Abc - It's Not My Problem

[Austen]

Here a million, there a million, everywhere $22 Million ...............

WHY ?

I can understand that many people are upset and will face difficulties if there local child-care centre closes, more of which later.....

But why should tax-payers support unprofitable child-care centres ?

It has been reported that some are profitable ............

The Government is refusing to hand out any further funds to prop up the 1040 centres. It has spent $22 million to keep the centres open until December 31, but their future after that remains unclear. One-third of centres are believed to be unprofitable.

So, it would seem that running a child-care centre is not necessarily a loss-making business, indeed many child-care centres are run as profit-making businesses by for-profit organisations.

So while some "services" are by definition "loss-making", as an example, the Police, Navy and local roads, child-care can be provided by profit-making organisations.

Certainly, there are council-run and other not-for-profit facilities available, but that does not change the fact that child-care can be a profitable business.

So, why then, when one fails is the government so quick to throw buckets of tax-dollars at it ?

Because it would seem, that vocal voting parents appear on ACA and TT wailing that "someone" should do "something" to look after their little Johnny while they work.

Newsflash....Little Johnny is YOUR kid, YOU had him, now YOU make arrangements for his care.

Of course, the big cry is that if "someone" doesn't look after my kid then I won't be able to work.

Newsflash......That's YOUR problem, NOT MINE.

Let's pull some figures out of our bums here....Given that the centres look after around 100,000 kids, and we'll say that 50% of the centres are going to close tight (no rescue or takeover for them) ..............

Further assume that there's exactly one kid / family, ie no siblings at all ...............

So that's a maximum of 50,000 families adversely affected.

Assume 50% of those cannot get alternative care

25,000 family's in big trouble .........

And let's assume that for those 25,000 families, there is no alternative whatsoever but to give up work.

Australia's unemployment rate is 480,000.

So, yes, in a worse-case scenario, 25,000 people would be out of work, with 480,000 people available to fill those jobs........

So why throw tax-dollars at them ?

Austen.

[I am not a duck]

But why should tax-payers support unprofitable child-care centres ?

Not to mention private schools, private medical insurance, private banks..... I guess at least the banks make a profit of & by themselves.

Capitalist profits, socialist losses

[Dork(original)]

You can add the auto industry to the list.

Paul.

[ajm1503559545]

Newsflash....Little Johnny is YOUR kid, YOU had him, now YOU make arrangements for his care.

Of course, the big cry is that if "someone" doesn't look after my kid then I won't be able to work.

Newsflash......That's YOUR problem, NOT MINE.

Fairly narrow view there Austen. I assume you have health insurance and never once claimed a medicare rebate? What if that person, that couldn't go to work worked for you?

Let's put this into perspective a little though can we? $22 million spent keeping children in child care - and presumably Mothers and Fathers at work. Compare that with:

The Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. A joint commitment of the Australian and Tasmanian governments to enhance protection of Tasmania’s forest environment and growth in the Tasmanian forest industry and forestry jobs. The governments are committing over $250 million to revitalise the timber industry and preserve old-growth forests.

Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grant. Farmers affected by the severe drought conditions can get help to leave farming through the Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grant. The Exit Grant, of up to $150,000 is a one-off, time limited payment to farmers considering their options outside of farming. The amount of Exit Grant reduces once the farmer’s net assets, after the sale of the farm, reach $350,000 with the Exit Grant reducing to zero when the net assets reach $575,000. IN 07-08 there was an additional $314 million given in Exceptional Circumstances assistance bringing to $1.6 billion assistance since 2002-03.

LPG Vehicle Scheme. Three different grants are available subject to program eligibility criteria:

1. a grant of $2,000 for the LPG conversion of a new or used petrol or diesel motor vehicle;

2. a grant of $1,000 for the purchase of a new motor vehicle with a LPG unit fitted at the time of manufacture, for vehicles purchased before 10 November 2008;

3. a grant of $2,000 for the purchase of a new motor vehicle with an LPG unit fitted at the time of manufacture, for vehicles purchased on or after 10 November 2008.

