Should Childcare Expense Be Tax Deductible?

MiaSanMia on 26/06/2018 - 16:24

Long story short, what's your opinion about our current childcare expense level? Should out-of-pocket childcare expenses be deductible against income tax?

Our combined income is roughly $100k per year and we've been paying a childcare fee of more than $220 per week for one child, that's nearly $11,500 per year and this doesn't look like to change when the new Childcare Subsidy kicks in from July. I thinks it's too much out of our net pay and wonder why the Gov don't allow it as deduction against income tax? We send kids to childcare in order to go to work and earn income to pay tax, so shouldn't it be considered as part of the income earning activity under tax deduction definition?

Your thoughts please.

Poll Options

  • 92
    Childcare expenses should be tax deductible
  • 270
    Leave it as is, we need more tax in this country
Financial Childcare Income Tax

Comments

  • tsunamisurfer on 26/06/2018 - 16:31
    +99

    No Child Care expenses should not be tax deductible.

    We send kids to childcare in order to go to work and earn income to pay tax, so shouldn't it be considered as part of the income earning activity under tax deduction definition?

    By this FUBAR logic, bus fares / petrol / car maintenance / shoes depreciation / umbrellas / Spotify should also be tax deductible as they are required for me to go to work.

    If you can't afford child care, don't have children, don't ask the government to give you more concessions ON TOP OF the already generous subsidies.

    Note I have two children, I am not replying as a DINK.

    • Ocker on 26/06/2018 - 16:57
      +45

      "don't ask the government to give you more concessions "
      Not quite correct, they want other taxpayers to pay for their kids.
      Afraid the OP post typifies the welfare state of mind we have bred. gimmee, gimmee, gimmee !!

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 13:06
          +31

          No, the moral of the story is - if you have kids, be able to financially support them. Are your kids gonna visit me in hospital? Come to my Christmas dinners? Pay for my retirement home? No? Then why the hell am I paying for them?

        • austrij on 27/06/2018 - 13:41
          +13

          @HighAndDry: Not completely agreeing with OP but your argument has so many holes. By the same logic when you're retired and not paying for Medicare anymore should you be barred from going to public hospitals? Why should people paying taxes be covering your hospital bill and everything else that is funded by tax?

        • idonotknowwhy on 27/06/2018 - 13:45
          +13

          @HighAndDry: They're going to pay your pension though, and maintain your retirement home, change your nappies for you in your final years, etc.

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 16:42
          +5

          @austrij:

          By the same logic when you're retired and not paying for Medicare anymore should you be barred from going to public hospitals?

          No, I would've paid a lifetime of tax. Plus I'd also hopefully have done a minimum of financial planning so I can still afford private health insurance. I very much doubt OP, or anyone else, is solely - or even at all - considering the future tax base of Australia when deciding whether or not to have kids.

          I'm pretty sure the decision is very selfishly (though not in a bad way - just in a factual) based on whether they want kids or not.

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 16:43
          +3

          @idonotknowwhy: No, per the above, I'd have done my financial planning and be living off of my own saved superannuation. I may or may not have kids, but I certainly don't plan to be a burden to them (or others) in my old age. I can't imagine how any self-respecting and responsible adult could think otherwise.

        • idonotknowwhy on 27/06/2018 - 17:30
          +1

          @HighAndDry: if you live long enough, you're still going to need other people's children to change your nappies, change your cathoda, perform your cataract surgery, etc. No amount of wealth will avoid this problem.

          P.S. I genuinely hope no accidents or other events outside of your control happen which ruin your plans not to be a burden on society, but if something does happen, we're here to help.

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 17:32
          +7

          @idonotknowwhy: Thanks - and you're right, but I'd hopefully be paying them a decent rate to do that for me, instead of relying on solely love and affection.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 18:01
          +1

          @HighAndDry:

          No, the hospital closed down, who staffs it if no one has kids.

        • idonotknowwhy on 27/06/2018 - 18:32

          @HighAndDry: > them

          Yeah that's what I was trying to get at (but I see I didn't explicitly say it).
          Need to incentivise Millenials to have kids, otherwise there won't be anyone to pay a decent wage to in the first place.

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 18:35
          -1

          @saard: Immigrants…. (or robots).

