Labor to cut tax benefit for parents who don't immunise children - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Only exemptions will be medical or religious grounds
Labor to cut tax benefit for parents who don't immunise children - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Only exemptions will be medical or religious grounds
Quite disgusted by this policy to be honest.
So they're basically forcing lower income families into vaccinating? **** this world, I swear.
Meh. Government health policy is to encourage vaccination. If they want to withhold a.$700 payment from people who choose not to vaccinate I don't give a ****. If you believe vaccinations are toxic then you won't risk your child's health for the sake of $700 if you'll change your mind for $700 then you probably aren't that convinced by the anti-vaccination arguments.
We don't have an automatic right to expect every government payment especially if the payment is to encourage a policy that we don't adhere to.
What I find offensive is the notion that people who are poorer than others will sell out on their children's health for $700. Yeah no. That's more offensive than the actual policy. It's no different than accusing people of procreating to get the baby bonus.
IMHO the # of true conscientious objectors in this country is a fraction of the # of people who just didn't quite get around to it. Especially in low socio-economic areas. Providing a strong financial incentive will increase vacc rates significantly in those communities and is likely to save the public health system a bucket load of cash in not having to treat quite nasty complications that arise in otherwise (statistically) preventable disease.
700 a year is a huge deal to us. It wont change my mind but it will make it much harder to live. Guess we'll be living on pasta rice and 2 min noodles for the forseable future. That will be very healthy for my children.
That 13-14 dollars a week will make a difference to us.
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.
But that already exists. For those who don't get around to getting vaccines, they miss out on the bonus. My understanding is that the changes only affect current conscientious objectors - at the moment with a CO form they are considered up to date for centrelink reasons, with the changes they will no longer be considered up to date.:
Yeah it won't change my mind either. For me this is just another step in a direction I am completely uncomfortable with. I think it's toeing a delicate line.
Well I guess we'll find out how strongly held those conscientious objections are.
Don't get me wrong, this is a complex issue. But it's also true that its an area where some families may be vulnerable to ambigious information/misinformation in the public sphere. The latest research shows that many (young especially) parents rely on the opinions of the particular community they find themselves in, rather than getting good information. Until this point, "doing nothing" (ie choosing not to vaccinate) has not had any ramifications. Objection-friendly doctors are well known in particular communities. So it has created a situation for parents who have a level of doubt, possibly because they know others who are not vaccinating (or they saw the scary videos on youtube), but they haven't looked at any quality information, and so it's easier just not to vacc at all. $721 x 3 creates an incentive to get some more information and come down strongly on one side or the other.
FWIW, this is the sort of policy that will be dead easy to track statistically. If there's a surge in vaccinations it will show the policy has been successful. But if the increase is small they will know pretty quickly (ie 1-3 years) that they have misjudged the anti-vax sentiment & the policy is disadvantaging some families unnecessarily. Certainly in time for the following federal election.
I appreciate the timing is not great for true conscientious objecting parents who have children now at an age who will be affected. On the other hand, most families are affected at one time or another by the rise and fall of government generosity, often for much more arbitrary reasons than this. At least this is tied to trying to get a positive (ie measurable) public health outcome out of it.
This is very true.:
Wow. That disgusts me. Won't change my mind though. Although will probably change my vote.
I don't know how I feel about this policy tbh. But after seeingDS1 suffer with whooping cough, and having it myself while pg... I will continue to vax. it was terrifying and would have been worse without vaccination.
that's just my view. I'd have to give it more thought before picking a side on the policy. but I'm leaning towards a 'bugger it, whatever increases vax rates' attitude. . mostly from a place of fearing my babies getting ill again.
I don't know how I feel about this policy tbh. But after seeingDS1 suffer with whooping cough, and having it myself while pg... I will continue to vax. it was terrifying and would have been worse without vaccination.
that's just my view. I'd have to give it more thought before picking a side on the policy. but I'm leaning towards a 'bugger it, whatever increases vax rates' attitude. . mostly from a place of fearing my babies getting ill again.
Wow. In the UK we are given NO baby bonus, FTB or vax payment. Sure, there are some payments for families with no wage, and a modcum of tax returned for workers with children, but no financial incentives.
If you "need" a $700 payment to have a child, can you afford to keep that child at a decent standard of living for 16-20 years? Maybe this policy is not a bad one if it makes people think.
Whooping cough is scary. I love this article about it though:
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...-humphries-md/
:
“We’ve had over 90% baby vaccination rates for whooping cough vaccines for over 11 years…since 2000, AND they’ve included even more shots since then for the adolescents at the time… and yet more, after 2000… AND here we are with whooping cough in EVEN higher numbers than it was before 1960? Don’t you think that’s absolutely astonishing? …Australia, which has had over a 95% whooping cough vaccination rate since 2000, is having the largest outbreak in their history since pertussis vaccination started. The same is happening in USA, and their rate of vaccination is even higher than Australia. So what do you think is happening there?” – Hilary Butler
I don't get the FTB supplement because I choose to work. In fact, I don't get any government benefits (except Medicare) because I choose to work. If I wanted to get them, I guess I could choose not to work. To me it's no different with vaccinating. Make the choice to vax or not based on your beliefs, etc, and be prepared to accept the consequence of your choice.
