What single mothers will do!!

[echnidna]

Not so long ago a thread went on and on and on about single mothers being forced onto the dole when their kids started school.

We heard a lot of ranting from the extremists.

So I'll tell you what many of those mothers will do when they are faced with that situation.

They will have a new kid.

So every 5 years the underpriviledged class will multiply.

So the cost savings are obviously totally doomed,
And the lower classes will multiply causing much strain on the social fabric of society.

Can any extremist tell me why this won't happen?? :eek: :eek:

[bitingmidge]

Jings Bob, just when I thought I wasn't going to get myself into any more trouble this week!!

So the cynic in me says, supporting mother's benefit = dole plus benefits.

Where's the difference?

Like you can only have unemployment benefits for a couple of months... then they put you on Job-Search Benefits, then NewStart benefits then......

It's all about managing the statistics, not about saving money or costing money!

Cheers,

P :rolleyes:

[E. maculata]

So I'll tell you what many of those mothers will do when they are faced with that situation.

They will have a new kid.

So every 5 years the underpriviledged class will multiply.

So the cost savings are obviously totally doomed,
And the lower classes will multiply causing much strain on the social fabric of society.

Can any extremist tell me why this won't happen?? :eek: :eek:

Sorry Bob, went off half cocked & I reckon Mick was right and I interpreted it from the wrong angle, certainly seems so on 2nd read anyway......I really hope I have, cause the term "lower class" always makes the red mist cloud my judgement.

:o

[journeyman Mick]

Bruce,
I think (or at least I hope) that you've misinterpreted Bob's post. I believe that the point that he was trying to make is that the government policy of forcing single mums back to work/on the dole in order to save money will simply backfire. The mums will, for whatever reason, (being better mums and staying home for the kids rather than having "latchkey" kids being one of them) choose to have more kids rather than perhaps studying or joining the workforce.

Like the Midge says, it's all a cynical government figure juggling exercise.

Mick

[flea1607]

I asked a single mum in Playgroup what she is going to do about the Single mum getting back to work scheme. She said that she is ready to go back to work when here youngest currently about 3 goes to school. When I asked but what about now. Quote " But Im not ready".

What I want to know is will the government wait and make it like the "Work for the dole" or will they inforce it????.

[cookyboy]

the more poor we have the more soldiers we can recruithttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon8.gif
g.

[maglite]

I dont veiw myself as an extremist.

I grew up in a single parent household with my brother and sister.My mum worked during school hours, picked us up from school till we were old enough to walk home and then went to work as a barmaid in the evening.
She worked, even tho the govt assistance was comparable with today(her opinion) yet my father never paid child support.

Perhaps we were "latchkey" kids, but my bro + sister are both university educated and i run what i like to think is a pretty successful business.
Sure, we could have gone the other way, but who is to say that a stay at home parent makes for a better child?

The case im trying to make is that for every person that has another child in a bid to thwart the system, there may be a couple of others who will seek work or study in a bid to better themselves or give their kids every possible opportunity.
Im sure that there are plenty of women like this now.
From what i can gather, the govt isnt planning on forcing single mums into "full-time" work but trying to encourage them to do a total of 15 hours per week.
What is wrong with somebody working whilst their child/children are at school, and as for the naysayers who imply that a single mother simply doesnt have enough time in the day to complete household chores, let alone go to work......i wonder how other families manage whilst both parents work.

Just my opinion.....or perhaps i missed the point echidna was trying to make entirely.

Steve

[flea1607]

WARNING - GRIPE TO TAKE PLACE HERE RIGHT NOW.

Im going to be the bad guy here.

I was raised by my father (middle kid of 5). He go NO government support at all. He had to work full time, pay the mortage, food, etc, etc plus for the first 4 years after my mum died he had to hire, and pay for himself a live-in housekeeper because of my younger brothers. We then had a cleaner for the next few years but as we go older that stopped.

My sister is a single mother and has worked the whole time with no government pension - just family allowance.

I can not see why for a start men do not get the same free money and why single mums can't work full time? Why are they singled out for such good treatment?

GRIPE OVER.

Thanks for listening.
:)

[echnidna]

Single Dads get the same as single mums but they can't have another kid to stay on the pension.

Sorry about the term Lower Class but that is what the Government is likely to create.