First home buyers scheme?

The Government will provide $2.4 billion in support in 2007‑08 to help older Australians and carers with household bills, and Carer Payment (child) will be assessed more fairly.

$500 one‑off bonus payment, to ensure older Australians share in the economic growth they helped create.

$22.3 billion will be provided over the fi ve years from 2009-10 for Australia’s road and rail infrastructure, including $16.8 billion for the national network.

$1,000 bonus payment to recipients of the Carer Payment and recipients of both the Carer Allowance and either the Wife Pension or Veterans’ Affairs Partner Service Pension.

NEWSFLASH: The Government is there to look after everybody.

[momaw]

NEWSFLASH: The Government is there to look after everybody.

If only that were true. The previous government and now this one has made it fairly clear it is only prepared to assist certain elements of the population. Namely "working families". It has ben pushed to offer assistance to retirees lately.

Everyone else be damned.

Every budget, we see this at work.

Now I am talking about help to "people" not "industry" here.

[ajm1503559545]

"working families" is code for "voters" these days.

My point is though, $22 million is a miniscule drop in the ocean compared to some assistance programs and it's basically only being used to keep things running until buyers can be found to run the centres. Believe it or not finding a place for a child can be extremely difficult so having 100's (or 1000's) trying to find places would be disasterous. If those people weren't able to go to work because they had to stay home and look after the children it would be everyone's problem.

[Aloysius]

Here a million, there a million, everywhere $22 Million ...............

WHY ?

I can understand that many people are upset and will face difficulties if there local child-care centre closes, more of which later.....

But why should tax-payers support unprofitable child-care centres ?

It has been reported that some are profitable ............

The Government is refusing to hand out any further funds to prop up the 1040 centres. It has spent $22 million to keep the centres open until December 31, but their future after that remains unclear. One-third of centres are believed to be unprofitable.

So, it would seem that running a child-care centre is not necessarily a loss-making business, indeed many child-care centres are run as profit-making businesses by for-profit organisations.

So while some "services" are by definition "loss-making", as an example, the Police, Navy and local roads, child-care can be provided by profit-making organisations.

Certainly, there are council-run and other not-for-profit facilities available, but that does not change the fact that child-care can be a profitable business.

So, why then, when one fails is the government so quick to throw buckets of tax-dollars at it ?

Because it would seem, that vocal voting parents appear on ACA and TT wailing that "someone" should do "something" to look after their little Johnny while they work.

Newsflash....Little Johnny is YOUR kid, YOU had him, now YOU make arrangements for his care.

Of course, the big cry is that if "someone" doesn't look after my kid then I won't be able to work.

Newsflash......That's YOUR problem, NOT MINE.

Let's pull some figures out of our bums here....Given that the centres look after around 100,000 kids, and we'll say that 50% of the centres are going to close tight (no rescue or takeover for them) ..............

Further assume that there's exactly one kid / family, ie no siblings at all ...............

So that's a maximum of 50,000 families adversely affected.

Assume 50% of those cannot get alternative care

25,000 family's in big trouble .........

And let's assume that for those 25,000 families, there is no alternative whatsoever but to give up work.

Australia's unemployment rate is 480,000.

So, yes, in a worse-case scenario, 25,000 people would be out of work, with 480,000 people available to fill those jobs........

So why throw tax-dollars at them ?

Austen.

Austen is BACK!!

Good post mate, any attempt to undermine your argument by folks saying "If you think that's bad what about ...." must be rejected in that relativism has no bearing on right or wrong or good or bad.

Hand outs to special interest groups do not justify hand outs to others.

[Austen]

..... I assume you have health insurance and never once claimed a medicare rebate? .......

Yes, I've claimed a Medicare rebate, but I also pay the Medicare Levy, I pay the (Medicare) health insurance, I claim on it when I am sick ......

The Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. A joint commitment of the Australian and Tasmanian governments to enhance protection of Tasmania's forest environment and growth in the Tasmanian forest industry and forestry jobs. The governments are committing over $250 million to revitalise the timber industry and preserve old-growth forests.

Preserving old-growth forests is a good idea, for so many reasons. Not (IMHO) at all the same as someone asking me to subsidise their life-style choice .....

Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grant. Farmers affected by the severe drought conditions can get help to leave farming through the Exceptional Circumstances Exit Grant. ......IN 07-08 there was an additional $314 million given in Exceptional Circumstances assistance bringing to $1.6 billion assistance since 2002-03.

Are we as one on this ?? I agree, stuff the farmers...If they have picked an unprofitable time to grow unprofitable crops in unsuitable areas in unsuitable climatic conditions, then get off the land. I see no difference between farmers and any other producers !!

LPG Vehicle Scheme. Three different grants are available subject to program eligibility criteria:

There's far better ways to achieve this worthwhile goal then throwing buckets of cash at it......."In umm....three years time all cars must use 10% less petrol then the similar model range does today, and another 5% less each two years after that.

So, the Commodore fleet sold today uses ummm 10l / 100km petrol, the Commodore fleet sold in three years must get an average of 9l / 100km of petrol use. So each LPG / Diesel vehicle sold uses no petrol which lowers the average petrol consumption for the fleet.

First home buyers scheme?

An excellent way to raise house prices !! Economics 101...The price of goods increase with increased demand, to LOWER the price of goods you need to increase SUPPLY !!!

$500 one‑off bonus payment, to ensure older Australians share in the economic growth they helped create.

B-R-I-B-E

$22.3 billion will be provided over the five years from 2009-10 for Australia's road and rail infrastructure, including $16.8 billion for the national network.

Spending on infrastructure is a good thing !!!

$1,000 bonus payment to recipients of the Carer Payment and recipients of both the Carer Allowance and either the Wife Pension or Veterans' Affairs Partner Service Pension.

See above re: bribes

I'm seeing a big difference between giving YET MORE handouts to people who want me to look after their children for them and building a better road or a dam .......

But that's just me, one of the 5,000,000 workers supporting 15,000,000 Social Security Recipients !!!

Austen.

[ajm1503559545]

Hand outs to special interest groups do not justify hand outs to others.

So being a parent using childcare is a "special interest group" now?

But that's just me, one of the 5,000,000 workers supporting 15,000,000 Social Security Recipients !!!

Are you equating keeping childcare centres operating with Social Security Recipients?

You guys to realise that this money is going to keeping the centres operating don't you? These aren't handouts to families, no one is getting a sling from the public purse here. This is keeping people in jobs, both the people working in the centres and the parents of the children using the centres get to be in jobs. The alternative being parents stay at home, not earn money and depend on welfare payments to make ends meet. The economy depends on people being in work, and it depends on people having children for their to be someone to pay the bills in the years to come. How much tax are these parents paying while they're at work? how much while they're sitting at home? It is ridiculous to expect everyone to turn their backs on such a simple problem simply to satisfy the whims of a handful of stingey, short sighted tight-wads.

Honestly I'm astonished at the myopia. What a bunch of miserley, mean spirited people we're fostering these days. Don't go getting old and frail will you?

Having said that, welcome back Austen.

Edited November 23, 2008 by ajm

[Aloysius]

So being a parent using childcare is a "special interest group" now?

Are you equating keeping childcare centres operating with Social Security Recipients?

You guys to realise that this money is going to keeping the centres operating don't you? These aren't handouts to families, no one is getting a sling from the public purse here. This is keeping people in jobs, both the people working in the centres and the parents of the children using the centres get to be in jobs. The alternative being parents stay at home, not earn money and depend on welfare payments to make ends meet. The economy depends on people being in work, and it depends on people having children for their to be someone to pay the bills in the years to come. How much tax are these parents paying while they're at work? how much while they're sitting at home? It is ridiculous to expect everyone to turn their backs on such a simple problem simply to satisfy the whims of a handful of stingey, short sighted tight-wads.