        • Tyrx on 27/06/2018 - 21:46
          +1

          @idonotknowwhy:

          It's highly doubtful that pensions as we know them will exist by the time Millenials retire, if they can even do that at all… Even if we debate the sustainability of such schemes, climate change is set to reverse the economic and health gains that humanity has made in the last century. Unless we reach some sort of post-scarcity society, adequate care for the elderly will likely be one of the victims of climate change.

        • blehgg on 28/06/2018 - 09:42

          Or somehow get into japan and get paid to have kids.

        • Binchicken22 on 28/06/2018 - 09:47
          +2

          @saard:

          Don't act as if your decision to have kids was in any way influenced by "the future of the country" and "making sure the hospital's are staffed". Get off your high horse, your decision to have kids was a selfish one, just like everyone else.

          No one wants to say it, but it is what it is, we all have kids because we want to, that's why people who cannot afford kids and have no business raising kids, still breed, because they want to, no other reason.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/07/2018 - 18:42

          @brad1601:

          because they want to, no other reason

          Or don't know about/have access to / refuse to use effective contraception.

      • locknuts on 28/06/2018 - 20:00

        If it's a tax deduction then they're just letting the government take less of their money. It's not taxpayer's money yet.

        That said, childcare is already subsidised and is a pretty weak excuse for a tax deduction.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 17:02
      +32

      The key here is that childcare isn't an expense incurred to earn an income. One can earn an income without having children at all.

      • jorf on 28/06/2018 - 08:06
        -2

        But you can negatively gear a house that has nothing to do with your income. Is that fair?

        • Binchicken22 on 28/06/2018 - 09:49
          +6

          You can only negatively gear a house that is producing an income (rent) AFAIK. You can't negatively gear your own house that you live in.

    • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 17:05
      +8

      Hey, I need to eat to survive so that I can work. I also need a place to live so that I can get ready for work. I also need everyday clothes so I don't die of exposure so I can work. Also furniture - at least a bed. And bed-linen. And pots and pans.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 17:17
        +2

        Expenses which you incur primarily to earn an income are generally tax deductible, expenses that are partly for that purpose are partly tax deductible, and expenses which you would incur regardless of whether or not you earnt an income (all your examples) are not tax deductible.

        It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

        • Almost Banned on 26/06/2018 - 19:52
          +11

          No, its not. And yet you haven't grasped it.

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 20:23
          +4

          Sorry, left the /s tag off.

        • Ughhh on 26/06/2018 - 23:36
          +10

          @HighAndDry:

          I thought it was pretty obvious :/

    • ChupaCabra on 27/06/2018 - 08:40
      +4

      "If you can't afford child care, don't have children"

      Belittling the experiences of every child growing up with poor parents, how nice. No your argument should be for OP to suck it up and take ownership of his responsibility which is his child, that is not the governments responsibility. If you look at how your own grandparents were raised compared to your upbringing then you would probably consider them poor by comparison (no laundry, no refridgrerating, bad/no tv, etc) and hence you wouldnt exist if your great grandparents hadnt sucked it up and done the hard work to bring up your grandparents.

      Anyway I cant blame OP too much what with real income having not increased for the median earner in the last 15 years and meanwhile expenses skyrocketing. All due to poor government. Fact is the government needs to fix this problem and get the country progressing rather than using defeatist logic that poor wage rises are due to XXX factors. Why dont they start by encouringing major corps to train their existing local employees rather than hiring overseas? My workplace at a massive international is a perfect example where its close to 50% non-local employees and even our US executive noted how surprised he was at this when he visited Australia.

      • tsunamisurfer on 27/06/2018 - 12:41
        +9

        Belittling the experiences of every child growing up with poor parents, how nice.

        I have belittled no children not sure how we got to that.

        No your argument should be for OP to suck it up and take ownership of his responsibility which is his child, that is not the governments responsibility.

        Which is pretty much what I said without using the words suck it up.

        Anyway I cant blame OP too much what with real income having not increased for the median earner in the last 15 years

        Yes you can blame the OP, this is where the blame lies. He chose to have children knowing the costs.

        On the issue of real income not increasing…..nothing is further from the truth.

        Median Weekly Household Income 2006 - $1,027
        http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/…

        Median Weekly Household Income 2016 - $1,438
        http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/…

        CPI December 2006 - 88.6
        CPI December 2016 - 110.0

        https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Consumer-price-index/

        So in those ten years Median Weekly Household Income rose 40.02%, whilst the cost of living only rose 23.4%

        Please check your facts next time.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 21:15
          +2

          The CPI fails to take into account the increased costs of mortgage repayments for "new" families from massively increased house prices. That will eat the difference you expose.

