An age-old question on taxpayer funding for IVF

Nostromo says:

01:07pm | 13/12/12

But it’s ok to pay 100s in baby incentives, child allowances, single-mother pensions for career breeders & all sorts of other tax benefits, including most child-related goods being GST-free…?

If we’re going to be consistent, let’s be brutal. Just sayin…

Seriously says:

02:03pm | 13/12/12

Or public labour wards, or schools. But then, of course, you’d have to agree to forgo any support from these future taxpayers because you don’t, you know, want to live in a society

Olive says:

02:17pm | 13/12/12

It’s not a purely private matter Tim, when you’re old, grey and wrinkly you’re going to need people to pay taxes and you can’t have tax payers without babies that turn into adults with jobs.

Tim says:

02:22pm | 13/12/12

Nostromo,

“But it’s ok to pay 100s in baby incentives, child allowances, single-mother pensions for career breeders & all sorts of other tax benefits, including most child-related goods being GST-free…?”

No.

David says:

02:33pm | 13/12/12

Her body=Her rights=Her choice. If the government is obligated to fund terminations and child allowances, it should be obligated to fund all IVF - regardless of the circumstance. Otherwise women’s rights will be violated.

Tim says:

02:42pm | 13/12/12

Olive,
“and you can’t have tax payers without babies that turn into adults with jobs. “

No but you can have taxpayers that were never babies in this country, they’re called migrants.

Seriously though, there’s so many flaws with the “who’s going to wipe your bum when you’re old” argument that I can’t be bothered going into it. People aren’t going to stop having children if you don’t pay them to do it.

I think when they looked at the Baby Bonus the estimates were around $100-200K cost to government for every extra baby born because of the payment. Surely that money is better spent elsewhere?

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

03:12pm | 13/12/12

It is a matter of choice for the nation.

Maybe most taxpayers would be happy to pay for a 60 yr old to have an Australian baby by IVF than to spend taxpayers money on boatpeople or the mirage carbon tax which does nothing of significance to fight global warming.

From my observations mature mothers are most caring so there is nothing wrong if a 60 yr old is prepared for the task to bring up another home grown Australian.

J Hoover says:

03:26pm | 13/12/12

I know just what you mean Olive.

For me the decision to have children was an easy one. (Well, to be perfectly honest, it was less a decision than the unfortunate consequence of my ongoing lover affairs with alcohol and a string of willing, if not beautiful, women).

But, once I found out that I was going to be a father, I knew it was the right thing for a number of reasons, the main one being of course that I would be breeding a new set of hands to contribute to the nation’s GDP.

For the first few months after the birth of my eldest son Edgar, I found it hard to look at him without congratulating myself on my altruistic decision to create a new tax payer to help increase the government’s bottom line and help keep this country in a budgetary surplus.

Of course, as the years went by, I began to look on young Edgar as more than a simple tax payer and even found myself developing some level of affection for the lad. It was probably when he hit about age six that I stopped looking at him in pure dollar terms, and started paying a bit more attention to him than I previously had. No more would my parenting start and stop at putting the scraps of food from my plate out in the yard for him to scavenge a meal from.

As he got older and started to ask questions about the world, I realised that I had in him the opportunity to indoctrinate another human being to completely accept my own world view. The thrill of power that surged through me was invigorating.

At this stage he remains a work in progress. To be honest, I don’t think I was given the best clay to mold my masterpiece with. He seems a bit too slack in the jaw for someone of my pedigree, and I often suspect that his mother’s 4 month pregnancy wasn’t the medical miracle I first thought it was.

At the end of the day though, I can look past his many faults and failings. He’s never going to be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon, but I think with a bit more focus on my behalf, he could end up being fairly good at container unloading or shelf-stacking - something that requires little use of the frontal-cortex would be right up his alley. Sometimes I think he might make a good Member of Parliament.

Mark says:

03:46pm | 13/12/12

The birth of a baby is a private choice. The raising of a child is societies responsibility. How hard is that to get?

I also disagree with the Baby Bonus and any other scheme promoting birth so I guess that makes my position far more obvious

Peter says:

01:46pm | 13/12/12

yes. there are lots of things our government supports which not everyone takes part in or even agrees with.  That’s life.  That’s australia.

