How true

[***super_nova***]

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

Liberal priorities are wrong because they don't have education as a priority so that more of the population can earn more with higher/better education.

They would rather invest in leaking fishing boats. Says a lot, doesn't it?

---

Then I say that you don't understand the true purpose of education or the economics of the education system.

The difference between Liberal and Labour as far as education goes is that Liberal recognizes that we simply don't have enough money to meet the promises of the past of a fair and equitable education for ALL children, so they look for ways to utilize the capitalist society in which we live to generate a long term "user pays" system.

Lower income earners are less likely to use private education (or health for that matter), so long term, they will more than likely rely on public ammenities - and the numbers prove, they can't afford to fund what we have now, so logically, if you want population growth, it makes sense to encourage it in sectors which are more likely to access private systems. At the moment the higher income sector are contributing to population growth at a slower rate than that of lower incomes - so we are becoming bottom heavy with too many people accessing public systems.

By moving people into private education, it takes the pressure off public education, so that those who do need to access public education get way more bang for their buck (because that buck doesn't have to cater for as many children), thus increasing the opportunities for every child to receive an equal and just education.

The current education system doesn't even provide access for all children, far less a comparable one.

Donna, even if they make education accessible to all on an equal footing, it does not mean that everyone will use that to access the "better education". Proof of that is in the very low increase in enrollments when university was free. Making it free didn't change the socioeconomic or sociological factors that were preventing enrollment.

Consequently I disagree with your statement that Liberals don't have education as a priority. Of course education is a priority for every party, that is a given considering the true purposes of education, the Liberals actually have a firmer grasp on how to achieve an equal and just education of high quality, accessible for all. They understand that they need to have as many as possible utilizing the private systems in order to remove the strain from the public system to ensure long term sustainability.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

---

Annual salary -  is related to what is an affordable amount of mortgage payment/rent.

If a couple earning $300 000 p.a can afford to buy a house (with a mortgage) worth $800 000, should they not be able to do that, because a couple earning $100 000 p.a. couldn't afford to buy a house worth that much?

---

People need to live within their budget; somebody on $300k has to decide how much mortgage they can pay IF they also want a baby.  Welfare is not to keep us in luxuries, and the grandma on $19k has to compete for rental accomodation in the open rental market too.

---

That's just it, the higher income sector have decided to live within their means and not reproduce at a rate that the government desires. The government is providing incentive to reproduce in the sector where they want to encourage assistance with polulation growth.

As it is, statistics show, the lower income sectors don't need encouragement - they're doing it anyway, regardless of whether they can afford to or not.

We're talking about encouraging people to reproduce who are less likely to use  public systems such as health and education long term, who are less likely to rely on/need government top up payments or fortnightly benefits long term to sustain their families.

It may cost $75,000 up front, but long term, which sector actually costs the govt. more to sustain? The sector that receives no ongoing govt. funding and who utilizes public systems less, or the sector that does receive ongoing govt payments and heavily utilizes the public system?

From what I can make out, a family with 2 kids on an income of $44,000 per year receives at least $600 a fortnight in gov't assistance, not including health and education rights, whereas that same family earning $150,000 gets zip.

The bottom line is, the gov wants to increase our population, and they have decided that this is the most cost effedtive method to do so.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

If a couple earning $300 000 p.a can afford to buy a house (with a mortgage) worth $800 000, should they not be able to do that, because a couple earning $100 000 p.a. couldn't afford to buy a house worth that much?

The key word was basic. A couple earning $300.000 p.a. are entitled to spend their income on anything they think they can afford. However, I don't believe taxpayers should be expected to support that lifestyle every time the couple decide to have a child.

---

They're not asking for it. The point is they are choosing NOT to have the children in the quantities that the gov desires for long term sustainability of our economy. But the gov recognizes that they need this sector to reproduce in larger quantities to ensure a just education for all children from whichever economic or sociological sector they belong.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@chinchuckchick wrote:

I wonder how much tax she paid in her working lifetime (in comparision to women today)

---

I actually think that's a bit rough. Society was different "in her day". As a woman, she was expected to stay home and raise the family and those women who were in the workforce were largely devalued.

That's the bare basics of a nuclear family, the institution upon which we are founded and our country valued. A man and a woman got married, they reproduced like bunnies where they could. Mummy stayed home to raise the family (an unpaid job so no tax, but nonetheless of equal importance) so that daddy could go out and work and provide an income on which to support his family.

She may not have directly contributed financially to this country's growth, but she did contribute in so many other undervalued and unrecognized ways.

[no_tv*10]

Spoiler

Where do these babies go after 6 months? There are limited childcare places in major cities.

Spoiler

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@lurker17260 wrote:

Crikey, you seem to be again promoting your argument that somehow "the wealthy" only should be encouraged to re-populate the country, which I find socailly rather disturbing.

However

The topic of this conversation is why retirees should be funding the PPL scheme.  We retirees have a fixed fund upon which to draw our income until we die, with little if any prospect to replenish that fund, unlike young couples who have many years after their expensive early parenthood years to earn and save for their future.

