The "utopia"'of Scandinavia has been touted often on here (notwithstanding its high suicide rates which they think are linked to the weather!). However in reality I don't know if most people would actually want to live in a Socialist country (well not those who work and pay income tax). Certainly that must be the case for anyone who voted Labor or Liberal in the last election!
And interestingly there are FAR less people who choose not to work in those countries. They are given great benefits which of course come from high taxes and the vast majority of people work to contribute to those taxes. That's the only way it can be sustained or else where would the money come from?
SAHMs are not the norm there. This is from colloquial tales from my friends who are from there but I have read stats on it too which I will post if I can find.
Unfortunately I think SAHMs are no longer the norm anywhere. That's my pet peeve in general. I have no real opinion either way re SAHMS vs working mum. Both have amazing pros & crappy cons, I just feel like society pushes women out to work ASAP regardless of a woman's choice. Totally off topic but lol
That doesn't happen nearly as much in these socialist countries. Working is the norm. You work, you contribute, you get great benefits when you need them. If more and more parents chose to stay home there would not be enough money to pay for the benefits and the childcare, etc.
ETA: obviously when I say contribute I mean to the money pot from income tax.
Essentially, no, it is not OK.
But, my viewpoint is that it is not OK to actively TTC when you have no way of providing for the child. If you have kids and have fallen on hard times or have a surprise bubba then that is different (as long as it is not surprise after surprise...which means you are not being responsible with birth control).
Getting FTB or CCR is not "welfare" payments in my mind...these are rebates.
I love that we live in a society where we support our most vulnerable and believe that disability payments/single parent payments are wonderful (although hard to live on, i love they exist...yes, i have lived on SPP). My understanding is that partnered parenting payment is just for those whose partner works but doesn't earn very much? And I like that too and feel that people in lower income jobs deserve support because, as a society, we need people to take on those roles and it is not fair that they live in poverty when they are quite often working their fingers to the bone.
I like that there are unemployment benefits but hate that people live off them forever and they are not always used as an emergency backup plan. Couples where both are unemployed are the only ones that nark me a little.
But, being able to support your child is not about how much you earn, it's about lifestyle...but, i do feel if both people are unemployed (able bodied but not working) with no view of work, actively TTC is ridiculous.
No. The parenting payment is a payment provided to a person who isn't working but who has children in their care. If that person is in a relationship the payment is called Parenting Payment Partnered (PPP). However, their partner does not have to be working. It's a name given to differentiate it from the Parenting Payment Single (PPS) which is provided to a person who is generally not working, has children in their care and who is not in a relationship. The first payment is a lesser payment in value, about the same as Newstart.My understanding is that partnered parenting payment is just for those whose partner works but doesn't earn very much?
Bear in mind for those who are dreaming of utopia in Scandinavia that your pay is heavily apportioned to pay for these benefits and in Denmark, for example, your profession is paid on par with everyone else. This is why a lot emigrate.
TBH, our public health system, particularly for maternity services, is very, very good.
mama and her little bearxxx (22-10-2013)
I suppose it depends on what people clasify as "support".
I don't think being on welfare long term is good for kids- in any manner of terms. I think welfare should only ever be a temporary fix. And that's the short and long of it- I think parents should always have the goal of getting off welfare and if they don't have any means to support, they should not actively seek to have further kids.
The world happiness report has ranked Denmark as the happiest place to live in both 2012 and 2013, with Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands and Sweden coming in 2,3rd, 4th, 5th, Finland is 7th.
Australia is ranked 10th. Still pretty good. So yes - those countries do sound like utopia - amazing health, education and childcare and their citizens are really happy too.
I agree with you. But while goals admirable, what do you do when you simply can't get a full-time job? And I don't mean by not bothering to look, I mean by virtue of not having child care available, you are caring for someone with a disability etc.I don't think being on welfare long term is good for kids- in any manner of terms. I think welfare should only ever be a temporary fix. And that's the short and long of it- I think parents should always have the goal of getting off welfare and if they don't have any means to support, they should not actively seek to have further kids.
For some people there is simply no long and short of it. Their circumstances are what they are for whatever reason. Do we then deny them the right to have children based on what we consider to be an inadequate means of support?
Like you said, it all depends on what you consider support to be. Which is supporting the child = a welfare family full of love and devoted parents or two working parents who spend no time with their kids as they're always working?
I think the focus on money, while understandable, is unfounded.
I would be happy to pay more taxes to make our society more equitable.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!