Nostromo says:

03:04pm | 13/12/12

First of all Tony, get yer facts straight - churches are non-profits, so like all other non-profits they don’t pay tax. Or would you like to start taxing the Red Cross & other charitable institutions as well? If you don’t like their status or the law around NPs, that’s a separate debate. Also, ministers/priests pay income tax & churches pay land taxes I believe.

As to your neo-atheist sputum, if you look long & hard enough you’ll find most Aussies are deeply religious, whether the God they worship be money, power, booze, sex or the footy.

lea says:

05:08pm | 13/12/12

“churches are non-profits”

That right there is the funniest thing I have read all day.

Nostromo says:

06:26pm | 13/12/12

As i said lea - take it up with the law (or your MP) if you don’t like the rules ;-p

I like to be funny - I call that my Devil’s Prerogative

Birko says:

01:38pm | 13/12/12

Exactly Shane.  As 1 half of a childless couple, it really galls me that people who choose to breed have a subsidized life at tax payers’ expense.  No more handouts except to those that genuinely need it e.g. homeless, mentally ill.

bloke says:

02:41pm | 13/12/12

sick of the amount of benefits to that go to breeders. and dont say they will fund my future. i am not working now, and not funded by the govt in my 30’s. when i’m old and grey, my partner and i will again be self funded like both our parents are.

Al says:

03:47pm | 13/12/12

andrew - I do agree (re scale of the funding), but also see this as no reaon to continue that fundung (no matter how small it may be).

jade (the other one) says:

01:47pm | 13/12/12

@Alison, while I don’t disagree with the notion that it is selfish to use taxpayer money to fund what is essentially a lifestyle choice, sometimes women haven’t waited this long just for kicks.

For myself, i had planned to find a partner, settle down, purchase a house, and have a child by my current age. Unfortunately, I didn’t find my partner until now.

It means that I probably won’t be having children until my mid-thirties, which is about 10 years later than I imagined. I couldn’t find a guy in my early to mid-twenties who was ready to settle down into a monogamous relationship, except for deadbeats who didn’t have jobs, cars, and already had a couple of kids. Not the men of my dreams.

Rebecca says:

02:20pm | 13/12/12

Jade - So, taxpayers have to cough up because you didn’t find prince charming? I understand that life can get in the way and things don’t always go to plan (my life didn’t turn out how I expected either), but that’s not the government’s responsibility. IVF is not an essential medical service.

AFR says:

03:28pm | 13/12/12

Alison, my guess is that you have never set foot in an IVF clinic. If you did, you would see it is full of women in their early 30’s, who, like most other women of that age, would love to have children. In my experiences through three unsuccessful cycles, there wasn’t a single woman that I saw that i would have thought was past their early forties.

Some women get pregnant just by looking at them - unfortunately this isn’t always the case, and age isn’t necessarily the determining factor either.

Sickemrex says:

06:01pm | 13/12/12

@ Rebecca, I don’t think Jade was saying the public purse should fund her to do IVF. I think her point was that leaving procreation attempts until one’s 30s is not necessarily through selfish choices. I didn’t meet my husband until I was 30 and we weren’t in a financial or geographical position to start trying until I was 35. As it turns out I apparently get pregnant very easily but we had already discussed IVF given we were late starters. My personal view was that if we couldn’t, there were probably good biological reasons for it and to leave it at that. I can’t say I would have expected rebates for any attempts at IVF. That said, it totally shits me there’s no rebate for laser eye surgery!

Erin says:

05:25pm | 13/12/12

I would have to agree too.  I am deeply offended that I have to sit before a panel to explain why I want to adopt a baby (either here or from overseas) and prove via police and reference checks that I am not some sort of weird pedophile, have all sorts of health checks done to prove I am a fit and proper parent AND pay an obscene amount of money for wanting someone else’s child, yet the government is allowing women who are 50+ to have these procedures at subsidised rates. (It’s not a free for all like so many people think - I know several people who’ve gone through the procedure with varying degrees of success.)

I’m sorry, but if you haven’t had kids by 40-45, that shouldn’t be our problem. I have much sympathy for childless people who want children but ultimately it’s not my responsibility to pay for them. I think the cut-off should be 45 at the very latest.

T says:

12:42pm | 13/12/12

Hold up, no one is saying that they can’t have babies (more that they shouldn’t).

It’s that we (tax payers) should not be funding for older women to have babies. They can spend the money themselves. If they can’t afford it that is their problem. (BTW, I’m saving up for a nose job so i can breath through my nose again. I have to pay for it myself too).