BTW "Work for the dole is enforced" or at least down my way it is.
I have supervised several WFTD programs and there are good points and bad points.

[jow104]

Echineda:

Never mind about single mums. Married mums can now have 12 months paid maternity leave in the U.K.
I reckon some of those superdads will be able to keep their wives at home for the next 20 years. :D

[maglite]

NEWSFLASH

I just finished talking to a guy who works for me.

His girlfriend with 3 children gets $1050 a fortnight+ allowances:eek:

If i could get that, i wouldnt want to work either.

[Daddles]

Perhaps you businessmen out there would like to have a look at your operation and tell us how many people you will employ between the hours of nine o'clock and three o'clock. My research suggests 'not many'.
Then the single parents (because it isn't just wimmen), will lose two thirds of their wage because that's the rate at which the pension is reduced (I'm pretty sure it's 2/3, it might be half). Make them work outside of school hours, and you immediately add child care to that and, as all working parents know, it's expensive and places can be hard to get. Thank goodness for Out of School Hours Care though even there, places can be limited.

Then consider that these parents are going onto the newstart program where they will lose (I think) $65 a week. That's a huge chunk out of a payment that's already below the poverty line.

And all to save the govt a bit of money, and the cynic in me asks how much money will be saved because all of a sudden, you will have to pay public servants to try to find non-existent jobs for all these people ... which is why the govt is trying to push that down onto the employment services and why a large number of those are threatening to pull out of the business.

The majority of single parents don't stay on the benefit long term anyway (poverty tends to force them off it). The stereotype teenage girl dropping litters is out there, but they aren't the norm by any means.

Then there are people like myself.
I left a profession to raise my son a couple of years after my first marriage failed. I wasn't doing too bad and then was stupid enough to marry my ex. It seemed ideal for me to stay at home and raise our kids (hers, mine and then later, ours) and, seeing her business was going to keep us solvent, and seeing I was putting a lot into that business in the form of time and effort, and seeing I was trying to develop my writing career, and seeing I (like everyone else in my profession) was required to undergo ongoing training to keep my professional qualifications, we decided to let my professional license lapse. Eight years after that, she leaves me for another bloke. I'm now on that pension you all decry, looking after my son full time and my daughter half time. I can't go back into my profession because I would need extensive training to regain my licence (required training) and would be trying to re-enter a field that is stuffed to the gills with professionals anyway - ie, there aren't jobs for those with current experience, let alone blokes like me coming from behind. Plus I'm now 48, an age at which it becomes damned near impossible to get work anyway.

So am I out there chasing **** work so that I've got something to do but which won't actually improve my lot in life?
No. I'm working bloody hard to become a successful writer. It's a profession where you are basically unpaid until you are 'publishable', a standard that most writers agree takes over a million polished words and typically ten years or more. I'm at that standard now. The signs are there in the feedback I'm getting from publishers. That doesn't mean that the money will now start to flow in. It's starting to trickle in - I sold a story this week to a pro mag in America - I'll get $25 when it's published ... in december. Not a good way to support a family, but if I can get some novels published, that will start to turn around. But those novels don't write themselves and I can't rely on what I have in the locker now. I need to keep writing and keep putting it out there in the hope that sooner or later someone will pick it up. Few writers make a single break through - for most it's a slow pickup of momentum over a number of years, once they reach the point I'm at now.

So where do my options lie? Full time work - no chance of getting back into my profession I'm afraid, not seriously, so it's basically labourer standard and, being a single parent, that WILL affect my kids as it's not like a dual family where there is always the other parent to help out if your kids need something. Now, I'm not averse to that route and if I have to, I will take it.

But I've also got my writing. I am good enough to make it. It will happen if I put in the effort. So I'm using my time on the pension to fund that. The price I'm paying is lack of long term security (no super, medical, etc) but I think it's worth it for the possible prize - not riches, that isn't likely to happen, but in having my work read around the world. Okay, not everyone values the arts but next time you read something, think about the poor bastard who wrote it.

And remember, until my marriage failed, I wasn't taking a thing from the govt., nor did it look like I was going to have to in the future.

Judging from posts on this forum, there will be those among you who will condemn me for a parasite. Well, I fed up with sitting here and taking that ****. Regard me as you will, perhaps one day we'll meet over a beer and you'll realise how wrong you are.