Honestly I'm astonished at the myopia. What a bunch of miserley, mean spirited people we're fostering these days. Don't go getting old and frail will you?

Having said that, welcome back Austen.

I guess one could bemoan the fostering of "it ain't my fault everyone else should help me out+ mentality that would appear to be running rampant.

Interesting how openhanded some can be - with other peoples money

Money from government is money from others.

PS as a taxpayer that works for an employer I pay significant taxes - which I think is fair enough - however general statements about special interest groups having their hand out - I'm sure you might be able to identify some of these groups - is a fear that the tax take will grow to satisfy the demands - and then I will be less than happy.

Call tht miserly if you will - it matters not - it's part of a careful frugal attitude that means that those folks you want to help will at least never have me and mine riding on their backs - ever.

[ajm1503559545]

I guess one could bemoan the fostering of "it ain't my fault everyone else should help me out+ mentality that would appear to be running rampant.

Interesting how openhanded some can be - with other peoples money

Money from government is money from others.

PS as a taxpayer that works for an employer I pay significant taxes - which I think is fair enough - however general statements about special interest groups having their hand out - I'm sure you might be able to identify some of these groups - is a fear that the tax take will grow to satisfy the demands - and then I will be less than happy.

Call tht miserly if you will - it matters not - it's part of a careful frugal attitude that means that those folks you want to help will at least never have me and mine riding on their backs - ever.

Are you suggesting that it is the fault of the parents whose children go to these centres? Rather than be careful and/or frugal what about trying gracious and grateful. Grateful that destiny blessed you with the good fortune to be born into the right socio-economic group and with good health and good prospects. Take no credit for being born into the right time and place - luck is not something you should be proud of.

Then if/when misfortune befalls you can be grateful that you're blessed to live in a society that doesn't care that you're not gracious or grateful and will help you out anyway.

[aztec]

Are you suggesting that it is the fault of the parents whose children go to these centres? Rather than be careful and/or frugal what about trying gracious and grateful. Grateful that destiny blessed you with the good fortune to be born into the right socio-economic group and with good health and good prospects. Take no credit for being born into the right time and place - luck is not something you should be proud of.

Then if/when misfortune befalls you can be grateful that you're blessed to live in a society that doesn't care that you're not gracious or grateful and will help you out anyway.

You've hit the nail on the head, problem is everyone thinks they are in the wrong socio-economic group, mothers would rather spend less time with their family so they can move up to the next group.

Why should the government prop up underpforming, private businesses when there are profitable ones that could take up the slack? If the government is going to hand out money it should be as a loan with the business presenting a plan showing how it is going to turn it's business around and become profitable

[azure1503559508]

I would argue that government has a role to play in ensuring that working parents have access to reliable and affordable child-care.

Toddler Uriah Vollmer left alone and locked inside Penrith's Nepean Pre-School

N 18-month-old toddler has been left abandoned inside a locked childcare centre in Sydney's west - the second such case in just months.

Uriah Vollmer, son of Daily Telegraph reporter Tim Vollmer, was left sleeping in a cot inside Penrith's Nepean Pre-School when staff went home early.

His mother Michelle arrived 10 minutes before closing time to find the centre already locked and empty - apart from baby Uriah.

It was only when a centre staff member drove by and spotted a distraught Mrs Vollmer that Uriah was discovered asleep inside......

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24694474-1242,00.html

[aztec]

I would argue that government has a role to play in ensuring that working parents have access to reliable and affordable child-care.

Agreed, there is the childcare rebate and not-for-profit childcare centres, I still argue that the government should not be funding private businesses when it's been proven that one can be run profitably. Especially when the CEO of ABC, Fast Eddy, drives around in a Ferrari.