There is no emotional argument here, tax should not be based on emotions it should be based on necessity.

hammy says:

12:27pm | 13/12/12

It will still be Abbott’s fault.

Nostromo says:

01:31pm | 13/12/12

Last I checked toots, we mere males contributed half of the genetic sludge to the baby, all the rest just being so much sophistry. Until you wimen can clone yourselves, you might just want to remember that…it’s only a woman’s absolute, individual right when it stops at her body, as far as I’m concerned. The moment there’s a 2nd body, it gets far more complicated, morally speaking, the law be damned. If you don’t like it, learn how to use contraception responsibly & 100% effectively; if you don’t like that, may I suggest becoming celibate, a lesbian or getting your tubes tied as alternatives…?

As for Julia, the less said about her expertise with children & families the better…

Rosie says:

02:42pm | 13/12/12

Nostromo

Its the Christmas season don’t get yourself uptight about my comments. I love the men folks in my life and was trying to over think like the modern age, intellect women who thinks they know better than anyone else and what they think is how it should be for everyone in this modern age.

Honestly, I am very old fashioned and if I wanted children and my husband and I couldn’t have children the natural way I would just know it wasn’t meant and go for adoption if that is what my husband and I want. There are so many kids, as well that I could take a liking to and be part of their growing up etc. Nieces and nephews plus friends children are there. I would not make it a big deal nor would I expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.

This modern age over thinking thingy is very very confusing, just wish they would decide on what exactly they want in life and stick to it without trying to make others think like they do. I am still trying to understand the misogyny and sexists thing that was applauded internationally by so called feminists!

Nostromo says:

06:23pm | 13/12/12

@Rosie - I like you, coz u seem 2 have a sense of huma:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JHnMyiWNk4

Kika says:

01:58pm | 13/12/12

Good thinking. 35 seems to be the medically established deadline for having kids and if you have tried and failed before you turn 35 then it seems logical that there could be a medical issue underlying the problem.

AFR says:

03:30pm | 13/12/12

I am a strong support of IVF generally, and think an absolute cut off of 35 isn’t right, but some sort of run off period as you get older might be a good idea.

But also remember, it’s not just the woman who is the reason fro needing IVF. Does this age cut off apply to fathers too?

Mouse says:

05:43pm | 13/12/12

I don’t have an argument with IVF for any woman that can’t conceive naturally with their partner, that includes lesbian couples. What I do have a problem with is post menopausal women in their 50s & 60s having IVF to get pregnant. There is a reason women stop ovulating, your body is telling you that you have reached the end of your childbearing years.
All this “YAAY Ms K got pregnant when she was 63!! You go girl, more power to you!!” is a load of BS. That child will be extremely lucky to have a mother by the time he/she is15. Pfft, who cares, Ms K got her wish, bugger the child involved. Too bad if she has gets one of the many illnesses that are prevalent to women her age and spends a lot of time in hospital or a nursing home. I suppose her “had to have” child can visit any time though! (can you feel the sarcasm in my keystrokes?)  I really don’t care if the parents are super wealthy or whatever, that child will not have a mother when they grow up. This has nothing to do with kids that lose their parents early due to illness or accidents. That is chance. This is a certainty.  I just think that those women are so selfish and I certainly do not think that they should be able to access IVF,  let alone at taxpayers’ expense.
That’s just my opinion anyway.    :o)

Bomb78 says:

01:52pm | 13/12/12

Tubesteak, comparing IVF to childcare rebates is a bit rich.
The problem with funding childcare out of your own pocket is that the vast majority couldn’t afford to. Taking away all the rebates currently in place, and the resultant increase in wages - because of the reduction in supply of labour - would be catastrophic. It’s a bit like the argument for getting rid of negative gearing - do that and watch the rental market hyper inflate.
IVF, unlike childcare rebates, offers little in terms of macro economic benefit.

Loxy says:

04:32pm | 13/12/12

Tubestreak, I get that you have issues with the welfare we fork out in this country - I do too. However, the childcare rebate is different to all other forms of welfare in that it costs less than it makes. Without that rebate, thousands of women would choose not to work at all either because they simply can’t afford the childcare costs or it’s not worth working for the small amount they have left after they pay childcare. The country then loses a heap of revenue in the form of taxes.

Markus says:

05:18pm | 13/12/12

@Loxy, it is estimated that over 40% of families pay zero net tax, and actually receive more in benefits/rebates than they pay in tax each year.
And that number is rising.

