Baby bonus versus a cardboard box

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I thought this was interesting.

With the announcement of the Federal Government’s 2013 budget came the news that the $5000 baby bonus would be “axed”, in order to save $1.1 billion over five years. 

While the baby bonus as it stands now will no longer be available, the Government will increase family payments through the Family Tax Benefit, however it is estimated that around 28,000 stay-at-home mothers who do not qualify for family payments will be left with no government support. 

This issue really begs the question, what is the purpose of the baby bonus? And why do we expect our government to “pay us to have babies” anyway? Comparing the Australian system to the way another government does it is not only interesting, but may help us to think outside the box on this subject.

Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

Since the 1930s, mothers in Finland have received a filled cardboard box from the state as a type of baby starter-kit.  Available to all expectant mothers, regardless of income, the kit contains items such as gender-neutral bodysuits, a sleeping bag, bedding material and a mattress that fit into the box, outdoor clothing, baby bathing products, cloth nappies, a baby book, bra pads and condoms.  The contents of the box have evolved over time, steered by need, but also as a method of promoting certain mothering behaviours.

continued in link

http://www.ausmed.com.au/blog/entry/baby-bonus-vs-a-cardboard-box

[*elizabeths-mum*]

...but obviously no one else did. 

[lakeland27]

i did thursdays have been quiet here for a long time. The Drum Poll on the baby bonus changes from MS Gillards time is evident of the publics opinion of the baby bonus.

14/05/2013: Do you support the decision to replace the baby bonus with a smaller, more stringently means-tested payment?

Yes	91%
No	7%
Unsure	2%

3253 votes counted

[***super_nova***]

I think "box of goodies" would be a total waste of government money.  It could be OK for single mothers or very poor people, but most ofpeople, I am sure, prefer to buy their own stuff.  Not to mention that many people overbuy so badly anyway  that they end up giving the never worn hand-me-downs to their friends and relatives who are expecting.  I certainly got carried away, spending a small fortune when my daughter was pregnant.     In the end the baby was  9 pounds, so the small items never fitted her, and being born in December, she spent first few months of her life in nappy and singlet.  Well the 7 months the ultrasound was interpreted as "being small for that stage", so I bought a whole lot of very pretty, but very tiny, onesies.  And as I also wanted to encourage cloth nappies, I also bought a whole stack of lovely organic cotton and bamboo cloth nappies, which also did not get much use (i have lots of nice dust cloth), and the disposables won. 

I think people would prefer to get what they judge the need.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

I think people would prefer to get what they judge the need.

---

Like a widescreen TV to watch while feeding?

[cherry*135]

however it is estimated that around 28,000 stay-at-home mothers who do not qualify for family payments will be left with no government support.

That statement is a misleading.

Mothers at home with a partner in paid employment,  would not be eligible for FTB because their partners income would be higher than the cut off limit for FTB. Govt support should not needed/available for high income earners.

A stay at home single mother would be eligible for FTB. A mother and father both at home and not working would be eligible for FTB as well.

[***super_nova***]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

I think people would prefer to get what they judge the need.

---

Like a widescreen TV to watch while feeding?

---

Well, if they already bought all they need, or had everything given to them, what does it matter what they spend the money on?  By the time my granddaughter was born, my daughter had enough stuff to start a baby shop LOL.    She just passed the spare goodies to the next pregnant friend.

What are you saying is that people who have babies have no right to buy widescreen TV?  Or just that if they bought the TV first, from their own money, and then bought baby staff after they got the baby bonus that would be OK?  🙂

But I also think that instead of such a generous baby bonus, there could be something like $1000 at the time of the birth and then monthly (or whatever) payments.  And definitely it should be income tested.   Give it to people who really need it.

[cherry*135]

Mothers have a choice of taking the box for each baby, or getting a cash grant of around 140 euros, however 95% of mothers opt for the box as it is worth much more, both in time and in money.  

A mattress is provided with the box, to encourage parents to put baby to sleep in it instead of co-sharing a bed.  Sleeping in a cardboard box wouldn't be very cosy.

[cherry*135]

The Aust baby bonus is paid in instalments now (fortnightly?), a lump sum is no longer paid out. That changed a year or 2 ago.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I didn't think it was misleading because they won't have government support albeit for the reasons you said, am3. 

While I dream the idealised fantasy of SAHM with a husband wealthy enough to support me in a comfortable style, sometimes women in that situation can be effectively poorer than a single mum in terms of access to actual money. It may be a choice they make to remain in a relationship with someone controlling the purse strings but why shouldn't they be helped as much as a woman who has chosen to have a baby solo?