Budget mess

I never liked budgeting, I always saw it in the same realm as dieting.  Too controlled and controlling.  It's the sort of thing that may have to happen in an emergency, but if you could avoid it, all well and good.
Joe Hockey's budget of 2014, the one that will go down in history as an attack on the modern family.  The one that will unwind all the family friendly conditions that their own party brought into being the last time that they were in Government.  I wonder what John Howard thinks of his successors.
Back before Labor's bungled attempts at being a coherent Government we had the Howard and Costello years.  They managed to eventually do their dash with the Australian public and got voted out for being mean and tricky.  Their mean and trickiness pales into insignificance next to the Abbott and Hockey brand of Liberal.  At least the last crop of Liberals believed in the value of having a primary caregiver at home while the kids were growing up.  They supported the stay at home care giver with a series generous family tax payments.  The unfortunate thing about this was that it wasn't long before it started to be labelled as middle class welfare, and the Capitalists set their sights on tearing the whole thing down.  These are Capitalists mind you who enjoy their very own range of tax breaks, but their form of Government support is not labelled derogatorily as 'welfare'.
When I was growing up my mother received a very small sum of money called Child Endowment. It was paid on a per child basis, and I don't believe that it was means tested.  So the more children that you had the greater the sum of money you received.  Granted, it was a pittance, but it was not regarded as welfare, it was regarded as a civilised society supporting those who are doing an extremely important job, that of bringing up the next generation.  The next generation who will fill the jobs that need filling, provide the services for future society and be the the future tax payers who will fund the budget in years to come.  A redistribution of wealth, if you will.  Give a little now, gain a lot back later.  Support families, the back bone of our society, create a better society and hopefully a crop of fully functioning educated individuals who can then take their place in society and contribute back when they have grown up.

I also remember that my father received a tax rebate for his dependents through the tax system.  A rebate is not a deduction, it's better than a deduction because it actually pays you back the tax that you have paid. For example, if you were taxed $10000 and you were entitled to a $3000 you would get the full $3000 effectively only paying $7000 in tax.  A deduction merely reduces your taxable income, so if you qualified for a $3000 deduction, for example, you would only benefit by the percentage tax rate you are on.  So if you are on a 30% tax rate your deduction is worth 30% of $3000, or $900.  Not so good, eh?
Now this tax rebate was not seen as welfare either.  It was a legitimate tax break recognising the importance and the expense of raising a family. An individual tax payer on $100000 is ALOT better off financially than another tax payer on $100000 with six mouths to feed.
There were a few problems with this system, it wasn't means tested, so the rich were entiltled to the same as the needy.  The bulk of the money went predominantly to the male, where as it was generally the female who was incurring the day to day living expenses of raising children.  In some family situations this money was not always passed on and well it all just felt a little bit too embarrassingly sexist.
Enter the bright sparks of Government to over haul the system.  The first advantage to the government of the new shiny social security system was that they could rip the money out of the tax system and use all of that lovely rebate money to buy votes.  When you are getting a tidy sum delivered regularly into your bank account care of the government, there is lots of potential here for pre-election promises and vote buying of the middle class.  It also enabled means testing so that the money could be directed to the ones most at need.  The problem with this is that it turned it into welfare and gave the ones who missed out a stick to bash the recipients with.  Suddenly instead of being justly recognised and in a very small way supported during the most expensive years of life, which is bringing up a family, we became middle class welfare trash.  It was only going to be a matter of time before the heavies would insist on rolling it back arguing that we can't afford middle class welfare without recognising the historical reason why a small amount of monetary support for families is essential and indeed highly desirable in a civilised society.

I argue that calling it welfare is demeaning, degrading and insulting.  It is primarily an attack on women (as they are predominately the primary care giver) and also an attack on families and the kind of decent society that we want to live in. Once women had very little choice, they had to stay at home once they got married.  We had a revolution and changed the way women were perceived in society and opened up choices and opportunities for them.  The whole point was to break down barriers and allow women to choose work or motherhood, or a combination, or whatever.  Just when we looked like we were getting somewhere, more female representation in higher positions, including a female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard's misogynists have seized power.  Now women are a new instrument of the state, they are productive units that must get back to work under the yoke of the industrial machine. Pop out them babies, whack 'em into institutionalised care, and get back into the workforce.  We need you there to bolster the numbers of workers braying for those lower paid jobs so that we can lower the minimum wage and reduce workers conditions for everyone.  It wont do to have employers competing for the best people for the job, they may have to offer better wages and conditions.  No we need the working poor so that we have plenty of fodder to choose from to run the capitalist industrial machine. God, I am starting to sound like a Communist.
Ideological ranting aside, it is the children that I feel sorry for.  Some families have both parents working and it's great for them.  I have friends who truly believe that they are a better mother when they work.  Staying at home was not for them.  That's fine, that's their choice and I applaud it.  Equally, there are mothers who know they do a better job as a parent being at home and attending to the day to day tasks, such as  ensuring that the kids actually get to school each morning on time, dressed and slightly sane.  A stay at home parent who can be there when the kids get home from school and need some time with a parent to discuss their day.  A parent who can get things done while everyone is out of the house, the cleaning the shopping the cooking, the family finances, and the multitude of other tasks that the household requires to run efficiently.  There are the volunteer roles and the school concerts that lose out when everyone is at work and can't get time off. Weekends are suddenly not rest and recreation times, but catch up with household chores.  Quality time is lost.  Some sacrifice this for extra money that comes into the family as a result of having two wage earners.  If the wage earners earn enough they may compensate by having a big overseas family holiday.  Others, like me and many many more prefer life to be a bit more gentle on the kids.  I want to be there when they need me, not have to sacrifice quality family time on the weekends just to catch up on what I didn't get done during the working week.
I believe in my families case that the kids grow up much less stressed and far more well adjusted when there is less focus on how much household income we have and more focus on spending time together.  I love the relationship that I have been able to build and foster with my children.  I believe it makes for a better and happier society.  We risk losing this by forcing mums back in to the workforce as soon as their youngest turns 6. Children no matter what age they are still need their parents. They need to be the ones that come first, not an employer who has the ability to withdraw your livelihood.

.
This Government needs to recognise the profound importance of the primary caregiver and not trash the family assistance scheme.  It is not welfare, it is the just recognition of the value of well cared for, strong functioning families for the good of society.  You achieve this through giving women choice, not taking it away. By offering a small amount of compensation that acknowledges the expense of feeding a family it allows families to make up their own minds and make their own choices about how best to structure work and family life. It also offers them dignity. Each family will have its own unique solution that will work for them.  Wake up Libs, you need a society first, an economy second, not the other way around.