But how about we forget stereotyping single parents. There are those who are abusing the system, just like the thousands of people with full time jobs who aren't earning the money (and don't deny they are out there, there are probably more of them than single parents, and yes, they are in private industry as well as the public service). Everyone's story is different and few of us choose to be in the position we find ourselves. Those of you who haven't tried being a single parent have no idea of the workload, because you've always got someone else there to lean on - most of the stress is emotional because it's not that hard to clean a house or cook a meal. But people like me are working damned hard to raise our kids and to ensure that they have their heads screwed on straight (hard when you've got someone trying to unscrew them) and who will become valuable members of the community, regardless of their jobs.

Arrrr Dammit. I've either convinced you or I haven't

Richard

[echnidna]

Having many tears experience as an employer I dont want my workers to be unhappy as they will produce crap results.
So its unlikely I would ever employ someone who is being forced off the dole.
I don't want people who begrudge working.
If someone wants to leave the dole because they want to work, thats a totally different matter.

[flea1607]

The majority of single parents don't stay on the benefit long term anyway (poverty tends to force them off it). The stereotype teenage girl dropping litters is out there, but they aren't the norm by any means.


Golly Gosh Daddles where do you live - check out the rest of Australia - Sydney has suburbs of single parents (if that what you call it these days) living on the pension without bothering to work. As for living below the poverty line. Had married friends that worked out if he left, she could pull in over $1000 after paying the rent. If that the poverty line then im not even existing. Living in Govy housing, medical, transport plus all the extras. Living in luxury. I can not even get my kids checked at a Government run Dental Clinic because we do not receive any think from Centre clunk. If I was a single mum getting the government handout no probs.

[Daddles]

Golly Gosh Daddles where do you live - check out the rest of Australia - Sydney has suburbs of single parents (if that what you call it these days) living on the pension without bothering to work. As for living below the poverty line. Had married friends that worked out if he left, she could pull in over $1000 after paying the rent. If that the poverty line then im not even existing. Living in Govy housing, medical, transport plus all the extras. Living in luxury. I can not even get my kids checked at a Government run Dental Clinic because we do not receive any think from Centre clunk. If I was a single mum getting the government handout no probs.

Sorry, but much of your post is pure drivel, though I've often had to listen to the current affairs programs sell just the very line you've produced.

This is the reality of my life.
I get $785 a fortnight from the govt.
I have to rent privately so lose $190 a WEEK from that.
Oh, I do get rent assistance, included in the above figure of $785, of $56 a fortnight.
Services - yes, I get some help, about 10%. That's all.
Medical? I'm lucky, my GP reduces her gap to what I can afford that week - bulk billing is non-existent where I live.
Transport? Yeah, I get a bit, but public transport is not a practical proposition for 90% of my travel. Of course, my son could give up his soccer - it's not as though he needs to play sport (despite him wanting find a career there), and I could move him from the school he's at with his best friend to another one that happens to lie on a bus route, but it's only a ten minute drive so I think his peer group support is probably worth the money.
Dental. Yes, it is free, with over a twelve month waiting list to see if that rotten tooth needs work - book again to get it fixed.
And I live in fear of needing major medical help having had family members have to rely on it - it's a case of, if you have to go to hospital, make sure it's an emergency.

As for the 'whole suburbs of single parents' bit - well, you can believe that if you want. I mean, A Current Affair never gets these things wrong does it.

Yes, the single parent's pension, or whatever name it goes under this week, is a generous payout, but it in no way sets a family up for comfortable living. Some people make a go of it, but the only way to live comfortably long term is to go without a lot - huge debt problems usually follow those with all the bits and pieces. Sure, the current affairs programs manage to make it sound rather cushy, but the truth of the matter is, young singles are not the norm. The typical single parent is a in their middle age and recently separated. Last I heard, 30% of them were fathers, but that was a long time ago - the figure is probably higher now and the gender bias within the family law court slowly disolves (and it's still got a long way to go so let's not buy into that fight).

Over the last twelve months, I have been steadily going backwards financially. We don't live flash - my sisters and mother are impressed by how well we do live, and I've had to sell stuff and will be selling more soon. At the moment, I'm in limbo while I try to get some sort of settlement out of the family court - I'm hoping my legal expenses come in below the settlement but already I've lost any hope of returning to home ownership at the level I enjoyed before my last marriage (that was having a small mortgage on a modest home).

