text:
Nanny rebates aren't about helping the rich
Means testing childcare subsidies while expanding them to cover nannies is about providing more options to average families, not funding the lifestyles of the wealthy, writes Trisha Jha.
The Productivity Commission's draft report on childcare policy, due for release later this month, is expected to recommend extending government fee assistance to nannies and means-testing existing subsidies.
The fact is that there's a crisis in childcare. While families are experiencing incredibly high costs, the sheer lack of childcare places in many areas is at the crux of the issue. The proposal to extend fee subsidies to nannies is a way of trying to alleviate some of the burden on families caused by a lack of supply in the rest of the system.
There are some well-worn objections to putting nanny care on a level playing field with other forms of care: 'it subsidises childcare for the wealthy' and 'nannies are not qualified to deliver quality care to children' are the most common refrains.
The idea that expanding government fee assistance to nannies would only further line the pockets of the wealthy is false, especially when combined with the fact that means-testing a subsidy that is currently available to all working families is on the table.
It is generally not high income earners such as lawyers and bankers who need childcare for irregular hours. It's average earners such as nurses, emergency service workers and people with other caring responsibilities who need childcare outside the 8am to 6pm model that dominates long day care and family day care.
Similarly, it is generally not wealthy families who are carefully weighing up the costs of long day care for three or more young children against the cost of a nanny. Bringing nannies on to a more even playing field can help families of more modest means access a type of care that better suits their needs - perhaps even by sharing a nanny with another family.
If the concern is that subsidies should not be going towards wealthy families for their 'high-end' nanny care when most people have to make do with 'mid-tier' formal care, it is a peculiar concern to have. There is currently nothing to stop wealthier families from being choosy with the quality of care in a long day care or family day care service and using taxpayer money to subsidise that choice. Whether or not the care is provided by a nanny ought to be immaterial to these equity concerns.
This is only strengthened given that the Productivity Commission is expected to recommend means-testing the Child Care Rebate - most likely, the wealthiest families are no longer going to be eligible for up to $7,500 in subsidised fees per child, per year.
The likelihood that subsidies will be means-tested, combined with the fact that expanding access to nannies can benefit families of more modest means, it seems that extending subsidies to nannies and means-testing will serve to increase equity in childcare, rather than decrease it.
The other main objection to expanding taxpayer subsidies to nanny care is that nannies aren't suitably qualified to deliver the kind of quality care that other approved care services are regulated to deliver.
The new set of federal regulations, the National Quality Framework, is in part meant to reduce the disadvantage parents experience when picking an appropriate care provider for their child. The regulatory environment exists as a way of assuring parents that their child is likely to be in relatively safe hands while at childcare.
Yet while a parent may not have the time to evaluate every carer who works in their child's centre, they undoubtedly have ample opportunity to make judgements about a single nanny, whose wages they pay directly. Parents are more than capable of determining whether their child is going to be looked after by someone who will do a good job - regardless of whether that person has early childhood qualifications.
This is crucial. If extending the rebate to nannies is meant to address childcare shortages, then applying the same sort of regulatory environment that has made the existing formal care sector so unresponsive to the needs of families would only continue the same problems - with a higher price tag for the taxpayer.
Done correctly, ending the strange double standard that exists in how the government treats formal care compared to nanny care could ease pressure on prices by allowing more supply. It could introduce competition into the sector, which is why established interests are so opposed to the idea.
The specifics of the Productivity Commission's recommendations are as yet unknown, but insofar as increasing fee subsidies is a political priority, the idea of extending them to nanny care should certainly not be dismissed without a sober look at the facts.
Trisha Jha is a policy analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies. View her full profile here.
Topics: child-care, federal-government
First posted
Comments (133)
Comments for this story are closed.
Joe Hill:
03 Jul 2014 3:19:04pm
" It is generally not high income earners such as lawyers and bankers who need childcare for irregular hours. It's average earners such as nurses, emergency service workers and people with other caring responsibilities who need childcare outside the 8am to 6pm model that dominates long day care and family day care."
No doubt that is correct but that is not who is going to be able to afford nannies or who any law is going to be designed to help.
While CIS is less sophisticated than the IPA they are no less self parodying. They both rely on enpiffelating any debate.
Either way the subtext is deregulate to allow corporations to provide more expensive care providing less qualified persons and any tragedy resulting is the fault of the parents for endangering their children by being so lazy as to have stupid jobs with low salary.
As long as the North Shore is protected who gives a fig?
03 Jul 2014 3:52:06pm
If enpiffelating were a word, which it is not, how would posting on The Drum be enpiffelating any debate. Surely it is encouraging debate.
Mitor the Bold:
03 Jul 2014 6:23:34pm
I'm not sure what enpiffelating means either, but I'm pretty sure the IPA are guilty of it. I think what I've just read is a pseudo-rational justification for the public subsidy of private nannies for wealthy people. I suppose this is in line with public subsidies for private education and private healthcare so at least it is consistent.
So, one can use one's $50K baby bonus to have an extension built to house the live-in nanny, and write off some of her running costs - all at taxpayer expense! It's all very squiffy.
03 Jul 2014 7:52:06pm
It's the same old story.
Why should we earn so much and have to pay taxes. Nice lifestyle when you get paid very highly is not enough of an incentive to be paid well. If we pay taxes we stop accepting high paid jobs. What a joke. No you wont. Nobody would.
Living in a nice leafy area, not renting, owning a good car, nothing is ever enough for some people.
And the default argument is always we ?pay more tax? so we should get the lions share of everything above what we already have..
As if they didn't already benefit along the way already from a taxed society... and yet they always want more and more of the pie. And for all others to get less.
04 Jul 2014 7:21:36am
One of the biggest flaws in the argument is that a nanny would, in most cases, be more expensive per child than child care facilities. Therefore the subsidy would not be cost effective for the majority low income earners unless they have multiple children. Wouldn't a better use of tax payers money be in increasing the number of facilities?
But then again this government supports 'small government'. So the interpretation would be, instead of not for profit government services, the government prefers to pay for the profit of private services with our taxes.
Peter the Lawyer:
04 Jul 2014 10:27:37am
I find it really amusing that with our extensive public education systems, the wonderful resource that is the internet and the media, there are people who can still believe the sort of things that you write.
I suspect it is just ignorance of the lives of those who live in the 'leafy suburbs.'
Maybe it will be best if I explain just one fact to you. The wealthy don't 'get paid' they make money. In other words, they are not like a wage earner who goes to work and then goes home and gets paid a fixed wage. Mostly they venture in trade and commerce and build up businesses from which they derive income. So you see why they are a bit protective of their wealth. It is because they generated it not by just turning up at a workplace and doing as little as possible whilst whinging about the boss.
Curious party:
04 Jul 2014 11:21:31am
'Make money' - theres a euphemism for you. You mean 'take money' don't you? A trader, who takes the goods produced by someone else and gives them to someone else at a higher rate hasn't made anything at all. They have simply taken more money from their customer than their customer would have had to pay to get it from the producer.
They take money by selling the product of their employee's labour to customers at a higher rate than they pay their employees. Without the employee (who apparently only whinges) there would be no way for the employer to make money.
The reason why they are protective of their wealth is because of the material and social benefits that it affords them. They feel like they have earned the money, and sure they have played an essential role in the process of connecting the customer with the good/service. But to ascribe them some special virtue as someone who 'makes money' ignores the fact that their employee makes the product/provides the service, and the customer has the money in the first place. Without either of those, the employer makes no money. And the employee and the customer also have good reason to feel like they earned their money.
03 Jul 2014 8:00:46pm
Back in the day my grandparents lived and raised my parents in the North Shore. Back then it was the sticks, working class and frowned upon by the 'elites'.
Guess what my grandparents, and parents hard earned taxes turned the area in to? Not so bad hey, stop whinging North Shore that you don't get enough give back from the government 'the state' always turning to the free market argument AFTER you get the good stuff to get to where you are in the first place.
03 Jul 2014 9:09:04pm
Solution is simple. Means test all child care subsidies. While you're at it you might as well means test ALL education & healthcare as well.
jocks trap:
04 Jul 2014 8:16:10am
Me thinketh it refers to "talking piffel" the act of talking nonsense.
03 Jul 2014 6:20:58pm
Of course enpiffelating is a word. I understand it perfectly. It was long overdue.
03 Jul 2014 7:38:08pm
A google search for "enpiffelating" returns ONLY a link to this article on The Drum.
03 Jul 2014 7:46:05pm
Although it doesn't appear to be a real word, I would take enpiffelate to be a similar construct to "embiggen" which is to make big.
So, enpiffelate is to make piffle, or make piffle (nonsense) of something, or make something seem like piffle perhaps.
I can understand the excitement to use a word one has just invented, but unfortunately, it's doesn't seem to be in correct context here, if it means what it seems to mean.
04 Jul 2014 7:23:05am
I don't know what all this fuss is about, "enpiffelating" is a perfectly cromulent word.
04 Jul 2014 6:16:55am
As a longtime student of and practitioner of the English language I LOVE the new word 'enpiffelating".
It accurately encapsulates the majority of IPA articles which attempt to obfuscate genuine debate by introducing irrelevancies ("piffle") and thereby to diminish the quality of opposing viewpoints. It fits the standard format of noun creation (q.v "embuggerment")
Macquarie Dictionary, please note.
04 Jul 2014 7:58:35am
A lot of people are already doing it (nanny sharing) and even without the subsidies it works out cheaper, works better, less bugs picked up, kids are in a home environment (as opposed to an institution). It used to be called Baby Sitting before one of the govts decided to offer FREE child care or at home parents who needed their own space? And a whole industry grew up, but then was no longer free.
Its time we ditch it. Kids dont need to be in school/kindy from age 3 months, and child care workers have to work to averages, not the needs of individual children.
And besides, being a babysitter/nanny is a job for someone. A paid job. So why not? Its a win win.
The only thing that worries me is this. Because the govt is paying part of it, will they also impose other conditions, regulations, and the usual out of touch bureaucratic BS, and make it also expensive, cumbersome and almost impossible?
04 Jul 2014 9:38:25am
Good to see you cut through the fog of irrelevancies to the heart of the matter, G. It's a job, low-paying and subsidized by the government. We should all be cheering. Never mind that the effective pay rate is about $7/hr, or that the nanny loses all independence and essentially becomes the live-in servant of a family. Or that they can be loaded down with cleaning, laundry, shopping and gardening duties to fill up their time. And if we are going to avoid government BS regulations then WHS laws have to go.
