Labour to cut tax benefit for parents who choose not to vaccinate

I do, but I think it comes down to whether you philosophically consider money from the Government (well, money from your fellow taxpayers) as being a bonus in general, rather than an entitlement.

Entitlement is a very loaded word at the moment, and I don't mean it in a derogatory sense - purely in its literal meaning.

So from that perspective, I personally would see FTA in the same way that I would view free use of a dentist - something which I will use, and which will benefit my family through no real effort of my own. Whether it's because it's assisting my family's dental hygiene, or putting electricity in our wires and food on our table.

So I view a payment linked to vaccing in the same way as I would view the Government (or whoever) deciding what types of leisure activities they make available at no cost. Some I will choose to benefit from and participate in, others I will not.

And IMHO opinion a lot of it comes down to what is mainstream.

An analogy:

Family X lives on a main road.
Family Y lives on a side street.

The Government decides to spend $Zm to re-seal all the main roads, for super (or rubbish) reasons.

Is it fair that Family X now has a spanky new road, and Family Y still has a pot hole covered one with gutters that flood, further damaging the roads (and their homes) periodically?

The Government now decides that it is good for people to live on main roads, and are introducing a financial incentive for people living on them.

Is that discrimination, in and of itself?
Is that discrimination if Family Y can't afford to move to a main road?
Is that discrimination if Family Y specifically don't want to live on a main road?

The Government then decides that enough people are living on main roads, and they remove the financial incentive.

Is it fair enough if Family X complain about the reduction of their family income?

I was unaware that the payment structure had changed. Thanks for the correction.

:

---

No, actually the FTB supplement, which is what they will withhold, is part of your normal FTB payment they withhold until reconciliation so that if you do happen to incur a debt, they deduct that amount first, so it's still not a bonus as such (sorry for arguing semantics here, but I think it's important to note the difference). The non vaxxers are 'entitled' to it because the Government says they are - so long as they have lodged a CO form. Until the Government changes that, then any non-vaxxer will remain entitled to the money because they have complied with what the Government says they must do in order to get the money.

---

This is correct - the obligation is to EITHER vaccinate OR register as a CO - at this point, it is aimed at ensuring people make a decision one way or another - as opposed to those that simply don't get the vaccinations done because they forget or whatever.

The supplement is NOT a bonus payment in any way - it is a portion of your ANNUAL FTB entitlement that is paid to you after your tax is done/payment is reconciled. Under the current policy, in the years your child turns 1, 2 and 5, if you haven't had your child vaccinated OR submitted a CO form with the childhood immunisation register (ACIR), your FTBA supplement for that child for that year will be held - but if, in a set period of time, you either have your child vaccinated or lodge the CO form, the payment will be paid. If someone chooses not to do the paperwork for CO or get their child vaccinated, they will still be eligible every other year - so for the "life" of a child, you will be penalised 3 times, if you're not going to take the steps to either get the jabs, or get the forms signed and lodged

The way I am personally reading the news articles (and I'll admit I'm just skimming, because realistically, it is unlikely anything will be decided til well after the election, and probably not til Budget night next year - and there are more changes to come in before that which require my brain power!) - anyway, my take is that they're saying no FTBA supplement in ANY financial year for any child that isn't vaccinated - so if you miss first year, you never get the payment for that child.. Whether you've had the paperwork signed or not. Unless you have a medical or religious reason to not vaccinate.

:

---

I do think that there will be people who comply simply because they can't afford not to. I think people are already forgetting that people on parenting payments are already experiencing forced compliance because of the 4yo healthy children checks - if people didn't have them done then they were not getting the payment either. This is just extending it to those who may work, but who also can't afford to go without their supplement payment and were not previously bound by the healthy children check.

