adelcrow wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:


I was wondering why it was such a stupid idea.

Please think of Warrigal who wants to have $1000 a week without having to have a job and in Sydney of all places.

Go bush Warrigal. You might even like living in Queensland. 

The western capitalistic pyramid scheme society depends on growth, once you drop below about 2.3 births per couple then basically you are buggered!, the pyramid scheme will collapse, in Europe they have dropped to well below that level and have imported lots of third world dregs to be the children they couldn't be buggered having, trouble is those ring ins have decided to just retire on welfare instead of working and generating taxes to pay for the retirees retirement.
So here we are faced with the same problem, everyones squealing about subsidizing birth rates yet if we don't keep propping up the pyramid scheme then there is going to be no front bottom around to work and pay taxes to all the retirees.
So shut up and pay up now you childless pricks otherwise you'll be getting no pension.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(flings yet another Tassie Devil, fur thoroughly stroked backwards, into the ring at centre stage.... looking for some bites and to get yez thinking)....

Nah - then - what about those radical Grappler Party policies of:-

a) Mandatory back pay for all those parents who did the raising in the past fee free - based on the average of what is actually paid out to the poor suffering mother of today who slaves 7 hours a day in a nice office etc?  Say a tidy sum of.. oooh at a guess.. $25-40k for each child?  Oh - between me ex an' me, that's be around $125-200k flat handout (lump sum please), and families with a dozen kids or more would get a good chance at life for a change... great equaliser this idea and compensates for past government failure to appreciate this style of socialist system where the funds are unlimited as long as you don't have to pay them back!  Why not just raise the pension rate for those who raised their kids off their own back to compensate for past loss of opportunity?  Lessee now - average of maybe $100k per person..... let's spread it around over, say, five years to make it worthwhile, balance payable in the event of demise along the way - an extra $20k a year... or would you prefer a lump sum, sir/madam?  I'm sure that would help (where's Andrei the Troll when you need him with his $300k income - jeez - as a Professor Emeritus I get nothing)....

b) Mandatory inclusion of the professional Stay At Home Mum or Dad, who, by staying at home, contributes to society via employment/unemployment level leveling, social conditioning of children and so forth, social stability - and is thus worthy of the same reward as a person who goes to work.  I mean - in the ultra-socialist sense it's all WORK, isn't it, and contributes to the socio-economic unit which is the base of society - The Family (not to be confused with the Manson Family).  Their mortgages etc don't disappear either - if they can even afford to have one!

Why should the SAHM/D be forced to do a Dworkin and sit and watch the fat cat's table without being able to partake of a single bite?

I mean - what welfare mum wouldn't value a solid kick of $25-40k for the bub's welfare***?  All fair and above board and definitely non-discriminatory, since all receive equally... right?

*** Or maybe just a return to their income levels pre-Julia..The Forgotten Redhead who you hardly hear of today.... as part of a compensatory package for not having the opportunity due to government policies, *gasps* unpaid child bearing etc - opportunity cost - to BE in paid employment these days... or maybe we could make it the PPL Package (average of payout) plus return of income.... just a thought...