🚀 go-pugleaf

David brindley wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:33:19 +0800, Annette <ntsoft@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
> 
> >David brindley wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:49:29 +0800, Annette <ntsoft@iinet.net.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> <<snip>>
> >> Let them pay for their own childcare, not bludge on the community for
> >> what is essentially a private expense.
> >>
> >>

But isn't everything a 'private expense'?
Would doing away with private expenses mean there would be no more
government support/subsidies of any kind - or just childcare?
What about unemployment payments, or payments for those who are disabled
or are medically unable to work? 

What about businesses who get government subsidies? What is the
difference if both are using government (our) money?

> >The point is.. If I cannot afford the child care I have a couple of
> >choices
> >1. keep the child at home while I sleep (not good)
> >2. stop working for the extra day (get social security - (I'd rather
> >work))
> >
> So, it's your choice. Make one, don't come running to me to solve your
> problems.

um, you decided to answer my post, I did not personally seek you out for
help.

:) ah, but you said the government subsidising childcare is using your
money - isn't going onto a sole parent pension doing the same thing in
your eyes?

<<snip>>
> >
> You are sucking up tax dollars one way or the other. Maybe by staying
> home your child gets a better start in life.
> 
yes, I would really love to be able to do that - but costs are always
increasing, and the kind of rent people are asking for rundown housing
in undesirable areas would be about all I could afford.

That kind of a start we can do without. There are other work options I
am trying. I sure hope they work out :)

> We have established a social security system that allows a single
> mohter (god help us all) to stay at home and raise the child. If you
> want more, pay for it.
> 

sounds like you would like to sterilise certain of the female/male
population. perhaps shoot them if already with child?
there are SOLE parents, single parents of both sexes, you know. also
widows with kids, and really - when you think about it - it DOES take
one of each sex to create a child :)
how about ya go after the males who should take on half of the
responsibility?  

<snip>
> >yeah!!  all those Mums who will give up work - wonder how that will look
> >in the govts books? all those newly vacated jobs to fill.
> >
> And with the number of unemployed, they will be filled in n o time,
> dole will be less so more to help stay at home mums and kids will get
> a better start in life. Looks like a win win situation to me.
> 

I don't know that it would work that way, but if your ideas are what the
government wants - I really hope they work for all our sakes.
I just cant see a family surviving on one wage when they are barely
making it on two. What would you do about that?

> >attitude.
> 
> Of someone who doesn't believe I should be ripped of just so you can
> have "choices".
> 
> Perhaps, if you are really serious, you could join me in having all
> childcare subsidies removed for families with an income of above $25k,
> and all families with both partners working, regardless of income
> level.
> 
And would you also seek out males who own thriving businesses and yet
through some taxation means?? - end up with a statement saying they earn
less than their partner/wife/ do? 
How DOES that work, anyway?
Is it some taxation loophole that allows it?

> We may then have sufficient money to pay for childcare for those
> people in genuine need.

How would you define 'genuine need'?

Annette