There may have been a time when it costed much less than it makes, but I believe it is well past that.

Tubesteak says:

06:50pm | 13/12/12

If you can’t afford to have them then don’t have them. You’re not doing anything for the world by having children you can’t afford. It’s everyone’s responsibility to fund their own existence

Rebecca says:

01:21pm | 13/12/12

I’m only 21 and being near kids completely wears me out. I have no idea how 50 year olds do it.

kitteh says:

01:14pm | 13/12/12

Excellent point. We’re often told how parents are the most selfless people on the earth, but the reasons for wanting a child sound pretty damn selfish to me: I just want someone to love me unconditionally, I have the right to have a child if I want one, I want someone to care for me in my old age, I want to pass on the family name….Everyone has their I-wants, but this seems to be the only one that people feel perfectly justified in demanding that others provide for.

And yes, the potential costs of a 60-year-old (even, to be honest, a 40-year-old) having children go far beyond the cost of multiple rounds of IVF.

Borderer says:

01:34pm | 13/12/12

Phoebe,
Stop making sensible posts, this is a lynch mob!!!!

Toady says:

01:40pm | 13/12/12

It’s called the lottery of life.  It’s fair that the government can forcibly take money from taxpayers, and lots more from people who through personal endeavour have become financially successful, and distribute it amongst those who either (a) don’t go to any effort to improve their lot in life, (b) choose to have babies well past their use-by date, or (c) draw the short straw and can’t reproduce without assistance.

Phoebe says:

04:40pm | 13/12/12

Let’s talk about that lottery, and why it is important not to consider IVF as a distinctive case. 
There are lots of procedures on the MBS that are non-essential.  Take for example, ACL knee reconstruction.  You can live a perfectly happy and active life without an ACL, perhaps with the rider that you must refrain from participating in contact sports, but instead stick to a more gentle form of exercise. 
Why then do we subsidise knee reconstructions?  Why don’t we just say, ‘Sorry bud, you lost the lottery and tore your ACL, you’ll just have to learn to live with it’ (or without it as the case may be). 
If you want to take IVF off the list, then you’ll have to take a lot of other things off as well.  Isn’t it also more important for that poor disabled child to get that wheelchair than for the injured sportsman to get back to his weekly game of touch footy?  Why are you picking on IVF?
I understand that we as a society are heavily taxed, and buckling under the strain, but for me, talking about taking away subsidies for IVF feels like rubbing salt into the wound - my taxes are being spent on other people’s children in the form of baby bonuses, family tax rebates, etc. but then these are the same people who then say to me - tough luck, why should I have to subsidise your desire to have a child…

Ren says:

05:43pm | 13/12/12

Aged-base criteria is COMPLETELY fair when you consider the needs of the child and not that of the would-be parent.

(And I will add that it IS a factor when considering adoption, as I have.)

A 60 year-old has a baby… and say she dies at age 75… Maybe dad is still around, maybe not.  What happens to the poor 15 year-old?  That’s one messed up life right there.

Or, better yet… what happens to the poor kid who has to effectively play nurse to someone who by rights should be looking after them? Alzheimer’s, cancer, senility, etc, etc, etc, etc…  Whilst I can’t say that every old person above the age of 50 has these problems, there’s no denying that they are all conditions that happen more commonly in the upper age brackets. No teenager deserves that sort of life and while such cases would be few and far between, they WOULD happen.  That’s something we take care of when we ourselves are in our 40s and 50s with ailing/ageing parents. My mother is losing her memory fast - and I’m 34. It’s hard enough for me now.

Phoebe, I would be pretty certain that all of those conditions (ie, illness precluding kids, early menopause, etc) would be considered special cases but that does not detract from the fact that having kids at such an older age is ridiculous.  If you’re not a parent by 45 it just ain’t happening. Get a furkid.

Phoebe says:

06:52pm | 13/12/12

@Ren - I think you’ll find that I did agree that women in their late-40’s or older having kids is a real problem - and that we shouldn’t be encouraging it. 
The issue I’m concerned about is that once you start making rules, you’ll find all these square pegs that just don’t fit into round holes - and how do you decide what criteria is appropriate given all the potential variables.  I really think that this should be a decision made by a woman and her doctor based upon her specific set of circumstances.
Plus, an age criteria certainly doesn’t fully address the financial aspect that Tory mentioned regarding the efficacy of allocating public funds to these procedures.

baddog says:

02:33pm | 13/12/12

@Rob. Over the course of your life how much have you spent on sanitary items starting from the age of 12?  These are expensive (plus GST-laden) goods that every female pays for, not the government. Add to that monthly contraception and a woman’s wages is already 10% lower just by being female….

sami says:

03:28pm | 13/12/12

Ah those imaginary ‘evil feminists’ and their illegal gender selection. How dare they.