[ajm1503559545]

You've hit the nail on the head, problem is everyone thinks they are in the wrong socio-economic group, mothers would rather spend less time with their family so they can move up to the next group.

Why should the government prop up underpforming, private businesses when there are profitable ones that could take up the slack? If the government is going to hand out money it should be as a loan with the business presenting a plan showing how it is going to turn it's business around and become profitable

We (as in the people) are going to spend tens (or even hundreds) of billions propping up businesses in the next few years but for some reason this bothers no one. $22 million so a few hundred families can stay in work until the problems of ABC learning centres are sorted is such an insignificant sum that singling this out is just ridiculous! The amount of money put in by the Government will be more than matched by keeping people in work so why the fuss over this?

The car industry has been promised billions (and they already want more) over several years and no one utters a mumour - prop up child care for a few weeks and all of a sudden it's "no my problem", pandering to "special interest groups" and supporting social climbers?! The government has been propping up this "underperforming " business for several years (they're all partly government funded) but a modest injection of funds suddenly gets the hackles up?

And so far no one has come up with an alternative suggestion. What do people think will happen if several hundred children suddenly need places in a system that is full? What are the employers of these parents going to do when several hundred parents suddenly stop turning up to work?

Quite honestly, the short-sightedness of some people barking about this is staggering.

[ajm1503559545]

And please let's get over the idea that ABC or fast Eddy are sucking on the teat here. ABC is in receivership. The board make no decisions and draw no income. The funds go to pay wages and bills to keep the doors open. The alternative is to close the doors which means the parents (who have not contributed to this problem) will pay the price for other people's gross negligence. It's not a matter of the parents not being able to afford childcare and needing extra public money so they can play polo or upgrade to a bigger Merc. There a simply very few places in childcare and closing hundreds or thousands of places will force hundreds or thousands of people to stop work.

Your alternate suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[aztec]

And so far no one has come up with an alternative suggestion. What do people think will happen if several hundred children suddenly need places in a system that is full? What are the employers of these parents going to do when several hundred parents suddenly stop turning up to work?

Quite honestly, the short-sightedness of some people barking about this is staggering.

Speaking of short-sightedness, I did offer a couple of suggestions.

The rise and fall of ABC

I don't know why my taxes should help out Eddy Groves?

EDIT: Okay, I see your point about being in receivership, but Eddy still got away with large amounts of money, obviously installing some new management that has nothing to do with previous management would help. But, it was run as a business with a faulty model, I suggested the business show a plan and the government offer a loan, rather than a bail-out.

Edited November 24, 2008 by aztec

[ajm1503559545]

Speaking of short-sightedness, I did offer a couple of suggestions.

The rise and fall of ABC

I don't know why my taxes should help out Eddy Groves?

Oh ffs! It's not going to Eddy Groves! The company is insolvent, in the hands of liquidators. I'm well aware of Eddy and his track record and the slimebag deserves every bit of comeback that is waiting for him but it's mischievious to tie the supporting the centres with supporting a business that no longer exists). Keeping the lights on and the staff paid is very different to keeping Eddy's Ferrari serviced and full of petrol.

I would imagine by now that every parent that has a child in an ABC centre will be looking elslwhere. It will take a few weeks to work out what is profitable and what isn't. What can operate on it's own two feet will be allowed to, the ones that can't will be emptied and closed.

But let's be clear about one thing Ed's dead baby, Ed's dead!

... I suggested the business show a plan and the government offer a loan, rather than a bail-out.

A loan? To who? There is no business to loan the money to... it's in receivership. Once the bones have been picked over and the creditors (banks) get their 10c on the $ who is going to take on the responsibility of paying back the money?

Edited November 24, 2008 by ajm

[azure1503559508]

Agreed, there is the childcare rebate and not-for-profit childcare centres, I still argue that the government should not be funding private businesses when it's been proven that one can be run profitably. Especially when the CEO of ABC, Fast Eddy, drives around in a Ferrari.