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 21:19
          -2

          @lghulm: No it doesn't.

          http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/6461.…

          CPI is calculated directly in proportion to household expenditure which includes, if you scroll down to 6.26:

          New dwelling purchase by owner-occupiers

          Why do you persist in posting ignorant comment after ignorant comment? This is from the ABS, which is a publicly available resource on the internet. You're obviously on the internet. You can look this up.

        • Tyrx on 27/06/2018 - 22:02
          +4

          @HighAndDry:

          The CPI is supposed to be a macroeconomic indicator, so the value of the land is excluded from the calculation… It's also worthwhile mentioning that the value of the dwelling hasn't been rising, but rather the land itself. The clue was in the quote that you listed yourself. It's the internet though - you can look this up.

        • tsunamisurfer on 27/06/2018 - 22:28
          +2

          @lghulm:

          No it doesn't, its in the basket of goods.

          https://www.smh.com.au/business/whats-in-the-cpi-basket-2011…

        • tsunamisurfer on 27/06/2018 - 22:28
          +1

          @Tyrx:

          No it isn't, its in the basket of goods.

          https://www.smh.com.au/business/whats-in-the-cpi-basket-2011…

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 22:31
          +3

          @HighAndDry: Oh I have to school you do I?

          It is you that fails to understand pal.

          The CPI is a BROAD measure of the AVERAGE increase in prices across certain common expenditures.

          The REAL CPI for a renter is different to a new home purchaser, to an elderly citizen, to a family etc.

          MY STATEMENT WAS CORRECT.

          By saying that 33% of families (for example) are mortgagees and 33% renters (& 33% owners) for example and then averaging the increase in costs (CPI) across them you are not left with the figure for the increase in CPI for NEW FAMILIES, but a BROAD measure of CPI across groups.

          Hence, the CPI FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR the massive increase in costs for NEW FAMILIES for it isn't a measure revolving around this one group type but a measure across groups.

          Care to withdraw?

          Also note, they exclude the price increase of EXISTING DWELLINGS (e.g. the land component), which experiences the steepest price rises.

          My point was not that the CPI does not take into account a PORTION of the increase in costs experienced by new families, but that it is not a measure of the increase of prices for this group alone, e.g. in a time of rising house prices the measure is massively underweight when it comes to new families purchasing a home.

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-20/inflation-data-suffers…

          From the article: "Australia's main official cost of living measure, the consumer price index, is failing young Australians by excluding home purchase costs, argues an economist from Australia's largest bank."

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 22:36

          @tsunamisurfer: A basket of goods that averages costs BETWEEN household categories and does not take into account price rises in existing dwellings. Thus in a time of rising house prices, especially centred on existing stock, especially for groups more likely to be relatively new mortgagees (e.g. new families) the measure is massively underweight for these family types under these conditions.

          Link provided in another response.

        • tsunamisurfer on 27/06/2018 - 22:56
          +1

          @lghulm:

          In your article Mr Aird's aim was to give home purchase a 10% weighting, it already enjoys a 7.87% rating.

          There are 2 reasons that home purchases should not have a higher weighting in the basket of goods.

          1) Its not essential, you don't need to buy a home to live.

          2) Interest rates would also skew the results of the CPI.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 23:29
          +2

          @tsunamisurfer: Interest rates do massively skew the ACTUAL cost of living of those with mortgages yes?
          1) is irrelevant, education is also non-essential to live, rigid definition of "essentials" is not the basis on CPI.

          Mr Aird was also looking at better balancing the calculation of CPI, not reflecting the accurate cost of the group I referred to in the opening post, so the fact he only wanted it to increase to 10% instead of 7.87% does not matter.

          The reality is, and this is what I am expressing, is that the CPI is a broad measure that should not be seen as accurate for any specific group within society. In the nature of being an average it will significantly under-estimate for some groups whilst over-estimating for others…

          My point was that this under-estimation is more likely and more pronounced for new families, i.e. people like the OP.

          So the commentator saying well CPI was Y, and wages X, therefore cost of living pressures for families have not increased but decreased is not a bankable (on that data alone) position.

          CPI is not a measure based solely on families. It is not a measure based solely on home purchasers. It is not a measure that fully weights house prices for purchasers especially those purchasing existing properties which is the majority. In short it cannot be used to discount that pressures on working families with young children has increased over the last decade. I am not saying I am proving that they have, I think anecdotally people feel this to be true.

