No Contraception, No Dole ???

[MarkB]

Former Labor Minister Gary Johns suggests linking the dole to contraception

NO contraception, no dole - that's the view of an ex-Labor Minister who believes welfare should be linked to compulsory contraception. Gary Johns, writing in The Australian, suggests there should be ''no taxpayer inducement to have children".

[More in link]

I'm not sure how I feel about this....

On the one hand, I was the 5th child of a couple who, in between the 4th and the 5th, slipped from working class to welfare class in the mid 1970's - so had such a policy been in place then, I would not exist now.

Now, at (almost) age 40 - married and childless (not by choice) I see my taxes going to prop up the living standards of those who have children. It is part of living in a society, I accept.

But it does appear that some people on welfare, well, to be blunt, it seems their only talent in life is that their loins work.

And I think there is something to be said for the concept of "the poverty cycle" - or to put it in layperson's terms, the concept that "the apple does not fall too far from the tree".

So.... is this (the prospect of linking benefits to contraception) just more government meddling? (a bit Orwellian, if you will)

Is it simply removing a few bricks from the welfare wall, that never should have got as big as it has?

Or is it something else?

 

[Terry_w]

But how would such a policy be implemented?

 

[Corey Batt]

The issue at hand is systemic inter-generational welfare recipients, not poor people having children.

Stop tinkering around the edges and get to the root of the problem.

Politically impossible, as the religious card will be played all day long.

 

[Lord Shanghai]

Australia suffers from negative population growth and this is a significant danger to continued economic growth. We should be thankful for every new child that is born. Either that or come to terms with immigration - something many Aussies are uncomfortable with.

 

[Hoffy]

Imagine if a former conservative politician spouted this nonsense..............

 

[D.T.]

Imagine if a former conservative politician spouted this nonsense..............

Bit of an oxymoron eh?

 

[Perp]

I'm really torn on this issue.

Mostly, I think it's impractical to police and impossible to come up with guidelines that are fair, without making them so subjective as to be ineffectual. Further, once the kids have been born, they shouldn't be punished (with poverty) because their parents are morons.

But there's a niggling part of me that says it's blindingly obvious that somebody with > 5 kids with > 3 fathers, who's never been in the workforce, should be discouraged from breeding. I just don't have any practical ideas as to how you do that.

I have no idea how one instills a sense of shame into the shameless.

 

[DEC]

Australia suffers from negative population growth

Computer says no.

Population clock

On 30 December 2014 at 11:12:48 (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:
23,693,376
This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 30 June 2014 and assumes growth since then of:
one birth every 1 minute and 45 seconds,
one death every 3 minutes and 32 seconds ,
a net gain of one international migration every 2 minutes and 05 seconds, leading to
an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 18 seconds.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Web+Pages/Population+Clock?opendocument

 

[skater]

I'm really torn on this issue.

Agreed!

Further, once the kids have been born, they shouldn't be punished (with poverty) because their parents are morons.

Ah, but there's the rub. You give a heap of welfare to the parents because you don't want the kid living in poverty, and the parent spends it on drugs, drink, cigarettes, or other stuff for themselves. The kids are still suffering, because the parents are not only morons, but selfish as well. Especially in the case of the ones with heaps of kids to various fathers, all to bring in an income.

But there's a niggling part of me that says it's blindingly obvious that somebody with > 5 kids with > 3 fathers, who's never been in the workforce, should be discouraged from breeding. I just don't have any practical ideas as to how you do that.

I really don't know what the answer is.

 

[Perp]

Ah, but there's the rub. You give a heap of welfare to the parents because you don't want the kid living in poverty, and the parent spends it on drugs, drink, cigarettes, or other stuff for themselves. The kids are still suffering, because the parents are not only morons, but selfish as well.

They do usually at least have a roof over their head, and the cheaper doctor's visits and medicines means that hopefully they at least have those minimums. In places like the United States, it's really, really easy for ordinary people to become homeless and lack access to basic medical care, and I don't want to see us go that way.

I have no problem with welfare being largely in the form of payments for goods and services. e.g. You have to allow Centrelink to directly pay your rent first, and a good portion of the rest can only be spent on food at supermarkets, on clothes at nominated retailers, on payments for school books and excursions, on medicine, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to keep the cash component of welfare down to, say, 25% or less of the total benefits value.

 

[WattleIdo]

They do usually at least have a roof over their head, and the cheaper doctor's visits and medicines means that hopefully they at least have those minimums. In places like the United States, it's really, really easy for ordinary people to become homeless and lack access to basic medical care, and I don't want to see us go that way.

I have no problem with welfare being largely in the form of payments for goods and services. e.g. You have to allow Centrelink to directly pay your rent first, and a good portion of the rest can only be spent on food at supermarkets, on clothes at nominated retailers, on payments for school books and excursions, on medicine, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to keep the cash component of welfare down to, say, 25% or less of the total benefits value.

This seems to be the most sensible option - though extremely left wing/nanny state. Though I could live with it.

Skater: The kids are still suffering, because the parents are not only morons, but selfish as well. Especially in the case of the ones with heaps of kids to various fathers, all to bring in an income.