I'm quite sure there are those that are sucking the system dry. I too watch current affairs programs. But please remember that most people in the system are doing it hard, and quite often, those that the programs laud as doing well, are only going to manage that for year or two.

The answers don't lie in forcing people to work when that will do little more than make life harder, even if they can find the jobs and if you own a business, ask yourself how many extra people you can afford to emply - most businessmen agree that it's hard, very hard but without those jobs, how can you penalise people for not working? Catch 22. The answers don't lie in throwing more money into the pot, though to be honest, I won't knock back anything the govt wants to give me. We could go the American route where people like myself live in true poverty, poverty of a level that only exists in this country in some aboriginal communities.

The real answers lie in the people of this country (and if you are reading this post, that means you) developing some compassion and understanding for others. I'm not saying this is absent now - quite clearly it is not and we are all lucky to live in a country as understanding and as compassionate as Australia is (please pause and give yourself a pat on the back because as a society, we deserve it). However, we need to go further. The ******** that is pushed on current affairs programs these days should be decried - sadly, the opposite is the case which is why we see this nonsense peddled as truth. Too few of us have the ability to look at another and truly understand what their difficulties are or to understand how to help them. What we as a people need to do, is to devalue 'money' and 'stuff'. People, other people, should be our prime concern in everything. Sure, the money is important - there is no value in the entire country going broke. But sadly, capitalism as a system has drifted to the point where the money is significantly more important than the people. We need to redress that. There will always be those who seek to rort the system, but while we value money rather than social responsibility, these people can not be condemned - they are doing nothing worse than the businessman who has fiddled his tax to the extent that he pays a fraction of his dues.

Look at your neighbour and try to live his life. Perhaps he is wrong. Perhaps his attitudes are inflexible or lack compassion. Rather than demonstrating that same inflexibility, rather than displaying that same lack of compassion, try to understand and to help. This could be finding work in your business for someone who can not work traditional hours. This could be minding your working neighbours kids while they have to work or by making sure that no children need to be latchkey kids by inviting your own kid's friends home after school. But condemning others only makes our community worse and in the end, we all suffer and pay ... and we encourage the rorters, at all levels.

Richard

[echnidna]

Well said Richard

[E. maculata]

It always comes back to, "There but for the grace go I" reiterated as "judge not lest ye be judged yourself"and I'm not a botherer either just believe right is right and good is good.......as Bob stated "well said Richard".

[boban]

The problem with stereotypes is that there are never all encompassing. They are generally a fair proportion of the group addressed but rarely the majority.

My aunt is a single mum as a result of cancer which took my uncle. While he was alive he paid more than enough tax and so does his family now. Im happy to help her and those like her, even if it means there are those who may take advantage of the system.

PS. My wife stays at home and I ride her for that. But she left me with the 3 children for 3 days when she went to Canberra. A handfull to say the least, and Im just talking about the housework over a long weekend.

To all the single parents out there, keep up the good work, I know its no where near an easy ride. I cant see how anybody can think $500 a week to live is easy street (and this is more than they actually get).

[maglite]

First and foremost i am not against people recieving assistance from the govt!!!!

However, whilst Richard puts up a compelling argument and also produces a great number of very valid points, my point is thus.

As far as i concerned people are entitled to every single piece of govt assistance if they find themselves in a predicament caused through no fault of their own....i would even be willing to pay a little more if i knew the money were to go to these people.
All my goodwill, compassion and sympathy goes to these people and if they needed a shoulder to cry on, a kind word or simply someone to just sit there and listen ......yep i would be up for that too.

Sadly, my well of goodwill, compassion and sympathy finds itself rather dry when some of the people CHOOSE to stay at home indulging in their favorite pursuit or pastime, wether that be their hobby or their personal dream, rather than use their time constructively through paid work.
I dont really care wether someone is working behind the counter at the local deli or working out how to land a man on mars during school hours.....the point is that they are doing some work so that when they sit at home to follow their dream, they can do so with just a hint of justification and the knowledge that at least they tried and earnt some of the handouts the govt bestows on them.

I agree, living on $500 a week isnt akin to living in luxury, but hey that is very near the basic wage and people have to work for 40 hours to get it...for whatever reason, no kids, pride etc.
I would prefer that the handouts go to those people cos at least they are out there having a go.