          My goat in this is how people use broad, inaccurate economic data to make categorical statements. This cannot be done without regard to what the economic indicators actually measure and the case you are trying to apply the data to, in this case, families with young children.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 23:53

          @HighAndDry: House prices vs CPI 1998 to 2016: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/04/excluding-housing-c…

        • ChupaCabra on 28/06/2018 - 09:55
          +1

          Hey Mr Hockey, did all your research tell you that the single largest expense for a household isn't included in CPI or did you just intentionally forget that? If your actually believing that for a young family now it's not more expensive than 15 years ago then you are reading the wrong material. Rent/ housing prices are an even bigger factor when you have kids since you need more rooms and with that having skyrocketed these last 15 years how can you even argue that real income has risen? Yeah it's risen if you compare it solely to everyday items like the price of milk which you did!

        • tsunamisurfer on 28/06/2018 - 12:01
          +1

          @lghulm:

          Mr Aird was also looking at better balancing the calculation of CPI, not reflecting the accurate cost of the group I referred to in the opening post, so the fact he only wanted it to increase to 10% instead of 7.87% does not matter.

          Why doesn't it matter? His target is only 2.13% off what is happening now. That 2.13%, even if applied to accordance to his desires would not impact the CPI that much that would defeat the increase of median incomes 40% over the 10 years from 2006.

          I understand that CPI is a macro metric, but its the most recognised one we have so it's use is valid.

          Note that I used to to counter the argument that…

          real income having not increased for the median earner in the last 15 years

          He used macro terms….therefore I countered with macro figures. I did not specific target any sub-group other than the median income earner.

          In short it cannot be used to discount that pressures on working families with young children has increased over the last decade. I am not saying I am proving that they have, I think anecdotally people feel this to be true.

          I agree….anecdotally it is harder, take Sydney house prices doubling in the last 10 years. Wages have not doubled, therefore it is much harder to own a property.

          But property ownership is not essential to living, even a young family can rent (also part of the basket of goods) which is significantly cheaper than buying.

          People who feel financial pressure from having children, shouldn't have children.

          People who feel financial pressure from buying a house, shouldn't buy a house.

        • tsunamisurfer on 28/06/2018 - 12:04
          +1

          @TruthBringer:

          You must have missed the citations provided above where housing (rent or purchase) is part of the basket of goods.

        • ChupaCabra on 28/06/2018 - 19:52

          http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-20/inflation-data-suff…

          CPI is not accurate for a young family. It doesn't consider how much more expensive it is to get that white picket fence

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 19:58
        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 20:20

          @lghulm:

          Interest rates do massively skew the ACTUAL cost of living of those with mortgages yes?

          Not really. They are more than offset by capital gains in the value of the home. This is one reason why home purchases aren't given more weighting - because it's effectively an investment. You don't count the money you deposit into your savings account as an expense. That's what a home purchase is - it's worth MORE money as time goes by. Your net wealth increases.

          Explain to me how that's an expense.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 20:25

          @lghulm:

          House prices vs CPI 1998 to 2016: https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/04/excluding-housing-c…

          Looking at house prices in isolation is pointless. If house prices doubled but the cost of everything else halved, cost of living in total may not have changed.

          That's why you look at the CPI, not just housing prices. If you can now enjoy the same standard of living by paying less for everything else, then you can put more money towards housing. In fact, this has happened. Something which gave you the access, convenience, features and entertainment of a modern day smartphone would have cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars even a few decades back, much less 1998. Likewise with all technology, materials sciences (imagine what a modern pair of running shoes would cost in 1998), clothing (cheap labour from Asia), and even medical science.

          Plus - again, housing is an investment. It's not an expense. A car is an expense. The moment you buy a car, it halves in value. The moment you buy a house…. it's worth the exact same. And it'll be worth more the year after, and more the year after that. It's the equivalent of putting money into a piggy bank. That's not an expense.

        • chansthename on 29/06/2018 - 11:49

          @HighAndDry:

          Assuming that the value of a house (and associated land) goes up. That is not an assumption that can just be made like that.

          A house is not an investment, that's the sort of thinking (with the associated government incentives to make it an investment) that put us in this situation. A house should be considered an asset instead, if it ends up appreciating in value, good for the owner but blindly expecting that will go up is a situation that can end badly.

