I see what you guys really like to do down there.......

[ImpulseTaco]

:
CANBERRA, Australia - Treasurer Peter Costello urged Australians to “do their patriotic duty” and have more children but it seems they were doing it anyway, just for fun. A new study shows the birthrate hitting its highest level in seven years.

A study by Australian National University demographer Peter McDonald showed the country’s birthrate at 1.77 per woman in 2004, its highest level since 1997. McDonald believes the rate will stay around 1.8 for the next 5-10 years.

“We’ve been calling for policies to support work and family for several years, and also there’s been a great deal of discussion about, ‘if you wait too long, there’s a chance that you won’t have the baby’,” McDonald said.

Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“That kind of public discussion has been pretty prominent and I think that has had its effect,” he said. During a budget speech in May last year, Costello urged Australians to have more children, telling couples to “have one for your husband, one for your wife and one for your country.”

Costello’s comments came as this country of 20.3 million people struggles to deal with an aging population. The government’s Productivity Commission has forecast that one in four Australians will be aged over 65 by 2045.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9509847/ :

[The MaDDeSTMaN]

Well, seeing as I'm going to be a daddy next year, well, need I say more?

[bindi]

Costello's encouragement of "one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country" is the biggest load of bollox.

The main reason ppl are starting to consider having more kids is probably because of the baby bonus. At least the govt is now supporting you financially for the expense of baby equipment.

"Back in my day" (woohoo, I got to say it!), we didn't get much moulash from them - I think it was $600. That bought a pram and a car seat. Now it's like $3000 or more.

I still don't think it's enough at all - kids cost you in non material ways. Just look at all the parents with grey hairs.

And on that note, I don't know if you saw this pic before Impulse Taco but here is Peter Costello (Treasurer)... and the man in front of him is our very own John Howard (Prime Minister). A pic is worth a thousand words:

[Casper]

Bindi,
What planet are you on?

Talk to ANYONE who has just had or is about to have a child. Ask them "did the baby bonus make you choose to become a parent now?" They will almost certainly answer "NO, its helpful but we would have done it anyhow". Ask ANYONE who is not a parent and not tryiny to be one "Would giving a higher baby bonus entice you to have a kid now?" and they will answer "NO, money would not be enough to make me want to have a kid".

Anyone who has a kid based on getting a financial bonus is an idiot. Doesnt matter if the bonus is $600 or $60,000.. its not a factor. Cost of raising a kid to teen years is over $200,000 these days.

I have 4 kids, all 8yo and under. The last is the only one that has any sort of 'baby bonus' that we recieve and its not much. I couldnt care less about a 'baby bonus', it has a ZERO impact on our decision to have kids. It also had a ZERO impact on all our friends with kids. What did have an impact is the massive drop in income taxes that allowed us to afford to have as many as we have... a much bigger and long term incentive however, we still would have had 4 kids even if it didnt drop.

(note: answers not valid in Nimbin... who knows what the hell hippies think)

[bindi]

Hey it's just an opinion mate, calm down! Didn't you hear of the hype when they brought it in, how parents were changing the dates of their caesarians to July 1st, rather than June 28th or whatever, so they could get the baby bonuses?! That to me shows that SOME parents care about the money.

And yes you have some valid points I am sure that the majority don't see having kids as a money making scheme. But there are some... and that's the sad thing.

And stop attacking my hippiedom! I've never even BEEN to Nimbin. :

[deesun]

Gee Bindi I rekon your opinion won't be very popular with the slightly older generation of parent who got nothing from the government. I can see what they are trying to do and although in many peoples cases it wouldn't figure in their decision to have a baby it could be the catalist for the increase in the birthrate. My guess is that it would only be a cosideration for younger people who think $3000 is a lot of money but older parents would know it doesn't go very far at all. And surely you don't raelly think you should be compensated for a few grey hairs. If you or any body else thinks that then they are really just too selfish and should never have kids in the first place.

[bindi]

I had my kids so many years ago now...

But I'll quote you from another forum:

Originally Posted by deesun

How's that saying go. Oh yeah, "be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth into gear" :eclipsee_

That is good advice. I'll shut up now... :

[Feathers]

I read on another forum I was visiting, a bunch of 18/19 year olds saying how they are actually trying to have kids now, even though they don't work, and can hardly pay the bills, but "It'll be ok, because the Govt. will give us money".

Just makes me feel like slapping those stupid girls.
Not only are they going to ruin their own lives, but also the life of the poor babys.

[vztrt]

Nice picture bindi, i guess he practices on Costello, so he can get it right for the one really loves!

[Falcon Coupe]

Casper is right Bindi is wrong, a income tax cut would do more than a one off payment to help parents.

