Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

Essentially because we are actually
stupid enough to pay for their kids.

I happen to have a next door neighbour's
house owned by the abo welfare board that
is the result of the hare brained scheme in
the late 60s of dotting those welfare houses
in new subdivisions.

At one time every single brat had a different
father with a single mother living there till she
had so many brats that they moved her to a
bigger house.

When you do the maths, the actually receive
more from the govt in child payments than
they would get in wages running a checkout
in woolys or coles and the govt looks after the
brats for a decent chunk of the day in school
and they get preschool for free.

And they get to enjoy producing more brats too.

Not surprising that so many do that.

The son of the current tenant has something
like 10 brats, every single one with a different
woman and he lives with none of them and he
doesnt work at all..

Peter Jason wrote:
>
Worse during the years of John Howard's baby bonus. The sprogs from that
are no doubt contributing to the "youth crime wave" tabloids love to
feature.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:22:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>
>Essentially because we are actually
>stupid enough to pay for their kids.

"Why, this it is when men are ruled by women."
(RichardIII Scene 1)
>
>I happen to have a next door neighbour's
>house owned by the abo welfare board that
>is the result of the hare brained scheme in
>the late 60s of dotting those welfare houses
>in new subdivisions.

No doubt trying to resist ghetto formation.
>
>At one time every single brat had a different
>father with a single mother living there till she
>had so many brats that they moved her to a
>bigger house.

Was any proof presented to say who was who's? Was there an age limit?
>
>When you do the maths, the actually receive
>more from the govt in child payments than
>they would get in wages running a checkout
>in woolys or coles and the govt looks after the
>brats for a decent chunk of the day in school
>and they get preschool for free.

At our school the standard reply to the usual "what will you do when
you grow up" was "impregnate hordes of women and live in luxury on the
child endowments"
Evidently this has found to be possible!

>
>And they get to enjoy producing more brats too.

The mind reels!

>
>Not surprising that so many do that.

This is true of the indigenous rump all over the world. Like in
Israel where the USA pays all the bills.
>
>The son of the current tenant has something
>like 10 brats, every single one with a different
>woman and he lives with none of them and he
>doesnt work at all..

Like a successful pimp.

Alas, I am coming to the belief that Democracy does not suit all
situations.

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

>> Essentially because we are actually
>> stupid enough to pay for their kids.

> "Why, this it is when men are ruled by women."
> (RichardIII Scene 1)

Fantasy. Juliar couldn't even managed to hang onto her job.

>> I happen to have a next door neighbour's
>> house owned by the abo welfare board that
>> is the result of the hare brained scheme in
>> the late 60s of dotting those welfare houses
>> in new subdivisions.

> No doubt trying to resist ghetto formation.

Yep, but it actually infested the new subdivisions
with the worst of the town's criminals instead of
keeping them in the ghetto we call vegemite
valley which is one of our 3 boong ghettos.

After the slut that eventually had so many
kids that they couldn't fit in that house,
the fucker that moved in after her, stole
my trailer on the day they moved in.

When his brother showed up the next day
with his kids after helping him to move in
the day before and leaving with my trailer,
his youngest bragged to my other mates
neighbour's kid "my dad stole that bloke's
trailer". My mate's wife knew where they
lived and needless to say told me quick smart.

I went to the cop shop and eventually got the
lazy fucker senior constable to go and check
their place and he found the trailer there and
got me to identify it.

>> At one time every single brat had a different
>> father with a single mother living there till she
>> had so many brats that they moved her to a
>> bigger house.

> Was any proof presented to say who was who's?

That is only necessary if you want child support
payments from the father and yes, centerlink do
require you to identify the parent but you still get
brat payments even if you can't name the father,

> Was there an age limit?

Not then. There is now but that's irrelevant
given that its trivial to pump out more brats.

>> When you do the maths, the actually receive
>> more from the govt in child payments than
>> they would get in wages running a checkout
>> in woolys or coles and the govt looks after the
>> brats for a decent chunk of the day in school
>> and they get preschool for free.

> At our school the standard reply to the usual "whatwill you do when you
> grow up" was "impregnate hordesof women and live in luxury on the child
> endowments"

> Evidently this has found to be possible!

Yep. Not luxury so much as with a better standard of living
than you get on the wage of a coles checkout monkey.

And a much lower rent than normal commercial rent.

>> And they get to enjoy producing more brats too.

> The mind reels!

>> Not surprising that so many do that.

> This is true of the indigenous rump all over the world.

Most aren't anywhere near as generous as we stupidly are.
The poms have a limit on the number of kids they pay for.
The USA has a time limit on the dole.

And it isn't just the indigenes either, its any
bludger who volunteers to be a bludger.