Unfortunately, this is the harsh reality. All generational and all welfare dependant. But I've tried getting people like this into work before they get to this point - it's an uphill battle.
They have no idea how to cope at work.

 

[topcropper]

This seems to be the most sensible option - though extremely left wing/nanny state. Though I could live with it.
.

I agree that Perp's idea does sound good. However surely giving out less money and then substituting vouchers for food and essential needs is less left wing/nanny state than simply handing out the full amount as cash?


See ya's.

 

[lizzie]

Talking with people who has run "work for the dole" ... and they are of the consensus that the most important skill those long term unemployed learn is to "turn up on time" and dressed in "an appropriate manner".

Apparently this is a huge leap for many - which for most of us who are/have been gainfully employed is simply basic.

 

[greedy2000]

The problem is, for those in the welfare system, you are rewarded you for having more children. More Children means more money.

If it was payments were capped you find that there would be less payments.

As an example head on over to centrelinks rate estimator and have a look.

For an unemployed couple, renting with 4 children you would get $2,016 per fortnight in family tax benefits A & B, rent assistance and newstart payments.

That's $52,416 for doing nothing but having kids. every kid you have adds about $190 per fortnight in benefits. there is obviously economies of scale there....

 

[topcropper]

The problem is, for those in the welfare system, you are rewarded you for having more children. More Children means more money.

If it was payments were capped you find that there would be less payments.

As an example head on over to centrelinks rate estimator and have a look.

For an unemployed couple, renting with 4 children you would get $2,016 per fortnight in family tax benefits A & B, rent assistance and newstart payments.

That's $52,416 for doing nothing but having kids. every kid you have adds about $190 per fortnight in benefits. there is obviously economies of scale there....

Sure is. Perhaps the cash needs to stop with say the second kid. However as no one wants to see innocent kids living in poverty, so perhaps after the second kid the full amount get paid as food and essential goods vouchers?


See ya's.

 

[greedy2000]

single mother of 6 kids under 8 would be on $56,810 pa tax free.....

 

[skater]

I have no problem with welfare being largely in the form of payments for goods and services. e.g. You have to allow Centrelink to directly pay your rent first, and a good portion of the rest can only be spent on food at supermarkets, on clothes at nominated retailers, on payments for school books and excursions, on medicine, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to keep the cash component of welfare down to, say, 25% or less of the total benefits value.

Yes, Hubby & I have discussed this. It would be great if Centrelink paid the rent directly & they then got vouchers to use for food, etc with only a small cash component. It would be good if it came with some compulsory budgeting lessons as well, so they have the skills to look after themselves once (if) they get a job.

The problem is, for those in the welfare system, you are rewarded you for having more children. More Children means more money.

If it was payments were capped you find that there would be less payments.

As an example head on over to centrelinks rate estimator and have a look.

For an unemployed couple, renting with 4 children you would get $2,016 per fortnight in family tax benefits A & B, rent assistance and newstart payments.

That's $52,416 for doing nothing but having kids. every kid you have adds about $190 per fortnight in benefits. there is obviously economies of scale there....

Yes, the more kids the more income. Capping it would be good, or even reducing it for each one over a couple. You really don't need an extra $100pw for each kid just to supply the basics, and welfare should only cover the basics, otherwise there is no incentive to get a job.

 

[zimby]

The problem is, for those in the welfare system, you are rewarded you for having more children. More Children means more money.

If it was payments were capped you find that there would be less payments.

As an example head on over to centrelinks rate estimator and have a look.

For an unemployed couple, renting with 4 children you would get $2,016 per fortnight in family tax benefits A & B, rent assistance and newstart payments.

That's $52,416 for doing nothing but having kids. every kid you have adds about $190 per fortnight in benefits. there is obviously economies of scale there....

I only recently realised this while tenanting one of our Properties.
I was honestly shocked, I told my partner she needs to fire up the ole baby machine, then I income checked and realised nope.
Should I quit my job to "work for the dole" ? certainly less stress?
I didn't fully read the article, but image policing this?
Would end up gov paying for contraceptive and Dole and contraceptive not being used or circumvented.

 

[LibGS]

Talking with people who has run "work for the dole" ... and they are of the consensus that the most important skill those long term unemployed learn is to "turn up on time" and dressed in "an appropriate manner".

Apparently this is a huge leap for many - which for most of us who are/have been gainfully employed is simply basic.

Reminds me of this

 

[WattleIdo]

Talking with people who has run "work for the dole" ... and they are of the consensus that the most important skill those long term unemployed learn is to "turn up on time" and dressed in "an appropriate manner".

Apparently this is a huge leap for many - which for most of us who are/have been gainfully employed is simply basic.

There's this which is a big barrier. Some can manage this one. Then there's work politics 101 which eliminates a whole heap. To be fair, a lot do suffer from post-traumatic stress re: selfish moron parents. (Mums have kids to different men, men have kids to different women - plus the drugs, alcohol, abuse, neglect, foster-care, etc. It is very real.)

E.g. one guy was doing work experience at the butcher but got 'fired' for sending the butcher's niece abusive text messages telling her to do herself in. The butcher rang me to tell me he'd 'fired' him for his own safety. This was a few weeks after sending him home to have a shower and wash his shirt.