If you are going to be swayed by a bonus payment from the Government (that could cease to exist altogether from one budget to the next), I'd question how strong your anti-vax beliefs are anyway.
It's a pretty good way to distract people from real electoral issues like the re-introduction of work choices, selling out to big business and excessive cruelty to refugees.
Yup a good way to gain approval from the majority population who think this is a bloody brilliant idea.
That's politics for you :):
Sad huh. I reckon they must brainstorm ideas like this, what can we throw in after a disaster comment/problem etc...
What upsets me is that this is not the immunization payment. It is a family tax benefit payment. The message here is that the government thinks that families who choose not to immunize their children should not receive the same relief from tax add those that do. It's quite mind boggling to me.:
What next? Mandated oral contraception for teenagers to reduce the rising rate of teen pregnancy? Mandated behavioral modification drugs for school aged children to reduce disruption in the classroom for children with ADHD? Allowing the government to mandate the way we care for our children above and beyond the need to protect then from the risk of serious harm or neglect is a terrible precedent to set.
But you have a choice. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. That money is available through the largesse of the Government. It's not a right. It's a bonus. If it's the government policy to have universal vaccination, then it can't be surprising that it may not extend its largesse to those who reject that policy.
It doesn't effect me either way, but if it did, and I had made a conscious choice not to vax, then I would have to accept that the ramification of my choice would be no supplement payment.
I am one of the people who thinks this is a bloody brilliant idea. The concept of herd immunity relies on people vaccinating their children, so by not vaccinating you are putting others at risk.
So how will herd immunity eradicate pertussis given that the best immunization is 90% effective?:
Smallpox was the exception, not the rule.
I hate this type of policy, absolutely hate it. They take a subset of people and threaten to withhold money as a way to enforce compliance. It's ****ed. Regardless of whether the money is a bonus or not and regardless of what your stance on vaccination is, the Government is telling us how to parent our children. It does irk me that some people are not true objectors and they just haven't done it for whatever reason but this is more than that. I can't believe people aren't getting more angry about the Government trying to control what parental choices (and therefore parental rights) we have. Because where does it stop? I agree with Schmickers - we don't know what else they will target in the future and I think it is terribly alarming when people think it's OK for them to do this without thinking of the broader implications such a policy can have.
Why do people think you should get paid a vaccination payment if you are not actually vaccinating? I'm not being a smart ass. I just don't understand it. If you don't vaccinate, you don't get the vaccination payment. Makes perfect sense to me.
This isn't the immunization allowance. This is the FTB A supplement as far as I am aware.:
It is the ftb a bonus that is paid on the years that you vaccinate- if you vaccinate. Why should non vaxxers be entitled to it?
My understanding could be off but I thought there was a difference between the immunization allowance and FTB part A.
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. I just think that it is a really underhanded way to force people to question their parenting choices by withholding money. 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.:
No, it is a requirement for the supplement.
Eligibility for Family Tax Benefit Part A
That's a good question.
I guess it's similar to the question of why should people get paid parental leave if they aren't working. Some people will argue that only the people doing the desired thing (vaccing, having babies then returning to work, etc) should get it, others will say all or none should get it, otherwise you're discriminating.
That's a very simplified form, but you get my point.
And as for whether the government is seeking to modify our behaviour as parents, well I think that's been prevalent since ... well ... forever. Free MCHN facilities but not necessarily lactation consultants or baby chiro, certain things being bulk billable or available at public hospitals (obs, gyn, midwives) but other things only privately available and user-pays (doula, hypnobirthing, waterbirthing, myotherapy), flouride in water, free vaccinations or incentives for vaccinations, some types of childcare being subsidised but not others, what recreational facilities are free and which aren't, what schooling options and classes are and aren't, etc etc etc. Where the money goes, what get publicised, and what comes up under the spotlight when the election comes around, etc.
And I don't think it's any different for parenting choices than for the choices about ourselves and what *we* do.
As in all things, I don't think we should be apathetic, but aware, and realistic, and intentional. And then own our decisions, and use what we do have (our personal time and finances, our voting power, our voice) to act on it in the best interest of ourselves and our families.
I think this is a good, important conversation to be having.
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?:
I think they should scrap the payments entirely :)
Also, from a public health perspective, it's not purely a parenting choice. There are wider ramifications of these decisions, depending how you feel about vaccinations generally.
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.
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.
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.