> Like in Israel where the USA pays all the bills.

The USA does not pay all the bills.

>> The son of the current tenant has something
>> like 10 brats, every single one with a different
>> woman and he lives with none of them and he
>> doesnt work at all..

> Like a successful pimp.

Not really, he does in theory have to pay child
support but given that he doesnt work, it just
restricts his marihuana and cigarette habit.

> Alas, I am coming to the belief thatDemocracy does not suit all
> situations.

As always, its better than any other alternative.

Peter Jason wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:22:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>
>>Essentially because we are actually
>>stupid enough to pay for their kids.

> "Why, this it is when men are ruled by women."
> (RichardIII Scene 1)
>>
>>I happen to have a next door neighbour's
>>house owned by the abo welfare board that
>>is the result of the hare brained scheme in
>>the late 60s of dotting those welfare houses
>>in new subdivisions.

> No doubt trying to resist ghetto formation.
>>
>>At one time every single brat had a different
>>father with a single mother living there till she
>>had so many brats that they moved her to a
>>bigger house.

> Was any proof presented to say who was who's? Was there an age limit?
>>
>>When you do the maths, the actually receive
>>more from the govt in child payments than
>>they would get in wages running a checkout
>>in woolys or coles and the govt looks after the
>>brats for a decent chunk of the day in school
>>and they get preschool for free.

> At our school the standard reply to the usual "what will you do when
> you grow up" was "impregnate hordes of women and live in luxury on the
> child endowments"
> Evidently this has found to be possible!

>>
>>And they get to enjoy producing more brats too.

> The mind reels!

>>
>>Not surprising that so many do that.

> This is true of the indigenous rump all over the world. Like in
> Israel where the USA pays all the bills.
>>
>>The son of the current tenant has something
>>like 10 brats, every single one with a different
>>woman and he lives with none of them and he
>>doesnt work at all..

> Like a successful pimp.

> Alas, I am coming to the belief that Democracy does not suit all
> situations.

What has democracy to do with this?
bt

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:09:03 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(bertitaylor) wrote:

>Peter Jason wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:22:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>
>>>Essentially because we are actually
>>>stupid enough to pay for their kids.
>
>> "Why, this it is when men are ruled by women."
>> (RichardIII Scene 1)
>>>
>>>I happen to have a next door neighbour's
>>>house owned by the abo welfare board that
>>>is the result of the hare brained scheme in
>>>the late 60s of dotting those welfare houses
>>>in new subdivisions.
>
>> No doubt trying to resist ghetto formation.
>>>
>>>At one time every single brat had a different
>>>father with a single mother living there till she
>>>had so many brats that they moved her to a
>>>bigger house.
>
>> Was any proof presented to say who was who's? Was there an age limit?
>>>
>>>When you do the maths, the actually receive
>>>more from the govt in child payments than
>>>they would get in wages running a checkout
>>>in woolys or coles and the govt looks after the
>>>brats for a decent chunk of the day in school
>>>and they get preschool for free.
>
>> At our school the standard reply to the usual "what will you do when
>> you grow up" was "impregnate hordes of women and live in luxury on the
>> child endowments"
>> Evidently this has found to be possible!
>
>
>>>
>>>And they get to enjoy producing more brats too.
>
>> The mind reels!
>
>>>
>>>Not surprising that so many do that.
>
>> This is true of the indigenous rump all over the world. Like in
>> Israel where the USA pays all the bills.
>>>
>>>The son of the current tenant has something
>>>like 10 brats, every single one with a different
>>>woman and he lives with none of them and he
>>>doesnt work at all..
>
>> Like a successful pimp.
>
>> Alas, I am coming to the belief that Democracy does not suit all
>> situations.
>
>What has democracy to do with this?
>bt

Because women burdened with the "milk of human kindness" property make
emotive decisions about single mothers generally and the abos in
particular. A long-term solution based on experience and reality is
required.

If you make something free, then it will be abused far beyond the
original intentions.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:09:03 +1100, bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com>
wrote:

> Peter Jason wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:22:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>
>>> Essentially because we are actually
>>> stupid enough to pay for their kids.
>
>> "Why, this it is when men are ruled by women."
>> (RichardIII Scene 1)
>>>
>>> I happen to have a next door neighbour's
>>> house owned by the abo welfare board that
>>> is the result of the hare brained scheme in
>>> the late 60s of dotting those welfare houses
>>> in new subdivisions.
>
>> No doubt trying to resist ghetto formation.
>>>
>>> At one time every single brat had a different
>>> father with a single mother living there till she
>>> had so many brats that they moved her to a
>>> bigger house.
>
>> Was any proof presented to say who was who's? Was there an age limit?
>>>
>>> When you do the maths, the actually receive
>>> more from the govt in child payments than
>>> they would get in wages running a checkout
>>> in woolys or coles and the govt looks after the
>>> brats for a decent chunk of the day in school
>>> and they get preschool for free.
>
>> At our school the standard reply to the usual "what will you do when
>> you grow up" was "impregnate hordes of women and live in luxury on the
>> child endowments"
>> Evidently this has found to be possible!
>
>
>>>
>>> And they get to enjoy producing more brats too.
>
>> The mind reels!
>
>>>
>>> Not surprising that so many do that.
>
>> This is true of the indigenous rump all over the world. Like in
>> Israel where the USA pays all the bills.
>>>
>>> The son of the current tenant has something
>>> like 10 brats, every single one with a different
>>> woman and he lives with none of them and he
>>> doesnt work at all..
>
>> Like a successful pimp.
>
>> Alas, I am coming to the belief that Democracy does not suit all
>> situations.
>
> What has democracy to do with this?
> bt

Its how we ended up with such a stupid system.

That fuckwit Fraser claimed that child benefits paid
to the mother were his greatest political achievement.

It was always a flagrant bribe to the voters.

And makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Those with brats should be paying MORE tax
than those who don't have any kids, because
its those with kids that cost the govt more, most
obviously with govt schools and health care.

Rod Speed wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:09:03 +1100, bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com>
> wrote:

>> Peter Jason wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:22:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Essentially because we are actually
>>>> stupid enough to pay for their kids.
>>
>>> "Why, this it is when men are ruled by women."
>>> (RichardIII Scene 1)
>>>>
>>>> I happen to have a next door neighbour's
>>>> house owned by the abo welfare board that
>>>> is the result of the hare brained scheme in
>>>> the late 60s of dotting those welfare houses
>>>> in new subdivisions.
>>
>>> No doubt trying to resist ghetto formation.
>>>>
>>>> At one time every single brat had a different
>>>> father with a single mother living there till she
>>>> had so many brats that they moved her to a
>>>> bigger house.
>>
>>> Was any proof presented to say who was who's? Was there an age limit?
>>>>
>>>> When you do the maths, the actually receive
>>>> more from the govt in child payments than
>>>> they would get in wages running a checkout
>>>> in woolys or coles and the govt looks after the
>>>> brats for a decent chunk of the day in school
>>>> and they get preschool for free.
>>
>>> At our school the standard reply to the usual "what will you do when
>>> you grow up" was "impregnate hordes of women and live in luxury on the
>>> child endowments"
>>> Evidently this has found to be possible!
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> And they get to enjoy producing more brats too.
>>
>>> The mind reels!
>>
>>>>
>>>> Not surprising that so many do that.
>>
>>> This is true of the indigenous rump all over the world. Like in
>>> Israel where the USA pays all the bills.
>>>>
>>>> The son of the current tenant has something
>>>> like 10 brats, every single one with a different
>>>> woman and he lives with none of them and he
>>>> doesnt work at all..
>>
>>> Like a successful pimp.
>>
>>> Alas, I am coming to the belief that Democracy does not suit all
>>> situations.
>>
>> What has democracy to do with this?
>> bt

> Its how we ended up with such a stupid system.

> That fuckwit Fraser claimed that child benefits paid
> to the mother were his greatest political achievement.

> It was always a flagrant bribe to the voters.

> And makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

> Those with brats should be paying MORE tax
> than those who don't have any kids, because
> its those with kids that cost the govt more, most
> obviously with govt schools and health care.

No, they should be paying less as their children will grow up to do jobs and pay taxes, start businesses,
look after the elderly, fight for their country, etc.
Whatever moneys the single mothers get will be recovered in due course in full measure, from their grown-up children.
Those without children must be made to pay extra taxes as they do not spend money or time to raise children. In their old age they would need care, so someone else's children may have to pay for them and certainly look after them.
Without children to raise up, certainly there will be a lot of wealth for the ageing population. if that attitude gets universal (no one has babies, for all are too happy to enjoy living without responsibilities) then the consequences are invasions or at least massive foreign immigration.

bt

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:36:31 +1100, bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com>
wrote:

> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:09:03 +1100, bertitaylor
>> <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Peter Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:22:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Essentially because we are actually
>>>>> stupid enough to pay for their kids.
>>>
>>>> "Why, this it is when men are ruled by women."
>>>> (RichardIII Scene 1)
>>>>>
>>>>> I happen to have a next door neighbour's
>>>>> house owned by the abo welfare board that
>>>>> is the result of the hare brained scheme in
>>>>> the late 60s of dotting those welfare houses
>>>>> in new subdivisions.
>>>
>>>> No doubt trying to resist ghetto formation.
>>>>>
>>>>> At one time every single brat had a different
>>>>> father with a single mother living there till she
>>>>> had so many brats that they moved her to a
>>>>> bigger house.
>>>
>>>> Was any proof presented to say who was who's? Was there an age limit?
>>>>>
>>>>> When you do the maths, the actually receive
>>>>> more from the govt in child payments than
>>>>> they would get in wages running a checkout
>>>>> in woolys or coles and the govt looks after the
>>>>> brats for a decent chunk of the day in school
>>>>> and they get preschool for free.
>>>
>>>> At our school the standard reply to the usual "what will you do when
>>>> you grow up" was "impregnate hordes of women and live in luxury on the
>>>> child endowments"
>>>> Evidently this has found to be possible!
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And they get to enjoy producing more brats too.
>>>
>>>> The mind reels!
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not surprising that so many do that.
>>>
>>>> This is true of the indigenous rump all over the world. Like in
>>>> Israel where the USA pays all the bills.
>>>>>
>>>>> The son of the current tenant has something
>>>>> like 10 brats, every single one with a different
>>>>> woman and he lives with none of them and he
>>>>> doesnt work at all..
>>>
>>>> Like a successful pimp.
>>>
>>>> Alas, I am coming to the belief that Democracy does not suit all
>>>> situations.
>>>
>>> What has democracy to do with this?
>>> bt
>
>> Its how we ended up with such a stupid system.
>
>> That fuckwit Fraser claimed that child benefits paid
>> to the mother were his greatest political achievement.
>
>> It was always a flagrant bribe to the voters.
>
>> And makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
>
>> Those with brats should be paying MORE tax
>> than those who don't have any kids, because
>> its those with kids that cost the govt more, most
>> obviously with govt schools and health care.
>
> No, they should be paying less as their children will grow up to do jobs
> and pay taxes, start businesses, look after the elderly, fight for their
> country, etc.

Fantasy. The worst of the brats of those single mother
bludgers end up as single mother bludgers and their
unemployer fuckers in reality.

> Whatever moneys the single mothers get will be recoveredin due course
> in full measure, from their grown-up children.

Fantasy

> Those without children must be made to pay extra taxesas they do not
> spend money or time to raise children.

But they do not produce brats that the state has to
educate and provide health care for and mostly don't
even qualify for the pension etc in their old age.

> In their old age they would need care,

Which they have paid for in their taxes.

> so someone else's children may have topay for them and certainly look
> after them.

Fantasy on both counts.

> Without children to raise up, certainly there willbe a lot of wealth
> for the ageing population. ifthat attitude gets universal (no one has
> babies,

Not going to happen. Most do have brats.

> for all are too happy to enjoy living without responsibilities) then the
> consequences are invasions

Fantasy

> or at least massive foreign immigration.

We already have that.

Alzheimer Rod spews his typical ego maniac, hard line sociopath
capitalist and misogynist crap around in Usenet

/snip all troll posted crap content
>> Alzhemier Rod
>>>>> Alzheimer Rod"

>>>>>> Essentially because we are actually
>>>>>> stupid enough to pay for their kids.

Kids are humanity's future ... not its stinking/rotting past like you
and your zombie ilk are.

>>>>>> I happen to have a next door neighbour's

I can imagine the misfortune of your neighbours for having such a hate
filled grumpy old fart living next to them. My fully sympathies go to
that whole neighbourhood for having to put up with such a horrible creep.

>>>>>> When you do the maths,...

After doing the maths it has become clear that sustaining such useless,
hate filled, ego maniac old fart social leeches like you in our society
is a huge waste of space, good oxygen and other good resources. Do OZ a
great favour and drop dead, ASAP.

>>>>>> And they get to enjoy producing more brats too.

That is their basic human right...quite telling that you'd love to deny
this to anyone. But I suppose being your Anglo-Celtic racist trash self
this is the only way you can relate to indigenous and not Anglophone
immigrant females in the height of their procreative fertile years.

>>>>>> Not surprising that so many do that.

YAWN!

>>>>>> The son of the current tenant has something
>>>>>> like 10 brats, every single one with a different
>>>>>> woman and he lives with none of them and he
>>>>>> doesnt work at all..

Oh, that anecdotal welfare queen myth again, invented for very clever
rightard political use by one of your disgusting rightard sociopath
political hero, Alzheimer Reagan, curse be upon his memory.

>>> That fuckwit Fraser claimed that child benefits paid
>>> to the mother were his greatest political achievement.

As bad as Fraser was, he had still possessed some tiny remnants of real
humanity in him despite of the fact that he was a leader of the Lieberal
party (see how deep the Libs has sunk since those glory days).

>>> It was always a flagrant bribe to the voters.

The Lieberals had never been shy about bribing the average voters, come
election time. Once they get into power the gloves come off (aka
non-core promises)

>>> And makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Your Alzheier and hard-capitalism rotted brain can not process anything
that actually make any social sense.
No surprises here!

>>> Those with brats should be paying MORE tax
>>> than those who don't have any kids, because
>>> its those with kids that cost the govt more, most
>>> obviously with govt schools and health care.

Putting it in an other way: Your are trying to justify your egomaniac,
greedy bastard incel existence with such brain-dead assertions.

> Fantasy. The worst of the brats of those single mother
> bludgers end up as single mother bludgers and their
> unemployer fuckers in reality.

Your never ending "welfare queen" propaganda, eh bustard?

> Fantasy

Correct. It is nothing more than your hate and ego mania motivated
fantasies about what actually goes on in the real world.
It has nothing to do with reality.

> But they do not produce brats that the state has to
> educate and provide health care for and mostly don't
> even qualify for the pension etc in their old age.

YAWN!

> Which they have paid for in their taxes.

Says the ultra capitalist tax-cheat, eh Alzheimer Rod?

> Fantasy on both counts.

Your input on this topic so far was hard-capitalist fantasy on all* counts.

> Not going to happen. Most do have brats.

The sour grapes/envy filled whinge of a senile old fart incel before he
kicks the bucket???

> Fantasy

Sure is.
Your input on this topic so far was hard-capitalist fantasy on all* counts.

>  We already have that.

Yea! Sad, eh?

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

Govt. cannot pay one sort of single mother (widow) and not another sort of single mother (divorcee, unmarried). So if the single mother is found to be competent there is no question of denying benefits.

The needs of the child are universal, and irrespective of the quality of the single mother.
It is up to the State to determine what is best for the child.

Those who do not have children, or do not take responsibility for their children, must pay more taxes than those who have children and take care of them.

bt

bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote

> Govt. cannot pay one sort of single mother (widow) andnot another sort
> of single mother (divorcee, unmarried).

Of course they can, just like they can pay a
different aged pension to a couple and two
singles who choose to live in the same house.

> So if the single mother is found to be competentthere is no question of
> denying benefits.

Irrelevant to what we are discussing, whether those with
NO BRATS should pay more tax than those with brats.

> The needs of the child are universal,

Bullshit.

> and irrespective of the quality of the single mother.

More bullshit with those who choose to be a bludger
and not work and pump out enough kids so that they
end up with a higher standard of living than someone
who say runs a checkout at woolys or coles etc.

> It is up to the State to determine what is best for the child.

More bullshit. We aren't a nanny state. That's up to the parent(s)

> Those who do not have children, or do not takeresponsibility for their
> children, must pay moretaxes than those who have children and take care
> of them.

Wrong as always.

Next you will be stupidly claiming that those who choose to
live frugally must pay more tax than those who don't because
they aren't spending as much on stuff that GST is charged on.

Alzheimer Rod show how to maintain a hard capitalist, misogynist, old
fart incel existence to the detriment of all around him:

/snip all dragged in troll content/

> Of course they can, just like they can pay a
> different aged pension to a couple and two
> singles who choose to live in the same house.

Only hard-capitalist creepy sociopath governments would do that.
And fucking senile grumpy old fart cheer on as unfortunate kids could go
hungry...it figures.
You together with sociopath ilk plus including every single LNP
politicians should all be deported to Texas or Florida. These are the
kind of ultra capitalist shitholes where such human garbage belongs.
>
> Irrelevant to what we are discussing, whether those with
> NO BRATS should pay more tax than those with brats.
>
>> The needs of the child are universal,
>
> Bullshit.

Nice self reflection, Alzheimer Rod!
Everything you spew is pure sociopath bullshit.

>
>> and irrespective of the quality of  the single mother.
>
> More bullshit...

Yeah, that is the only thing you have on offer...ever.
>
>> It is up to the State to determine what is best for the child.
>
> More bullshit. We aren't a nanny state. That's up to the parent(s)

Surprise...NOT.
Even more sociopath Alzheimer Rod bullshit.

>> Those who do not have children, or do not takeresponsibility for
>> their  children, must pay moretaxes than those who have children and
>> take care of them.
>
> Wrong as always.

I agree, you have almost never been right about anything you commented on.
>
> Next you will be stupidly claiming that those who choose to
> live frugally must pay more tax than those who don't because
> they aren't spending as much on stuff that GST is charged on.

Tax cheating, greedy bustard, wealth hoarders social leaches like you
should have been taxed out of your undeserved luxury existence a long
time ago.

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

Ördög wrote:

> Alzheimer Rod show how to maintain a hard capitalist, misogynist, old
> fart incel existence to the detriment of all around him:

> /snip all dragged in troll content/

>> Of course they can, just like they can pay a
>> different aged pension to a couple and two
>> singles who choose to live in the same house.

> Only hard-capitalist creepy sociopath governments would do that.
> And fucking senile grumpy old fart cheer on as unfortunate kids could go
> hungry...it figures.
> You together with sociopath ilk plus including every single LNP
> politicians should all be deported to Texas or Florida. These are the
> kind of ultra capitalist shitholes where such human garbage belongs.
>>
>> Irrelevant to what we are discussing, whether those with
>> NO BRATS should pay more tax than those with brats.
>>
>>> The needs of the child are universal,
>>
>> Bullshit.

> Nice self reflection, Alzheimer Rod!
> Everything you spew is pure sociopath bullshit.

>>
>>> and irrespective of the quality of  the single mother.
>>
>> More bullshit...

> Yeah, that is the only thing you have on offer...ever.
>>
>>> It is up to the State to determine what is best for the child.
>>
>> More bullshit. We aren't a nanny state. That's up to the parent(s)

> Surprise...NOT.
> Even more sociopath Alzheimer Rod bullshit.

>>> Those who do not have children, or do not takeresponsibility for
>>> their  children, must pay moretaxes than those who have children and
>>> take care of them.
>>
>> Wrong as always.

> I agree, you have almost never been right about anything you commented on.
>>
>> Next you will be stupidly claiming that those who choose to
>> live frugally must pay more tax than those who don't because
>> they aren't spending as much on stuff that GST is charged on.

> Tax cheating, greedy bustard, wealth hoarders social leaches like you
> should have been taxed out of your undeserved luxury existence a long
> time ago.

Good response!

Rod Speed wrote:

> bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote

>> Govt. cannot pay one sort of single mother (widow) andnot another sort
>> of single mother (divorcee, unmarried).

> Of course they can, just like they can pay a
> different aged pension to a couple and two
> singles who choose to live in the same house.

No they cannot under the laws relating to equal opportunities, an Australian sentiment perhaps not shared by those who do not belong here.
There is no similarity between payment to couples/two singles and single mothers with children.
The former relates to various factors not related to the upbringing of children, and the differences in payments relate to fairness conditions, while all single mothers have the same issue - bringing up children.

>> So if the single mother is found to be competentthere is no question of
>> denying benefits.

> Irrelevant to what we are discussing, whether those with
> NO BRATS should pay more tax than those with brats.

Jolly well those without children must pay more than those with children, generally speaking. Those with children need more money to bring up their kids.

>> The needs of the child are universal,

> Bullshit.

Go somewhere else, out of Australia. Evidently you do not belong here.

>> and irrespective of the quality of the single mother.

> More bullshit with those who choose to be a bludger
> and not work and pump out enough kids so that they
> end up with a higher standard of living than someone
> who say runs a checkout at woolys or coles etc.

Kids need attention for their proper birth and upbringing. So the single mother by producing kids (a painful, difficult, most useful task for society). Along with two-parent families, she too creates the society, the nation, future sources of tax for the Govt. Which does not happen that well by working for coles or woolies for low pay, and then find some robot has taken over your job. There is nothing to stop single mothers to take up work later on, start a business, etc. But when they need help, help has to be given. The help from Govt. has to be adequate for the good life of the single mother and her kids. Yes, there should be proper monitoring, education, etc. for the single mother's family. So that the money spent is well used and is that way an investment by the Govt. that will be recovered.

>> It is up to the State to determine what is best for the child.

> More bullshit. We aren't a nanny state. That's up to the parent(s)

We are a socialist state, where the State does take responsibility for the well-being of everyone the State recognises as Australian and residents and refugees. The State does not interfere in family life unless there is neglect or abuse. When there is neglect or abuse, the State can and does interfere.

>> Those who do not have children, or do not takeresponsibility for their
>> children, must pay moretaxes than those who have children and take care
>> of them.

> Wrong as always.

No, I am right. If people with children have to pay more taxes, they won't have any incentive to have children. Which means, no local population around after 2-3 generations, lots of rich old farts driving Bugattis instead. The country, to survive, can ONLY depend upon immigration while hoping for no invasion. However when immigrants with children know they will have to pay more tax, they will think twice before immigrating to a land where childlessness is encouraged, and those with children here will emigrate as they will be more taxed.
So, with your misanthropic notion, there will be NO population.
Fortunately the Govt. is neither as stupid nor misanthropic, so the Govt. support for all single mothers and in fact all those who need support.

> Next you will be stupidly claiming that those who choose to
> live frugally must pay more tax than those who don't because
> they aren't spending as much on stuff that GST is charged on.

The topic is about single mothers, not lifestyle choices. Talking about tax from the people, just two acronyms, PAYE and GST. With whatever left (not much after mortages and food and bills) the spending choices are not overwhelming for most.

bt

bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote

>>> Govt. cannot pay one sort of single mother (widow) and
>>> not anothe sort of single mother (divorcee, unmarried).

>> Of course they can, just like they can pay a
>> different aged pension to a couple and two
>> singles who choose to live in the same house.

> No they cannot under the laws relating to equal opportunities,

Of course they can and do, every single day.

There are age limits on child support and its means tested
too, just like with the age pension and disability pension.

> an Australian sentiment perhaps notshared by those who do not belong
> here.

You get no say on who belongs here.

> There is no similarity between payment to couples/twosingles and single
> mothers with children.

The similarity is that the personal circumstances matters,
so it is perfectly legal to have a different situation for those
who are widows and those who volunteer to pump out
brats for the welfare handout that comes with the brats.

> The former relates to various factors not related to the upbringing of
> children, and the differences in payments relate to fairness conditions,
> while all single mothers have the same issue - bringing up children.

But there is a difference between a widow who had
no choice on the question about the other person
dying and those who volunteer to be single mothers.

>>> So if the single mother is found to be competent
>>> there is no question of denying benefits.

>> Irrelevant to what we are discussing, whether those with
>> NO BRATS should pay more tax than those with brats.

> Jolly well those without children must pay morethan those with
> children, generally speaking.

Is that ruling ex cathedra, Pope Bertie ?

> Those with children need more money to bring up their kids.

But there is no reason why they should be subsidised
by those who choose to have no kids or can't have kids.

>>> The needs of the child are universal,

>> Bullshit.

> Go somewhere else, out of Australia.Evidently you do not belong here.

Go and fuck yourself.

>>> and irrespective of the quality of the single mother.

>> More bullshit with those who choose to be a bludger
>> and not work and pump out enough kids so that they
>> end up with a higher standard of living than someone
>> who say runs a checkout at woolys or coles etc.

> Kids need attention for their proper birth and upbringing.

Irrelevant to whether those who choose to have no
kids or who can't have kids should be paying for that.

> So the single mother by producing kids (a painful,difficult, most
> useful task for society).

Bullshit when most of them end up being single mother
bludgers themselves or the unemployable fuckers of them.

And the two parent familys produce MUCH more
useful kids for society than the single mothers.

> Along with two-parent families, she too creates thesociety, the nation,
> future sources of tax for the Govt.

In fact they actually produce even more
bludgers and unemployables who are in
fact a bottomless pit for our tax dollars.

> Which does not happen that well by workingfor coles or woolies for low
> pay, and thenfind some robot has taken over your job.

Much better than producing yet
another single mother bludger

> There is nothing to stop single mothers totake up work later on, start
> a business, etc.

The reality is that they have realised that they
prefer to be a bludger, that's why they chose
to be a single mother in the first place.

> But when they need help, help has to be given.

They don't need help, they are choosing to be a bludger.

> The help from Govt. has to be adequate for the good life of the single
> mother

Bullshit.

> and her kids.

It never is with those bludgers.

> Yes, there should be proper monitoring,

Not even possible.

> education, etc. for the single mother's family.

They have the same access to education as anyone else.

> So that the money spent is well used

Bullshit it is when it produces another generation of bludgers.

> and is that way an investment bythe Govt. that will be recovered.

Fantasy when it produces another generation of bludgers.

>>> It is up to the State to determine what is best for the child.

>> More bullshit. We aren't a nanny state. That's up to the parent(s)

> We are a socialist state,

We, just like every single state, are actually a mix of socialism
and capitalism, even North Korea and HongKong before it
was handed back to China. The ONLY difference is the mix.

> where the State does take responsibility for the well-being of everyone
> the State recognisesas Australian and residents and refugees.

More mindless bullshit with how the kids are brought up.

> The State does not interfere in family life

So your original is mindless bullshit.

> unless there is neglect or abuse. When there isneglect or abuse, the
> State can and does interfere.

Duh, and irrelevant to whether those who choose not to
have kids should be paying more tax than those who choose
to have kids. Let alone those who choose to be bludgers.

>>> Those who do not have children, or do not take
>>> responsibility for their children, must pay more taxesthan those who
>>> have children and take care of them.

>> Wrong as always.

> No, I am right.

Are you Punch or Judy ?

> If people with children have to pay more taxes,they won't have any
> incentive to have children.

More utterly mindless bullshit.