    • bad hombre on 27/06/2018 - 08:51
      +6

      Exactly! I am no advocate of the current tax system and remembering back to the days of "GST would replace almost all taxes except all these other taxes which we will keep just because we like to lie!". By your logic, all income taxes should be tax deductible!

      Childcare costs increased due to govt introducing a min std to the childcare system, all carers had to have a min qualifications among other things, so they tried to fix something that wasn't really broken.

      Govt wants you to work because they have worked out by giving you a rebate they earn more from you income taxes. So either stop working or stop sending kids to childcare.

      The third option is, just earn more! *** this msg has been endorsed by joe hockey on behalf of his rich election campaign donor mates ***

    • imahapyboy on 27/06/2018 - 20:33
      -3

      " you can't afford child care, don't have children" this is totally bullshit!

      • tsunamisurfer on 27/06/2018 - 22:27
        +4

        Your strategy to children you can't afford will be….?

      • Your Friend on 28/06/2018 - 13:09

        what is bullshit about it? seems pretty reasonable

    • Grish on 27/06/2018 - 20:39
      +7

      If you can't afford child care, don't have children

      Or… raise your kids yourself; be a stay home Mother (or Father)…

      I can afford child care, but instead of shipping off our kids to be dumped with teenage girls for 9 or so hours every day, we decided to raise our kids ourselves.

      • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 09:35

        Yep, this is a pretty good option.

    • SaddenAscentAspirin on 28/06/2018 - 11:38

      "Note I have two children, I am not replying as a DINK."

      Upvoted as DINK.

    • syousef on 28/06/2018 - 12:34

      If you can't afford child care, don't have children

      Well when you're old and grey, don't complain about today's children gouging you for basic services to pay off the debts incurred by themselves and their parents.

    • dogboy on 28/06/2018 - 14:55

      Bus fares / petrol, shoes = Yes
      All other stuff you listed = No
      Office workers gets screwed over in this country for the amount of things they can claim where tradies seem to be able to claim everything. Where is the equality?

    • elgrande on 29/06/2018 - 20:02

      U need to eat to go to work too!

    • MrFrugalSpend on 30/06/2018 - 00:54
      +3

      Absolutely they should be. You are overlooking very important points:

      Expensively qualified mothers leave work to raise children (taxpayer subsidised schooling/tafe/uni degrees), many find it not worthwhile returning. Some get welfare payments to stay at home (taxpayer funded), and stop making superannuation contributions increasing need to retire a pension (at taxpayer expense) rather than superannuation etc, as well as drawing down on any previous savings that would otherwise contributed to long-term financial independence and minimize other needs-based subsidies.

      For many, large gaps in employment continue for too long that she becomes no longer current in her profession and her employer won't need to hold her role and she will likely not work in full capacity again (I know several examples personally), a waste of skill/talent for the economy.

      Female participation rates in the workforce are an ongoing issue, as is welfare and pension dependence with an ageing workforce, and mental health of women who were career professionals who end up staying home without as much adult interaction. Unexpectedly single mums are greatly restricted if they want to sustain a career for their longterm life quality.

      Furthermore, it is a more direct way to get the economic and female workforce participation benefits than subsidising all child care as at present, the news recently featured child care centres that profiteer and put prices up as subsidies go up. Furthermore, it annoys me that I know our local child care has non-working mums who use it (with government subsidies) to put their kids in for a couple of days a week so they can have a break, socialise and do some housework, taking advantage of the direct government subsidies, but driving up the cost for those who are trying to work but finding it doesn't stack up so aren't using it at all, ultimately leading to them not working (when they otherwise would positively contribute to the economy and therefore tax revenue).

      Child Care Costs eat most of your take home pay. For the time period you are generating income, it makes sense to have tax deductible. Having it not tax deductible is potentially bad for the economy, bad for tax revenue, and increases welfare costs. It may not cost as much as you think when the whole life cycle is considered. Tax will even be being paid by the child care worker / centre employed by the system also along with more tax from the mother going back to work rather than a welfare dependent. As a society, we need to facilitate reproduction and we can promote more economic activity and female equality, and tax deductible child care is a potentially more direct way to get this than subsidizing the industry.

  • Xyzzy on 26/06/2018 - 16:33
    +15

    Making it a tax deduction instead of a rebate would favour higher-income earners as their claims would return 45¢ in the dollar while someone on a lower salary would only get back 32.5¢.

    • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 17:07
      +23

      Don't really see this as a valid objection. Rich people only get more back because they're paying more to begin with.

      • Azif on 29/06/2018 - 09:30
        +5

        Child care costs are a massive disincentive for one of the parents to work full time. Why not encourage high earners to go back to work, the total tax intake would be greater than the cost of the deduction.

        • neonlight on 29/06/2018 - 19:57

          There should be a scheme to encourage the other partner to work which can reduce childcare fees or increase subsidies that's what we need.

        • MrFrugalSpend on 30/06/2018 - 10:58

          @neonlight: Don't forget not everyone has another partner, but that aside, I agree - Its my long standing belief there should be more direct benefits from being formally married legally, and one of those should be it is fully legal for both parties to have their total combine income assessed together and split the tax brackets evenly. Why should one (normally husband) pay 45% when the other (normally wife) earns nothing and has $20,000 in tax free threshold unused. I realise there are offsets but they don't go far enough I don't think. In my family, my wife and I's money is fully shared (well, I earn it, she spends it) so it annoys me that I pay full tax bracket for my income whilst she earns far less / not much and has unused tax free and lower tax rate!

    • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 17:08
      +20

      Making it a tax deduction instead of a rebate would favour higher-income earners as their claims would return 45¢ in the dollar while someone on a lower salary would only get back 32.5¢.

      That's not all bad. It would be good to incentivise higher earners to have children.

      The birth rate is inversely correlated with career success and intelligence. Incentivising more successful, more intelligent people to procreate will produce more successful, more intelligent children who grow up to be more productive and pay more tax.

      • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 17:14
        +6

        Poorer people see more marginal utility out of every dollar than rich people though. A dollar to someone earning $30k a year is worth far more than a dollar to someone earning $130k a year.

        You'd incentivize rich people to have more kids… but you'd also be incentivizing poor people too, and probably to a bigger extent.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 17:29

          The disparity of incentive would be even greater with a flat or regressive subsidy, based on marginal utility.

          I'm not sure what system we have but I'd guess childcare subsidies are regressive (means tested).

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 17:37
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck: There's no workable system really. To a rich person, you'd have to pay them an impractical amount of money to incentivize them to have kids because to them, money just isn't worth that much (compared to spare time, comfort, etc).

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 17:46
          +4

          @HighAndDry:

          There are some effective solutions to the other end of the problem though.

          We could pay people to get sterilised. That would incentivise the least able potential parents not to procreate. Thereby reducing human misery, ill health, crime and welfare dependence.

        • tsunamisurfer on 26/06/2018 - 17:58
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          This I would support 100%.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 18:13
          +2

          @tsunamisurfer:

          Enough to vote for an independent in the senate?

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 18:18
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck: Definitely. Though it'd also depend on their other policies. I mean - if they were an anti-vaxxer I'd have to weigh up the benefits of having a bunch of smarter, but polio-infested babies.

        • tsunamisurfer on 26/06/2018 - 18:21
          +3

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          To sterilise Mount Druitt….Yes we can.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 18:24

          @HighAndDry:

          As a hypothetical, let's just say they are a free thinking capitalist who values human development, science and civil liberties.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 18:26

          @tsunamisurfer:

          To sterilise Mount Druitt….Yes we can.

          The mere fact that the Druitt's reputation extends to the west coast really speaks to the magnitude of the issue.

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 18:32
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck: Okay, I think we need to add a disclaimer that we're obviously joking about sterilizing large swathes of people based on geographical area. I'm sure there are good people in Mt Druitt. I myself have dear dear friends who hail from Mt Druitt. (I actually do now that I think about it, I'm not just meme'ing).

          And god if there was a political party that was fiscally conservative, pro-science, and pro-civil liberties? I'd go out and hand out pamphlets for them. And I hate those people who shove pamphlets in my face.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 18:41

          @HighAndDry:

          Okay, I think we need to add a disclaimer that we're obviously joking about sterilizing large swathes of people based on geographical area. I'm sure there are good people in Mt Druitt.

