JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Jesterarts]

I was going to amend my post with a further comment, but Jester got in ahead of me and brought up the topic I was going to touch on - childcare.

I realise that the cost of living these days is outstripping the average wage earners' ability to keep up. I know those costs are hurting me heavily since I retired. To pay for an average house in a major Australian city these days demands two incomes (or one very big one) and most families NEED two incomes to survive. That then raises the issue of childcare.

My wife and I care for our two year old granddaughter four days per week. On the fifth day, she attends childcare at the local pre-school. Because my daughter works, she pays $70 per day AFTER the government subsidy. Unemployed or single mothers only pay around $20 per day after the subsidy. That sort of cost can cripple a family financially and is probably the one area where I would support some form of government assistance simply because the cost of quality child care is massive.

Would you suggest any sort of means testing for support with child care? Or would having a child immediately qualify a person?

 

[Tasmaniak]

When I was in the US we were paying childcare and everyone is "entitled" to a subsidy. If you wanted it...you had to submit your entire household expenditure and income. You were then given a prorated amount based on that and the average cost of childcare in your county.

It worked for the most part.

 

[Pollushon]

Lets call the PPL scheme for what it is; an attractive package to encourage breeding within a demographic that will more likely provide a ROI long term. There is going to be a need at some point to offset the looming baby boomer overheads.

Although my wife and I at the time, received the baby bonus twice, we could have easily done without and really all that it seemed to do was encourage mouth breathers to pop out squids that will potentially end up in a Smith Family ad.

If you really want kids, you find a way, sure. I have far more issues with the billions that are pegged to be spent on JSF than the drop in the bucket the PPL scheme will cost that is touted to be covered by a levy anyway.

 

[Grennan]

Lets call the PPL scheme for what it is; an attractive package to encourage breeding within a demographic that will more likely provide a ROI long term. There is going to be a need at some point to offset the looming baby boomer overheads.

Although my wife and I at the time, received the baby bonus twice, we could have easily done without and really all that it seemed to do was encourage mouth breathers to pop out squids that will potentially end up in a Smith Family ad.
.

Spot on and I cant say I disagree with it.

We need to fund the large aging population who cannot support themselves.

We have a generation of mouth breathers who feel they are entitled to everything for nothing.

We have a large amount of career driven couples or couples who cannot/dont want to give up their current living standards to have children.

How do you solve this? Help offset the cost of the losing an income to encourage those who are contributors to society, who bring in money and who will instill values of work ethic to their children who will then grow up and pay taxes to help fund the rapidly aging populace.

IMO, its the lesser of two evils.

 

[Reaper]

may I ask how does that make sense? providing a incentive for people to have kids? IMO if you can't afford to take time off work to take care of your newborn, you shouldn't be reproducing and that is all there is to it. why should the taxpayer pay for Mrs. Citizen to have time off work to care for her newborn while Mr. Citizen continues to work? if Mr. Citizen's income can't support mum and baby, then Mr. and Mrs. Citizen should not have had the baby.

My parents didn't need a cash incentive to have me. why do people need it now?

Well that's probably not quite correct either. If you were born in Australia, and your profile says you were 23, chances are your parents would have received family tax benefits parts A and B, or at least one of the 2.

 

[kiwicon]

My parents didn't need a cash incentive to have me

Just a box of woodies eh..

 

[Calaber]

Would you suggest any sort of means testing for support with child care? Or would having a child immediately qualify a person?

I am a firm adherent to means testing for EVERY government allowance, if the allowance has to exist at all. The idea of people who are earning enough to be able to support themselves VERY comfortably, and still pick up hand-outs from tax-payers, annoys me. I'm possibly annoying some members of the forum here, but as a person who, until last year when I had to apply for the Carbon Tax compensation, had never appeared on any Centrelink records or received any government allowance, I believe the "age of entitlement" has become very real and is a major problem for this country.

And to support my views, I totally disagree with Abbott's statements in the past and Coalition actions which have prevented means testing being introduced, or toughened up for certain allowances and benefits. Gillard tried to do it a couple of times, but the Opposition (naturally) opposed it. Sometimes, I think, just on principle, even though it made sense. I didn't like much of what the Gillard government did, but I thought they were on the right track with that.

 

[Jesterarts]

Rich families should have to pay to attend public schools, report says

Just stumbled across that. Are people freakin' high?

I cannot fathom on what planet charging people a different out of pocket charge for the EXACT same service based on income makes sense!

I mean, I know that tax already does this effectively, but this sort of thing is just plain bizarre.

Maybe when I go and by my groceries the prices of everything in my shopping should be indexed based on my income?

 

[Grennan]

Maybe its a ploy to get them out of the public and into the private system.

God knows why ANYONE would pay to go to a public school.

 

[Calaber]

Jester

IMO, The wealthy and better-off members of society should NOT be penalised financially to pay for basic public services. Their taxation levels already mean they pay more for those services than lower income earners. I didn't bother to read the report you posted because I simply don't accept the premise indicated by the headline, but there will always be those who believe the higher paid should pay more for what are essentially, basic social needs.

If those idiots who believed that had their way, I could see a complete reversal of wealth distribution, with the higher paid taxed so heavily, they actually had less disposable income than low-paid workers.