Yeah I think I agree with that zazou.
Yeah I think I agree with that zazou.
I don't see a massive problem with payments being tied to particular behaviours. All govt payments are geared towards desired outcomes. Vaccinations are still considered medically and scientifically a responsible thing to do. We give millions in foreign aid to other nations to help with vaccination programs (among other things). Vax isn't perfect. There are adverse effects to a small minority and not everyone develops immunity (thank our evolutionary friend genetic diversity for that). But on the whole the medical evidence points towards reduction in either serious disease and/or severity of disease and/or associated complications.
I think this policy is a bit of an election grab, but if it increases vax rates, then the govt will think (and most of the population will think) it was a good policy.
Does this policy limit your choice as a parent? No you don't have to vax.
Does this policy discriminate against you because of your parenting choices? No more than any other welfare based payment arrangement which is geared towards an outcome the govt sees is desirable (such as looking for work while receiving the dole, or studying full time to get austudy).
The govt is merely incentivizing vaccination. In their eyes it's a good public health policy that will help australia meet minimum vax rates.
There is a sham religion created for this purpose. I can't remember its exact name.
Already has happened "For just $25 you can join the Church of Conscious Living, which was set up with the express purpose of providing “believers” with a religious exemption from vaccination." - can read more about it on The Conversation site - Divine astroturf: should anti-vaccinationists get their own church?:
Is it the Flying Spaghetti Monster one? :rofl::
But Zazou, our current system already pays more for some parents to stay at home than others. I do the same job as a stay at home parent - I am no less a parent than a mother who stays at home full time. But the government pays many of those stay at home mothers, yet pays me nothing. I don't get paid for those days that I don't work outside the home, despite the fact that I am doing 'the same job' as many of those women who receive government benefits. I realise that you are addressing the PPL and I refer to FTB, but the fact remains that the system already differentiates payment based upon income.:
So why don't you get anything Nickle?
I think these politicians are creating a nanny country....what's on offer next?
I totally agree about Abbott and his 'women of quality' being ridiculous and insulting.:
I do support parental leave policies that pay parental leave at wage levels - it should be like holiday pay, and sick pay for example, you don't suddenly only get minimum wage for time you are off on holiday or sick. Also parental leave policies that include superannuation I think are important.
Many women are partners to men in lower paid jobs that offer huge benefits to society and it is the women's jobs that support the family.
The idea that everyone should be able to get by on the 18 week minimum wage while the the woman has a year off to have a child - just supports a prevalent notion in society that the womans salary is just a bit of additional income that can easily be saved up to cover a year off - not the fact that the woman may actually be providing 75% for example of the family income and the man may not earn enough to even cover the rent/mortgage etc. If human biology was different and you could just choose which person would be pregnant, give birth, breastfeed etc etc - so could then therefore choose the person whose salary you could do without maybe then parental leave would be unnecessary.
Maybe they should do it HECS style and loan you the money, which you repay at a later date when back in work at a certain rate.
But PPL isn't about paying people to be parents, it's about compensating people who take time out from paid work to be parents. I don't see the problem with paying according to the amount of money that they're missing out on by not being at work?
In the UK, for comparison, we have a flat weekly rate from the gvt. The employer must top this up to a % of the wage for 3 months, then just the gvt rate for a further 6. This extra % is repayable if the woman does not return to the employer in any agreed capacity.
However, women are legally allowed to request pt work and that must be provided if poss. Men cannot do this after paternity leave (2 weeks at £120, I think). Not fair. We'd have Stormy by now if it meant DH could cut down his hours to 4 days a week!
I think, looking at the poll results, that this is very likely a moot point ;)
Bring back the 1950s I say! Where you had kids and paid for them yourself, with no middle class welfare system to help people buy completely unnecessary luxuries like big TVs, smartphones and those ridiculously big 4 wheel drives that have never even left the city!
:wall:Ah yes because the 1950's were so great for women and work weren't they? In 1950 "A minimum wage for women is set at 75% of what men get.":
And of course I forgot the money women earn which is enabled by 'welfare' payments such as PPL, CCB, CCR etc is only used for luxuries isn't it - :wall:
Lets not forget many welfare payments have sound economics behind them (particularly those relating to parenting) - even though the media would have you believe they are there simply to 'buy' votes.
Yeah but agree or not, the majority of Australians do think that this is the "right" thing. So in this case it can be seen as the right thing AND a popular thing:
They think its the right thing because of fear. Not because of it being right.
That's your opinion Kelly and one that I find slightly insulting.
I am a vaxxer. I don't vax out of fear. I vax because I too have done the research, compared the risks and come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of my children. I have come to a different conclusion to you from the research but that doesn't make me wrong. As I said, I would have an issue if non-vaxxers were being denied a "right" such as education in a state school but in this case they are trying to incentivise people to do something that is in the best interests of society as a whole.
Personally, I couldn't care less if you vax or not, many of my good friends don't. I view it the same as any other parenting decision that we differ on. You parent your children and I will parent mine. We are all doing what we think is best for our families. But please don't assume that because I vax, I am uneducated about the risks and issues surrounding vaccination. I respect your right to choose, please respect mine.
Have you asked the majority? Have they answered with 'fear'? Unless you have I don't think can make that statement. Again the assumption that those who vaccinate have just not been well enough informed.:
That's a really bold statement. And one that ideally could be used as a generalisation for either side of the argument.