Look up Singapore...Why would I want to live in somewhere as un-democratic and controlling as that police state? Not a good example.
Inherited wealth lasts only as long as the it takes to spend it if the receiver is not up to the same capacity as the one who generated it. I think we probably have both seen receiptants of substantial wills blow it within months to years. An industry study of Lotto receipants demonstrated that many would be lucky to pass on their new wealth to their off-spring having pi$$ed it up against the wall often within only a few years. So help them along by having higher tax rates for those who can afford to pay like Finland.
12 years ago when I first visited a fin advisory and we got onto the topic of Australia's new "baby bonus", she brought out a interesting document which was research carried out by the ATO on who was breeding in Australia. It showed that up until 2004, the middle and mid upper class reproduction rates were dropping to some of the world's lowest and this was based on affordability. ie people are not having kids because they cannot afford them. The Age distribution curve showed how this was going to cause a Japanese like disparity within a few decades. The next problem was a large portion of the children being born were to families who belonged to groups that have generational unemployed or poor employment history and multiple broken homes in the one family and had the lowest retention rates at school and worst police records. Projected forward Australia would need significant levels of immigration to fill the jobs required to look after our aging population as too many of our own off-spring cannot even feed themselves. Hence the Baby Bonus, although it was poorly done and may have added to the problem. However, my point is. Why do we need to pay people, from any socio-economic backgrounds to breed beyond average. If you want 6 kids, go for it. But working or not, why do we have to pay for your lifestyle choice? and more so this applies to those who choose not to contribute to society financially. As I said from what I've been told the UK has a welfare cap to prevent welfare homes having incomes exceeding that of the working middle class, which happens all to often in Australia.IN the first place - immigrants themselves age - and subsequently end up on Centrelink too. It's been debunked many times that importing more people heads this off - it doesn't, it will make Centrelink dependency much worse in the long run, especially with family reunion programs.
In the second place, your beloved banks are directly responsible for working people not being able to afford to have children, a point that you consistently avoid because it doesn't fit in with your narrative.
In the third place - what do you think will happen to the people you doom to the poverty trap by importing wealthy, educated migrants. Do you think they might (maybe) resent them? Get angry and vote for someone on the fringes?
Singapore has no graffiti, chewing gum, almost no home intruders, rare use of ICE and respect by the young as an added bonus. I suppose you have to take good with the bad.
Finland!, you might want to retract thathttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Finlandhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_Australia
70,000Euro income in Finland = $14k tax, in Australia its $24k + Medicare
Maybe I've missed something is the speed read?
Company tax in Finland = 20%, Aus = 30%
GST Finland = 24%, Food 14%, books 10%
Australia = 10% on most items except food etc
And 60-70% of Finland Pension funds are invested in tax havens avoiding further taxes in Finland.
Maybe I should have just copied and pasted the Finish tax system has its closely aligned with my previous comments and you seem to like it?
1) Excluding the problem migrants brought in by Julia and Co via boat via "don't give a F#$# policy of let them come if they want". I suspect migrants brought in via general entry visas that screen for having sufficient funds and employable qualifications are less dependent welfare.
Point was if reducing welfare payments to the "breeders" means an overall lower birth rate for the country, fine counteract that with educated, suitably skilled and cashed up migrants.
Oh by the way the limit on the breeders I would share 50:50 to the father and mother. If the mother won't identify the father on the birth certificate then she wears the 100% which means what I mentioned previously would be reduced by half. This would help get mothers to name the father and hence reduce the need for welfare as social security can chase the father for his share of the costs of raising the kids.
2) Banks, haha, BS!!! I've repeatedly said here and off-line privately to friends the fiance limit should be 80% max. However that govt policy and if people want to get themselves up to their necks in debt, go for it. I wouldn't!
3) Australia has been importing mostly cashed up and educated migrants for decades via the 189, 190 and 489 visa program (I'm familiar with the requirements and money, youth and qualifications/skills, english and good health and mandatory) as well as those switching from 457. You don't hear about them because they are the people in neighbourhoods in middle of the road to nice suburbs, work usually in average to above average incomes, have nice cars, kids usually keep their noses clean and often do well at school and look like the rest of us, but with an ascent. Are generally happy to be here and cause few problems. I wouldn't change this! Oh you might not see too many of these in Adelaide though for the all the reasons you have mentioned previously and many many more I'm sure. My neighbour has told me is moving there for the minimum 2hr period then they are moving to Melbourne and they only spent a week there.