Australian Politics Forum - TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #30 - May 5^th, 2011 at 11:34am

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

Quote:

Anyone who hasn't had a child in the last 5-10 years is against the baby bonus. It seems if they're not getting it, noone should!

A sad and true fact.
A lot of people seem to be against things, that they don't get.

I think it is the "What about me?" view of the world.

That's where you have got it wrong. You can see the difference in the care of children raised without the bonus. You lot have a welfare mentality regardless of how wealthy you claim to be.

I have children old enough to have babies if that's what they wanted. Fortunately they aren't tempted by a bribe of $5,000 although many of their peers have been.

The teenage pregnancies in most areas have escalated and I have never seen such mass produced, uneducated, neglected and poverty stricken children before. In a few years the state schools will not be able to cope with the influx of dysfunctional children - nor will society.

Look at the long term ramifications - not just the immediate dollar sign and the goodies you can buy with it.

I'm afraid the facts don't agree with your claims that the baby bonus has massively inflated the birth rate among 'undesirables'.

But I'm more intersted in this claim:

Quote:

You can see the difference in the care of children raised without the bonus

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

mantra

Gold Member

Offline

ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #31 - May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

Back to top

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #32 - May 5^th, 2011 at 11:48am

There is some truth in what Mantra says on that one.

My view in 2011, is now that the eldest is a lot more active - to maybe try and get home a little bit earlier and check my blackberry a little less on the weekends.

It's hard though, today's world doesn't necessarily have the demands that my parents and grandparents enjoyed.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #33 - May 5^th, 2011 at 11:57am

I guess my point on that one is that you're not going to change how things are from a work demands perspective now.

The world is smaller, the communications are so much better, we have demands from a myriad of people that never existed before.

How many of our grandparents would have received requests on a saturday morning because their bosses are sitting in a timezone where its friday afternoon?

It's just how it is now.
It's about formulating policies which work in with that rather than try and oppose it.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #34 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:00pm

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth. You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price. But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

FRED.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3698

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #35 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:12pm

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth. You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price. But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #36 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:15pm

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth. You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price. But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. Grin

I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings. Why? Cos it's true.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23818 Carlsbad, CA Gender:	Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments Reply #37 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:16pm Baby Boomers do have an awful lot to answer for. Who is it that never bothered to save for their own retirement and now expect the rest of us to pay for them? The superannuation savings of baby boomers as a whole is appalling. A wasteful generation.
Back to top	Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde IP Logged

FRED.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3698

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #38 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:18pm

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth. You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price. But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. Grin

I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings. Why? Cos it's true.

Typical looser SOME ONE ELSES FAULT Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

FRED.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3698

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #39 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:20pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

Baby Boomers do have an awful lot to answer for.

Who is it that never bothered to save for their own retirement and now expect the rest of us to pay for them?

The superannuation savings of baby boomers as a whole is appalling.

A wasteful generation.

So tell me about the history of superannuation in australia Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #40 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:25pm

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth. You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price. But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. Grin

I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings. Why? Cos it's true.

Typical looser SOME ONE ELSES FAULT Wink

Typical LOSER - blames others for daring to mention the mess you made.

I would mention that we're lucky enough to be able to survive on my income alone - but then how would you turn it around onto me?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

FRED.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3698

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #41 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:38pm

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:25pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth. You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price. But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. Grin

I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings. Why? Cos it's true.

Typical looser SOME ONE ELSES FAULT Wink

Typical LOSER - blames others for daring to mention the mess you made.

I would mention that we're lucky enough to be able to survive on my income alone - but then how would you turn it around onto me?

And my family like my parents before have been well able to surport ourselves on one income .Without baby bonuses,first home buyers grants,child care surport,

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #42 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:42pm

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:38pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:25pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth. You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price. But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. Grin

I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings. Why? Cos it's true.

Typical looser SOME ONE ELSES FAULT Wink

Typical LOSER - blames others for daring to mention the mess you made.

I would mention that we're lucky enough to be able to survive on my income alone - but then how would you turn it around onto me?

And my family like my parents before have been well able to surport ourselves on one income .Without baby bonuses,first home buyers grants,child care surport,

I'm sure you did - but did a house cost 8x your annnual income back then? Nooo....but I'm sure you'll find a way to blame that on 'the youth of today'

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

FRED.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3698

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #43 - May 5^th, 2011 at 12:47pm

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:42pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:38pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:25pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare? Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth. You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price. But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. Grin

I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings. Why? Cos it's true.

Typical looser SOME ONE ELSES FAULT Wink

Typical LOSER - blames others for daring to mention the mess you made.

I would mention that we're lucky enough to be able to survive on my income alone - but then how would you turn it around onto me?

And my family like my parents before have been well able to surport ourselves on one income .Without baby bonuses,first home buyers grants,child care surport,

I'm sure you did - but did a house cost 8x your annnual income back then? Nooo....but I'm sure you'll find a way to blame that on 'the youth of today'

No I blame govements for not releasing land to build on, Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

imcrookonit

Ex Member

Re: TEENAGE parents Could lose welfare payments
Reply #44 - May 5^th, 2011 at 1:21pm

#

Its only a start, they need to give a clear message to the young girls that having babies is a serious job, not a game. The government should only support one baby not multiple births (let them have one mistake). The baby bonus has made it to easy for them to keep having children, a lot of the time to several fathers. Once upon a time we would find a partner and our children where planned, and we would work to provide to the best of our ability, for our children, not today NO PLANNING REQUIRED. Now these teenagers just think the government support them indefinately. That's why we are seeing second and third generation welfare recipiants. Stop the $5,000 bonus as well, if you carn't efford to bring them into this world yourself - dont expect the tax payers to. My husband and I are tax payers and both work we have raised our daughter without any assistance. We put things in the correct order 1) bought a house. 2) Planned for our child. 3)Went back to work and only received the minimum payments for childcare from the government. I dont feel guily because I went to work to pay my taxes to receive my small payments. We have to STOP paying for these lazy teenagers.

Comment
#
Criselee of Central Coast Posted at 9:28 AM Today

well thats fine- But where are the jobs!!!! Must we continue to have our kids in childcare for an extra 4 hours a day due to the fact many of us commute. For example, apart from working a 8 hour day most of us need at least an hour to and from work, So thats 10 hours of childcare a day!Even if you travel locally on the Central Coast- It will take you an Hour at peak times to get from Wyong to Gosford. Those of us travelling to Sydney- well dont get me started!!!!So studying is a great idea- But once you finish- Where are the JOBS- Not on the Central Coast!!!! Not in Newcastle or Woolongong

Back to top

IP Logged