Only the single mother bludgers
have kids so they don't have to work.

> Which means, no local population around after 2-3 generations,

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> lots of rich old farts driving Bugattis instead.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> The country, to survive, can ONLY depend upon immigration while hoping
> for no invasion.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> However when immigrants with children know theywill have to pay more
> tax, they will think twice beforeimmigrating to a land where
> childlessness is encouraged,

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> and those with children here will emigrate as they will be more taxed.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> So, with your misanthropic notion, there will be NO population.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> Fortunately the Govt. is neither as stupid nor misanthropic,so the
> Govt. support for all single mothers and in fact allthose who need
> support.

In fact child support was always just another bribe for the vote.

It makes absolutely no sense to be taxing the vast bulk
of individuals, pumping that thru the bureacracy and
then straight back to those you taxed in the first place.

>> Next you will be stupidly claiming that those who choose to
>> live frugally must pay more tax than those who don't because
>> they aren't spending as much on stuff that GST is charged on.

> The topic is about single mothers, not lifestyle choices.

Single mothers IS a lifestyle chose. They CHOOSE not to work.

> Talking about tax from the people, just two acronyms, PAYE and GST.
> With whatever left (not much after mortages and food and bills) the
> spending choices are not overwhelming for most.

More mindless bullshit.

<< Merciful Snippage >>

But what did mothers & brats do before the welfare state?

1/ Shack up with granny and grandad.
2/ Get the older brats to work in the home. And get rid of the TV.
3/ Live in a street with mothers in the same condition.
(the brats just know where the best food & entertainment is)
4/ Even better, let the single "mums" share a house and take care of
the brats in turn. The inevitable de-facto could chip in.
(Many students do this).
5/ Send surplus brats to boarding school, where their health and
personal care are catered for.
6/ Contact Rod Speed for some final solution.

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

> But what did mothers & brats do before the welfare state?

Depends on the country.

The worst of them actually had what were called baby farms which
killed a very high percentage of the brats, most obviously in Britain.

> 1/ Shack up with granny and grandad.

Often, and still do.

> 2/ Get the older brats to work in the home.

Yep

> And get rid of the TV.

That was before TV

No one does that anymore

> 3/ Live in a street with mothers in the same condition.

Yep, there is a video series of that in pomland,
something street, forget the first word.

> (the brats just know where the best food & entertainment is)

Yep

> 4/ Even better, let the single "mums" sharea house and take care of the
> brats in turn.

Yep, that's certainly what the hippys did, and still do.

> The inevitable de-facto could chip in.

Or just fuck who they chose to.

> (Many students do this).

But few have brats.

> 5/ Send surplus brats to boarding school, wheretheir health and personal
> care are catered for.

Only the boongs do that, with the state paying for it.

Rod Speed wrote on 23/3/24 4:15 pm:
> bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>> Govt. cannot pay one sort of single mother (widow) and
>>>> not anothe  sort of single mother (divorcee, unmarried).
>
>>> Of course they can, just like they can pay a
>>> different aged pension to a couple and two
>>> singles who choose to live in the same house.
>
>> No they cannot under the laws relating to equal opportunities,
>
> Of course they can and do, every single day.
>
> There are age limits on child support and its means tested
> too, just like with the age pension and disability pension.

By-the-By, last April I got a $500 or so per week pay rise from
Centrelink/Services Australia/Whatever they call themselves this week
when I transferred from Unemployment Benefit to Old Age Pension.

They are aware of my Army Pension which hasn't decreased drastically!!
I've raised the situation with Centrelink a couple of times since ....
Don't want to get caught up in RoboDebt 2.0!!
--
Daniel

Daniel65 wrote on 23/3/24 9:04 pm:
> Rod Speed wrote on 23/3/24 4:15 pm:
>> bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Govt. cannot pay one sort of single mother (widow) and
>>>>> not anothe  sort of single mother (divorcee, unmarried).
>>
>>>> Of course they can, just like they can pay a
>>>> different aged pension to a couple and two
>>>> singles who choose to live in the same house.
>>
>>> No they cannot under the laws relating to equal opportunities,
>>
>> Of course they can and do, every single day.
>>
>> There are age limits on child support and its means tested
>> too, just like with the age pension and disability pension.
>
> By-the-By, last April I got a $500 or so per week pay rise from

Opps!! That should be "I got a $500 or so per *fortnight* pay rise"!!

> Centrelink/Services Australia/Whatever they call themselves this week
> when I transferred from Unemployment Benefit to Old Age Pension.
>
> They are aware of my Army Pension which hasn't decreased drastically!!
> I've raised the situation with Centrelink a couple of times since ....
> Don't want to get caught up in RoboDebt 2.0!!
--
Daniel