          Sooo, Levlen in the water supply or just crop dust it as an aerosol?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 18:49
          +1

          @HighAndDry:

          And god if there was a political party that was fiscally conservative, pro-science, and pro-civil liberties?
          And god if there was a political party that was… pro-science,
          And god… pro-science,
          god… science

          o_0

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 19:05

          @Scrooge McDuck: I really don't mean to bang on Mt Druitt but googling it comes up with this interesting piece, titled "7 things I love about living in Mount Druitt" and I can't for the love of me figure out if the author is being sincere or taking the piss. Because it features gems like:

          It might not make a liveability list any time soon…

          The number one reason is:

          Along with the Westfield, 24-hour Kmart, Spotlight and all the other desired retail stores, there’s your necessary services including the NRMA, police station, a TAFE, banks, hospital, a court house, schools, a medical and dental centre, and a library.

          You gotta wonder when the top reason for living somewhere is that it has a TAFE and essential services….

          Or

          \2. It’s multicultural

          (I'm not gonna comment, take this as you will)

          \3. Starbucks

          Yes, having a starbucks is apparently the No. 3 greatest thing about it.

          While prices have soared in all of Sydney, including the west, during the recent boom, Mount Druitt remains relatively affordable.

          I mean… that's one way to say "stagnant property prices"…

          But the absolute kicker, all the way down in No. 7 and touted as a plus… is this:

          …the outpouring of grief following Kiesha Weippeart’s​ death in 2010, locals care about what happens in the area.

          To summarize a harrowingly bleak and depressing story which you can read here, Kiesha was a 6 year old girl who was abused since birth and then murdered by her own mother. (Don't read the piece, I regret reading it.)

          Not sure that should be touted in a positive piece about the area.

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 19:09

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          o_0

          Hey, God knew enough about the physical sciences to create the universe, engineer a self-sustaining biosphere, and then design humans. I mean, he obviously didn't have the wisdom to not create humans, but nobody's perfect right?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 19:14

          @HighAndDry:

          To summarize a harrowingly bleak and depressing story…

          That has parallels in religious logic. Eg:

          "Thank god that [despite being horribly injured] my daughter survived the crash."

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 19:21

          @Scrooge McDuck: I'm not a complete robot haha, I can excuse lack of logic in people who've gone through tragedies and want to rationalize/make themselves feel better about it - so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

          Now if someone else came along and tried to sell their religion as: "He'll throw your kids into horrific car accidents but hey if you pray hard enough they'll survive"…………… yeah.

          I think I might go… I don't know. Cuddle kittens for a while. Wasn't joking when I said I very seriously regret reading that piece.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 19:24

          @HighAndDry:

          Hey, God knew enough about the physical sciences to create the universe, engineer a self-sustaining biosphere, and then design humans.

          Apparently designed in his image, disease prone vestigial organs and all, on only one planet in an astronomically enormous universe.

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 19:31

          @Scrooge McDuck: Well, it does only say, "in His image". For all we know our ancestors were all Brad Pitts and Angelina Jolie's (actually she's not that pretty; Natalie Portmans? (she's even Jewish, fitting)), and where we are now is coz we're all inbred. Only Adam and Eve to start with after all…

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 19:46

          @HighAndDry:

          What a virtuous being to let us all suffer, unequally between the Hemsworths and the unnamed individuals born with severe defects, in his omnipotence.

        • resisting the urge on 26/06/2018 - 20:06

          @Scrooge McDuck: Maybe God is the problem. Unless it is the system we accept to govern us, and/or those that take an ever increasing amount of public monies* to become a part of it?

          *and other, less transparent incentives

          No. Of course not.

          OKay, so it is Science at fault then.

          Easy solution: Ban Science, and unlearn everything.

          Oh, I forgot, that last one is "in work"

        • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 00:17

          @HighAndDry:
          Are you implying I'm imperfect?

        • ozbjunkie on 27/06/2018 - 08:09
          +1

          @HighAndDry:

          As a collaborator with the Mt Druit subspecies I think you have nominated yourself for sterilisation.

          On a side note. If it's voluntary but paid, how much? I'm in. Don't tell the girlfriend.

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 12:33

          @ozbjunkie: Yeah - I don't even see incentivized sterilization as a bad thing. I'd seriously consider it depending on how much it is. If it's as much as the baby bonus of $5,000 I'd jump at the money.

        • Specialist Diaz on 27/06/2018 - 17:32
          +1

          @HighAndDry:

          The Liberal Democrats are pretty close.

          https://www.ldp.org.au/

        • MrFrugalSpend on 30/06/2018 - 11:04

          @HighAndDry: Yeah i don't fully agree with this. A "rich" person (presuming we are meaning professional educated mum) will have kids if they want them, its about making it worthwhile for her to back to work really once she has done so to continue contribute to economic society.

