Prime Minister of this great country???? What a disgraceful joke. get rid of him ASAP!!!!

Leo
23rd Oct 2012
6:20pm

I don't believe that people should get paid to have children. If you cannot afford them don't have them. The worlds population is getter bigger and bigger and soon we will not have enough food in the world to feed the people. I think the bonus (helping new family) should be a one off thing and that is it. When we had our children we received no support from anywhere. We also lost a young child through SIDS and again there was no support with funeral expenses etc.

Leo
23rd Oct 2012
6:27pm

Payment for having children only encourages single women to have more children and then become a burden on society. If people want children, get a full time job and then plan the family.

Jen
24th Oct 2012
5:09am

Not forgetting of course, that it takes a man and a woman to have a child.

Leo
24th Oct 2012
7:27am

Not forgetting also that the woman normally carries the can with pregnancy and that is more reason to be more responsible.

Jen
24th Oct 2012
8:29am

That's true Leo, but it's always the woman who gets denigrated, not the man, when the child is both their responsibility.

PlanB
24th Oct 2012
6:38am

I believe that if your have a child you should be there to stay at home and look after it--NOT return to work b4 it starts school--thats what we did --we struggled but we made it--and the Child had it's own parents to bring it up--too many Mothers are back to work not long after they have the Child--and thats so wrong--When the child goes to school get a job that allows you to be home when the child returns home--no matter what the job is

Taskid
24th Oct 2012
7:47am

PlanB

If one parent or the other can stay home with the child as the one goes to work that sees the work of raising children more a joint responsibility surely?

PlanB
24th Oct 2012
8:04am

Yes MEK as long as it is one "Parent" or the other NOT day care

Taskid
24th Oct 2012
8:13am

Oh I agree totally. Day care should be respite or occasional use. I was in in charge of the regultion of child care in my state many moons ago. It never ceased to amaze me the places that parents would place their child, some of them were not fit for a dog. Also sickened me to see how many private owners of child care saw other people's children as just a money making venture. We soon got it cleaned up.

Sylvia
24th Oct 2012
8:10am

Hi MEK
Thankyou for your comment re: my father, he was a great influence on my life, I thank God for him.
He also said a woman is the nurturer and the man must be the providor, I stayed home until my youngest child had started school and then went back to work in a job where I could be home for holidays and after school, we were never rich, but we managed, and I believe that we were stronger people and able to cope with life knowing we pulled together as a family, some one said "Mothers are the backbone of civilisation" So we have to be prepared to put in to get a good result.
What is fact we never had so many problems with the young when Mum and Dad knew where their youngster were,and took responsibility for them.

Taskid
24th Oct 2012
8:32am

Yes I agree, our fathers probably had similar views on women's work. I think we live in a different time when the skills women have other than child-rearing have been clearly displayed. I know going for a job back then one was asked if one had a boyfriend, the assumption being that if you did then you were not a long term employable option. I think were were the poorer for the women scientists, surgeons, doctors, academics nurses and administrators because of the narrowly defined roles. Now it is more appropriate for shared parenting.

There have been and are of course matriarchal societies where men care for the children and women are the hunters, warriors etc. So it is not an absolute.

One of the problems young parents have is the pressure to have at the beginning of their marriage what our parents strived for over many years, big homes, cars, latest of everything etc etc. This traps them in a cycle of debt and lowers their options.

bluemoon
24th Oct 2012
8:35am

YES Golden Girl .I had a baby because that was our choice, to nuture and love,yes times were tough , too easy for people these days $$$ should not come into it..Some children are so spoilt others are neglected.I also stayed home for 3 years,went to work on casual basis 3 days,my Mum looked after my son on those days.

PlanB
24th Oct 2012
8:36am

Yes things have sure changed as far as needs and wants go these days--so many have to have what they WANT --NOW--not what the NEED--and so get into debt in no time.

toot2000
24th Oct 2012
10:17am

The thing that annoys me about this is that Labor will have to do a deal again with the Greens if they want to get their savings plan passed. This hung government is so repugnant, the Greens have to be sucked up to in order to get anything done.

Taskid
24th Oct 2012
12:47pm

It would helped if there was a more bi-partisan effort from the Coalition too. As there was when Malcolm Turnbull was leader.

seth
24th Oct 2012
1:28pm

We did see that phenomenon, bipartisan, at work a few weeks back, it really happened, no one was really surprised, Why even the negative man himself was positively positive. Remember now? when they all received that huge $50.000 salary increase.

toot2000
24th Oct 2012
1:33pm

I forgot about that Seth, it's enough to make you puke!

Taskid
24th Oct 2012
3:57pm

Seth
Yes amazing how they can agree about spening our money on themselves. :0)

PlanB
24th Oct 2012
1:48pm

YES, TA was very uncomplaining about that rise he got

Annie
24th Oct 2012
4:39pm

Once again it lookis as though I am probably the last person to comment!! I agree or disagree with most of the comments. No matter what anyone says it's not going to change! other than to maybe decrease the so-called "baby bonus". I too look back on having and raising 5 children (way back that is!) - I worked most of the time, and made their clothes, knitted their winter gear, served on school committees, mother's clubs etc., limited TV, NO computers etc. Managed as father's job permitted same. I think one of the things I chuckle about is the thought of today's "yummy mummies, single or attached to someone, washing and trying to dry cloth nappies by the score!!!! and of course now we are complaining of landfill with the disposable ones!!!! Will we ever be altogether content?!? I doubt it!

PlanB
25th Oct 2012
6:25am

Not to mention the large COST of the disposable nappies they buy

seth
26th Oct 2012
5:55pm

evilmonk, at first I thought you were someone else!!!!! That is a great story of a family picking themselves up after a bit of help, If people have that inner drive to improve their lot in life they can achieve it, the drive must be consistent and not break under pressure.

Nan Norma
27th Oct 2012
8:23pm

Don't forget asylum seekers/refugees are eligible for the baby bonus immediately they arrive in this country.

Abe
28th Oct 2012
11:21pm

It's no use having a big workforce if the employers are sending all the jobs overseas to underpaid people in other countries. That just puts a bigger load on our economy, and we just cannot afford it !!

To make a comment, please register or login

Tags: Mid year money, Federal Budget, Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, Treasurer Wayne Swan, private health insurance rebate, baby bonus, monthly company tax payments