Among mothers who were employed prior to the birth of their child and took leave from employment, one-quarter returned within six months, around 60% returned within 12 months, and 70% returned within 15 months (the age of the youngest children at the time of the survey).

So in fact at least 60% would have some income in the year after the baby is born - probably more as some others who took longer off would have access to paid maternity leave.

And also not surprisingly:

A significant proportion (46%) of Australian mothers who took leave and returned to work within 15 months reported that they would have taken longer if they had access to some (or more) paid maternity leave.

Rich or poor, I think there’s a benefit to children if you can help allow one of the parents (and it doesn’t need to be the mother) to stay at home with the child for the very early years if the parents want to. I’m claiming that the baby bonus is being treated as extra maternity leave by many parents.

The former government money that went into NALSAS was re-allocated to a private institute called the Asia Education Foundation that did - exactly the same thing as NALSAS, including using the same website artwork!

It was repurposing public taxpayer money into private hands. Classic Howardism.

The smoking gun, with pictures and everything to prove it, is on this link:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5037&page=0

If what you say is true, it’s just proof that they don’t need the bonus, since they’re either still working or being paid by their employers while they’re not working. What’s the point of the bonus?

Well its debatable that anyone needs the baby bonus - after all everyone survived without it before it was introduced. But I think it allows people to take more time off than they otherwise would - many work out how much leave (maternity/annual/long service) they have and then take off as long as they can before mortgage repayments encourage them back.

They’re also not getting paid as much as they were before - eg taking half pay to make it stretch further followed by working part time (1 or 2 days a week).

Back to your former assumption that the primary carer would have zero income, I was just pointing out that is often not true as many return to at least part time work within a year. Nearly everyone would have a little bit of annual leave that they’d use.

Actually I doubt thats true in the majority of cases. Many would use leave, with women having babies later some even have long service leave and others have maternity leave on top of that. And a significant percentage now return to work on a part time basis within the first year.

Now I think you’re talking out of your ass.

If what you say is true, it’s just proof that they don’t need the bonus, since they’re either still working or being paid by their employers while they’re not working. What’s the point of the bonus?

Chris, I made the (not unreasonable) assumption that Mrs 98% earned no income in the year that the bonus was paid.

Actually I doubt thats true in the majority of cases. Many would use leave, with women having babies later some even have long service leave and others have maternity leave on top of that. And a significant percentage now return to work on a part time basis within the first year.

SJ - but the baby bonus means test is based around household, not individual income so you’re probably looking at around 15% rather than 2%.

Chris, I made the (not unreasonable) assumption that Mrs 98% earned no income in the year that the bonus was paid.

While we’re dealing with all silly things budgetary - some of you might find a bit of a giggle in the number of Tarago’s actually involved in the “Tarago Tax”

http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/nelsons-tarago-too-far/

I always thought that welfare was intended as a safety net for the poorest in society, not some sort of pocket money for those who don’t need it.

I think part of the problem is that they’ve been inconsistent (eg people earning $500,000/yr can still get the childcare rebate. The other is that the tax system doesn’t take into account dependent children - eg a couple on $150,000 pays the same amount of tax if they have 0 children or 3 children - instead the government has tried to take this into account via welfare payments. Taking a bit less from people with dependents in the first place would be more efficient and not encourage the welfare mentality.

But if we do not try we will certainly fail.

The middle-class welfare/bribery that has become part of past budgets has become so ingrained in the public mind that people who are - no matter how you want to look at it - very well off, will argue that they’ve been ‘unfairly penalised’ because they’re not receiving benefits.

I always thought that welfare was intended as a safety net for the poorest in society, not some sort of pocket money for those who don’t need it.

Following the announcement of the budget, cries are raised that the elderly didn’t get much, or that stay at home mothers could have done better, etc.

For God’s sake. It’s a budget, not a lollybag.

He was happy to leave it as a pretty obvious pitch for the One Nation reactionary vote.