Like you, I think we should be promoting the one vital fact: it's a job, and we can create thousands like them.
Here's a thought: perhaps we can pay nannies in pizza and coke like a Melbourne pizza parlor recently did. I mean, money is better, right? But it is still a job. Roll on the reforms to a brave new world where one day soon I can own another human being.
04 Jul 2014 10:12:58am
Nice bit of sarcasm there, disguising the usual rabid nonsense.
If someone is employed as a nanny, and an employer starts treating them like a slave (implied) then I am guessing they'll go nanny for someone else. They are free agents and not tied to BS regulations and govt knows best. They CAN actually quit or look for another job.
However, given a choice between a paid job where (like childcare workers do) they are also responsible for ensuring the childrens are is clean, tidy, safe, and hygenic, or maybe even tidying up the childrens bedrooms, as opposed to on the dole and worrying where their next meal comes from.
Which would you choose? Or dont the propaganda brigade need to worry about such menial things? Highly paid and in demand social media trolls often "dont get it".
Just sayin
04 Jul 2014 1:04:40pm
"If someone is employed as a nanny, and an employer starts treating them like a slave (implied) then I am guessing they'll go nanny for someone else."
Do the foreign au pairs get such freedom of movement on their 417 working holiday visas?
And there is the point of bad employers in private homes paying cash in hand and where anything goes not being punished.
At least in regulated childcare centres, workers have better redress.
In private homes, it's the nanny/housekeeper's word against the employer's - where's the paperwork?
04 Jul 2014 3:33:03pm
I'm not sure where your getting your facts from but in order to hire a nanny and get the government rebate you need to hire a "regitered carer" and they charge about $22hr+ it's more than the minimum wage and is just as much if not more than your average childcare worker gets with less stress as you only have a few children instead of 4 to look out for at any one time! In order for the government rebate to be paid people have to prove they are paying a nanny at that ammount per hour! if anything this rebate is ensureing that nannys are treated better and paid what they are supose to be paid.
04 Jul 2014 10:38:49am
Subsidised by the government? You mean subsidised by the tax-payer surely.
Where did all the small-government liberals go?
04 Jul 2014 1:28:26pm
Generality, the issue here is about potentially creating a whole new class of employees outside established labor, IR and WHS laws. If you want to, that's fine, but you need to say how many of those pesky laws and regulations you want eliminated. I can assure I have met employers who see no problem sending their workers into unsafe conditions, making improper deductions from their wages (stealing from them), paying them at reduced rates or in kind. I mean, you might think that's acceptable for young, foreign backpackers. But do you really want that for you children? I can assure these abuses do occur and they are not isolated. So far you have shown me no evidence of what laws you want to remove and what safeguards you would put in their place.
04 Jul 2014 2:58:03pm
"I can assure I have met employers who see no problem sending their workers into unsafe conditions, making improper deductions from their wages (stealing from them), paying them at reduced rates or in kind"
Oh and so have I! I've also met "employers" who havent told their "contractors" they work at their own risk and need their own insurance. Kids who subby and think its like being employed.
But there it is. Not employees. The nannies (unless through a nanny agency) are self employed. They carry their own insurance, they set their own terms, they charge for their services. The same as any other service industry, like IT or a plumber. I they want to do cashies then they're going to have a hard time explaining to the ATO how they got their money and why their mobile is registered at the same address 5 days a week. And of course, they wont be covered under their own insurance if not operating their "business".
Come on guys. They wont be "employees". They'll be Service Providers.
03 Jul 2014 3:22:22pm
Ok, so they tax deduct for nannies and there are, for starters, two effects:
(1) Those well off enough to hire nannies get a direct government subsidy, a further bias to the rich.
(2) Nannies are low-paid and the effect will be to drive down labor rates across the child care industry.
I look forward to the day when all employees can get themselves incorporated and write off every lunch, clothing purchase and taxi fare and get to pay their taxes via the Bahamas. Let's see then how the national tax take looks. Oh, I forgot! -- taxes are just for the 'little people'.
Perhaps the Productivity Commission got the nanny issue right after all in saying it was too costly.
Maids for all:
03 Jul 2014 5:46:57pm
I am in my fifties and looking for work. when I get a job it will pay probably less than 30 000 per year.
If I accept such a job, much of the tax I pay will be given in welfare, to people earning three times as much as I will earn.
Now you want me to get a job to pay for your maid / nanny services in your home.
Your kids, Your lifestyle choice, You pay to raise them. I paid to raise mine. And my parents paid to raise us.
If you cant afford them, give them up for adoption.
03 Jul 2014 6:20:10pm
How many children will you have to have before you are eligible to get subsidy for a nanny I wonder, considering that child care centres have to work on a ten to one ratio, then how would introducing subsidised nannies do anything to help a child care worker shortage. it would only make it worse. We have never ever had in our history a government as dumb as this one.
The only upside possible is that the older unemployed might have a chance of picking up one of their jobs, but it would take having a Labor government in power to ensure that enough unemployed were trained adequately to do the task.
Mitor the Bold:
04 Jul 2014 2:17:19am
"We have never ever had in our history a government as dumb as this one."
They're not dumb - don't be fooled into thinking these things they are doing are errors. Think about what else they might be - what bigger picture do these pieces of the jigsaw make?
If you want to live in a country where the wealthy and privileged gain additional taxpayer-funded privilege by simply being wealthy and privileged, then keep voting for Tony.
He ultimately wants a society where public services are bare-bones and for the truly fallen and desperate. He wants charity to help the poor, not the government. He wants everything else to be private - health, education, childcare, the penal system, you name it - and for quality to be the preserve of those who can afford it.
America's a great place if you're wealthy - but it's as bad as Sao Paolo or Dhaka if you're not. Some places are so anarchic and poverty-stricken they are no-go areas any time of day. You've seen them on the TV. That's what Tony wants for Australia - not the bad bits, at least not intentionally - but that's what you get when you dismantle society by removing the welfare system. In fact, you don't have to look to the USA to know what it would be like - it was already like that in most places before WW2. Fancy going back to that? Keep voting Abbott.
04 Jul 2014 5:49:42am
Perhaps the job you may get will be as a nanny?
04 Jul 2014 8:16:22am
Having children is indeed a lifestyle choice and not some sort of right.
It's never been easy and always demands a degree of personal sacrifice.
If you can't feed them, don't breed them.
04 Jul 2014 10:32:36am
The problem is that at the moment YOU ARE paying for nannies. Childcare in childcare centres costs a fortune and IS SUBSIDISED. The govt is subsidising someone else raising your kids.
I actually agree with your sentiments (dont want to care for kids dont have them) but not with the tax angle. Because you are already paying for it. This is only to extend it to inhouse as well, not just out of house nannies.
Why dont we just say DOWN WITH CHILDCARE SUBSIDIES? You have em, you pay for em.
04 Jul 2014 12:54:23pm
Except Maids for all, women don't want the life you and your mother had. They want the equal right to participate in the workforce as men enjoy. Therefore, subsidised child care is imperative to release women from this burden that previous generations of women carried. Unless men are suddenly happy to quit their jobs and provide the care??
04 Jul 2014 3:06:43pm
Most women are in the workforce to earn money. They arent all execs or lawyers yanno.
How about a woman who goes out nannying, but whose own kids need childcare at the end of the day? She can negotiate her own children going to the Nanny premises after school, thereby not only making money but also saving money.
Thats a double win! Which way is she better off financially? Job minus cost of childcare leaving peanuts left over for busting her butt? Or work plus more money left over and be able to care for her own kids at no cost in after school hours?
Which one do you think she is going to choose? Seriously.
Alan - Qld:
03 Jul 2014 8:44:58pm
Whilst I am opposed to the concept of the Abbott's Parental Leave Scheme, I cannot say the same for the concept of some support for nannies. It is not only rich people who would benefit from the use of nannies in some circumstances. I was in the unfortunate position of being widowed with three children 7, 4 and 2. As a working man I found it very difficult to survive until the children all reached school age. I was fortunate enough to have some insurance money to pay for a nanny over some of that time. Without them my family would probably have broken up. So Maids for All, there are many situations where this type of support would be helpful and it allowed me to continue to work full time and pay my taxes for the next twenty years. The taxes would certainly make up for any partial support for a nanny would have cost at that time.
As for breakig up the family, you only have to look at the Child Abuse Royal Commission to see that no child is safe in any of our institutions. My children are now grown up, in full time jobs, and also paying taxes.
Nannies would help many single parent families survive until school age when, before and after school care programs kick in. A very good investment in some circumstances.
Fred the Big Cat:
03 Jul 2014 11:38:44pm
There are arguments being put that a potential employer should not have to identify that there is no suitable Australian employee before applying for an overseas 457 visa worker.
A tax-payer subsidised live-in Filipino housekeeper/nanny will be the new goal for the aspirational Aussie family.
Curious party:
04 Jul 2014 11:27:54am
And just to give you peace of mind I'll take care of your passport for you as well. I'll just leave it in my safe here. Oh no, don't worry about the combination - I'll give it back to you when I think you need it...
Peter the Lawyer:
04 Jul 2014 10:37:52am
Explain to me how anyone can get a tax deduction for childcare costs.
Entertainment is not deductible, nor are meals.
Clothing is only deductible for lower class workers, not for we who wear Armani and tailored suits.
The little people hardly pay any tax whatsoever.
I pay more tax than the income of an average family. Most of my family and friends are in the same boat. We don't complain about it. But what gets stuck in our throats is that some how we aren't paying enough so the likes of you who pay bugger all can complain.
If you want the good things in life, go out and work for them. Don't whinge about your betters.
03 Jul 2014 3:25:36pm
I could not agree more. I am a freelance, contract worker and had often to travel interstate for work whilst breastfeeding. I did this for five years and took at least one child with me on all my work trips. I was able to qualify in some states for the very scarce status of in-home-care for a nanny, which meant that I was actually able to recieve the child care rebate. This entitled me to the same pool of money which any other working mother of a similar income was able to recieve: I was paying a great deal more per hour for my childcare than if I had used a day care center (a genuine impossibility in my circumstances), but I was not recieving any more benefit than someone using a day care centre. If I had not been recieving the rebate then I would have been paying the nanny more than I myself was being paid.
