Government rebates to private companies results only in those companies raising prices. Ultimately, the only way to control prices is to nationalise (take over) child care.

The only child care which should be subsidised is that by the actual parent(s) of the child. Look after your own kids.

Auggie wrote on Oct 14^th, 2019 at 8:28pm:

Government rebates to private companies results only in those companies raising prices. Ultimately, the only way to control prices is to nationalise (take over) child care.

So you think government interference in the sector is so bad that there should be more of it?

Absolutely NO.

It is the criminal disgrace that is happening with the sick Greenies in the schools where our little kiddies are having their lives ruined by NOT being taught the 3 R's but instead stupid Greeny propaganda rubbish.

Abolish this kind of welfare now... too costly and distorts the real social security issues, since it is conveniently included with those... same as PPL is .. these are NOT social security - they are special handouts, and a genuine burden on the economy, unlike social security.

If it means sheilas can't get jobs - tough titties - stay married and let the old man get a job or stay at home while you work.... you cannot 'have it all' ..... soon the cost of homes will fall because the dual income family is no more... and all the social imbalance will begin to rectify itself...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFvGgZ0iPuo

No rebates or subsidies to any private company should result in companies competing against one another to offer the best prices, therefore eliminating the need to nationalise anything.

If child care prices have only risen since subsidies have been introduced, the logical thing to do would be to eliminate all subsidies and lower taxes accordingly. Reducing regulations in the sector and making it easier for Au Pairs to be sourced from South East Asia should reduce prices overall.

Meanwhile, reducing or eliminating tax deductions on investment properties, as well as offering tax incentives to individuals who move to areas with a population of less than 200,000 and more than 150 km from Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney, should stagnate prices in the housing sector. This would reduce the need for some families for both partners to work and thus reduce or eliminate the need for childcare in the first place.

Maybe people should just live within their means ?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 14^th, 2019 at 10:57pm:

Abolish this kind of welfare now... too costly and distorts the real social security issues, since it is conveniently included with those... same as PPL is .. these are NOT social security - they are special handouts, and a genuine burden on the economy, unlike social security. If it means sheilas can't get jobs - tough titties - stay married and let the old man get a job or stay at home while you work.... you cannot 'have it all' ..... soon the cost of homes will fall because the dual income family is no more... and all the social imbalance will begin to rectify itself... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFvGgZ0iPuo

Yep. And just maybe we will end up with a generation of kids actually raised by and taught values by their parents. 

rhino wrote on Oct 14^th, 2019 at 8:45pm:

The only child care which should be subsidised is that by the actual parent(s) of the child. Look after your own kids.

I tend towards the view that genuine cases - single parents - should receive full subsidy.  What I don't see is the necessity to provide childcare subsidy for everyone.. well - everyone except the proven well-off.. if you can catch them - apparently many well-off life on nothing but fresh air when it comes to declared income..

minarchist wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 1:44am:

No rebates or subsidies to any private company should result in companies competing against one another to offer the best prices, therefore eliminating the need to nationalise anything. If child care prices have only risen since subsidies have been introduced, the logical thing to do would be to eliminate all subsidies and lower taxes accordingly. Reducing regulations in the sector and making it easier for Au Pairs to be sourced from South East Asia should reduce prices overall. Meanwhile, reducing or eliminating tax deductions on investment properties, as well as offering tax incentives to individuals who move to areas with a population of less than 200,000 and more than 150 km from Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney, should stagnate prices in the housing sector. This would reduce the need for some families for both partners to work and thus reduce or eliminate the need for childcare in the first place.

This below in regard to your amazing belief in pure market forces..... haven't worked yet and never will, and it's all theory ... continue your education...

Oh - so you want those who can afford them to be able to access Au Pairs on the taxpayer dime?  Pure market forces my arse.... you mean only for the proletariat .... they can take market forces up the kazoo but the well-off must receive help to get Au Pairs and so forth...   ::)  ::)

You're on the autism scale somewhere, aren't you?