I would love to be able to stay at home and follow my dream,im sure that there are others, but instead i choose to work so that i might be able to have the finances to indulge myself in pursuit of that dream some years down the track.
Maybe i am the fool and all i need is to find a sucker that is prepared to support me and mine whilst i follow my dream........i would say the Australian taxpayer.....but he/she is already taken.

Im sorry gentlemen i simply dont agree.

[Schtoo]

I don't know about it all to be honest, as we don't get ACA here. We do get NHK though.

What I do worry about is someone who is really, truly and genuinely stuck is going to get caught with some kind of clamp down on 'the system'.

Someone who is just too lazy to bother trying work, I don't know. Is shooting them too bad? Oops, they took them bangsticks away, so battered to death with a lettuce leaf? I have zero time or tolerance for that kinda person.

But, and there is ALWAYS a but, there will appear to be someone who just won't work when the truth is that for one reason or another can't.

I wont go into any personal sob stories of my own. No need really, I turned out ok.

Fix it, but don't foul it up in the process. It's a fine line, and better to have someone milking it than someone who needs the help not getting it.

[namtrak]

You guys are Barry Crockers. And you must be either watching too much ACA or Today Tonight or listening to Lawsy or Jonesy or have too much time on you hands because you are spending it spying on your neighbours!! :p

I used to work in Centrelink and the cold hard fact is that Sole Parents (male or female) who abuse the system are in the absolute minority - make no bones about that. Women who want to get pregnant for the sake of money are in the absolute minority - make no bones about that either. Most women and men pursue child birth first and foremost because they want a family - the potential income generation provided by the birth of a child is an absolute afterthought - make no bones about that either, either!!!

Everyone has the ability to quote on someone they know ripping off the system - big deal. How many people do you know who aren't ripping off the system? The majority of people you know I suspect. Unless you want to be pedantic - tell us about your log book you complete for your tax each year. ;)

For the record - aside from running a couple of small businesses - I'm the home dad, and I would never ever (the 'ever' is for emphasis) begrudge a person who wanted to stay out of the workforce until their youngest reaches school. What sort of society is it that values work and money over family? A person at home is so much more valuable than child care - end of story!

Rant off - or maybe not - maybe the rant is always on :)

[RufflyRustic]

It's nice to see people agreeing that disagreeing with each other is ok.

Richard - well written.

Cheers
Wendy

[julianx]

Richard and namtrac are absolutly right single parents that have kids to rort the system are a very small minority.
I've been a single dad now for about 8 years now and for nearly all that time Ive worked, at least part time, it is simply not possible to live and bring up kids on the pension without another source of income.
The majority of my friends are also either single parents or on disability pensions and all of them bar none do over 15 hrs per week work, paid or volunteer. Thats another point, what will places like lifeline and vinnys do when all there volunteers are forced to do paid work? Ask for more government handouts. Makes the whole argument seem stupid to me.

As far as there being "suburbs of single mums" this isn't true, what we do have is good suburbs where the rich live and crap areas where the poor people live cause thats the only place they can afford to live. The more poor people you cram into one area the less hope any of them have of gaining the self esteem to actually get out and do somthing worth while.

I think the whole single parent ripping off the system issue is just another
thing the govt has thrown out there to distract us from the real issues like foriegn debt and pointless wars.

[ndru]

Both my wife and I work full time while our 2 year old son is in child care all week. While in care he:


eats well (often better than his parents);
has a structured day of events;
has access to developmental facilities (eg play equipment, toys, books);
socialises with a range of children of his own age and other ages, learning to communicate, be assertive and share; and
is building up his immune system up before getting to school age


While we are both at work we are earning a bit extra to save up for private schooling and maybe university or perhaps kick start him in his own trade or other area of interest. We might even pay our mortgage early and leave a decent inheritance for him.

He is a happy, healthy boy who is gets on suprisingly well others his own age. He seems fairly normal to me, and I am very hard to impress. :-)

Namtrak - I also don't begrudge the stay-at-home parents. I have been at home alone with my boy enough to be convinced that it is a noble and demanding role. However, I'm with Maglite. I don't buy the "A person at home is so much more valuable than child care" guff. I know some stay-at-home mums with great kids, but I also know enough stay-at-home mums who are barely coping. Some parents just don't have the skills or stamina despite their best intentions. Child care centres at least have standardised skills and training in raising kids.