The (private) agency which presides over the decision making about who shall be worthy of in-home-care status in QLD decided in one instance that I was not eligible. I certainly ticked many of the boxes: no access whatsoever to day care, unusual work hours, breastfeeding. Their reason? I was not technically 'in my home'. I was advised by the the Federal Minister's that I could qualify for the rebate if my baby was in my home. Which would have meant leaving my fully breastfed, six month old baby in Western Australia, expressing enough breastmilk to feed him for a week (a feat which in its own right would have taken a week), and pumping breastmilk during work in QLD to avoid mastitis. Or weaning him.
At that point I would happily have declined the work, but it was part of a contract I had signed two years in advance of becoming pregnant, and forfieting on it would have cost me a great deal, quite probably my future career. There is no maternity leave for freelance contract workers. The very least we could have is recognition with regard to childcare. In the end I did the work in QLD, earned $1000 and paid the nanny $1100.
Curious party:
03 Jul 2014 4:28:42pm
I dunno... Maybe you can't have everything?
Presumably if you are a freelance contractor working across multiple states you are quite an accomplished and confident woman. As such, you were probably better placed to find another role that didn't place such demands on you while you were rearing small children.
Or, you could have delayed having children until your contract was up.
There are many women (and some men) who actually make choices between their careers and their families. It is foolish to try to tell ourselves that we can have it all and do it well.
03 Jul 2014 5:28:07pm
Let me guess you're also against the PPL
Well well:
03 Jul 2014 6:49:21pm
Well I am.
I Pay people to have babies and then I pay towards the day care.
I'm tired of hearing "I can't afford not to work".
Alot of the time it's bull.
The latest example I have today is a coworker who can't afford not to work because of the mortgage and the block of land they're buying.
No worries. I and the rest of Australia will help you pay off your mortgage and block of land (and did I say flash new car?)
03 Jul 2014 6:25:34pm
I'm fiercely opposed to Abbott's $5.5 billion per annum non-means tested maternity leave and paternity leave, and his $5 billion per year nanny/housekeeper subsidy, as well as the 30% uncapped, non-means tested private health insurance subsidies.
Prior to Howard/Costello, these subsidies did not exist.
Those tens of billions of dollars should have gone to public hospitals and providing universal access to childcare via government run (ie; council) childcare centres and kindergartens.
03 Jul 2014 9:42:17pm
Couldn't agree more Tristan, government run child care is the way to go. Privatising child care has seen costs skyrocket as is the case with all government privatisations.
Adelaide Rose:
04 Jul 2014 12:09:26am
I'm fiercely opposed to the PPL because it IS mans tested, they check your income and the higher it is, the more welfare you get. The opposite of fair
Mitor the Bold:
04 Jul 2014 2:24:41am
"I'm fiercely opposed to Abbott's $5.5 billion per annum non-means tested maternity leave..."
It is means tested - the more you earn the more you get! Taxpayers will pay to keep wealthy people in the manner in which they've become accustomed. And, more importantly, to keep poor people in the manner in which they've had to get used to.
If I were the CEO of a multinational with a subsidiary in Australia I'd be thinking a fat man in a red suit had just come down my corporate chimney - all my executives of child-bearing age will be paid $50K by the local taxpayers to look after their babies for 6 months. Great! Now I don't have to pay them. I wonder if I can mount a case for their company cars too?
no offence but:
04 Jul 2014 9:12:26am
Isn't it the high wage earners who pay the most tax in the first place?
I'm all for removing middle and upper class (terrible terms btw...) welfare and targeting assistance to those who actually need it, and who knows - some folks may really need nannies but most of those who do should probably just front up and pay for one out of their own pockets.
Cut your shirt according to your cloth - don't expect others to fund your 'lifestyle'.
03 Jul 2014 8:22:56pm
Quick question Anne,
If you are not a resident of a state, why should their tax system (and its taxpayers/ratepayers) have to support you as a non resident?
03 Jul 2014 8:55:07pm
I must be missing something here.
Contract signed 2 years prior to becoming pregnant.
So a 7 year contract if then breastfeeding for 5 years.
And the contract is for freelancing.
Aside from some questions over how many kids you had to be breastfeeding for 5 years straight, what sort of freelance contract locks you in for 7 years?
I thought a freelancer was someone who was self-employed and not committed to a particular employer long-term.
03 Jul 2014 9:33:43pm
I am seriously having difficulty imagining your circumstances, Anne. Travelling from WA to do work in Qld that is only worth $1000 suggests to me that you are not on a sustainable course, and I don't believe the rest of us need to pay for a nanny for you to prop up what seems to be an unsustainable business model.
I know this sounds harsh, and I get very upset at comments along the lines of outrage at giving "my hard earned taxes" to unworthy leaners who should get out and get themselves a job. This mean spirited attitude ignores the facts of a society where we all depend on each other to some extent, and once you pay your taxes they are no longer yours to define where they are spent.
But what little you have told us of yourself as anecdotal evidence of the need for and justification of government support for nannies just doesn't pass the common sense test. Nannies to support contractors with multiple children, very young, who need to travel the country for contracts just doesn't work on any commercial basis when the return for a transcontinental trip is as low as $1000. Sometimes we just make the wrong career decisions, I have, and we just have to change. Your story is not one where government nannies should pick up the pieces. Sorry, if this seems harsh, but you chose to use your circumstances in this discussion.
Expensive government policy needs society level analysis, and can't depend on folksy anecdotes to justify them. Let's wait and see what the P C report says, and how their figures add up, and hope it is equitable across all income levels.
03 Jul 2014 3:26:41pm
I hear in every political parties speeches prior to the election that the party will support 'working families'.
I think it is time to walk the walk
03 Jul 2014 4:53:07pm
What, they're not being supported now?
Bit of gratitude to the rest of the tax-payers wouldn't go amiss once in a while would it?
03 Jul 2014 6:28:45pm
Yeah, "working families" was the old message.
Now it's Joe Hockey's "end of the age of entitlement", the government not doing what you can do for yourself, and looking to the Asian model where families financially take care of each other because there's no social safety net.
Judy Bee:
03 Jul 2014 3:28:04pm
Trish argues ..."If the concern is that subsidies should not be going towards wealthy families for their 'high-end' nanny care when most people have to make do with 'mid-tier' formal care, it is a peculiar concern to have". WT??
Many would disagree with that assessment. Subsidies definitely should not be going towards wealthy families for 'high end' nanny care. Why is this whole argument becoming one between the have and have nots? What is peculia Trish, is this climate of resentment from the wealthy directed towards the funding going to those less wealthy. Children of lower socio economic birth should not be used in this way. The money should go to those children whose parents (often single working parents) need the help.
There is a worrying trend towards 'me tooism' from wealthy earners guarding and demanding more of what they consider to be 'their money' (tax). In a decent society, governments look after those in need,especially vulnerable children.
And if there is currently nothing to stop wealthier families from being choosy with the quality of care in a long day care or family day care service and using taxpayer money to subsidise that choice, then let that be stopped by means testing.
IF high end child care is the choice then those who can afford to pay should stop diminishing the welfare dollar available to those of greater need.
03 Jul 2014 3:32:52pm
What's to stop me hiring a nanny to look after the kids while the wife and I work, and giving her a shopping list to pick up our groceries (she can drag the kids around the supermarket, it's exercise right?) and get her to do the laundry when the kids go down for a nap? There's NOTHING in the article which addresses this, I note.
Taxpayer subsidised chores.
The Liberal voting crowd will love it. Joe Hockey's age of entitlement is back ... for the wealthy end of town anyway.
03 Jul 2014 3:59:55pm
"There's NOTHING in the article which addresses this, I note."
Actually, just a quick correction to my own post, the article links to another article which directly concedes that nannies do light housework as part of their normal daily routine, plus anything required for the happiness of the children - so that's the shopping and laundry covered too. Yep, my tax dollars subsidising some lawyer's private ironing service - yay.
03 Jul 2014 6:26:22pm
Yep. Glad to see you know your place, at least for the next 2 1/2 years.
03 Jul 2014 6:45:14pm
Two things here. Firstly, if you are talking about the $80,000 per year lawyer (ie. 90% of them) then you probably make about the same as them but they have a better house because your booze and ciggi bill is higher. Oh, hang on, did I just prejudge you? Sorry about that. The Productivity Commission recommended means testing the rebate, so the lawyer stereotype you are thinking of wouldn't qualify.
Secondly, the rebate is capped so if someone pays twice as much for a nanny as day care then why don't we just say that it was the non-subsidised bit that paid for them to do the shopping. Or perhaps that claim, and the claim that your taxes pay for a lawyers ironing, are both equally bonkers since money is fungible.
Mitor the Bold:
04 Jul 2014 2:31:31am
It's true, money is fungible - it could equally be spent helping people who need help rather than those who have demonstrated they can help themselves.
There is no moral case for giving more money to wealthier people because they are wealthy at the expense of poorer people. I cannot believe this and the PPL haven't got people on the streets. Are we all so bovine that we can't see what happening? Let me tell you, my fellow cow-frogs, the water's getting hotter by the day.
03 Jul 2014 11:18:35pm
"Productivity Commission recommended means testing the rebate"
Really means testing the rebate based on both income AND assets like Newstart, the aged pension and the disability pension?
Or just means testing the Liberal middle class welfare way only on declared income, but not assets?
Where's Tony:
04 Jul 2014 12:09:17am
Can't possibly be true Dave. Isn't the age of entitlement over, don't the libs hate the very thought of a Nanny state. My god, next thing you know they'll be giving out vouchers for marriage guidance with (of course) terms of reference which exclude family planning, St Tony wouldn't that.
03 Jul 2014 6:32:54pm
Absolutely nothing stopping people from hiring nanny/housekeepers.
Watching the "Real Housewives of Melbourne" and Toorak mummy Andrea with her checklist, her 5 nannies and supervising them to make sure they did housework made my blood boil thinking about Abbott subsidising nanny/housekeepers.
The $5 billion each and every year that Abbott will cost us would be better spent on government run (as in council run) childcare centres and kindergartens.
03 Jul 2014 7:26:54pm
It's really a no-brainer; well-said Tristan.
Of course that doesn't leave any room for corporate rent-seekers to profiteer from the delivery of social infrastructure.
Which is why the IPA and the productivity commission would never recommend leveraging economies of scales to deliver value for money.
03 Jul 2014 3:41:53pm
Is it really a crisis in childcare though?
Or is the real driver the cost of housing and the high level of private debt?
Perhaps if we didnt have such enormous private debt levels, currently greater than 100% of GDP, there would not be such pressure on families to have both parents back at work
03 Jul 2014 7:03:14pm
Imagine if the (modest!) family home was somewhere around $350k and speculative retail investment was properly curtailed. Many of these issues with overworked households would not be occurring. Paying super high mortages and rents are just crippling in the capital cities.
03 Jul 2014 3:48:14pm
I'm pretty much against tax payers paying for some peoples lifestyle choice, including having kids, but if it's going to happen then means testing is the way to go.
Also the amount of assistance people get for using a nanny should be exactly the same as they'd get if they were using a childcare centre.
Now how this is all funded is important. There's no point removing family benefits or reducing the minimum wage, or repealing penalty rates if a government then has to prop up people in a different way, like childcare.
03 Jul 2014 4:25:37pm
Once again we have people arguing about how best to make families with a stay-at-home parent subsidise double-income families, because that is one rather stupid effect of childcare policy.
It is good for childrens' development to have some socialisation with other kids in a childcare type centre. And I think taxpayers should encourage that by means tested subsidisation of 10 to 15 hours care per week. After that, it is a lifestyle decision of the parents as to what they do and the majority of taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidise the lifestyle choice of others. Especially when there are already family allowance and family tax benefits.
I agree with Dave's point that subsidising nannies in a private home is really just subsidising a family's housekeeping, cooking etc.
People need to be responsible for their family and lifestyle decisions.
Well well:
03 Jul 2014 6:56:59pm
Kids can socialise with other kids down the park.
I don't see why I should pay to subsidise someone's day care.
Having kids and got to consider money. Here's an idea:
03 Jul 2014 9:29:59pm
Thanks for your comment Steven.
Like I said, as long as the assistance for a nanny doesn't exceed childcare I'm ok with it.
If nannies are happy to do the ironing etc, then non-rich people can take advantage of that too, since they'll still get the assistance to help pay for a nanny.
Don't worry, I distrust ANYTHING this government does so any policy they come up with needs to be checked and rechecked so that it's not wealth redistribution to the rich, but, I also consider myself a 'progressive' so ideas that bring us all forward, especially those disadvantaged for whatever reasons, I tend to listen to.
I know nothing solid has been put forward yet, but I'll decide when I see it. A good guide will be what the Greens and Labor think.
04 Jul 2014 10:53:02am
"If nannies are happy to do the ironing etc, then non-rich people can take advantage of that too, since they'll still get the assistance to help pay for a nanny."
I tried taking my laundry down to the local child care centre and advancing this argument, and I won't repeat what they said to me but you'd think a child care worker wouldn't swear quite so much.
03 Jul 2014 4:53:09pm
I totally agree jusme.
Life is about choices so far as I am concerned. You either choose to buy a cheaper house, you choose to give up work if your urge to have a child is there, you choose to take care of your own children and you choose how they are brought up.
As for Nannies? What about the disjointed life the child has having more than two parents who tell them what to do? Make way for generations of screwed up kids who, after spending more time with their Nanny, look to her for love and support more than mum and dad? I just know someone is going to put in some rubbish about "quality time" with their children........but quality time is ALL THE TIME.
What about those parents who cannot afford to stay home? Let Mr. Abbott give them a parenting allowance for a year, but something quite a lot less than childcare or their wages PLUS Superannuation. It used to be called Child Endowment and believe me that money, together with growing our own food and my sewing the children's clothes is how we raised 6 healthy happy and now productive adults........not a childcare center or nanny in sight.
Ok times have changed but children are still the same, born and have to be taught and taught the way YOU want them to be taught, not some Nanny whose responsibility ends when she goes out the door. Take responsibility for your own children for goodness sake.
03 Jul 2014 11:00:01pm
"Make way for generations of screwed up kids who, after spending more time with their Nanny, look to her for love and support more than mum and dad"
Happens in daycare as well. A fair number of daycare workers in my family. Some parents drop the little ones off 5 days a week because the parents are both working their butts off.
What happens... the kids start calling the carers mummy because they associate that word with a primary care giver and the daycare worker is seen by the little ones as the primary care giver.
You know what would be awkward? explaining the above to the actual mother.
03 Jul 2014 4:09:25pm
y question is "where will these nannies come from". Will they be those already employed by child care centres, or will they be imported on 457 visas.
Looking after a three year old for just one day, believe me is quite a job. These people will have to be trained, and certified,otherwise, as sure as eggs, the will be complaints of abuse.
It seems to me that unless the scheme is means tested that it will be taken up, in the main, by those wealthy enough to currently have nannies, and turn into another rort.
03 Jul 2014 6:40:04pm
You're right.
There was a submission for Indonesian nannies on $200 per week.
And the Gumtree classifieds already has families advertising for au pairs on 417 working holiday visas, instead of agency nannies where they provide food, lodging and a small weekly salary with no entitlements like super, annual leave, etc.
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison created a new visa category to import overseas workers in the tourism industry because the 457 visa minimum salary requirements are higher.
Scott Morrison also allowed the mining industry to use guest workers without requiring 457 visas.
No doubt, Scott Morrison would invent a visa category for overseas nannies to undercut local pay and conditions.
"Call for Asian nannies to reduce childcare costs"
(SMH 29 Mar 2014)
"The Indonesia Institute, a Perth-based think tank, says carers from countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines should be allowed to come to Australia and mind children for $200 a week to help ease pressure on family budgets."
03 Jul 2014 9:14:12pm
Constant comment of mine always struck down is how well, the Rardd family did out of 'privatised' unemployment 'serives'. Aimed at helping the 'public'.
Aboutt family doing well out of 'privatised' childcare 'services' aimed at helping the 'public' will prob be struck down too.
No Fed ICAC..
We should all have become, or married a pollie. Life would be sweet as then. And very 'fair' indeed.
03 Jul 2014 11:51:40pm
The main reason nannies shouldn't be subsidised is one the author conveniently ignores. Organised childcare can at least be regulated, nannies can't, or not without huge, expensive bureaucracy. An exploding nanny sector is just going to be ripe for exploitation. Families should give thanks the taxpayer's willing to fund their kids childcare, but demanding it be done their way via a practically uncontrollable, and dangerous new 'nanny sector' is just over the top. Personally, I'd rather see the lot of it means tested, along the lines of 'you chose to have kids, you follow through your choice by supporting them' argument, but as far as middle class welfare goes, this one is entrenched now. Wealthy families getting childcare rebates can hardly be expected to give them up, not when pensioners, unemployed youth are taking a hit now can they?
Curious party:
03 Jul 2014 4:22:42pm
"Parents are more than capable of determining whether their child is going to be looked after by someone who will do a good job - regardless of whether that person has early childhood qualifications."
Except, the nanny will be operating without any oversight by any other adults. In childcare centres a parent can rely on there being more than one childcare worker at hand to ensure that each of the workers remain professional (or at least don't neglect their charges).
If we want to look at this from an economically rational viewpoint, we need to ask from whence the main expenses in providing childcare come. Is it the venue or the staff? Providing childcare in childcare centres increases venue costs (relative to nannying in the family home), but nannying reduces the carer:child ratio drastically and thus the staff costs are much higher.
Unless of course we decide that we should allow nannies to not have to conform to the current standards that we have for childcare workers. Which brings us right back to the first point.
03 Jul 2014 6:47:48pm
It brings to mind live in maids and nannies in Hong Kong where they work long hours for relatively pitiful and unregulated pay and conditions.
Where is the workplace protection for nanny/housekeepers who work in private homes?
And how do we prevent them from being forced to work excessive hours?
"Maid in Hong Kong"
(SBS Dateline 27 Mar 2012)
"The maids - many working 16-hour days for a minimum wage - form the backbone of domestic life here. "
03 Jul 2014 4:35:59pm
""Done correctly, ending the strange double standard that exists in how the government treats formal care compared to nanny care could ease pressure on prices by allowing more supply."
You don't sound too sure of yourself? Could ease pressure on prices eh? Might not though right?
And if we're ending "double-standards" perhaps subsidies for the grandparents who tend to the children whilst the parents work as well?
03 Jul 2014 4:52:17pm
I thought nannies were live-in babysitters.
If that is the case, I'm not sure how lower-income families can benefit from a nanny subsidy -- who's got an extra room for a nanny? I can't imagine many nannies, even cheap labour on 457 visas, who will want to sleep on the floor in the kids' room.
There are also questions about the character of live-in nannies and private babysitters. Will they be required to have Working with Children and police checks (Victoria's requirement for childcare workers) before they start work? And who will pay for it if they do?
And don't assume that a parent will know everything a live-in nanny or a babysitter does with the kids! There have been plenty of cases in the news where parents have used "spy cameras" and been horrified at what they saw.
I haven't forgotten a friend's experience some years ago. She thought the babysitting arrangement was working beautifully -- until her 4-yiear-old daughter burst into tears because "We're all going to go to hell, Mummy, because you don't go to church!" The babysitter hadn't mentioned her religious beliefs to the mother, but she certainly did to the child.
If Aussies are seriously going to get into being a "nanny state", these kinds of issues need to be considered a lot more carefully before the government provides a rebate.
03 Jul 2014 5:27:26pm
"I thought nannies were live-in babysitters."
Plus they'll do housework, shopping, ironing, laundry and cooking if you start to hint you'll sack them if they don't. So that's great for those with nannies, less cool for taxpayers subsidising them.
Well well:
03 Jul 2014 6:51:15pm
...and why the hell can't people look after their own children and do their own shopping?
04 Jul 2014 11:01:23am
I think by "nanny" they mean "baby sitter" and not necessarily the live-in kind. How long though before they are going to argue that nana should be getting paid by the government to baby sit the grandkids.
03 Jul 2014 5:37:26pm
I'll be damned if I pay tax to fund wealthy families' nannies. Of course child care should be means tested!
03 Jul 2014 11:54:56pm
I'll be damned if I fund 'servants' for the rich, middle class, or poor, which is a much better term to describe the work nannies do. Thankfully, no government will implement the author's grandiose scheme, so it's not worth getting too worried about. In a 'budget emergency' that hits the poorest, the idea of funding servants is ridiculous and will go nowhere.
Curious party:
04 Jul 2014 10:29:47am
But at least the poor won't have to worry about where they will live and finding food etc. It will be a glorious return to the good old days of upstairs downstairs!
03 Jul 2014 5:45:21pm
A right wing think tank is pushing the idea that expensive nannies benefit the low paid shift workers and not the wealthy. Big surprise.
No doubt they will have their next article on how shift penalties are hurting the poor.
Curious party:
04 Jul 2014 10:30:41am
But if they didn't have shift penalties the employers could afford to hire more people!
Which would be good because all of those people who used to get shift penalties would now need more than one job to live off...
03 Jul 2014 6:02:36pm
Why is everything so hard? Pay a fixed rate of child care to everyone below a means tested family income - say $150k (or whatever). It may mean someone living in Dubbo is slightly better off than someone in affluent Sydney but so what.
Well well:
03 Jul 2014 6:52:05pm
Well I reckon it should be about $80,000
04 Jul 2014 8:12:25am
Make it $50,000, and I am with you.
Jay Somasundaram:
03 Jul 2014 6:24:25pm
Yes, let's subsidise garden maintenance, ironing, house cleaning. What about fruit picking, sewing.... Hey, let's just bite the bullet and subsidise all work
03 Jul 2014 6:25:19pm
How will subsidising nannies help solve a child carer shortage? will they be having to look after all the kids in that street?
child care ratios are currently about ten to one and you want to subsidise one on one nannies.
Trust you dumb liberals. what hair brained scheme will they come up with next.
Sea Monster :
04 Jul 2014 8:36:16am
The obvious consequence as I see it is that qualified carers will be sucked out of day care and into one on one care. It'll make the situation worse for the majority.
03 Jul 2014 6:48:12pm
Sorry I have the different opinion. I don?t think it is necessary to extend the subsidies to nanny and you want to make a policy for that? The only reason I can think to extend the subsidies is that they can do the cleaning for you when the babies are sleeping or make dinner and so on. The job they take is hard, we all know how hard the life is, but basically, they are just like labours. They give people labour not intelligence, so they have to get what they deserve. If there is such a policy, is there anyone want to be a engineer not a nanny?
03 Jul 2014 7:09:06pm
There is currently a system by which one can have subsidised in-home care for children. There is very limited access (places are capped in each state), and the scheme is tightly controlled through registered agencies. To qualify usually involves proving disability for either the mother or the child, or both; triplets, quads and so on, three children under three years of age, or work hours which prohibit access to ordinary childcare.
The nannies are qualified and their work boundaries are very, very strictly defined. There is no shopping, no ironing, no cooking other than for the child, no household chores etc. A qualified childcare worker is being employed, not a 1950's housewife.
From memory, the cost of a nanny under the scheme is somewhere between $27 and $35 per hour (daytime hours). The tax payer does not pay this cost. They simply pay a rebate to the same value as any other eligible working parent in Australia would have using a day care centre. It does not cost the tax payer a single cent more to subsidise a nanny under this scheme than it would to subsidise regular day care.
The biggest problem with the existing scheme is one of access. Because the decision making about elegibility has been outsourced to private agencies, it's not in their best interests to look at cases which may sit outside of the box, or be more complicated to assess. Fair enough, but there is also no appeals process.
This scheme should be broadened so that more working parents can apply for it, in recognition of those workers who may not fit a 9-5 bill.
03 Jul 2014 11:57:14pm
"It does not cost the tax payer a single cent more to subsidise a nanny under this scheme than it would to subsidise regular day care. "
No, but your argument on cost is meaningless. Your advocating an extension of this scheme, which would cost the taxpayer an enormous sum if uptake was extended.
04 Jul 2014 11:16:33am
Cost to output (productivity in a loose sense) is the more accurate metric. Paying someone x dollars to look after 10 kids is more cost-effective than paying the same amount to look after 1 or 2.
Disabled children without support structures is a special (welfare) case. But flexibility and convenience are a little more ephermal from a bottom line fiscal perspective.
At some point employers should really be taking some responsibility for the needs of their employees I would have thought. Flexible workplace practices; telecommuting, providing creches if they're big enough. Indeed some employers are doing this already. The free market in action?
Employers, particularly corporations, have progressively absolved themselves from any kind of responsibility for the drivers of their profitability (including training). Profits have been consistenly high in a number of sectors.
And yet their shills in the media expect tax-payers to assume these responsibilities on their behalf.
03 Jul 2014 8:30:25pm
What is wrong in leaving The children locked (and safe) in a room with biscuits and water? Feel free to let TV run whole day to watch question-time from house of representatives.
It will be affordable to everyone and treats rich and poor parents equally.
Ofcourse no one can produce a more productive solution.
04 Jul 2014 11:20:58am
People have offered a more "productive" solution above. One would be to take all these billions and invest them directly in a network of child-care centres.
As an alternative to the moral hazard and inefficiences that involves tax-payers propping up the profits of private operators with a view to leveraging competitive advantage which won't exist in practice to the "market" being a natural monopoly.
How did we ever get by without our own personal nannies before?
03 Jul 2014 8:47:46pm
If we are going to provide a subsidy for child care it makes perfect sense to allow people to access this funding for a broad range of child care options. If the subsidy available for a nanny is the same as that available for long day care, then we are no more subsidising the choices of the wealthy than we already are.
Nannies are a sensible option for many families, especially with several children and after school activities and the like. Unlike long day care, a nanny can take kids to the park, or to sports after school. They can be employed to work the hours needed by the family rather than those on the roster. They can also provide a continuity of care, in the family home, that is not available in most long day care arrangements. It won't suit everyone, but if would suit some people. I would expect that the smaller number of children being cared for would be seen as a definite plus for many families, especially with younger children.
As for qualifications, require a first aid certificate and a working with children clearance, that's more than my parents had and they managed to raise me. If individual families want more they'll no doubt detail that in their advertisement for the job, and pay accordingly. I'm sure most are more concerned with how well they get on with a prospective nanny and their discipline style, than how many qualifications and certificates they've got.
Sally Harris:
03 Jul 2014 9:27:13pm
Sadly, this debate continues without anyone seeming to give a fig about the wellbeing of the babies and toddlers whose parents use childcare.
If you have a child, bring him/her up yourself. They will be happier, you will be happier. If you don't want to bring your children up then don't have them. And don't tell me you "have" to work to afford your mortgage/car/lifestyle - there is always a choice to accumulate less materially.
And please, if you're going to have opinions about parenting, childcare or anything related, please actually have a child first so you know what you're talking about.
Curious party:
04 Jul 2014 10:38:26am
I've seen plenty of parents who don't know the first thing about the welfare of their children. Being a parent is neither necessary nor sufficient for people to have a valid opinion in these sorts of discussions.
04 Jul 2014 10:58:27am
So as a taxpayer who has, and never will have, children I should just happily hand over my taxes to subsidise your child rearing and not say a thing?
03 Jul 2014 10:33:42pm
Tony Abbott recognizes that it is sort of inhumane to separate a mother from child in the first 6 months.
This is a real acknowledgement of the special time lost between a parent and a child whilst the parent is at work.
And a clarion call for all the times lost together due to work commitments in the future.
The govt needs to begin work on a living cheaply and efficiently policy that enables parents to manage on less with minimized future impact financially.
04 Jul 2014 12:50:03am
"Yet while a parent may not have the time to evaluate every carer who works in their child's centre, they undoubtedly have ample opportunity to make judgements about a single nanny ... regardless of whether that person has early childhood qualifications."
Amen, and besides anyone who has ever lived through early childhood has early childhood qualifications. I guess some of the academics have short memories.
04 Jul 2014 2:15:08am
Yes I agree the subsidy has more positive influence for working class families. However, actually I'm wondering why the money is used on hiring nannies rather than a subsidy for parents to spend less time overwork but take some time caring their kids? I really don't think nannies should be the solution. What people need for their children care is more flexible time, parental leave, and other policies which can allow them to care their children more by themselves.
Curious party:
04 Jul 2014 10:40:08am
Because the parent's labour is worth more to the employer than the cost of childcare. Especially when the cost is bourne by the taxpayer and parent rather than the employer themselves.
Don Paul:
04 Jul 2014 3:37:58am
Fair point and well argued... But!
We're not discussing the crux of the issue - needs and wants. I need assistance if I need it, I want assistance if I ask for it. Policy should reflect that, when in need - you'll be taken care of. If in want, then give a damn good reason why.
Love your work Trish, keep it up. We need more like you!
Fernanda Rodas:
04 Jul 2014 7:24:52am
According to news around the world Robots are and will be replacing people in the workforce. Why doesn?t anybody talk about population growth? I believe that if we want to have a sustainable city (world) the first thing we have to talk is: how many people this city (world) can sustain so the population can breathe fresh air, drink clean water and have an excellent public transport system to mobilise the population.
Please talk about population growth.
James in Brisbane:
04 Jul 2014 11:12:53am
Population debates necessitate debates about individual fecundity, which makes even rational people go completely insane. At the end of the day, we're just another species of animal whose sole purpose is to breed. Try to control that and people's hormones and instincts completely overpower any higher mental processes and they collapse in a lathering mass. Just look at the hysteria over the guy in the US who agreed to have a court-approved vasectomy after fathering numerous children to numerous women. Humanity is simply incapable of having a rational conversation about population.
04 Jul 2014 2:42:14pm
We can't have the rational conversation, but we don't have to fund it out of public money, either.
And where kids are found to be living in impoverished squalor we should face up to the fact that leaving them there with irresponsible, and dysfunctional, parents is not 'better' fro the child than adoption or long term foster care into a secure and nurturing environment.
I'm not talking of families in temporary crises, but the second generation unemployed with six kids by seven different Dads (I dont know who one of them belongs to..) and no visible means of support except welfare.. love doesn't conquer all.
04 Jul 2014 7:38:09am
There are many versions and forms of what a "nanny" might might mean. One form not discussed, not thought of or simply ignored is the overseas backpacker / traveller who accepts a position for few months in return for board, lodging and some pocket money. In many cases, these people are highly educated, introduce a foreign language into the household, create relationships with the host family that may go on for years. People need to think outside the box. Having said that, I am not sure what the difference is between the idea of a nanny and the family down the road earning a little money by providing non-rebated childcare.
04 Jul 2014 12:41:16pm
Live in foreign au pairs on 417 working holiday visas are also attractive because you can pay them in cash, are on call day and night, also required to do housework, and they don't have entitlements like super, annual leave, etc that workers in childcare centres receive.
04 Jul 2014 8:15:00am
Why not just have government run childcare centres all over the place? Charge a nominal fee which in total equals the current expenditure on childcare subsidies etc. Oh that's right, liberal philosophy and ideology dictates that such a scheme is not in the public interest because private is always better than public. Far better to fiddle around with handouts. The mind boggles at what Tony Abbott has in store for public education. Yes I know, states run education but I fear that won't stop the fully fuelled ideology of Tony.
James in Brisbane:
04 Jul 2014 11:14:05am
But even with the hard-line marketeers, you can still have them argue how the loss of government economies of scale are supposed to be beaten by the disaggregated costs and bargaining power of a nanny market.
04 Jul 2014 12:51:18pm
That's right.
We still have local council provided childcare centres providing basic childcare without the bells and whistles that a certain childcare centre in Rose Bay provides.
Decades ago, governments used to provide universal access to free kindergartens paid for with our taxes, even with free milk.
Now it's all about the Abbott government outsourcing government services to the private sector and providing billions of dollars in subsidies but not placing any price controls on what childcare fees can be charged, or placing other conditions such as the money only being spent on Australian childcare.
Therefore, as childcare demand exceeds supply, childcare operators have a lot of freedom to charge what they want.
ABC Learning was the largest beneficiary of taxpayer subsidies and had the original architect of subsidies, former Liberal Child and Youth Minister, Larry Anthony, on its board of directors.
ABC Learning spent much of the money expanding childcare centres overseas in the UK and the USA, which did nothing to contain fees charged in Australia, nor the availability of places.
An operator of a lucrative childcare centre charging high fees for extracurricular activities in Rose Bay was interviewed on radio about his business not opening any centres in low socioeconomic areas where childcare is needed.
And that's the crux of the problem.
Taxpayer subsidies go to private sector childcare centres in higher socioeconomic areas where they can charge higher fees.
Private sector childcare operators are reluctant to set up in lower socioeconomic areas although the need still exists.
Childcare is a public good, and should be provided by government.
04 Jul 2014 8:39:39am
I'm puzzled. When I and my wife had children, the first question which sprang to mind was..."Can we afford it?"
The answer was yes, but other expenditure would have to suffer. But our will to have children superceded that.
How come this entire debate is now distorted to "Can the Government subsidize my reproductive desires sufficiently?"
Earl Grey:
04 Jul 2014 9:50:30am
Why does the taxpayer pay you to have babies, pay you ongoing amounts every fortnight, pay for your kids education, pay for someone to look after your kids during the day and now pay for someone to look after your kids at night?? In a vastly over populated world, this is just madness. You are nothing more than a breeding pair of humans, time to take some responsibility and be a parent if you want children. Wake up world.
James in Brisbane:
04 Jul 2014 11:15:32am
How about we even the playing field, tell people the taxpayer will provide them support for their first child, 80% of that support for the second (recognising the cost synergies of second child), and for any third or subsequent child, no taxpayer support as they are luxury family additions.
04 Jul 2014 12:58:13pm
Earl Grey,
It all started around election year 2004 with Peter Costello's non-means tested lump sum baby bonus bribe and his call for everyone to have "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country".
Never mind the fact that simultanously, John Howard also promoted record levels of immigration 8 years prior to 2004, under his widely rorted 457 visa scheme introduced in 1996.
And in 2014, Scott Morrison relaxed 457 visa restrictions and we now have the problem of record youth unemployment.
04 Jul 2014 10:10:04am
It is strange you consider subsidising nannies as not being for the rich when in reality 'ordinary' workers could not afford private childcare regardless of any subsidy.
Are you supportive of the IPA agenda?
04 Jul 2014 10:26:28am
The real question is not 'how do we make childcare more accessible for working parents': rather it is 'how on earth did we get into the situation where most families need both parents working in order to survive and how can we fix that?'
We've all been taken for a big ride over the past 30 years: the wealth gap between the top income earners and everyone else has expanded in every country over that time, the transnational corporations own just about everything, and in exchange we get cheap 60 inch TVs from China.
04 Jul 2014 1:03:33pm
dpete, what has changed is that women are now allowed to work. They want to work. Therefore, the reason we need subsidised child care is because men are not quitting their jobs to stay home and care for babies.
04 Jul 2014 3:34:21pm
Agreed, greater female participation in the workforce does have an impact, but... if it were a question of both parents wanting to work but they don't really need the extra money then quite simply childcare subsidies are not called for. I suspect however that the majority of dual income families have little choice over their working arrangements.
04 Jul 2014 10:35:52am
This is totally disgusting. We get no medicare. No child care rebate. No medical tax offset. No NDIS. No help what-so-ever. We have paid out of our own pocket to train a uni student to be a therapist for our autistic daughter. We will get more money from the government by reclassifying her as a nanny. What kind of sick country is this?
04 Jul 2014 10:53:11am
A woman who stays at home to look after the kids is enjoying all the publicly funded benefits of society while only paying half the taxes (her share of her husbands). A woman who works and pays a baby sitter (err sorry, "nanny") is both paying taxes and her nanny is paying taxes. The baby sitter is paying taxes, right? Well, at least one of them is.
04 Jul 2014 2:17:13pm
St Bob,
But nanny/cleaners are often paid cash in hand as well as underpaid, and aren't issued with payslips.
Nor do they enjoy the same entitlements such as annual leave, penalty rates and sick leave that workers in regulated childcare centres enjoy.
04 Jul 2014 11:10:58am
I wonder how many of those opposed to a nanny as a child care option actually know anyone who has one.
Personally I have been using Au Pair's as my primary child care option for most of the last 4 years since the birth of my second child.
With one child in school and one at daycare age with both parents working the requirement for before and after school care combined with school fees and daycare fees would make it non cost effective for my wife to work, she may as well be on welfare, except for us having a live in Au Pair.
That allows us a relativly cheap (compared to the alternative) childcare option that is completly flexible for our needs while providing my children with in home one on one loving care when we are working.
And no we are not wealthy by any stretch with a combined house hold income of under 100k, we are not struggling by any means but a childcare rebate for our live in nanny option would assist us with the bills.
04 Jul 2014 1:55:58pm
The difference, of course, is that if she is on welfare then someone else besides you is working the extra hours to support her whereas she can work herself and just consider that a major component of your expenditure is child care, along with nappies, food, electricity and running the car. She is also paying tax and therefore contributing to the cost of all the public goods she is able to use for free.
04 Jul 2014 2:20:20pm
"...we are not struggling by any means but a childcare rebate for our live in nanny option would assist us with the bills."
If only we could all use the argument of assisting with bills as the justification for taxpayer subsidies.
Nah, I'd rather we return to pre-Howard/Costello when welfare was solely based on need, not I want it, I deserve it and means tested on both income and assets.
04 Jul 2014 12:49:56pm
How does this help parents of school-aged children? Why are these parents continually ignored, considering this is the area creating the biggest impediment to women returning to full-time work? Finding affordable nannies who are willing to just work from 3.30pm - 6pm is difficult, let alone them be free for school holidays. Working parents are paying teachers to do nothing for 11 weeks of the year, then paying for holiday and other care on top. It would be cheaper for the government to utilise what it's already got, schools and teachers on the payroll, rather than pay out extra. Modern families don't look like they did 60 years ago, how about we acknowledge this and redesign our school system to accommodate it.
04 Jul 2014 1:49:18pm
"Finding affordable nannies who are willing to just work from 3.30pm - 6pm."
First of all, many primary schools offer after school care allowing parents to pick them up after 4pm.
Secondly, who wants to work a mere 2.5 hour shift from 3.30 to 6pm?
04 Jul 2014 2:31:59pm
Why not pack your kids off to a boarding school and not have to worry about them until years end? Most boarding schools have holiday programs for residents, although its usually the overseas type..
But to your suggestion of schools as daycare:
Why should teachers lose their existing conditions to babysit your kids through the holidays they'd like to spend with their own kids?
Aside from the usual rude assertion that teachers do nothing for 11 weeks, it is also the kids break, too.. but modern families don't stop for holidays
But I'll run with if we used schools as holiday care....
you can't have them at school with no structured activities, so if you are using trained educators to look after them, perhaps kids should just attend proper school in business hours all through the year?
8.30 to 5.00pm, 48 weeks in the year, with one week holiday mid year, another 3 at Christmas/new year (same as standard annual leave )
...although its still tough on casuals who work 52 weeks of the year, or those on shifts.. so we might have to do 'day school' and 'night school'..
Standard lesson plans in set subjects, no flexibility (that 4 weeks a year is teacher annual leave NOT prep time) ditto for school sport, excursions, camps, plays etc
Start them right. It will get them job ready for working 48 weeks a year until they are 70, with the bonus they might catch up on the school work their absent parents can't do with them.
We might finally have some kids with a decent education outcomes, and a proper expectation of how hard you have to work. Watch us climb the PISA ranking!!
real mum:
04 Jul 2014 3:13:11pm
As much as I think 'conservative' & 'think' (as in think tank) don't belong in the same thought sequence, the reality is that I live in a suburb where the wait at my local child care centre is 2 years. I've had my baby on the wait list from 3 months gestation and I might get a place next year (fingers crossed); he'll be a year & a half old.
So when I returned to work recently, I had to employ a nanny which costs a significant part of my salary. My decision to return to work is really about future career opportunity, it's hardly worth the effort financially.
I don't begrudge paying for quality care, I suspect most parents don't. The question is, as a community, do we want qualified, professional women to return to work after having a baby or not? If we do, then quality, affordable care needs to be available in whatever form that might take.
We are certainly no fancy-pants, BMW driving, conservative think tank supporting family.
Comments for this story are closed.