---

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 1:00pm:

rhino wrote on Oct 14th, 2019 at 8:45pm: The only child care which should be subsidised is that by the actual parent(s) of the child. Look after your own kids. I tend towards the view that genuine cases - single parents - should receive full subsidy.  What I don't see is the necessity to provide childcare subsidy for everyone.. well - everyone except the proven well-off.. if you can catch them - apparently many well-off life on nothing but fresh air when it comes to declared income..

I wouldn't be against actually paying one partner a subsidy to stay home and look after their own children, in the long run far fewer social issues. even a tax concession, we need to get away from this current madness of pretending child care centres can raise children, its not working.

Subsidies really work well in some instances

Just look and medical infraudance, they are really well controlled and affordable yes?

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2019 at 9:22pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 14th, 2019 at 8:28pm: Government rebates to private companies results only in those companies raising prices. Ultimately, the only way to control prices is to nationalise (take over) child care. So you think government interference in the sector is so bad that there should be more of it?

I don't think that tax payers dollars should go toward private companies to provide essential services.

minarchist wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 1:44am:

No rebates or subsidies to any private company should result in companies competing against one another to offer the best prices, therefore eliminating the need to nationalise anything. If child care prices have only risen since subsidies have been introduced, the logical thing to do would be to eliminate all subsidies and lower taxes accordingly. Reducing regulations in the sector and making it easier for Au Pairs to be sourced from South East Asia should reduce prices overall. Meanwhile, reducing or eliminating tax deductions on investment properties, as well as offering tax incentives to individuals who move to areas with a population of less than 200,000 and more than 150 km from Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney, should stagnate prices in the housing sector. This would reduce the need for some families for both partners to work and thus reduce or eliminate the need for childcare in the first place.

I wouldn't want an au pair from SE Asia looking after my kids....

The reason why competition doesn't work in childcare is because it's an essential service. Private providers will increase prices to serve only the well-off and rich, leaving lower income families in the lurch.

The best way to eliminate competition by having the government take it over, thereby controlling prices and running the service with the public interest in mind.

rhino wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 1:22pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:00pm: rhino wrote on Oct 14th, 2019 at 8:45pm: The only child care which should be subsidised is that by the actual parent(s) of the child. Look after your own kids. I tend towards the view that genuine cases - single parents - should receive full subsidy.  What I don't see is the necessity to provide childcare subsidy for everyone.. well - everyone except the proven well-off.. if you can catch them - apparently many well-off life on nothing but fresh air when it comes to declared income.. I wouldn't be against actually paying one partner a subsidy to stay home and look after their own children, in the long run far fewer social issues. even a tax concession, we need to get away from this current madness of pretending child care centres can raise children, its not working.

The issue is that we want to encourage people to work, not to stay home. Such a policy would be skewed heavily against women. The idea of having a strong childcare system is that both parents can work full-time.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 1:02pm:

minarchist wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:44am: No rebates or subsidies to any private company should result in companies competing against one another to offer the best prices, therefore eliminating the need to nationalise anything. If child care prices have only risen since subsidies have been introduced, the logical thing to do would be to eliminate all subsidies and lower taxes accordingly. Reducing regulations in the sector and making it easier for Au Pairs to be sourced from South East Asia should reduce prices overall. Meanwhile, reducing or eliminating tax deductions on investment properties, as well as offering tax incentives to individuals who move to areas with a population of less than 200,000 and more than 150 km from Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney, should stagnate prices in the housing sector. This would reduce the need for some families for both partners to work and thus reduce or eliminate the need for childcare in the first place. This below in regard to your amazing belief in pure market forces..... haven't worked yet and never will, and it's all theory ... continue your education... Oh - so you want those who can afford them to be able to access Au Pairs on the taxpayer dime?  Pure market forces my arse.... you mean only for the proletariat .... they can take market forces up the kazoo but the well-off must receive help to get Au Pairs and so forth...   ::)  ::) You're on the autism scale somewhere, aren't you?

