okay, i know this girl from parkes and she is a completely feral human being who, despite only being about 24, now has two children and probably has designs to have moer. she is the last person in the world this society needs to be proliferating in such great numbers. she has openly stated that one of the reasons why she is haivng so many kids is because the government gives her lots of money when she does.

seriously: why the bugger do we give money to people have kids in this day and age? in a country that allegedly cares about the future and the environment we are giving money to people so we can increase our population, and at the very least making no distinction between the utter ferals whom we dont need more of in any capacity (and let's face it they're the people who will mainly be incentivised by the baby bonus to hav emore children) and the people who don't suck. what the bugger australia?

JC Denton wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

seriously: why the bugger do we give money to people have kids in this day and age? in a country that allegedly cares about the future and the environment we are giving money to people so we can increase our population, and at the very least making no distinction between the utter ferals whom we dont need more of in any capacity (and let's face it they're the people who will mainly be incentivised by the baby bonus to hav emore children) and the people who don't suck. what the bugger australia?

Yes it's bad. The baby bonus encourages the most prolific breeders and they usually aren't those who want the best for their kids - otherwise they wouldn't have so many.

The problem is hitting us now. We haven't got the service or education facilities to cope with this current baby boom and we're churning out hundreds of thousands of illiterate kids who will be of little use to building a productive Australia.

JC Denton wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

she has openly stated that one of the reasons why she is haivng so many kids is because the government gives her lots of money when she does.

I'm not so sure she's just talking about the baby bonus ... I knew a guy who refused to work .. he had 5 kids and quit his job ... when I asked him why not work he said that if he worked it would mean a pay cut ....

Double post..

.

---

your point, Kat?

Ppl with agendas say things. Just look @ longy.

SOB

Quote:

We haven't got the service or education facilities to cope with this current baby boom and we're churning out hundreds of thousands of illiterate kids who will be of little use to building a productive Australia.

What current baby boom?

The ABS advises that the current fertility rate in Australia in 2011 was on average 1.884 children per women. Yes, it is up, from 1.729 in 2001 - but it needs to be about 2.1 to maintain population at its present level. The only reason the Australian population isn't shrinking is because of the high level of immigration.

newtown_grafitti wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 8:07am:

Quote: We haven't got the service or education facilities to cope with this current baby boom and we're churning out hundreds of thousands of illiterate kids who will be of little use to building a productive Australia. What current baby boom? The ABS advises that the current fertility rate in Australia in 2011 was on average 1.884 children per women. Yes, it is up, from 1.729 in 2001 - but it needs to be about 2.1 to maintain population at its present level. The only reason the Australian population isn't shrinking is because of the high level of immigration.

Why do we take it for granted that higher population = better?  Look at all the useless shite that we have to provide jobs, housing and infrastructure for - they could disappear overnight and noone would give a bugger.

JC Denton wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 1:27am:

your point, Kat?

Facepalming over the way some think they should be able to stop others from having children due to their own prejudices.

Fits in nicely with the 'Welfare for all except those who need and deserve it the most' attitude that's taken this country over.

Quote:

Why do we take it for granted that higher population = better?

Who's "we"?

The Japanese don't seem to think so - or at least think so sufficiently to do something about it. According to an estimate in January last year, then current population size was starting to shrink and by 2060, will be down from 128 million to 87 million. By that time the proportion of people over 65 will have risen from 23% to 40%.

Unlike many other countries, Japan does not encourage immigration of people born elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

The baby bonus needs to be scrapped. Right now.

If people want kids, pay for it themselves.

If you can't afford them - don't have them. Don't expect the taxpayer to help you.

Of course, this doesn't fit in with the big business/government ideal of wanting a bigger and bigger Australia.

How ridiculous is it that we keep going on about sustainability, cutting pollution, etc. yet the one thing we need to do to solve the problem (reduce population growth) is hardly ever mentioned. It's like the elephant in the room.

newtown_grafitti wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 9:13am:

Quote: Why do we take it for granted that higher population = better? Who's "we"? The Japanese don't seem to think so - or at least think so sufficiently to do something about it. According to an estimate in January last year, then current population size was starting to shrink and by 2060, will be down from 128 million to 87 million. By that time the proportion of people over 65 will have risen from 23% to 40%. Unlike many other countries, Japan does not encourage immigration of people born elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

awful! think of all those poor swedes and swiss - how sorry they msut feel for themselves sitting around only having populations of a few million or so rather than 128 million.

Kat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 8:27am:

JC Denton wrote on Mar 12th, 2013 at 1:27am: your point, Kat? Facepalming over the way some think they should be able to stop others from having children due to their own prejudices. Fits in nicely with the 'Welfare for all except those who need and deserve it the most' attitude that's taken this country over.

uhhh. noone is 'stopping' them from having kids - they are free to have them, its just that other people shouldn't be expected to pay for them. the kind of people who would likely be incentivised to have children due to a payment are likely the worst kind of people anyway - improvident ferals who don't actually weigh in their heads the overall costs of raising a child over a time-frame of 18 or so years versus the immediate gratification of a big screen LCD t.v. the baby bonus is an incentivisation for feral proliferation.


Quote:

Fits in nicely with the 'Welfare for all except those who need and deserve it the most' attitude that's taken this country over.

oh my god how horrible! welfare only for people who truly need and deserve it? heaven forbid! let's give it to people who don't need and deserve it like toyah shannassey who feels she deserves monetary renumeration by churning out the future generation of gas pumpers, dole junkies and inmates so she can get a big screen plasma instead. now there's a good idea.