---

Just to clarify, the 4yo Healthy Start for School check does NOT require vaccination - it requires that a basic check be carried out by a registered practitioner (MCHN/GP) to ensure that a child is ready to start school. As much as it seems discriminatory (and I'm not disagreeing with that thought), the basis of it came from a massive study over a number of years that recognised that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are statistically more likely to have health issues that could impact their early school years (vision/hearing etc) - primarily because parents don't have access to the same services due to the sometimes prohibitive expense related to early intervention (as someone who has had my DD back and forth to the paed opthamologist the last few years, i can attest that it can be very difficult and/or expensive to access the services). As a result, even though yes, there will be some children of middle to higher income families that don't have the health check and they slip through the system, the THEORY behind this is that it is likely to catch a higher percentage of those children who would have otherwise gone unchecked because, statiscally speaking, middle to higher income families are more likely to have access to the services etc

Again Peanutter, I do see your point :) It's just a very blurry area altogether. this payment has been in existence for quite some time (albeit in different incarnations over the years) and now it has strings attached.

:

---

N2L, it is a condition of it, but it's still not a 'bonus' payment.

True. However those things have never had a monetary payment attached to them though which is what muddies the water. I just really don't believe that the Government should be withholding money to get you to do something. If you want poeple to vaccinate, prove to them that vaccines are safe and effective and are worth getting, don't get them to vaccinate by threatening them with withholding money kwim?

---

But are they withholding money from the non-vaxxers? Or giving money to the vaxxers?

Why don't I get that supplement? But others on this forum do? Is that fair? (Rhetorical question)

If you want the $700, vaxx your child. If not, sleep with the comfort of knowing you did what you think is right by your child/ren. It's a choice. No one is being forced or coerced.

Besides which, if it meant The Rabbit wasnt in office, I'd gladly give up $700.

Ok, so maybe I was confused about the payment conditions, but I still think that any attempt that the government makes to lift vaccination rates in those that can vaccinate (and choose not to) is excellent. I am all for it. Go Ruddy! Definitely getting my vote now.

:

---

But are they withholding money from the non-vaxxers? Or giving money to the vaxxers?

---

As my understanding goes, they are withholding it from non-vaxxers.

:

---

Why don't I get that supplement? But others on this forum do? Is that fair? (Rhetorical question)

---

Rhetorical question or not, you know the answer to that. If you are earning enough to not get it, then of course it's fair that you don't because you are obviously in a position where you don't need it ;)

:

---

If you want the $700, vaxx your child. If not, sleep with the comfort of knowing you did what you think is right by your child/ren. It's a choice. No one is being forced or coerced.

---

While I agree with the sentiment that if you choose not to vax then you should also be prepared to accept that you will not be eligible for certain payments and I do think that this will certainly encourage the 'can't be bothered' people to pull their fingers out and get it done, which is probably what the Govt were hoping would happen, I also think that there are some people who do count on this payment for various reasons who may be genuinely undecided about their decision to vaccinate or not. These aren't always the middle class welfare types, these are often the working poor types and there are plenty of them. This is part of a regular payment that they are entitled to, part of which happens to be withheld from them until they get their tax returns done, and now they can't access that money unless they have vaccinated children. It IS forcing them to make a decision. It IS taking away their flexibility to take time to make a decision.

Apologies if I am being dumb - but I am not really clear on what current situation is and what they are proposing. (I have to say I think the system seems very complicated and confusing and I wonder what the administrative cost is - I have had the supplement and had no idea it was linked to vaccination at all, and I really hate all this getting it at end of tax year stuff as it is no help to you whatsoever during the year and it certainly makes it seem like a bonus)

From BG post - to get the payment currently if don't vaccinate you have to lodge a contentious objector form? So they are already encouraging people to make a decision? (I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to decide either to vaccinate or to CO)

What they are proposing is that you won't be able to CO and still receive the money? - you will have to have either religious or medical reasons to not vaccinate?

If my understanding is correct - then I think this change is a bit pointless because I don't believe those who are registering the CO form will change their minds so to get the money, and the heavy handed approach I think does nothing for the case to vaccinate (I am pro-vaccination) - I also really dislike the fact that it has come about after the No Vax no play campaign by the media - and as pointed out when that came out vaccination rates are actually not in decline (See article - "With vaccination rates stable, ‘no jab, no play’ rules are beside the point" on The Conversation )- so why this idea now? if not just politicking.

:

---

But you're not getting it weekly anyway. It's the end of financial year supplement they're talking about. So, continue to eat as you're already eating.