Couldn't get a more perfect example of market forces in action with the price rises post subsidy. Continue your education.

crocodile wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 6:23pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:02pm: minarchist wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:44am: No rebates or subsidies to any private company should result in companies competing against one another to offer the best prices, therefore eliminating the need to nationalise anything. If child care prices have only risen since subsidies have been introduced, the logical thing to do would be to eliminate all subsidies and lower taxes accordingly. Reducing regulations in the sector and making it easier for Au Pairs to be sourced from South East Asia should reduce prices overall. Meanwhile, reducing or eliminating tax deductions on investment properties, as well as offering tax incentives to individuals who move to areas with a population of less than 200,000 and more than 150 km from Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney, should stagnate prices in the housing sector. This would reduce the need for some families for both partners to work and thus reduce or eliminate the need for childcare in the first place. This below in regard to your amazing belief in pure market forces..... haven't worked yet and never will, and it's all theory ... continue your education... Oh - so you want those who can afford them to be able to access Au Pairs on the taxpayer dime?  Pure market forces my arse.... you mean only for the proletariat .... they can take market forces up the kazoo but the well-off must receive help to get Au Pairs and so forth...   ::)  ::) You're on the autism scale somewhere, aren't you? Couldn't get a more perfect example of market forces in action with the price rises post subsidy. Continue your education.

Not the subject matter I discussed - and this is not PURE market forces - this is socialised market forces... whereas the boy thinks that pure market forces are the answer to everything... continue your education...

You are off his issue...

Auggie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 5:51pm:

rhino wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:22pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:00pm: rhino wrote on Oct 14th, 2019 at 8:45pm: The only child care which should be subsidised is that by the actual parent(s) of the child. Look after your own kids. I tend towards the view that genuine cases - single parents - should receive full subsidy.  What I don't see is the necessity to provide childcare subsidy for everyone.. well - everyone except the proven well-off.. if you can catch them - apparently many well-off life on nothing but fresh air when it comes to declared income.. I wouldn't be against actually paying one partner a subsidy to stay home and look after their own children, in the long run far fewer social issues. even a tax concession, we need to get away from this current madness of pretending child care centres can raise children, its not working. The issue is that we want to encourage people to work,

why? 
Quote:

Such a policy would be skewed heavily against women.

Skewed against? Dont have children, problem solved.

Quote:

The idea of having a strong childcare system is that both parents can work full-time.

No kidding einstein. You arent following this too well are you?

Auggie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 5:49pm:

minarchist wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:44am: No rebates or subsidies to any private company should result in companies competing against one another to offer the best prices, therefore eliminating the need to nationalise anything. If child care prices have only risen since subsidies have been introduced, the logical thing to do would be to eliminate all subsidies and lower taxes accordingly. Reducing regulations in the sector and making it easier for Au Pairs to be sourced from South East Asia should reduce prices overall. Meanwhile, reducing or eliminating tax deductions on investment properties, as well as offering tax incentives to individuals who move to areas with a population of less than 200,000 and more than 150 km from Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney, should stagnate prices in the housing sector. This would reduce the need for some families for both partners to work and thus reduce or eliminate the need for childcare in the first place. I wouldn't want an au pair from SE Asia looking after my kids.... The reason why competition doesn't work in childcare is because it's an essential service. Private providers will increase prices to serve only the well-off and rich, leaving lower income families in the lurch. The best way to eliminate competition by having the government take it over, thereby controlling prices and running the service with the public interest in mind.

That could be said of many essential services such at commuter trains, electricity, water, gas. once you privatise and make it for profit rather than for the public good services goes down the drain and price goes up.

Auggie wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 5:46pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2019 at 9:22pm: Auggie wrote on Oct 14th, 2019 at 8:28pm: Government rebates to private companies results only in those companies raising prices. Ultimately, the only way to control prices is to nationalise (take over) child care. So you think government interference in the sector is so bad that there should be more of it? I don't think that tax payers dollars should go toward private companies to provide essential services.