Meanwhile if you’re having trouble ‘breading’ I would definitely suggest using as much of your own dough as possible.
Ba doom TISH! Thanks folks, I’m here ‘til Tuesday.

Al says:

03:56pm | 13/12/12

baddog - re: “Over the course of your life how much have you spent on sanitary items starting from the age of 12?” - well the female could always choose the old fashioned rag method (like cloth baby nappies) and wash it thereby removing the need for the sanitary items.
“Add to that monthly contraception and a woman’s wages is already 10% lower just by being female.” - well as this is a choice there is no reason it should be compensated for, but it already is via the PBS.
So these 2 examples actualy come down to choice and convenience ... again.
We could make similar claims re: mens shaving items, or deodourant, or ties.

Testfest says:

04:37pm | 13/12/12

baddog

You were working from the age of 12 to pay for tampons? Geez, your parents were tough.

And feminine hygiene products amount for 10% of women’s pay? Seems unlikely.

Darren says:

01:27pm | 13/12/12

“IVF is a choice” - so is having kids, and the government is garnishing my wages to pay for people who make this ‘choice’..

Kika says:

01:55pm | 13/12/12

Hey it’s not always the woman that has the issue as to why they can’t conceive. I know someone who’s swimmers can’t swim because they are formed wrong.

Loxy says:

04:21pm | 13/12/12

YaThinkN, it’s a choice to have any sort of treatment so how is IVF any different? You wouldn’t have a go at someone for choosing to have chemo (subsidised by tax payers) to treat cancer so why IVF?

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:03pm | 13/12/12

Rubbish, breeder is a perfectly good biological term for people who chose to procreate. If it offends you so be it. I may have to subsidize your lifestyle choice through middle class family welfare, but as far as I know free speech hasn’t been outlawed…..

YaThinkN says:

03:32pm | 13/12/12

Umm you don’t choose to die?  You do choose to breed though?  With the others like transplants, we do make choices there, unfortunately some do miss out and often it is someone older…  Until there are more to go round sadly that is the way.  Most people are not choosing to die or have a transplant. 

Breeding is a different thing and I don’t think that should be paid for by the public, regardless of age.  I know women (and I am one) take their rights seriously, but IVF is an extra, not a repair for say an accident (like abortion).

We all survived for decades without this help?  I am only 44 but never got any assistance from the Government to have a kid.  We just chose to do it when we were younger and used to not having much money.  Kids don’t actually need you to own your own house etc., for you to love them and bring them up well, it can be done…

Borderer says:

03:39pm | 13/12/12

@Shane of Melbourne
If it offends you so be it.

I suspect it’s all in the delivery, “mate” can be deemed offensive in some circumstances and friendly in others. Use of the word “Breeder” is about on par with “fag” or “lezza” in my opinion and should be used with the same consideration.
Since I have recently become a “Breeder” nobody has been silly enough to call me such so I haven’t yet had the opportunity to test my resolve to not kick their teeth in for their insolence. That being said, there are plenty of opinionated knobs out there so I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

AFR says:

03:40pm | 13/12/12

Some sensible comments there Kika.

i watched my now ex-wife go from being a happy and confident 33 year old woman to a depressed, exhausted and bitter 36 year old when it became clear, through various circumstances she was never going to be a mother. Ever period made her feel like a complete failure, and our marriage cracked as a result. Pity as she would have made an awesome mother, and we are both convinced we would still be together. We did look at adoption - but the red tape people speak of is VERY real. I would fully support any moves to increase funding and remove barriers to adoption, both domestically and international. I am also angry at the barriers to surrogacy as well.

I saw a comment earlier that reproducing is not a human right - I beg to differ. It is seen as a rite of passage for most (i note not everyone wants to be a parent but even such people would acknowledge they are a small minority). And look at how many bad parents are out there - any idiot can breed provided sperm meets egg.

Mouse says:

06:33pm | 13/12/12

SC-WS, you’ve used that one before….......... :o|  (That’s my pursed lips face btw lol)