@polksaladallie wrote:
IMO, it smacks of eugenics. Encourages the wealthy and supposedly more intelligent to breed.
Intelligence aside, if the purpose of this is to increase our population by encouraging people to reproduce, I'm thinking it might be better to encourage the "wealthy" to do so.
$75,000 doesn't go very far towards raising a child, so really by offering that to a lower income person, doesn't really help them long term, it increases the financial burdon.
People aren't fond of immigration, and pure love and desire for a child isn't increasing our population in the quantities required for sustainablity, so if someone needs to be "warmly encouraged" to have a child, then this is possibly a good group to target.
Up front cost to the government/Tax payer is $75,000, but after that, whilstever they continue to earn $150,000 a year, I'm going to guess that they are not going to receive as many ongoing benefits for that child as they would if they were on a lower income.
A child born into that income is more likely to use private health and education systems thus reducing the burdon on the government/tax payer long term, more likely to be in a position to pay for their university fees up front, and less likely to require government assistance in the form of ongoing payments. It is more likely that private child care services will be sought or at least not subsidized by the government/tax payer.
But in a way, you are right, even though I don't think intelligence is the right word. But the facts are that Australia has plans to move it's workforce towards tertiary qualification. Statistics show that those with a tertiary education are generally among the higher income earners, but also their offspring are more likely to pursue a tertiary education as well.
There are more socioeconomic factors at play, but that's enough for today.
Some people can go their whole lives and never really live for a single minute.
ogQ!(U~$(KGrHgoOKjYEjlLmS1ctBJ1K-4Uyh!~~_7.JPG?set_id=81 "i-need-a-martini"){kind=avatar}