I can understand the government intervening here to ensure the centres stay open, so parents are given the chance to find alternative care and/or a new operator takes over the centres.

As for circumstances behind it, I don't know, I heard the Commonwealth Bank were taking the auditors to court.

In regards to the "Economic Stimulus" package as a whole, I would have preferred the funds go into infrastructure and public education.

Edited November 24, 2008 by azure

[FMB]

I don't agree with the government having to bail out ABC learning. However, I think that $22 million was not a lot in the grand scheme of things and it went a long way to cut off the panic which had started to emerge. It was a small investment to prevent a major catastrophe.

I read an article last week which said that the banks should never have let ABC get as big as it did. They ignored a lot of fundamental principles of business when they handed over all that money. Child care can be profitable, but can't be corporatised. In much the same way that farms can't be corporatised. A small family run child care centre can make a profit but when you add in overpaid executives and a corporate office, the profits start to evaporate.

When you then add a bunch of shareholders who all want to make money along with you, the profits simply aren't there. You can only last so long and then the entire house of cards collapses. This was inevitable, but it will happen again. People are greedy and want to make lots and lots of money for little or no effort, so it will happen again.

[ajm1503559545]

I agree compeletly FMB, and the people behind this disaster need to be held accountable but people shouldnt connect the mismanagement of ABC with the need to keep things ticking over until alternatives are found. Forcing parents to hold the can would be cutting the nose to spite the face - they didn't cause the problem either and they're not benefiting financially by the goverment providing funds - it's just about keeping things on an even keel for a while.

From the start I found Austen's rationalisation of the problem to be startling. The idea that 25,000 workers can be replaced by some of the 480,000 "ready" to fill the places would be laughable if it weren't so ludicrous? Of the 25,000 how many would be un-skilled workers whose jobs consist of little more than filling a chair? How many are employers themselves? How much would it cost the economy to lose and replace 25,000 jobs? And where does anyone get the idea that tax-dollars are being "thrown at" these families? What a monumental leap of logic!!

But, Al, being Al chirps in with some peripheral noises about matters unrelated and you have yourself a good old forum barney!

[aztec]

A loan? To who? There is no business to loan the money to... it's in receivership. Once the bones have been picked over and the creditors (banks) get their 10c on the $ who is going to take on the responsibility of paying back the money?

Then to whom is the government supposed to give the money? The creditors?

[ajm1503559545]

Then to whom is the government supposed to give the money? The creditors?

Yep.

....and (hopefully) one final word on this before it dies a deserved death. To those who think this isn't "your" problem. What if one of these parents were your valued employee? What if it were your boss? What if it were you?

Edited November 24, 2008 by ajm

[aztec]

Yep.

....and (hopefully) one final word on this before it dies a deserved death. To those who think this isn't "your" problem. What if one of these parents were your valued employee? What if it were your boss? What if it were you?

Sorry

ABC must be left to die, it has billions of dollars in loans that it will never be able to pay back. Giving them a few million now will be wasted. Is this not what this topic is about? Maybe I've misunderstood Austen's original post?

And right on cue, ABC Learning.

[ajm1503559545]

Sorry

ABC must be left to die, it has billions of dollars in loans that it will never be able to pay back. Giving them a few million now will be wasted. Is this not what this topic is about? Maybe I've misunderstood Austen's original post?

And right on cue, ABC Learning.

Mate, ABC is dead!!! Deceased, demised, defunct, departed, gone, mort, muerto, мертво D.E.A.D. The money is not going to "them" it goes to the liquidators who are then able to use cash to pay for luxuries like wages and electricity. It's not being "propped up" or "subsidised" it is simply being refirgerated until the vital organs are removed for transplantation.

ABC does not exist any longer - the fools that made this mess are not getting this money and nor are the parents who are affected by the mess.

And again, I say, what is the alternative? Close the doors and kick everyone out and to hell with the repercussions? That seems to be the favoured response of Austen here.