text:
The beginning Yeah there are more stories or…
Well back to the story: So he walked and he wanted to find a boy Named Ronald so he thought:
This boy is making me sick I must admit if I didn't find him Josh will be kill me must hurry or else…
(A boy voice appear behind me) Boy: or else what? (He turned and found Ron) He said: so we meet
again I've been looking all over for you. He said: No problem man I just show up and take this. Rax:
What's this. Ron: It's a ticket to Kim's party your coming right? Rax: I wont miss it. (That night in
Kim's party) Guard: Welcome sir. (It was a big one there is a buffet there is a training room and
there was a… a stage then I saw Ron)Ron: Hey Rax where were you its about… (A man in the
stage interrupts him) Man: Please sir be quiet because Kim is about to sing. Ron: Oh really? (Then
Kim appeared in the stage) Kim: Welcome ladies and gentlemen I'm happy that all of you came to
my party and we are about to make a break dance contest and sign there if you want to be in the
contest (and she sang so Rax signed for the contest). So Kim stopped singing and said: Let the
contest begin our first customer is Josh Wendell Mankey (Josh begin dancing the break dance) Kim:
Stop please your result is 9/10 thank you. (Customers dances and now its Rax turn) Kim: Last but
not least Rax…(Before she says the rest of Rax's name he got up and danced the break dance)
Kim: Stop please your result is 10/10 YOU'RE THE WINNER CONGRAGULATIONS. Rax:
You knew that I'm goanna win in the first place. (There was a sound kimuncatern) Rax: What was
that? Kim: Oh please that's my kimuncater(Opens call) what's the stich? Wade: Hello Kim new
crime its Drakken and Shego there on the museum. Kim: I'm on it. Ron: Were on mission again.
Rax: A mission huh can I come? Kim: Its dangerous. Rax: Are you afraid of I'm getting hurt by
losers? Kim: No your not goanna get hurt by drakken but shego. Ron: Yeah she need me not you
got that boy. Rax: Whom are you calling a boy? Ron: You. Rax: Get real kid shego is going down.
Kim: Ok you can come but I deal with shego. Rax: bla bla bla.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
10105 Songbird Lane, Pinckney 48169
See more homes for sale in Pinckney, MI
This property has been Sold!
07/28/2016 at $306,000
Located in Hidden Valley Estates, is a hidden gem. This magnificent home offers an open floor plan concept, commanding, over 2,000 sq ft of living space. Impressive dramatic cathedral ceiling and panoramic windows allow natural daylight to pour into the house from top to bottom. Enjoy the spacious gourmet kitchen and breakfast nook with family and guests as you enjoy a scenic view, of the professionally landscaped, private backyard. Entertaining? Move your party to the fully finished basement to offer them, a cold beverage, from your built in bar. Need more storage space? No worries. The 200 sq ft, 8' walls, gambrel roof, w/storage loft electrified out building is the ultimate place for your outdoor toys or a workshop. After a long day retire to the main floor master bedroom to relax in your oversized jacuzzi tube. Family or guests can retreat, in either bedroom, on the second floor with dedicated full bath. This spectacular and well-cared home awaits you. Schedule a showing today.
Property Information
- Status
- Sold
- Address
- 10105 Songbird Lane
- City
- Pinckney
- Zip
- 48169
- County
- Livingston
- Township
- Hamburg Twp
- Possession
- at close
- Zoning
- Listing Date
- 05/26/2016
- Total Finished SqFt
- 3,651
- Lower Finished SqFt
- 1,471
- Above Grade SqFt
- 2,180
- Garage Desc.
- Attached
- Water
- Well
- Sewer
- Septic
- Year Built
- 2000
- Home Style
- 2 Story, Contemporary
- Summer Taxes
- $1,115
- Winter Taxes
- $1,831
- Association Fee
- $250
Rooms and Land
- MasterBedroom
- 1st Floor
- Bedroom2
- 2nd Floor
- Bedroom3
- 2nd Floor
- Breakfast
- 1st Floor
- Dining
- 1st Floor
- Family
- 1st Floor
- GreatRoom
- 1st Floor
- Kitchen
- 1st Floor
- Living
- 1st Floor
- Basement
- Daylight, Finished, Full
- Cooling
- Central
- Heating
- Forced Air
- Acreage
- 0.5
- Appliances
- Dishwasher, Disposal, Dryer, Microwave, Range/Oven, Refrigerator, Washer
- Fireplace Desc.
- One
- Interior Features
- 1st Floor Master, Cath/Vault Ceiling, Ceiling Fan(s), Master Bath, Spa Tub
- Exterior Materials
- Brick/Vinyl
- Exterior Features
- Outbuilding
Listing Video for 10105 Songbird Lane, Pinckney MI 48169
Mortgage Calculator
Listing Broker
Listing Courtesy of Keller Williams Ann Arbor
Office Address 2144 S. State Street
Listings last updated: . Some properties that appear for sale on this web site may subsequently have been sold and may no longer be available.
Our Michigan real estate agents can answer all of your questions about 10105 Songbird Lane, Pinckney MI 48169. Real Estate One, Max Broock Realtors, and J&J Realtors are part of the Real Estate One Family of Companies and dominate the Pinckney, Michigan real estate market. To sell or buy a home in Pinckney, Michigan, contact our real estate agents as we know the Pinckney, Michigan real estate market better than anyone with over 100 years of experience in Pinckney, Michigan real estate for sale.
The data relating to real estate for sale on this web site appears in part from the IDX programs of our Multiple Listing Services. Real Estate listings held by brokerage firms other than Real Estate One includes the name and address of the listing broker where available.
IDX information is provided exclusively for consumers personal, non-commercial use and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing.
Provided through Ann Arbor Association Board of Realtors. © 2017 Ann Arbor Associate Board of Realtors Ltd. shareholders.


text:
Cole was left humiliated on live TV last night when a technical glitch
forced her to whisper her way through her hit Call My Name.
The singer's mic appeared to fail at the start of her performance on Channel
4's Stand Up To Cancer – meaning the TV audience could just hear her voice
faintly singing along to a musical backing track.
But some viewers have suggested Cheryl was actually miming to a pre-recorded
vocal track that technicians forgot to switch on.
The stunning star bravely carried on until the glitch was fixed and her voice
returned midway through the second chorus.
At the end, host Davina McCall raced on stage and threw her arms around Cheryl
who was dressed in figure-hugging black leggings and a tiny top that bared
her belly and cleavage.
Neither mentioned the glitch, but it was obvious from Cheryl's expression that
she knew something had gone badly wrong.
The singer logged onto Twitter within minutes to blame "tec issues"
for her bizarre whispering rendition.
She wrote: "I really don't feel upset about the tec issues during my
performance and chat.. I just hope every1 commenting on it has done their
part 4 the cause."
A video of her performance has already been watched nearly 40,000 times on
Youtubewhere fans have speculated about the cause of the error.
One fan defended the star, insisting: "Its obvious the mic wasnt working
she wasn't trying to mime or miming badly."
But others aren't so convinced, suggesting she was caught out miming.
One critic responded, writing: "How does it explain the whispering being
loud then?! Mic was on, the backing pre recorded vocal track wasn't. Face
it, she got exposed for miming (most of us knew she does that anyway)"
Another added: "She's was clearly planning to mime and got exposed."


text:
- Healthy Lifestyle
- Eat and maintain weight
- Feel fresh, energetic and healthy
- Avert disease
- Adapt healthy eating a way of life
Dietician Madhu Sharma is an eminent Indian dietitian-nutritionist, based in Panchkula and president of the indian dietetics association, Chandigarh chapter. A dietician and a well-known nutritional speaker, she is also a published nutrition author. Dt Madhu is also the best multi-specialized privately practicing nutritionist in Panchkula and handles known disorders (e.g. diabetes mellitus, paediatric issues) with expertise. Her diet consulting proficiency spans most nutrition specialties like paediatric, adult, geriatric, etc. Nationally acknowledged and internationally skilled, Madhu Sharma is the most popular diet expert in Panchkula.
With a rich experience of more than 3 decades of service in both private and government sectors, she today owns her own personal clinic in Panchkula. Dt Madhu is dedicated in providing services, which are sustainable for life and making humanity the motto of her services. She has successfully motivated thousands of people to reach their nutritional goals. Read more
Each individual is different, so 'one size fits all' does not apply in this service. Tailor made, individualized diet plans based on various background aspects (like work schedule, age, gender and other medical conditions) are worked out for each individual. Counseling sessions include education for the family as a whole rather than an individual.
Professional service is imparted by highly experienced, well qualified dietician, with a goal of gradual, steady and long term benefits, rather than quick fix remedies, which can only rebound after a certain span of time. Adapting 'healthy diet a way of life, is the motto of this service.
Considering the fact that good health involves multi disciplinary aspects of the human body, focus is laid on planning diets for individuals, which will be balanced, healthy and catered to individual requirement on a holistic approach. Rest assured of a wholesome eating pattern without any adverse effects.
Is Your Diet Balanced
Are you a housewife, an athlete, a student, a corporate employee or a nursing mother? Well for each one of you a balanced diet would differ based on your individual requirement, state of physiological state, gender and age. A balanced diet for a student would differ from that of an employee in a corporate firm or from that of a housewife who is perhaps in the family way.That is because a diet can be considered balanced only if it ensures adequate nutrient requirements both in terms of quantity and quality, in the right proportion, at the right timings, the right combination and also ensure a disease free healthy life.
Therefore, as quoted by La Rochefoucauld, '…to eat is a necessity, but to eat intelligently is an art'!
What is Diet Counselling
Most of you must be availing services for various types of requirements, or even seek expert advice on certain issues which may be either technical, or say for beauty services or even for say maintaining your finances.
Disclaimer: There's no guarantee of specific results and that the results can vary depends on person to person.


text:
Stadium Name : Stadio Adriatico
Manager Name : Massimo Oddo
Delfino Pescara 1936, simply known as Pescara Calcio or just Pescara, is an Italian football club based in Pescara, Abruzzo. The club was formed in 1936 and currently plays in Serie A. Pescara has competed in six seasons in Serie A, 1977–78, 1979–80, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1992–93, 2012–13, and will participate in 2016–17. The team's official colors are white and light blue.
Current : 101 Last Week : 142
Login join us Fan Club
Pescara has 0 fans


text:
Spots getting you down? Hereâs how to fix them!
12 July 2016
Spots getting you down? Here's how to fix them!
Why is it that spots and blackheads tend to appear (seemingly out of nowhere) every time you want to look your best? As we enter summer, it's that prime time of the year for unwanted blemishes. So how do you stop them in their tracks?
- Why do spots occur more in summer?
We apply sunscreen more often during the warmer months – and all that extra heat leads to an increase in sweating. Both of these factors can contribute to clogged pores, resulting in unwanted spots and blackheads.
- How do spots form?
