who stay home to care for children should be paid a homemaker's "wage" to help
arrest the nation's falling birth rate. They warn Australia's population will reach crisis
level within 10 years unless there is a radical rethink of family financial support.
"In the first year after the birth of a child, we should be supporting parents to
stay at home to look after their baby - not just mothers but fathers," said leading
population expert ANU Professor Peter Macdonald."
This socialist State is waking up to fiscal reality. It is about to do
whatever it considers necessary to ensure that the Australian birthrate increases. Failure
to take action will result in the inevitable collapse--just like all Ponzi schemes. This
should come as no surprise to anyone, but socialists dont believe that there is no
free lunch. After years of meddling in the job market to increase the number of working
women the government is now shocked, shocked to discover that the birthrate is
"Professor Macdonald said the present system of family payments was a
"hodgepodge". Experts argue that offering paid maternity leave does not go far
enough in encouraging people to have more babies. Prime Minister John Howard and Family
Services Minister Amanda Vanstone have made it clear that paid maternity leave will be
only one factor in the planned overhaul of Australia's $17 billion family payments system.
"You have a child for a lot longer than 12 weeks and there are a lot more issues that
need to be considered than a payment for a 12-week period," Senator Vanstone
Now theres a mouthful. Like all socialist schemes, this is just the tip of
the iceberg. Cradle-to-grave payments are what he is referring to, but he doesnt
elaborate. His real concern is not the declining birthrate, but the result of it: not
enough future taxpayers to keep the house of cards standing.
"Leading family authorities urged the Prime Minister to consider a
"wage" for parents of children up to 12 months old to allow one parent to stay
at home. The Centre for Independent Studies proposes pooling the $17 billion in
child-related allowances to pay parents $3000-$4000 for each child, regardless of income.
Other experts have called for a sliding scale so Australians receive a higher payment or
"wage" for each subsequent child."
The less you work, the more you stay home, and the more children you produce, the more
money you could collect from the government. Whats wrong with this picture?
"Australian women are having fewer babies now than in the past century. The
average woman has 1.7 babies, down from a high of 3.5 in the 1960s. Professor Macdonald
said Australia had to act now to bolster falling birth rates, which will reach a crisis in
the next 10 years. National Taxation Agents' Association president Ray Regan supported the
call for a parents wage which could be partly funded by a "family tax" on major
Of course, like always, costs of this socialist Ponzi scheme will be offset by a new
"family tax" levied on major corporations. They have lots of free money just
sitting around waiting to be siphoned off by the State, right?
"In addition, Mr Regan advocates a 30 per cent tax rebate on childcare fees.
Australia now has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, at just 1.7 babies for
each woman. This has more than halved in 40 years."
Dare I say that you reap what you sow, even in a socialist State?
"Paid maternity is just the tip of the iceberg," Relationships Australia
chief executive officer Anne Hollonds said. "The Government needs to set up a
cross-portfolio task force to address this issue from every possible angle."
Since when is it the province of government to subsidize the production of children?
"Australian Family Association executive officer Terry Breen said many families -
particularly in expensive cities like Sydney - could not afford to have many
Why then, pray tell, would the government want to pay them to have more
"We need to recognise that mothers or fathers who stay at home need more
support," Mr Breen said. "We need to give them a homemaker's allowance, not to
put them down for being at home."
Like all socialist schemes, this is about perceived "needs" paid for by
"Mr Breen and Ms Hollonds both said Australia had become a particularly unfriendly
place for children. Ms Hollonds said there was even workplace backlash against assistance
for workers with child."
You might almost think that some people believe that their income is their
income, to spend as they see fit, not as the government deems necessary to subsidize the
production of someone elses children. Go figure.
"ANU demographer Professor Peter Macdonald said the two family payments introduced
by the Howard Government, the family tax benefit and the baby bonus, were discriminatory
and shifted the balance from supporting working mothers to encouraging women to remain at
Not only is this not politically correct, it also results in one less taxpayer for the
State. This cannot and will not be tolerated.
"Both are paid according to the income of the father whereas the childcare rebate
is means tested on both the mother's and the father's wage. If a woman works 20 hours a
week, the family loses both payments. But if the father works overtime or takes an extra
job on top of his full-time job, the family retains its financial assistance. In a family
where the father stays at home to care for his children and the mother is the main wage
earner, the family is not entitled to either of the payments."
Note the blatant discrimination against stay-at-home fathers. As always, the
father is relegated to the conventional socialist norm: working drone for the State.
"This policy regime moves the father out of the family and keeps the mother at
home," he said."
Which is exactly what the State wants. Keep the father out of the family and
keep the mother at home, producing more babies for the State.
In summary, please allow me to state the obvious: