Comments on: The rise of political familism http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/ Observations from Carlton's Lone Classical Liberal Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:33:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Andrew Leigh » Blog Archive » The Singles Party? http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3660 Andrew Leigh » Blog Archive » The Singles Party? Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:47:46 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3660 [...] parties clearly believe that the voter who’s most susceptible to persuasion is one with kids. Andrew Norton has written eloquently on this trend to familism from a policy perspective, but I’m also [...] [...] parties clearly believe that the voter who’s most susceptible to persuasion is one with kids. Andrew Norton has written eloquently on this trend to familism from a policy perspective, but I’m also [...]

]]> By: cat http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3659 cat Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:52:00 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3659 bit late on the commenting side, but hey, just found yr blog. your post proves I was being ripped off as a single person ! If the Gov wants you to be married, (because I will be happier & therefore not use the mental health services as much) have children for the country (future tax payers), then where is the tax support for being single & wanting to find someone? It's now costly to find someone! the stamps on RSVP, the $$ for fast dating and the cost of constant grooming...I'd like a single bonus, like the baby bonus or tax deductions for using dating services.. ;-) bit late on the commenting side, but hey, just found yr blog.
your post proves I was being ripped off as a single person ! If the Gov wants you to be married, (because I will be happier & therefore not use the mental health services as much) have children for the country (future tax payers), then where is the tax support for being single & wanting to find someone? It’s now costly to find someone! the stamps on RSVP, the $$ for fast dating and the cost of constant grooming…I’d like a single bonus, like the baby bonus or tax deductions for using dating services.. ;-)

]]> By: Jeremy http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3658 Jeremy Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:37:06 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3658 'The Howard battlers, of course, are not upset about the levels of immigration because it ‘The Howard battlers, of course, are not upset about the levels of immigration because it

]]> By: David Rubie http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3620 David Rubie Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:53:44 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3620 Sacha wrote: "I Sacha wrote:

“I

]]> By: Sacha http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3657 Sacha Thu, 11 Jan 2007 02:16:35 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3657 "Y “Y

]]> By: David Rubie http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3656 David Rubie Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:47:20 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3656 Hang on a minute - isn't it Liberal party policy to encourage higher fertility rates for two different reasons: (1) stopping the projected fall in numbers of working age people to prop up the welfare system to (2) make sure we don't have to have high immigration to pay for our welfare system? Y'know we can't have policies which encourage high immigration any more because it upsets all the relaxed and comfortable Howard battlers. That's why Uncle Pete wants your good lady wife to lay back and think of Australia - it's a self-defeating cycle of transfers that seems to be powering the plasma TV market more than anything, while attempting to make sure that somebody is around to pay enough taxes so that Uncle Pete can have somebody fund his overly generous retirement in 2030. It's hard to believe that the beloved Liberal party would concoct useless policies built around populism simply to get re-elected, while sounding like they are doing something - surely they wouldn't do that? Hang on a minute - isn’t it Liberal party policy to encourage higher fertility rates for two different reasons: (1) stopping the projected fall in numbers of working age people to prop up the welfare system to (2) make sure we don’t have to have high immigration to pay for our welfare system? Y’know we can’t have policies which encourage high immigration any more because it upsets all the relaxed and comfortable Howard battlers.

That’s why Uncle Pete wants your good lady wife to lay back and think of Australia - it’s a self-defeating cycle of transfers that seems to be powering the plasma TV market more than anything, while attempting to make sure that somebody is around to pay enough taxes so that Uncle Pete can have somebody fund his overly generous retirement in 2030.

It’s hard to believe that the beloved Liberal party would concoct useless policies built around populism simply to get re-elected, while sounding like they are doing something - surely they wouldn’t do that?

]]> By: Club Troppo » Wednesday’s Missing Link http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3655 Club Troppo » Wednesday’s Missing Link Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:04:24 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3655 [...] The rise of political familism - Andrew Norton argues that both Labor and the Coalition are getting carried away with expensive “pro-family” policies to the serious detriment of single people and “empty nesters”. [...] [...] The rise of political familism - Andrew Norton argues that both Labor and the Coalition are getting carried away with expensive “pro-family” policies to the serious detriment of single people and “empty nesters”. [...]

]]> By: Andrew Norton http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3654 Andrew Norton Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:51:29 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3654 Bruce - Perhaps we could marshal such evidence, but I haven't seen it and you are not citing it, though you work in a centre that is preoccupied with income distribution. And shouldn't we get the evidence for a policy program *before* we spend $28 billion rather than after? Bruce - Perhaps we could marshal such evidence, but I haven’t seen it and you are not citing it, though you work in a centre that is preoccupied with income distribution. And shouldn’t we get the evidence for a policy program *before* we spend $28 billion rather than after?

]]> By: Bruce Bradbury http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3653 Bruce Bradbury Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:20:29 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3653 I think we could marshal evidence that people are credit constrained when they have young children in the household. Mind you, this could be addressed with policies that relax these constraints directly (eg a HECS-type scheme for childraising, or simply higher taxes on people who have adult children, but are not above retirement age themselves). However, the strongest argument for these child-related transfers is our concern for the consumption level of children. Parents might choose to sacrifice consumption in exchange for the joy of parenthood. However, children can't make this exchange. I think we could marshal evidence that people are credit constrained when they have young children in the household.

Mind you, this could be addressed with policies that relax these constraints directly (eg a HECS-type scheme for childraising, or simply higher taxes on people who have adult children, but are not above retirement age themselves).

However, the strongest argument for these child-related transfers is our concern for the consumption level of children. Parents might choose to sacrifice consumption in exchange for the joy of parenthood. However, children can’t make this exchange.

]]> By: Andrew Leigh » Blog Archive » Econ blog roundup http://andrewnorton.info/2007/01/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3652 Andrew Leigh » Blog Archive » Econ blog roundup Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:42:37 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/01/08/the-rise-of-political-familism/#comment-3652 [...] Andrew Norton also has a good post on the rise of politicial familism. In economic terms, major Australian political parties seem to think that (a) there is a positive exernality from having children, (b) people with children are somehow especially deserving of government handouts, or (c) people with children are credit-constrained. I know of no evidence for any of these three propositions. Taxing the childless middle class in order to give cash to middle-class families with kids may be good politics, but it’s lousy economics. [...] [...] Andrew Norton also has a good post on the rise of politicial familism. In economic terms, major Australian political parties seem to think that (a) there is a positive exernality from having children, (b) people with children are somehow especially deserving of government handouts, or (c) people with children are credit-constrained. I know of no evidence for any of these three propositions. Taxing the childless middle class in order to give cash to middle-class families with kids may be good politics, but it’s lousy economics. [...]

]]>