Are you backpedaling or missing the point?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 1:02pm:

minarchist wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:44am: No rebates or subsidies to any private company should result in companies competing against one another to offer the best prices, therefore eliminating the need to nationalise anything. If child care prices have only risen since subsidies have been introduced, the logical thing to do would be to eliminate all subsidies and lower taxes accordingly. Reducing regulations in the sector and making it easier for Au Pairs to be sourced from South East Asia should reduce prices overall. Meanwhile, reducing or eliminating tax deductions on investment properties, as well as offering tax incentives to individuals who move to areas with a population of less than 200,000 and more than 150 km from Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney, should stagnate prices in the housing sector. This would reduce the need for some families for both partners to work and thus reduce or eliminate the need for childcare in the first place. This below in regard to your amazing belief in pure market forces..... haven't worked yet and never will, and it's all theory ... continue your education... Oh - so you want those who can afford them to be able to access Au Pairs on the taxpayer dime?  Pure market forces my arse.... you mean only for the proletariat .... they can take market forces up the kazoo but the well-off must receive help to get Au Pairs and so forth...   ::)  ::)

Where in my post did I suggest that Au Pairs should be funded by the taxpayer? Why would I make such a suggestion if I'm suggesting that we should eliminate childcare subsidies, which you are mostly in agreement with except for certain members of the community?

I don't know how familiar you are with how Au Pairs work, but provided that you follow the government's requirements you can hire an individual from overseas to work for you for a minimum of $8 per hour to look after your children. In exchange, you have to at least provide them with a free room, free food and access to amenities, with most providing additional benefits such as free wifi, a TV and DVD player for their room, access to a vehicle on days off, etc. Most people with go through an agency to ensure that the government requirements are met. Child care subsidies cannot be used to pay for an Au Pair.

Au Pairs are just not being used by the Upper Class, they are being used by working class families who find the cost of child care too expensive and find that Au Pairs are on par or cheaper than child care. Most Au Pairs are sourced from European countries, I can't recall the exact reasons but I do know that the Au Pair needs to have valid health insurance in place and a minimum amount of cash in their bank accounts ($5000 I believe) before they can come to Australia. If the cash requirements were lowered, more Au Pairs could be sourced from Asian countries.

While I agree that the free market should work in most circumstances, I recognise that in others it can't be expected to work with any benefit. I'm suggesting that we eliminate child care subsidies as the cost of child care costs didn't seem to be an issue prior to the 1990s when subsidies were first introduced. Granted, there were other factors in place that didn't require child care unless there was no other choice, eg most people had family, friends or neighbours within a short distance they could rely on for little or no cost to look after their kids while they were at work.


Quote:

You're on the autism scale somewhere, aren't you?

I think you'll find that there are no peer reviewed papers demonstrating a link between Autism and a belief in free market economics. However, there are plenty of examples of nations that go down the toilet when they reject most of the principles of free market economics.

Socialism always goes rotten as it is SO inefficient and costs 5 times as much.

freediver wrote on Oct 15^th, 2019 at 8:12pm:

Auggie wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 5:46pm: freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2019 at 9:22pm: Auggie wrote on Oct 14th, 2019 at 8:28pm: Government rebates to private companies results only in those companies raising prices. Ultimately, the only way to control prices is to nationalise (take over) child care. So you think government interference in the sector is so bad that there should be more of it? I don't think that tax payers dollars should go toward private companies to provide essential services. Are you backpedaling or missing the point?

Clearly missing the point. So, why don't you elaborate?

juliar wrote on Oct 16^th, 2019 at 8:33am:

Socialism always goes rotten as it is SO inefficient and costs 5 times as much.

Thats bulldust, privatisation of services leads to increased costs in every case.

rhino wrote on Oct 16^th, 2019 at 10:07pm:

juliar wrote on Oct 16th, 2019 at 8:33am: Socialism always goes rotten as it is SO inefficient and costs 5 times as much. Thats bulldust, privatisation of services leads to increased costs in every case.