[Psycho Chicken]

Originally Posted by bindi

Hey it's just an opinion mate, calm down! Didn't you hear of the hype when they brought it in, how parents were changing the dates of their caesarians to July 1st, rather than June 28th or whatever, so they could get the baby bonuses?! That to me shows that SOME parents care about the money.

Uhhhh who wouldn't? A few grand for a few more days, of course people are going to put it off. That has nothing to do with it. I'm not in a hurry to go have kids so I can get a few grand, believe me.

[buickman]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Casper is right Bindi is wrong, a income tax cut would do more than a one off payment to help parents.

To people that care about children & family life and one I think is the best solution.

But there is a rise in very young teenage pregnacies and some don't have a place to go to when ready to leave so the DHS has to find them a safe place to go with the baby. Then a few absolute lossers take the baby bonus & put the child up for adoption.

buickman

[Angry Beaver]

Yes but a rise in teenage pregnancies could be related to the issue of teaching safe sex more in schools, instead of having it hidden away like it is. A tax break would be more beneficial than a baby bonus. And lets face it. $3000 dollars doesnt cover much anyway. Yes there are people who are going out and falling pregnant and then taking the money and either leaving the children etc but with anything in this world it only takes a few to ruin it for somebody else. I am tired of hearing the saying of in my day. Well hey big deal because to me all it shows is that finally families are getting a little bit of notice.

[NAK302]

once again tax payers are expected to cough up for other peoples greed. why the hell should i as a tax payer subsidise people who "choose" to have a cricket team of kids.
there was a woman a few years back who had some very real ideas to crack down on these sorts of things. we all know what happened to her.

[Black XR6]

Originally Posted by nak351

once again tax payers are expected to cough up for other peoples greed. why the hell should i as a tax payer subsidise people who "choose" to have a cricket team of kids.
there was a woman a few years back who had some very real ideas to crack down on these sorts of things. we all know what happened to her.

I am going to choose to take exception to this comment. For my Aunty has over ten kids herself. Only a few of them recieved this large bonus and she would have had them all bonus or not.

It all works out in the law of averages. Some couples have 13 kids. Some have none. Some only 1. Some only 2. For each family that has a lot of kids there will be an equal number who have less and equal out the average. Remember the average family has 2.3 kids so the old add went.

So, the bonus is meant to help raise the average and thus raise the population. Sure, some silly teenagers will have kids too early but only a very small percentage of the birthrate. Some willa dopt out, I have no problem with that as there are plenty of families unable to have children who would love to adopt a child. But in the end it will raise the birth rate and that is the aim.

[NAK302]

Originally Posted by Black XR6

I am going to choose to take exception to this comment. For my Aunty has over ten kids herself. Only a few of them recieved this large bonus and she would have had them all bonus or not.

It all works out in the law of averages. Some couples have 13 kids. Some have none. Some only 1. Some only 2. For each family that has a lot of kids there will be an equal number who have less and equal out the average. Remember the average family has 2.3 kids so the old add went.

So, the bonus is meant to help raise the average and thus raise the population. Sure, some silly teenagers will have kids too early but only a very small percentage of the birthrate. Some willa dopt out, I have no problem with that as there are plenty of families unable to have children who would love to adopt a child. But in the end it will raise the birth rate and that is the aim.

guess what my friend? i have 4 children of my own and don't get one cent from the government due to my income, plus i'm in the highest tax bracket so now you may know why i get a bit bitter over this.

as for population increase i'll ask the question as to where all the basic services like water, medical, education, food are going to come from? out here in the sticks we've had water restrictions for as long as i can remember. maybe the government should have been investing our taxes in upgrading basic services instead of handouts.

[Black XR6]

Originally Posted by nak351

guess what my friend? i have 4 children of my own and don't get one cent from the government due to my income, plus i'm in the highest tax bracket so now you may know why i get a bit bitter over this.

Well to that all I can say is good for you, but you come across as saying the number of children a family can have should be means tested.

Originally Posted by nak351

as for population increase i'll ask the question as to where all the basic services like water, medical, education, food are going to come from? out here in the sticks we've had water restrictions for as long as i can remember. maybe the government should have been investing our taxes in upgrading basic services instead of handouts.

Couldnt agre with you more on this. Im not saying its any perfect system. It is not the fault of the families that have more kids that we have water restrictions etc, it is the various levels of gov that are at fault. More population means more taxes. But the taxes are not getting spent wisely.

[Angry Beaver]

I would prefer it if my husbands tax that he has to cough up yearly went to our four kids instead of into a black hole. better still even half of that tax. We dont get alot of them infact we just scrape through their system.

[SVR73]

Mr Costello - stick it where the sun don't shine
Your getting nothing out of me

You just want more people to have kids so you have more pockets to put your hands into