I rest my case.

newtown_grafitti wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 8:07am:

Quote: We haven't got the service or education facilities to cope with this current baby boom and we're churning out hundreds of thousands of illiterate kids who will be of little use to building a productive Australia. What current baby boom? The ABS advises that the current fertility rate in Australia in 2011 was on average 1.884 children per women. Yes, it is up, from 1.729 in 2001 - but it needs to be about 2.1 to maintain population at its present level. The only reason the Australian population isn't shrinking is because of the high level of immigration.

Peter Costello's sole purpose for the baby bonus was to create a huge population increase. Big businesses would love to see Australia hit 50 million - more consumers for them.

We are in the middle of a massive baby boom - regardless of what the ABS states. Go back and look at the 1961 statistics and compare.



Quote:

AUSTRALIA is in the midst of the biggest baby boom in our history. Final figures for 2011 are expected to show the number of births topping 300,000 eclipsing the 250,000 children born at the peak of the original baby boom in 1961. "These numbers are absolutely unprecedented,'' social researcher Mark McCrindle said. And the rush of new arrivals will help the country hit another milestone in 2012, with the population reaching 23 million some time in July. Latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show Australia's population grew 1.4 per cent over the past year nearly one and a half times the global average. http://www.couriermail.com.au/life/families/baby-this-is-some-big-boom/story-e6frer7o-1226234071517

actually, the worst one i know of (and yes i know this lady quite well)

she was a hep c positive speed using druggo .
got pregnant and diagnosed with twins.
had premature labor and stillbirth x 2 at 26 weeks.
hospital/governent paid to bury the kids.
got $10,000  (its true) because the baby bonus kicks in at 20  weeks pregnancy.
blew it all up her nose or arms .

oh well, i suppose it keynesian stimulus economics . the lefties will still point to the increase in economic activity ;) ;)

newtown_grafitti wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 9:13am:

Quote: Why do we take it for granted that higher population = better? Who's "we"? The Japanese don't seem to think so - or at least think so sufficiently to do something about it. According to an estimate in January last year, then current population size was starting to shrink and by 2060, will be down from 128 million to 87 million. By that time the proportion of people over 65 will have risen from 23% to 40%. Unlike many other countries, Japan does not encourage immigration of people born elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

This subject is very interesting; some complain about women having children to get the baby bonus,others consider that Australia only keeps population rising, by mass immigration, and Japan's population is declining.
Japan is a very special case; they don't seem to take any refugees from other countries in; and UN surprises me, that they expect Australia and other wealthy nations to take in refugees but not Japan.
And in countries like Spain and Greece, there is 50% youth unemplyment.
What a crazy world. Food for thought.

A few observations-

1) For a number of reasons, which will soon override the usual Economic gains reasons, the current OZ Population is already larger than we will have a capacity to sustain.

2) Because of the above, a Baby Bonus is therefore counter productive and it should therefore be done away with, ASAP.

3) The Baby Bonus is only one of many Expenditure items, which should be reviewed & then cancelled, IF it can not meet current fit & proper reasons for it to be retained.

4) Another of the Expenditure items, which should be reviewed & then done away with, are Local Councils, which are about as "useful as T!ts on a Bull and they are equally, as unproductive!

mantra wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 6:29pm:

Peter Costello's sole purpose for the baby bonus was to create a huge population increase. Big businesses would love to see Australia hit 50 million - more consumers for them.

Governments and big business love population growth as it is an artificial way of growing the economy. If you look at GDP per capita we were in recession in 2009 and are probably in recession now.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/australia/gdp-per-capita-growth

As for the baby bonus. It was introduced as middle class welfare and I can't believe that we still have it. It should have been stopped a long time ago.

newtown_grafitti wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 8:07am:

Quote: We haven't got the service or education facilities to cope with this current baby boom and we're churning out hundreds of thousands of illiterate kids who will be of little use to building a productive Australia. What current baby boom? The ABS advises that the current fertility rate in Australia in 2011 was on average 1.884 children per women. Yes, it is up, from 1.729 in 2001 - but it needs to be about 2.1 to maintain population at its present level. The only reason the Australian population isn't shrinking is because of the high level of immigration.

So what's your point? Is it somehow a better idea because it is also ineffective from that perspective?

aquascoot wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

actually, the worst one i know of (and yes i know this lady quite well) she was a hep c positive speed using druggo . got pregnant and diagnosed with twins. had premature labor and stillbirth x 2 at 26 weeks. hospital/governent paid to bury the kids. got $10,000  (its true) because the baby bonus kicks in at 20  weeks pregnancy. blew it all up her nose or arms . oh well, i suppose it keynesian stimulus economics . the lefties will still point to the increase in economic activity ;) ;)

Well! I guess that means everyone that gets the baby bonus is going to do that so better get rid of it.

SOB

Quote:

oh well, i suppose it keynesian stimulus economics . the lefties will still point to the increase in economic activity

It is the opposite of Keynesian economics. The baby bonus started when mainstream economists were calling for the retardation of economic activity, which is exactly what Keynsian economics called for. This was also on the front page of the paper at the time.

Kat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

I rest my case.

How many kids are you mothering, Kat?