The headlines read “Why are we paying wealthy people to breed?”
Another question may have been “Why are we paying the poor and destitute to breed?”
Yet really, this isn’t about breeding envy, except the government want to make it an issue so they can exercise restraint on something.
Children create wealth. The economy turns faster because they consume, and can be directed in their consumption.
It isn’t that it is wrong to have children. The issue is (or should be) to do with neglect. Neglected children are a drain on the economy. The lesson is not to do with not breeding, but proper care.
===
$5000 is also the amount paid for many of the research grants available.
1 comment:
A lot of money to tempt teen mothers
Andrew Bolt
He’s probably right:
The baby bonus should not be given to mothers in remote Aboriginal communities but paid instead into an education trust fund, federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says.
The bonus of several thousand dollars could have a devastating effect on an impoverished Aboriginal community, Dr Nelson said today.
Introduced by the previous Howard government in 2004 as a means of boosting birth rates, the bonus will increase to $5000 from $4187 on July 1.
Dr Nelson said it was irresponsible for the Rudd government to be dumping so much money on Aboriginal mothers living in remote areas.
But is this also true of white welfare ghettoes?
UPDATE
The Sydney Morning Herald tries a gotcha:
BRENDAN NELSON did little to shore up his shaky leadership yesterday by calling for measures to stop indigenous mothers spending their baby bonus on alcohol - when such restrictions already existed in the Northern Territory.
Memo to SMH: The baby bonus is also paid - without such restrictions - to Aboriginal mothers in Queensland, Western Australia. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia…
You’re trying too hard, boys.
Post a Comment