In all seriousness why are we retirees being asked to finance a scheme which we will, even under your argument, recieve no benefit from?

---

It's not my argument. It's Economics.

The "non wealthy" don't need encouragement, they're doing it anyway!

It's not about what benefits the individual now, it's about what will benefit the country as a whole long term to ensure long term sustainability and growth,

Besides which, depending on how much longer your life span is, population growth in sectors that are less likely to rely on the public sector will benefit you indirectly, cos there will be less percentage of people competing for access to public funded ammenities, leaving more money for the essential services such as health, and providing those who need it with greater access at a higher standard to it.

My comments are not politically motivated. They are fundamental economics. And as for them being socially disturbing, I say that you do not understand my comments or the dynamics of sociology and how the class system really works and what effects it has on a meritocratic capitalist society. It's not my opinion, it's how it is.

Furthermore, I can't see any mention in the OP that the topic is "why retirees should be funding the PPL scheme". It is emotive rhetoric verging on propaganda which clearly states "Liberal Priorities are wrong. Giving money to those who don't need it". That and the comments from the OP "How True".

As I said, it's not about any people needing it, it's about the gov trying to encourage an underperforming sector to perform in an area they require to meet their long term objectives in the most cost efficient manner.

[no_tv*10]

What will happen to all these bubs after 6 months? There are limited childcare places and parents wont stay home?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@no_tv*10 wrote:

What will happen to all these bubs after 6 months? There are limited childcare places and parents wont stay home?

---

which bubs?

The ones produced by the *cough* wealthy *cough*?

If they access public childcare facilities, they will do so without government subsidy as it is means tested, so will do so at full cost. Long term this will enable more places to become available for those requiring assistance.

If the places are not available short term, then they are more likely to be able to utilize the private sector and employ nannies etc. Some will do it anyway for social credibility, but others are more likely to do so because they believe it to be more desirable as it fits in more easily with their current lifestyle.

This consideration is similar in some areas to the baby bonus available a few years ago. Lots of people used that as incentive to reproduce, and then went on to depend on the public system and government subsidies. What happened to those bubs?

BTW, I predict that this PPL will result in a smaller population growth than the baby bonus, simply because there are less people who are members of the targeted sector. Their contribution will not impact available services in the short term to the degree that increased population growth will in different economic sectors.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

---

Annual salary -  is related to what is an affordable amount of mortgage payment/rent.

If a couple earning $300 000 p.a can afford to buy a house (with a mortgage) worth $800 000, should they not be able to do that, because a couple earning $100 000 p.a. couldn't afford to buy a house worth that much?

---

People need to live within their budget; somebody on $300k has to decide how much mortgage they can pay IF they also want a baby.  Welfare is not to keep us in luxuries, and the grandma on $19k has to compete for rental accomodation in the open rental market too.

---

That's just it, the higher income sector have decided to live within their means and not reproduce at a rate that the government desires. The government is providing incentive to reproduce in the sector where they want to encourage assistance with polulation growth.

As it is, statistics show, the lower income sectors don't need encouragement - they're doing it anyway, regardless of whether they can afford to or not.

We're talking about encouraging people to reproduce who are less likely to use  public systems such as health and education long term, who are less likely to rely on/need government top up payments or fortnightly benefits long term to sustain their families.

It may cost $75,000 up front, but long term, which sector actually costs the govt. more to sustain? The sector that receives no ongoing govt. funding and who utilizes public systems less, or the sector that does receive ongoing govt payments and heavily utilizes the public system?

From what I can make out, a family with 2 kids on an income of $44,000 per year receives at least $600 a fortnight in gov't assistance, not including health and education rights, whereas that same family earning $150,000 gets zip.

The bottom line is, the gov wants to increase our population, and they have decided that this is the most cost effedtive method to do so.

---

$600 per fortnight = $300 a week = $15,600 per annum, or approximately $250,000 over 16 years in benefits received from government money (not allowing for increases). This doesn't include things such as Health Care Cards, reduced childcare rates, rent assistance,  and whatever other benefits are means tested etc..... And after that 16 years, the progeny go on to use assistance such as youth allowance which is also means tested.

Does a family earning $44,000 a year even PAY that much tax to begin with? (They might, I don't know and am too lazy to work it out right now)

Seems to me that a one off payment of $75,000 is more economically viable than about $250,000, considering that that parent is likely to return to their employment and continue to not only be self sufficient with regards to raising their child/ren but also contribute further to the taxable base.

Again, the Government has determined that they want to increase the population, and they have decided that the most cost effective method to do so is to target the higher income sector which will not be eligible for government assistance long term.

They are not discouraging the lower income sector/s from contributing to the population - they're already contributing at a far greater capacity then those in the higher income sectors. So as someone else suggested, it's NOT about eugenics, or desire to create a "superior" population, or attributing greater value to one particular sector - it's about getting all sectors to contribute equally, because the statistics prove that it is the higher income earners who are not pulling their weight with regards to population growth, and they are the very sector who are most likely to be able to do so without requiring long term assistance from the govt.

[chinchuckchick]

They may do without the subsidy, but the 50% rebate is not means tested.