---

As far as Im aware, I AM getting all of my FTB (A and B) fortnightly and the difference is corrected at the end of financial year depending on my OH salary. I thought that is what I nominated when I applied. But maybe I misinterpreted/ forgot/ that has changed since then.
If Im not, then you're right, it wont make much difference to me and I have nothing to worry about. (Except that we use the reconcilliation at the eofy to pay car rego/ other big things that we struggle to manage throughout the year)

:

---

As far as Im aware, I AM getting all of my FTB (A and B) fortnightly and the difference is corrected at the end of financial year depending on my OH salary. I thought that is what I nominated when I applied. But maybe I misinterpreted/ forgot/ that has changed since then.
If Im not, then you're right, it wont make much difference to me and I have nothing to worry about. (Except that we use the reconcilliation at the eofy to pay car rego/ other big things that we struggle to manage throughout the year)

---

Calluna, you can't be getting all of it, you might be getting as much as you are entitled to get, but they still keep the supplement part until your OH gets his tax done and then when they reconcile, that's when you get your top up payment and the supplement would be part of that payment :)

:

---

As far as Im aware, I AM getting all of my FTB (A and B) fortnightly and the difference is corrected at the end of financial year depending on my OH salary. I thought that is what I nominated when I applied. But maybe I misinterpreted/ forgot/ that has changed since then.
If Im not, then you're right, it wont make much difference to me and I have nothing to worry about. (Except that we use the reconcilliation at the eofy to pay car rego/ other big things that we struggle to manage throughout the year)

---

If you receive full ftba supplement its a rate of 1.99 per day per child that you cannot physically receive during the year. So just short of $30 a fortnight you CANNOT choose to receive until after your tax is finalised. It's a daily rate. The same as every other payment.

Eta. You are most likely receiving all the entitlement you can on a fortnight basis. This is part of the ftb you cannot get fortnightly

Those with family incomes over about $150K don't care anyway because they don't get FTBA. It won't make a squid of difference to me as my kids are older. It really only makes a difference to those with kids under 5 or who are planning on having kids.

I just saw (one party's) parental leave policy. They are planning a government-funded paid parental leave for 6 months post baby at whatever your income was pre-baby. That's going to create all sorts of issues for high-income earning women. Six months paid if the woman earns $500k per year... and they've only budgeted $5.5 billion ;) don't know how that's going to work.

Mind you - these are all just policies for them to get voted in on. They may very well change (or not pass through the Lower House/Upper House) in the format that they are currently being "sold" in.

Interesting debate though.

Ah, ok. Thanks :D

:

---

Those with family incomes over about $150K don't care anyway because they don't get FTBA. It won't make a squid of difference to me as my kids are older. It really only makes a difference to those with kids under 5 or who are planning on having kids.

I just saw (one party's) parental leave policy. They are planning a government-funded paid parental leave for 6 months post baby at whatever your income was pre-baby. That's going to create all sorts of issues for high-income earning women. Six months paid if the woman earns $500k per year... and they've only budgeted $5.5 billion ;) don't know how that's going to work.

Mind you - these are all just policies for them to get voted in on. They may very well change (or not pass through the Lower House/Upper House) in the format that they are currently being "sold" in.

Interesting debate though.

---

I don't read it that it will only impact up til 5 years. But I've only skimmed it (eta. This article mentions those three ages. The other I read earlier didnt)

And 150k is very generous. For a one child family its 101k, 112 ish for two child family....

Won't that just lead to a rise of people suddenly having a religious objection?

:

---

Won't that just lead to a rise of people suddenly having a religious objection?

---

I'm assuming they'd have to show religious objection reason (like Jehovah's not accepting blood products etc). If they'd previously claimed a standard CO rather than religious grounds there might be a please explain situation. Genuine religios grounds would have been the initial reason

Hmmm not sure about that parental leave. I though it was capped at 150K. Cos when you're on 300K a year you can't possibly have laid enough away to get by for SIX whole months without having your lifestyle subsidized by the vast majority of taxpayers earning just a fraction of that.