Can you honestly say you don't know of at least one person who is dysfunctional despite having at least one parent always at home for them during their childhood?

[Frosty]

What pee's me of is that the government will give you $3,000 to new mothers for having a baby (single or partnered),which would indicate that they are promoting making babys.
so we have some teen girls stupidly thinking that's a lot of money, so they go into production and make their pocket money.
Then we have just the average couple who have a baby in one system then all of a sudden the rules change and youve had your $3000 pat on the back now your being told by some idiot that you have no choice you have to bung your little precious into childcare .(who knows what the side effects of that is going to be long term) or who is looking after them.
Many country towns like the one i live in don't have any bus transport to speak of, it would take 1 1/4 hrs one way to travel to work, there is absolutely no childcare facility and no one who will look after children within a 30min radius in the opposite direction to the work area.
But don't worry we will all *****, moan and complain, but none of us will do anything, do you know why? because we are all so poor we couldn't organise to much of a protest because we also don't have the inclination because we have been demoralised for so long we don't have the guts to stand up and unite and tell them NO even though we do have the power we have forgotten how to use it. Thousands of people would protest years ago, and now if the petrol prices rise we just whinge , we do everything we are told like puppets, Gee they must have a laugh when they are pulling our strings.

[jackiew]

I don't like the idea of my taxes going to people who are scrounging but I know from personal experience that not everyone who is on income support expected to be there and not everyone who is there has access to the resources needed to get back to work without assistance..

I went back to work when my son was 8 months old.

Before then I was on the social as I lost my job ( the rules at the time in the uk said you had to work for the same employer for just over 2 years and I only managed just under 2 years).

My partner who had been so desperate that I not have an abortion jacked his job in a few months into my pregnancy and saved precisely nothing before the birth and had no intention whatsoever ( despite his promises) of contributing financially after the birth. If you want to know what embarassment is pay for milk in the supermarket with milk tokens and listen to everyone else in the queue making rude remarks about you.

I lied to the bank and said that I was on maternity leave and got a mortgage holiday so that they wouldn't foreclose on the loan leaving me homeless. I used my small savings to make payments to try and keep the debt from blowing out too much.

I put my name down for a nursery place before I even looked pregnant and when I reached the top of the list ended up paying for the place for 2 months ( thanks to my mum) before I could find a job which I could actually get to within the hours the nursery was open. If I didn't take the place I went back to the end of the list ( around 16 months wait!! ).

I can really sympathise with those parents who want to work but would end up worse off with travel costs, having to wear nice clothes etc - that's if they can find a job that doesn't change your hours on a whim.

My employer then moved 150 miles and I couldn't get a local job and had to move too. All of a sudden no friends, no family. It was the pits.

I can see no reason why parents of school age children shouldn't work at least part time - if there are jobs to be had. The system should recognise the obstacles. In the UK at one time you had to prove you had childcare available to prove you were looking for work - but who on social can afford to pay for childcare if they haven't got a job ( not everyone has a mum like mine ). And then a whole raft of benefits had a 16 week waiting period so if you got a job for a month you then went without for the next 16 weeks. How dumb is that.

[jow104]

Please do not take offence

but

What would you have done 50 years ago?

(You most probably would not have become pregnant. Thats the problem these days)

[adrian]

There are some people who cheat on Unemployment benefits. They are in the minority.
There are some people who cheat on Supporting Mothers benefits. Minority.
There are people who cheat on the Invalid pension. Minority.
Some people who take picture on Bondi beach are paedophiles. Minority.
Some cops deal drugs. Minority.
The list is virtually endless.
So what's the answer? By the looks of a lot of the preceeding posts it's a case of adjusting everything down to the lowest common denominator.
The original post seems to discount the possibility that the majority of the people on such benefits are just people who are having a hard time.
For a single mother to be able to work she will have to find $300 per week for child care.
If she lives in rented accommodation, which she almost certainly is, she will probably have to find at least another $200 per week for rent.
If the people who complain about the bludgers on welfare are consistent then they will probably insist on her being in a health fund. $25 per week.
Gas, phone, electricity, water, contents insurance. Lets be conservative at $25 per week.
$550 out of her net salary and we haven't even started talking about food, clothing and transport costs. No way can she afford to own a car.
Then we have to take into account the fact that when the employment laws are changed after the new senators take office in July there will be many employers who will be getting rid of full time employees and taking on part timers. I don't suppose it has escaped too many peoples notice that the reason why we supposedly have full employment is that we now have up to 3 people doing part time/casual, what used to be done by one person full time. So I don't like the chances of that single mother getting a job that would even cover her rent.
As for stopping the lower classes from multiplying, it's been tried before.

