Gee thanks K-Rudd!
When I first heard about K-Rudd’s latest spending spree, I was quite angry. Fair enough give the old age pensioners a bonus for Christmas because I don’t think they get adequate funding as it is. They deserve a bit of play money, even if it’s only to make things just a little less stretched for them. It would also have been nice if they had just raised the fortnightly payment level but hey, that’s just getting picky.
But to give the parents of every child $1000?? That seemed a bit extreme. After all, there’s already a multitude of payments in place to support non-working and working parents. Good news though, if you’re having a baby this year, you’re doing it at the right time! You’ll get the baby bonus AND the Christmas bonus – lucky you! And even better, K-Rudd wants you to go out and spend, spend, spend! Forget about paying off your personal debt with the money, that won’t help boost the economy! Go out and spend it on frivolous purchases instead. You can now impulse buy that plasma, gaming console and entertainment system – just think of the play money you’ll have if you have more than 3 kids! 
That’s when it hit me. I have four kids that I usually buy for every Christmas, which means their parents will be coming into at least $4k, maybe more depending on what the definition of “pensioner” is. So I should stop complaining about working so hard to support the system that supports anyone bar the people who work hardest to contribute to it. You see, K-Rudd has given me a Christmas bonus anyway.
My other half and I both work hard to provide ourselves with the lifestyle we currently enjoy. My other half in particular pays a mother load of tax every year because he paid his own way through university by taking out a government funded student loan. The HECS has long been paid off but that loan will be with us for a long time to come. So what I have proposed is this….because we have been contributing to tax on a PAYG scheme, effectively we have contributed to a very small portion of his sister’s bounty that she’s got coming. So no Christmas presents for them this year from us…..K-Rudd is footing the bill this year! 
So allowing for withheld present money, that gives us around $200 thanks to K-Rudd’s Christmas bonus. Considering it’s a fairly small amount in comparison, I think we will just do something incredibly boring like putting it into the mortgage or putting it into savings for a rainy day. See? K-Rudd was right to ignore the working childless Australians – we are just far too sensible to be of any use in boosting the economy. 
October 15th, 2008 | Category: Ramblings
| 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
| Subscribe to comments | Both comments and pings are currently closed
October 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Isn’t it fun to be childless in Australia these days? Whilst I do understand the financial burden of raising kids, there is part of me that thinks ‘well you did make the choice to have them’.
Also, spare a thought for the gay and lesbian taxpaying couples. Since our relationships are not recognised, we have to pay our taxes as singles and get none of the benefits that married people get care of the tax system. Yeah, I really appreciate that, thanks Kevin.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Sorry, but have to admit that comments like this are a bit upsetting for those of us parents that do the right thing. While I do agree that it is very unfair..we didn’t ask for this money.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
So it should just be the aged pensioners that get a helping hand? What about those of us who for health reasons are unable to work? Surviving on one income is becoming increasingly more difficult and so I for one will not be too proud to stand up and say Thanks Mr Rudd a few extra bucks this xmas is nothing to be sneezed at.
Believe me, given a choice, I would much rather be well enough to be part of the workforce again than to receive what in reality is a very small amount of money.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Well as u would know by now I am over the moon with it, as we can afford to fly keiths kids up for xmas, and Stormy expecting mums do not get the xmas bonus only chrildren born before it was annouced receive it…
October 16th, 2008 at 8:13 am
By no means was this a criticism of those who were fortunate to receive K-Rudd’s bonus as it was not your choice to receive it. If you are lucky enough to get it – that’s just great, I’m happy for you. This post was a criticism of the government’s decision to allocate funding in this way. Personally I would have rathered that he did the things he promised to do before being elected. One of those platforms was increasing the old age pension payment and carer’s pensions. If they were increased significantly from what they are now, rather than just a one-off payment, I would have been more than happy.
As much as a lot of young families are struggling at the moment, there are other people struggling too who through no fault of their own are not eligible for the bonus. I am not including myself in this group because we are doing quite okay. But I do feel for those people excluded who are struggling to make things meet from week to week and are working double jobs and longer hours just to stay afloat.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:36 am
“Angry” is not how I felt when I heard this announcement. “Scared” maybe … if the govt is handing out this amount of money to “stimulate the economy” then I do think things are set to get a lot worse before they get better.
That said, I’m glad the payment is going to people who can use it to make a difficult time of the year a little bit easier, aged pensioners, carers and families alike. (It’s not an indiscriminate payment to all children, it is going to families eligible for FTB A, which is means tested).
October 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I guess what I have the biggest problem with is that a family can earn up to around $100k to be eligible for FTB Part A right? So those people get the bonus. But their neighbours who work in minimum wage jobs, barely scraping together $50k per annum before tax between the two of them aren’t eligible for assistance at all just because they don’t have kids. People in those situations could do with a bit of a hand as well and they are getting snubbed because they don’t fit the bill. Why didn’t he give it to all low income earners?? Why not pay $1000k off their rent or home loans instead??
It’s rhetorical question….I don’t really expect anyone to know the answer to that but if they did, I’d love to have them explain the rationale to me because I just don’t get the idea behind it at all.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:04 am
You’re right, it’s not a perfect fit, and there are plenty of deserving people missing out (and probably plenty of people who don’t ‘need’ it, receiving it. I didn’t realise the upper limit for FTB A was that high).
The only rationale I can see is that it’s going to people who are more likely to spend, in order to stimulate the economy, and from an administrative position, it’s easier to give a payment to people who are already in the system for receiving payments.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I dont know if I’m entitled to the bonus as my husband earns nearly 100k. I on the other hand do not work as I am a stay at home mummy to care for my 2 kids. If we do get it i think it will be a lot of help to my family, no matter how other people choose to judge it. We are young and moved 1200kms away from our family to make a better future for our kids, and find it very difficult to see our family because we just cant afford it! We do it all on own all of the time. So this once off bonus i think at least some of us deserve it. My babies deserve to see their grandparents this Christmas. So fingers crossed…