      • Ocker on 26/06/2018 - 17:42
        -2

        Didn't Hitler and Lee Kuan Yew also both have the same idea's about breeding the perfect race?

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 17:50

          Hitler really didn't get a fair shake to test out his theories (this is a joke), but Singapore by and large has been one of the most successful countries in SE Asia, if not the world - all that despite being tiny in territory, resources, and population. It's also one of the working meritocracies in the world - and seems to be working better than comparable democracies. I mean - when the worst thing anyone has to say about them is "OMG be very careful not to chew or spit bubblegum on their streets!" I feel like they've got things right.

          Also just to bring it back a full circle - have you seen how their tax system works? Makes our tax system look medieval; it's completely automated and the ordinary person just really gets money in the post from their tax office without having to navigate a Byzantine system first. They also have amazing healthcare - for their citizens (most efficient in the world as ranked by Bloomberg in 2014), have the highest rate of home ownership in the world (90%), and is basically the only working alternative to the European model of the welfare state… except it actually works and doesn't bankrupt the entire country.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 17:51

          Didn't Hitler and Lee Kuan Yew also both have the same idea's about breeding the perfect race?

          Two points:

          1. Just because someone bad advocated for some thing doesn't make that thing bad itself. Hitler was a painter, is painting bad?

          2. The Nazis advocated for racial eugenics. Eugenics in general isn't racial and I'm not advocating for racial eugenics.

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 17:52

          @Scrooge McDuck: A rule of thumb I live by - don't argue seriously with comparisons to Hitler; it's not worth serious consideration.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 26/06/2018 - 18:00

          @HighAndDry:

          Unfortunately, one or more moderators here is/are sensitive to these comparisons.

          I made a completely innocuous comment on this very issue earlier and it was ruled as inappropriate:

          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/5911766/redir

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 18:14

          @Scrooge McDuck: I honestly see nothing wrong with this suggestion:

          I propose that we offer everyone a bonus to undergo vasectomy/tubal ligation and require it for continued payments to long term welfare dependent people.

          We know they'll gladly have a kid (18 year commitment) for the $5,000 baby bonus (statistics and interviews bear this out both on macro- and micro scales), so why not use that to improve the gene pool instead of diluting it? Hell, it'd even be self-selecting to a degree, in both the character sense that "If you're willing to give up having kids for $5,000, you're probably better off not having kids anyway," and in the financial sense that "If you're really that desperate for $5,000, you also really really can't afford kids anyway either".

          The only issue again though, is that even if this happened, rich people still aren't having kids. So you'd still end up with an aging, top-heavy population and a declining tax-base. The government's logic was presumably - a bunch of slightly dumber, poor workers and tax payers is better than having a lack of workers and tax payers.

        • Ocker on 26/06/2018 - 18:27
          -1

          Yes and it is wonderful what a dictatorship can achieve - Lee Kuan Yew was certainly that.
          With his foresight and vision he laid the foundations of the modern Singapore.

          Their high rate of ownership is a bit misleading whilst it is true it is achieve because of two factors - the vast majority live in HDB high rise apartment blocks and also they can use their CPF (pension) funds to buy the apartment.

        • HighAndDry on 26/06/2018 - 18:35
          +2

          @Ocker:

          Their high rate of ownership is a bit misleading whilst it is true it is achieve because of two factors - the vast majority live in HDB high rise apartment blocks and also they can use their CPF (pension) funds to buy the apartment.

          I see nothing misleading about this. All it says is that Singapore has apparently also been successful in creating a sufficient supply of residential property, and in encouraging/forcing people to save.

          As to the benefits of dictatorships…. I think a wise man once said, and I believe this strongly, that

          “A person is smart; people are dumb"

        • Ghosteye on 29/06/2018 - 03:31
          +1

          @HighAndDry: hailing from singapore myself, i can tell you that the numbers look great, but under the surface is a lot of suffering and pain

      • creamandpaper on 27/06/2018 - 12:51

        The thing is high income earner's may not need the monetary incentive to have kids. Depending on what constitutes high income of course.

        But if we want more kids (and a declining birthrate suggests we do) making it income deductible may actually be worth considering

  • altomic on 26/06/2018 - 16:44
    -1

    i have to eat food to stay alive so I can go to work , so shouldn't it be considered as part of the income earning activity under tax deduction definition?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join