Absolutely ... if I left my car with a mechanic for service, and came back to find he's put in an engine/transmission/computer system that cost me three times as much to run for no benefit .... I'd rightly sue him.... and would win any and every day of the week....

minarchist wrote on Oct 16^th, 2019 at 2:16am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:02pm: minarchist wrote on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:44am: No rebates or subsidies to any private company should result in companies competing against one another to offer the best prices, therefore eliminating the need to nationalise anything. If child care prices have only risen since subsidies have been introduced, the logical thing to do would be to eliminate all subsidies and lower taxes accordingly. Reducing regulations in the sector and making it easier for Au Pairs to be sourced from South East Asia should reduce prices overall. Meanwhile, reducing or eliminating tax deductions on investment properties, as well as offering tax incentives to individuals who move to areas with a population of less than 200,000 and more than 150 km from Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney, should stagnate prices in the housing sector. This would reduce the need for some families for both partners to work and thus reduce or eliminate the need for childcare in the first place. This below in regard to your amazing belief in pure market forces..... haven't worked yet and never will, and it's all theory ... continue your education... Oh - so you want those who can afford them to be able to access Au Pairs on the taxpayer dime?  Pure market forces my arse.... you mean only for the proletariat .... they can take market forces up the kazoo but the well-off must receive help to get Au Pairs and so forth...   ::)  ::) Where in my post did I suggest that Au Pairs should be funded by the taxpayer? Why would I make such a suggestion if I'm suggesting that we should eliminate childcare subsidies, which you are mostly in agreement with except for certain members of the community? I don't know how familiar you are with how Au Pairs work, but provided that you follow the government's requirements you can hire an individual from overseas to work for you for a minimum of $8 per hour to look after your children. In exchange, you have to at least provide them with a free room, free food and access to amenities, with most providing additional benefits such as free wifi, a TV and DVD player for their room, access to a vehicle on days off, etc. Most people with go through an agency to ensure that the government requirements are met. Child care subsidies cannot be used to pay for an Au Pair. Au Pairs are just not being used by the Upper Class, they are being used by working class families who find the cost of child care too expensive and find that Au Pairs are on par or cheaper than child care. Most Au Pairs are sourced from European countries, I can't recall the exact reasons but I do know that the Au Pair needs to have valid health insurance in place and a minimum amount of cash in their bank accounts ($5000 I believe) before they can come to Australia. If the cash requirements were lowered, more Au Pairs could be sourced from Asian countries. While I agree that the free market should work in most circumstances, I recognise that in others it can't be expected to work with any benefit. I'm suggesting that we eliminate child care subsidies as the cost of child care costs didn't seem to be an issue prior to the 1990s when subsidies were first introduced. Granted, there were other factors in place that didn't require child care unless there was no other choice, eg most people had family, friends or neighbours within a short distance they could rely on for little or no cost to look after their kids while they were at work. Quote: You're on the autism scale somewhere, aren't you? I think you'll find that there are no peer reviewed papers demonstrating a link between Autism and a belief in free market economics. However, there are plenty of examples of nations that go down the toilet when they reject most of the principles of free market economics.

Your inference that childcare subsidy was better replaced by the opportunity to import au Pairs.. that implies subsidy for Au Pairs.

So go ahead - if you can afford it - pay an Au Pair at the proper rates of pay..... therefore childcare for the majority would cease to exist.

I may have misread you - but you contributed to the misreading... you need to specify that Au Pairs would not be subsidised by government handout... however - they usually are anyway via income manipulation through companies and trusts.

Thus only the fat who can manipulate income would benefit... what about the single mother who needs a job and who Centrelink pursues with a vengeance these days?  Where is their Au Pair?

I think you need to get out of your limited theoretical view of the world... and see real life for the majority.

Again - all you are doing by suggesting 'easy access for Au Pairs' is benefit to the rich and none to anyone else = escalating social divides.....

Don't the rich get enough benefits already through income manip0ulation etc?

You're either autistic or a private school kid....  NFI....

... AND you are advocating wage exploitation..... this is AUSTRALIA, chum - not farken India or Saudi Arabia .... you pay your wages correctly here, sonny - or face the lash...

Jesus God - that anyone could come out and publicly state blatant wage exploitation of foreign imports from depressed countries... where you bin, Laden, in the argument about Asians etc being  brought in to lower wages?

HTF do you seriously expect a working class family to employ anyone, unless on exploitationist rates of pay?  Are you joking?

How does someone with a family and bills and a mortgage pay someone else $8 an hour to mind the kids and find a room etc for them?

You're an autist, or a private school kid or a Liberal, aren't you?  NFD!