Seems to me educated women are making a conscious choice career or family/community.
Respective of what we are told balancing both is very difficult for most, it has little to do with money but rather time.
Regarding social funding I would rather governments give greater income tax benefits and less or no government payments except in extreme cases.
From a personal perspective I know of a women that has made the same choice. Highly educated very well paid in the public service she continues to add to her list of qualifications and came for a very poor background. Married by the way. Her reason for not having children appears to be a concern about her ability to bring children up correctly. I don’t quite understand, however this is a very organized person and children tend to play havoc with this. There are of course personal, financial and social implications.
You can continue to change the work place and require the employer to further increase their contribution to lifetime employee finance management or greater facilities. Many will fall outside any attempt to do this and what of them, greater government contributions perhaps?
Just a couple of thoughts, no idea on the financial implications for the government.
Full income splitting for all for those with two or more children say under 100G on one income. No income tax below 30G or some figure but considerably higher than the current threshold for those with the above. Encourage some sort of child saving plan along with the benefits of community involvement. Devolve some government and business activities into the local community.
In short you want to encourage those on benefits that there is a financial plus to do work therefore hopefully raising the bar. Those with the greater income may choose the lower paid positions in the suburbs or one partner may choose to leave the workforce and sees benefits in greater community involvement.