Oh, I forgot another minority. People who don't cheat on their tax. Fix that little problem and the government will be rolling in dough. Who wants to put their hand up first. :rolleyes:

[jow104]

The minority of single mothers are not avoiding having babies.

[boban]

Im sure to offend someone but its not my intention. Just my opinion, and we've all got them.

Full time child care, however good it may be, is not the equivalent of a stay at home parent. Child care has its benefits, but to say that it is better than a parent sounds like someone is kidding themselves.

Don't start posting stories about bad parents, I know they exist, just like the child care centre who cares mainly how to rip the dollar away from the parent and pay their workers a pitance.

[adrian]

The minority of single mothers are not avoiding having babies.
Very true. A minority of single mothers are having babies.

[jow104]

Very true. A minority of single mothers are having babies.

adrian:

blood pressure normal,
pulse OK

How are you? :D


Over and out.

[adrian]

adrian:

blood pressure normal,
pulse OK

How are you? :D
English skin + 45 years of Aussie sun = skin cancers. I seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time getting little chunks cut out. Six, a couple of weeks ago and another two next week.
It's a good way to lose weight but I'd rather not.
Apart from that, if I was any better I'd be dangerous.
Are you getting the same weather down there that they are getting at the cricket?

[jow104]

English skin + 45 years of Aussie sun = skin cancers. I seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time getting little chunks cut out. Six, a couple of weeks ago and another two next week.
It's a good way to lose weight but I'd rather not.
Apart from that, if I was any better I'd be dangerous.
Are you getting the same weather down there that they are getting at the cricket?


Yes adrian.

The weather is beautiful at the moment. We've got clear blue sky and our coastal temperture is around 23c. ( London might be much higher though)
Keep well.

[Gingermick]

Selfish people looking to rort a system do not have extra children to try and get more from that system. Extra kids are too much work, as most will attest.

[jackiew]

Please do not take offence

but

What would you have done 50 years ago?

(You most probably would not have become pregnant. Thats the problem these days)

no offence taken. would I have still got pregnant 50 years ago - as it was due to contraceptive failure - probably yes ( they did have contraceptives 50 years ago ) and contrary to popular opinion our parents could and frequently did have sex before marriage.

50 years ago my dad would have probably beaten the **** out of my boyfriend for failing to meet his obligations and society would have felt he richly deserved it. 50 years ago I wouldn't have had a mortgage ( as a female I would have had trouble convincing the bank to lend me the money ) and I would almost certainly have ended up moving back in with my parents.

Would I have worked. yes. working class women with children have always worked if they wanted bread on the table and either there was no man or he was unable or unwilling to support the family. In the past quite small children were left unattended or in the care of older siblings ( and sometimes came to unfortunate ends ).

[Grunt]

Did they have sex 50 years ago?

Glad to see you back Jackie.

[Hagrid]

This whole thread is insane both positive and negative comments are both wrong in that if you look at the policy it is not about forcing all single parents into work.
They say that when the youngest child is at school (6-16) in that time if you are still getting assistance from the Australian people then you need to do a minimum of 15 hour per week of work or work related activity.
Looking for work
Training for work.
Studying for work.
This is not about as the thread seems to going as to who does and does not have the right to have babies this is about a country that is facing a major labour shortage and how we are going to deal with it in the future.
At present I work full time and study full time trying to become a design and technology teacher with no children of my own I think it is great that people out there want to have them be they single or coupled.
How ever if you are getting support from the Australian people then when you become eligible to work a little then that’s good also.
As for the line of thought some people seem to be having, that people have babies to live off the system. Who cares.
As a country we are going backwards a alarming rate with the number of available workers and they do have to come from somewhere

Just my thoughts.

Regards
Mark

Ps good luck to anyone who has children and hopefully thanks for the work.