Amongst his (I think its a him) comments, Zeal makes one useful point amongst his socialist dross. That is; rearing children is a huge task; at least rearing them properly is so. It is also an extremely expensive exercise.
My grand-daughter, of whom I am more or less the sole funder, does swimming, piano, soccer. The fees alone for just those three cost me around $50 pw. Given she’s entering high-level swimming competition stage, replacement (practice) gear costs about $15 pw. Comp toggs and caps, and all the frills which one needs to be up there with the rest of the comp swimmers, costs about a further $10 pw. Soccer costs me about $15pw in just gas for transport. So there’s $90 pw. But then she needs clothes, dentistry (at the moment, orthodontics at $5k). Then there’s summer activities, school fees, clothes, some mild entertainment, birthdays, Christmas, holidays, etc. Not to mention food, share of power, phone etc.
I figure I pay about $10k a year and don’t begrudge a cent of it.
For one child
Sure DPB can be a big earner. I gather from one of our foundation contributors, who has much knowledge in this area, that $600pw is quite common (ergo, $45k gross if you have a job) But for that income the DPB recipient requires to be caring for at least two children.
And so I have to ask you all if my GD is spoiled, or are the children of DPB beneficiaries left bereft of a modestly rounded education?
You see, if mum hadn’t fled with the kids, thus to cost the tax-payer an unwarranted overhead, and stayed to properly negotiate with her partner, and they had remained both working and sharing the various duties of child-rearing, they could afford to expose their children to a properly rounded education.
You see, Zeal, the kids didn’t ask to become defacto beneficiaries on the tax-payer, their fleeing mother (mostly) forced them into becoming defacto beggars.
How do you think a kid feels when, upon reaching age fifteen, or there-abouts, and has to admit to his/her peers that they come from a dysfunctional family. Mum ran away, she has had several new boyfriends (one of whom tried to…..) and dad has a new girlfriend who doesn’t want me around.
And on the annual, school rego form, “Parent/caregiver employment?” the child has to state DPB DePendentBeggar. I bet that makes the child feel really good, huh?
As opposed the kid who can say, ‘Yeah sure. Life is hard. My folks fight and argue, but they do their best. We might not have all we want but at least, at dinner time, I get to sit with my family.Dad’s a plumber, mum’s a cleaner. We get along, mostly.’
You see, I think life on the DPB must be really hard, for children and mother. Mother, unless completely bereft of conscience, knows she’s a bludger. The kids know she’s a bludger. Living with such knowledge is insupportable, so they sublimate it, and justify it. Then they come to believe they are right in accepting welfare because none of it is their fault.
The fact is; none of it is the fault of the kids; they just end up being the victims.
It seems to me that the answer is mandatory shared parenting from under the same roof. If the ‘parents’ can’t hack it in a normal relationship, then get seperate bedrooms, become housemates, cut a deal and have an external life, but one which does not exclude the prime responsibility of bringing in the bucks, free of tax-payer funding, and sharing the care and upbringing of the kids until all children are at least 16.
In this way, we wouldn’t need DPB. And the kids would get a lot of what they deserve.
Life is hard. I wanted to be a brain surgeon, till I changed my mind. I’d like to be rich and famous, a film star, a great writer, or a great artist. The fact is, I’m actually just me. Struggling on, from day to day, making the best of a limited period called life.
It seems to me that struggling on has become a concept unacceptable since one could stop struggling by demanding surcease from the tax-payer.
Maybe we need to construct an all-new arrangement, like gay marriage. Except we would name this, ‘A relationship of convenience’, or some such.
That would mean the kids would retain both parents, the grand-parents of the kids would have proper access, and the adult parties would be free to go out and screw or party, or whatever. But at the end of the day/night/partying,screwing, et al, they come ‘home’ to once again take up the resposibilities which they alone created….The kids ‘ welfare.
But the fact is, as regards contract law, I think there has to be a severe curtailment of freedom, a curtailment which arrives at the point where the baby is conceived and then born. At those times, neither party may abrogate their responsibilities for equal shared parenting.
In other words, till the kids arrive, be as impulsive as you wish, but upon the day you, as a couple, bring a new life into this world, then you’re stuck with the consequences. Get on with it.
It’s kind’ve like the speeding ticket debate. You get a speeding ticket only when you get caught speeding. You choose to speed. You choose to have children. You choose to have children, then suck up the responsibility.
And if you don’t choose, on account of you’re a birth-control ignoramous, then tough on you. There’s buckets of folk hanging out to adopt.
You can’t hack a ‘relationship of convenience’? Then tough on you. There’s heaps of seriously committed adoptive parents who will do the job for your kids, way better….and still aloow you access to them.
I favour the idea of assessing a birth-mother’s ability to rear a child, (financial at least) and if they can’t demonstrate such ability then the child gets offered for adoption. Adoptive parents have to go through serious hoops and then, mostly, have to nick of to Russia or Serbia to find a child to love and nuture, while sundry lay-about DPB beneficiaries live the low-life and deprive both the children and potential adoptive parents of a relationship which is mostly made in heaven; as opposed to the hell so often associated with single mother (father kicked away) homes.
The reality is, at every turn of the way, it is the children who are being defrauded by the adults.