Many people think spots are caused from having dirty skin. In actual fact, it's more to do with oil. Our sebaceous glands naturally produce oil to prevent dry skin. Too much oil can mix with bacteria and dead skin cells on the surface of our skin, forming a whitehead and clogging the pore. Exposure to air causes whiteheads to oxidise and turn black, becoming a blackhead.
But whiteheads and blackheads are just one part of Acne. Bacteria thrive in clogged pores, leading to inflammation which presents itself as a spot.
- What makes skin produce too much oil?
A combination of hormones, stress and too much sugary food can send our sebaceous glands into overdrive, leading to excess oil production.
- How can I treat spots and prevent further outbreaks?
It's important to establish a regular skin care routine, which involves daily facial cleansing. Be sure to remove make-up before exercising and always remove dirt and sweat after a workout with a face wipe.
If you spot a blackhead or whitehead, it's important to unplug the pore, soothe inflammation and control oil production. To do this, use a cleanser containing salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide to reduce inflammation and remove dead skin cells. Creams containing vitamin A can also help but be sure to use these types of products in small amounts as they can dry out your skin and make it more sensitive to the sun.
- Is it okay to squeeze spots?
While picking and squeezing can be tempting, experts warn against this as it can lead to scarring and may make inflammation worse. It's far better to apply the products above and wait for the spot to reduce in size naturally.
- Is Acne related to diet?
For some Acne sufferers, making small dietary changes can help to reduce the frequency and severity of Acne breakouts. For others, it's simply a case of eating everything in moderation and making sure you up your intake of fresh fruit and vegetables, and drink plenty of water. Reducing the amount of fatty, sugary food you eat can also lead to clearer skin.
Do you have any further tips for battling unwanted breakouts? Send us a tweet!
Image credit: Ocskay Bence/ Shutterstock.com


text:
Steamboat Bill, Jr.
Wednesday October, 4 2017 at 05:15 PM
Films in BOLD will Air on TCM * | VIEW TCMDb ENTRY
One of silent comic Buster Keaton's best features, Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928) tells the simple story of a grizzled, rough and tumble sailor (played by noted character actor Ernest Torrence) visited by the son he hasn't seen since he was a child. But what should be a blissful father and son reunion instead reveals a hilarious generation gap between a Mississippi riverboat captain and his spoiled, college educated son.
Visiting from his school in Boston, the effete William Canfield Jr. (Buster Keaton) dressed in bow tie, beret and pencil mustache has immediate difficulty adapting to his gruff father's working class life. First catching a glimpse of Bill, Jr. at the train station mugging and playing his ukulele for a small child, Bill, Sr. recoils in horror, embarrassed by the undignified foppishness of his son's behavior. Bill, Sr. immediately strives to overhaul his son, and make him more suited to co-captain his ancient, dilapidated riverboat: the "Stonewall Jackson."
Bill Sr. escorts his son to the barbershop where he demands "take that barnacle off his lip" then takes Bill, Jr. shopping in an effort to make him over -- a sequence which includes some wonderfully subtle comedy as they debate the ideal headwear. Try as he might, Bill, Jr. can't quite please his father, and his luck in love is not much better. Also visiting River Junction is college classmate Mary King (Marion Byron) whose father King (Tom McGuire) owns River Junction's more modern and luxurious rival riverboat "The King." The two captains are soon bickering incessantly and the young couple's love seems doomed.
An array of comic imbroglios follow, including a hurricane, some fisticuffs between the two captains and Bill Sr.'s run-in with the law, that leads to Bill, Jr. trying to smuggle a loaf of bread into the jailhouse stuffed with files and other escape tools.
Steamboat Bill, Jr. demonstrates Keaton's creative range and comic inventiveness in tackling everything from subdued, facial comedy to stumbling pratfalls, as with a sequence where a hurricane races through the town, toppling buildings like matchsticks. That famous cinematic storm also includes one of the comic star's most legendary stunts, when the facade of a three-story house falls down on top of Bill, Jr., who is saved from being crushed by a well-placed window. The gag appeared in two other Keaton films, Back Stage (1919) and One Week (1920) with smaller buildings, but the Steamboat Bill, Jr. version was the ultimate stunt, posing a great deal of danger for Keaton if he in any way miscalculated the complex gag. The comedian remarked later in his career, "I was mad at the time, or I would never have done the thing."
But the film's most famous crowning achievement was probably the moment in that same chaotic hurricane sequence in which an entire house falls on Keaton, who then walks nonchalantly out the front door. To achieve the stunt, a house was dangled on the end of a huge mechanical arm that could be lowered onto Keaton at the proper moment to achieve the hilariously "impromptu" effect.
A crane was employed in another of Steamboat Bill, Jr.'s memorable moments, when Bill, Jr. clinging desperately to an uprooted tree, is carried off by the stormy winds across the landscape. The effect was achieved using a conventional crane swinging the tree, yet another of the stunts Keaton performed without a body double or special effects.
According to Tom Dardis in his biography, Keaton: The Man Who Wouldn't Lie Down (Charles Scribner's Sons), "most of the film was shot on location in and around the state capitol at Sacramento, California, along the banks of the Sacramento River. The heroine of Steamboat Bill, Jr., Marion Byron, recalls the more strenuous parts of the shooting, especially the scenes involving her immersion in the river. Marion was only sixteen when Steamboat was shot and was not a very good swimmer, so Buster's sister, Louise, was used as a double for all her underwater scenes - the women were nearly identical in height and weight....Louise recalls the lengthy diving sequence into the extremely cold water of the river, from which she and Buster would emerge half-frozen after several of these unsuccessful takes. Buster had instructed his man Caruthers to stand by with a bottle of the best procurable French brandy. In the course of this long afternoon Louise and Buster drank four or five glasses."
Steamboat Bill, Jr. was the last of Keaton's independent films made for producer Joseph M. Schenck, bringing to a close one of the most fruitful collaborations in the annals of silent comedy. Keaton continued making films for Metro Goldwyn Mayer but his brand of spontaneously innovative slapstick did not translate to the regimented structure of the Hollywood studio system. He made one more great film, The Cameraman (1928), but many consider the films that followed the beginning of a decline in Keaton's innovative comedy output. The coming of sound also had a negative impact on Keaton's career; his talent for stunts and visual gags was no longer valued by an industry infatuated with the new sound pictures and Keaton increasingly turned to alcohol for solace, creating further problems for himself.
Director: Charles F. Reisner
Producer: Joseph M. Schenck
Screenplay: Carl Harbaugh
Cinematography: Devereaux Jennings and Bert Haines
Music: Gaylord Carter
Cast: Buster Keaton (William Canfield Jr.), Ernest Torrence (William Canfield, Sr.), Marion Byron (Mary King), Tom McGuire (John James King), Tom Lewis (Tom Carter).
by Felicia Feaster


text:
Author | exchange4media News Service | Wednesday, Jan 28,2015 10:12 PM
The first edition of the exchange4media Prime Time Awards concluded with Tata Global Beverages (TGBL) taking home the Client of the Year award, FCB Ulka Advertising winning Creative Agency award and Maxus taking the Media Agency award. The Prime Time Awards, presented by Zee Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and powered by Fox International Channels took place tonight at the ITC Grand Central in Mumbai and saw a tough fight for the Client of the Year as TGBL edged slightly past Vodafone that came in a close second in the overall tally. TV Today Network which took home the most awards in the Broadcaster category came in third in the Client of the Year list. Similarly, on the Media Agency front a tough battle was fought between Maxus (GroupM) and Madison Communication, with Maxus inching past Madison to win the Media Agency award.
TGBL won a total of 4 Gold metals for its 'Power of 49' campaign, while Vodafone came in a close second with 1 Gold, 2 Silver and 3 Bronze metals with the 'Vodafone Music' campaign winning a Gold metal, Vodafone IPL – Superior Customer Experience campaign winning a Silver and Bronze metal and Vodafone's 'M-Pesa' campaign winning another silver. TV Today Network came in third spot with 2 Gold metals for its 'Sach On Karo promo' campaign in the Broadcast category. BJP, IDBI Bank, MTS and Tata Teleservices each won 1 Silver and 1 Bronze metals. In next place came Marico which took away 2 Silver metals. Finally, Godrej and Mondelez India each won 1 Silver and 1 Bronze metals.
Among the media agencies, Maxus came out on top with 4 Gold metals for its work on the 'Power of 49' campaign for TGBL and 2 Bronze – one for Agency Research in the Best Use of Research category and the other for its work on Vodafone's 'When fans become celebrities' campaign in the Best Use of Sports Channel category. Madison Communications came in a close second with 1 Gold, 4 Silver, and 2 Bronze metals. The Gold was awarded for its work for the BJP campaign 'Red Carpet to 7 Race Course in 60 Days'. OMD was awarded a Silver metal for its work on the 'Johnson & Johnson' campaign 'Stayfree Mujhe Pankh De Do'.
In the Creative Advertising Agencies, FCB Ulka Advertising won by a large margin as it won 2 Gold, 1 Silver and 1 Bronze metals. The 2 Gold metals were awarded to FCB Ulka for its work on the Tata Teleservices campaign 'Inspiring Others to Open Up - Kids' and the MakeMyTrip.com campaign 'Make My Trip – Shaving' (single ad). Interface Communications came in second place with 2 Silver metals and 1 Bronze metal. The Silver metals were won by Interface Communications for its work on Mahindra & Mahindra's campaign 'Mahindra Commercial Range' and Mondelez India's campaign 'Oreo Strawberry Creme-Repositioning, a cream biscuit as a special treat'. Ogilvy & Mather won 1 Gold and 1 Silver for its work on the 'IDBI Bank Brand Campaign'. Creativeland Asia won 1 Gold and 1 Silver for its work on MTS' campaign 'Born for the Internet'. Leo Burnett came in next place with 1 Gold metal awarded for its work on Multi Screen Media's campaign for 'Kaun Banga Crorepati 2014 – Kohima'. DDB Mudra won 1 Silver metal for its work on the 'Century Ply' Campaign. Finally, Contract Advertising won 1 Bronze metal for its work on Mondelez India's campaign for 'Halls XS Launch'.
The exchange4media Prime Time Awards is a platform which gives recognition to the excellent work done by brands, media and creative agencies and broadcasters alike on TV campaigns. The awards were given after the jury members went through the shortlisted entries (selected by the pre-screening jury) spread across 4 main categories containing 21 sub-categories.
Below is the complete list of winners
Programming HeadRadio Mango