Taxpayer breeder program: House of cards

Photo of author
Written By Joe Blow

Imagine that you and your partner want to have children. Imagine that after reviewing your financial situation you discover that your income will not support a larger family. Imagine that you will receive paid maternity leave for 12 weeks. Imagine that you may also collect a $3000-$4000 cash bonus for each child regardless of your income level. Just how long would it take you to produce your first set of triplets?

Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it? Welcome to the latest free money scheme of the Howard government in Australia. This Ponzi scheme is government sponsored and it has a huge number of “investors” to fuel the engine that will magically allow you to not work, stay home, and become a breeder of future taxpayers for the socialist State. Hot tip: Don’t buy any stock in Australian birth control companies in the near future.

Justine Ferrari writes, “Parents who stay home to care for children should be paid a homemaker’s “wage” to help arrest the nation’s falling birth rate. They warn Australia’s population will reach crisis level within 10 years unless there is a radical rethink of family financial support. “In the first year after the birth of a child, we should be supporting parents to stay at home to look after their baby – not just mothers but fathers,” said leading population expert ANU Professor Peter Macdonald.”

This socialist State is waking up to fiscal reality. It is about to do whatever it considers necessary to ensure that the Australian birthrate increases. Failure to take action will result in the inevitable collapse–just like all Ponzi schemes. This should come as no surprise to anyone, but socialists don’t believe that there is no free lunch. After years of meddling in the job market to increase the number of working women the government is now shocked, shocked to discover that the birthrate is declining.

“Professor Macdonald said the present system of family payments was a “hodgepodge”. Experts argue that offering paid maternity leave does not go far enough in encouraging people to have more babies. Prime Minister John Howard and Family Services Minister Amanda Vanstone have made it clear that paid maternity leave will be only one factor in the planned overhaul of Australia’s $17 billion family payments system. “You have a child for a lot longer than 12 weeks and there are a lot more issues that need to be considered than a payment for a 12-week period,” Senator Vanstone said.”

Now there’s a mouthful. Like all socialist schemes, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Cradle-to-grave payments are what he is referring to, but he doesn’t elaborate. His real concern is not the declining birthrate, but the result of it: not enough future taxpayers to keep the house of cards standing.

“Leading family authorities urged the Prime Minister to consider a “wage” for parents of children up to 12 months old to allow one parent to stay at home. The Centre for Independent Studies proposes pooling the $17 billion in child-related allowances to pay parents $3000-$4000 for each child, regardless of income. Other experts have called for a sliding scale so Australians receive a higher payment or “wage” for each subsequent child.”

The less you work, the more you stay home, and the more children you produce, the more money you could collect from the government. What’s wrong with this picture?

“Australian women are having fewer babies now than in the past century. The average woman has 1.7 babies, down from a high of 3.5 in the 1960s. Professor Macdonald said Australia had to act now to bolster falling birth rates, which will reach a crisis in the next 10 years. National Taxation Agents’ Association president Ray Regan supported the call for a parents wage which could be partly funded by a “family tax” on major corporations.”

Of course, like always, costs of this socialist Ponzi scheme will be offset by a new “family tax” levied on major corporations. They have lots of free money just sitting around waiting to be siphoned off by the State, right?

“In addition, Mr Regan advocates a 30 per cent tax rebate on childcare fees. Australia now has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, at just 1.7 babies for each woman. This has more than halved in 40 years.”

Dare I say that you reap what you sow, even in a socialist State?

“Paid maternity is just the tip of the iceberg,” Relationships Australia chief executive officer Anne Hollonds said. “The Government needs to set up a cross-portfolio task force to address this issue from every possible angle.”

Since when is it the province of government to subsidize the production of children?

“Australian Family Association executive officer Terry Breen said many families – particularly in expensive cities like Sydney – could not afford to have many children.”

Why then, pray tell, would the government want to pay them to have more children?”

“We need to recognise that mothers or fathers who stay at home need more support,” Mr Breen said. “We need to give them a homemaker’s allowance, not to put them down for being at home.”

Like all socialist schemes, this is about perceived “needs” paid for by someone else.

“Mr Breen and Ms Hollonds both said Australia had become a particularly unfriendly place for children. Ms Hollonds said there was even workplace backlash against assistance for workers with child.”

You might almost think that some people believe that their income is their income, to spend as they see fit, not as the government deems necessary to subsidize the production of someone else’s children. Go figure.

“ANU demographer Professor Peter Macdonald said the two family payments introduced by the Howard Government, the family tax benefit and the baby bonus, were discriminatory and shifted the balance from supporting working mothers to encouraging women to remain at home.”

Not only is this not politically correct, it also results in one less taxpayer for the State. This cannot and will not be tolerated.

“Both are paid according to the income of the father whereas the childcare rebate is means tested on both the mother’s and the father’s wage. If a woman works 20 hours a week, the family loses both payments. But if the father works overtime or takes an extra job on top of his full-time job, the family retains its financial assistance. In a family where the father stays at home to care for his children and the mother is the main wage earner, the family is not entitled to either of the payments.”

Note the blatant discrimination against stay-at-home fathers. As always, the father is relegated to the conventional socialist norm: working drone for the State.

“This policy regime moves the father out of the family and keeps the mother at home,” he said.”

Which is exactly what the State wants. Keep the father out of the family and keep the mother at home, producing more babies for the State.

In summary, please allow me to state the obvious:

– People who can’t afford children shouldn’t have any, let alone more of them.

– Parents are responsible for their own children no matter what.

– The State has no right to be involved in the production of children.

– The State has no right to subsidize the production of children.

– The State has no right to force you to pay for the production of children.

– Ponzi schemes are still Ponzi schemes no matter who devises them.

– A house of cards will always eventually collapse.

Notwithstanding all of the above, you can expect Congress to make a similar pitch soon. This regime still lags Australian socialism, but our current fiscal situation will rapidly narrow the gap. The trend is clear: creeping socialism, declining marriages and white birthrates, rampant divorce, legitimization of single mothers, zero personal responsibility, unchecked immigration, entitlements on steroids, “victims” at every turn, big business as evil, big government as the solution, deficit spending, inevitable huge tax increases, fleeing wealthy taxpayers, lists of unfilled “needs,” and the State as parent and God.

Marriage is unnecessary. The former family home becomes a chicken coop, with the hens laying eggs for the State. The number of drones required to hold up the House of Cards is huge, but how many strutting roosters does the State really need?

Marriage was never even mentioned in this article. Want a quick peek into the ugly future? What’s to stop a middle-aged lesbian couple from going to a State fertility clinic/sperm bank and taking turns at having quintuplets at taxpayer expense?

Published originally at : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

Leave a Comment