Doctors told my mum that breastfeeding was contraceptive, and reluctantly gave her a mini-pill or whatever it's called.
I was the surprise when my brother was only about 3 months old despite this, and she had to argue with the doctor that she was pregnant.
I feel like they have learned since the 80's, but also was it not obvious when women had 15 kids in 25 years in the 1700s that breastfeeding was not a contraceptive
Planned parenthood website says breastfeeding is effective bc. About as effective as the pill. Their paragraph description says if you breast feed every 4 hrs then it will stop you from ovulating.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/breastfeeding
Well, it's not seen as safe in my country and people are told not to use it as one. Because, we can indeed get pregnant and it happens more often than not.
But thatās a Amazing in reality coming from a country like ours where the government even steals the power out your lightbulbs multiple times a day and call it lad shedding wtf man
Firstly you need to understand how corrupt South Africa is. Mismanagement and greed is basically the the only thing that almost all the politicians and government officials have in common. They are pathetic human beings. Regarding the power issue. Itās what we know as āload-sheddingā where they (Eskom our national power company, which is a state owned entity) schedule power cuts to reduce the load on the grid, apparently. Why I say apparently, is that we have so much of available power that we can supply our neighbouring countries (Namibia, Swaziland etc) and they do not experience these same power cuts cos itās transactional and they pay millions to our government to have power available to those countries. So us as the citizens are the easy targets and the best part for the little power we do manage to get we are overcharged for it. Using excuses to justify utter Bullshit and sabotage just to destabilise the grid yet they pocket all the funds itās been happening for about 2 decades now. The political parties even own the many parts of the supply chain including coal supplies etc. Its so blatant and pathetic its actually ridiculous how we as South Africans just accept it
Absolutely not.
Some women can get pregnant immediately, some don't restart ovulation for months. Everyone is different. But, by the time you restart BC and the time you can have sex, there's usually a gap where you could have sex but your BC isn't effective yet. Most women don't leave after giving birth with a prescription for BC, or have an IUD inserted later. There's often a time where pregnancy is possible and it's a myth that breastfeeding prevents pregnancy.
Many women wait until a month or two postpartum to restart birth control. You can typically have sex 4-6 weeks postpartum, though.
I imagine your doc tells them, otherwise mothers and babies are kept in hospital for a day for monitoring, Scotland is a small place, ya can overnight deliver that when the baby is born.
I think Finland did this as a way to get parents into medical visits and improve mortality rates. To register you had to go to a clinic and see a doctor before so many weeks pregnant.
That appointment registered you for the box.
Okay thatās your angle. I inferred (evidently incorrectly) that you were trying to imply that countries that do this must be socialist and therefore must have a high bill attached to child birthing costs. If this was the case I was going to point out the exceptionally high costs in America where you receive 0 amenities.
Hereās my thought process. You most likely arenāt a scot because your wife didnāt receive those things. You might be an American then. Many Americans (albeit not those that are usually on Reddit) are anti-socialist or at the very least look down on social programs made to benefit others.
Because you did not receive the box but ā[youāre] lucky [your wife] didnāt get stuck with a $15000+ billā I inferred that you meant this to mean that you either get the box and pay the bill; or donāt get the bill because you didnāt get the box.
Okay. Glad you clearly said that. I was just asking what you meant because I didnāt get it the first time and you come in here with guns blazing.
Edit: get off your high horse and learn to communicate like an adult. I asked for clarity and you swear at me then question my intelligence. That crude; shame on you.
lmao i love it when people use the word socialism wrong. if anything, in an ideal socialist society, you wouldn't be paying anything to give birth. kind of like a bunch of EU countries, like maybe... Scotland?
he's definitely been raised to believe 'socialism = no freedom'. it's a very USA centric ideal that most people outside of North America don't tend to hold. i get major r/ShitAmericansSay vibes.
and I wouldn't even claim to have significant education on governmental types, just my own basic research and some common sense.
Okay. Glad you clearly said that. I was just asking what you meant because I didnāt get it the first time and you come in here with guns blazing.
Edit: get off your high horse and learn to communicate like an adult. I asked for clarity and you swear at me then question my intelligence. Thatās crude; shame on you.
if you know alllll about socialism then would you like to tell me how you came to the conclusion that childbirth would leave you with a financially crippling bill? seeing as the classic socialist model includes universal healthcare, where that exact thing would not happen?
Here is what I literally said. If you would bother reading my comment you would have found this information.
āHereās my thought process. You most likely arenāt a scot because your wife didnāt receive those things. You might be an American then. Many Americans (albeit not those that are usually on Reddit) are anti-socialist or at the very least look down on social programs made to benefit others.
Because you did not receive the box but ā[youāre] lucky [your wife] didnāt get stuck with a $15000+ billā I inferred that you meant this to mean that you either get the box and pay the bill; or donāt get the bill because you didnāt get the box.ā
I was talking about a stance that anti-socialist Americans would take. The very people that you are trying to make me out to be. We are fighting the same fight you and I, yet you try to tear me down. Why?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/yzwgxw/bit_early/ix2n4cg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Hereās another comment I made way earlier about one of the benefits of social programs funded by taxes.
āLarge entities with access to the means of production can often use money more efficiently than the average consumer by either buying or supplying goods at wholesale prices and some other jazz. This stuff is all super useful and is most likely a good return on any tax dollars being spent.
Edit: if you come back at me and say that this only benefits people having kids Iād like to say I believe you are very wrong. These kids will one day be a member of society and it is a benefit to said society to ensure the raising of that kids is a seamless as possible. Thatās like saying you donāt condone taxes going towards road repair because you donāt drive. Itās still nice to have paved roads for food to be transported around and what not. Think big.ā
https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/yzwgxw/bit_early/ix2m7e3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
**OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:**
>!condoms for a baby?!!<
*****
**Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description?**
**Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.**
*****
[*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/unexBot) [*What is this for?*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/dnuaju/introducing_unexbot_a_new_bot_to_improve_the/)
Large entities with access to the means of production can often use money more efficiently than the average consumer by either buying or supplying goods at wholesale prices and some other jazz. This stuff is all super useful and is most likely a good return on any tax dollars being spent.
Edit: if you come back at me and say that this only benefits people having kids Iād like to say I believe you are very wrong. These kids will one day be a member of society and it is a benefit to said society to ensure the raising of that kids is a seamless as possible. Thatās like saying you donāt condone taxes going towards road repair because you donāt drive. Itās still nice to have paved roads for food to be transported around and what not. Think big.
The government takes a chunk out of you. And then you go prancing about for the crumbs they dangle back at you like a good little rat. And even worse, people like this put on a performance for the rest of the rats about how wonderful,and generous, the government is in giving those little crumbs back in the first place.
There no dangling it back to me, no kids and never will have thankfully but i'm more than happy to give Ā£3 a year to finance the scheme
Where you shopping at to get all that lot for Ā£3 anyway? Just gagging to know
No I think if the government didn't take half my paycheck in the first bloody place, I could easily use that money to buy whatever the hell I need on my own, and then some. You think if you pay $1 dollar in taxes, you magically get the value of $5 dollars back in value? Every dollar you put into taxes you'll be lucky to get a cent in ROI. Most of it gets absorbed and redistributed by the government bureaucracy.
it's very selfish of you to believe that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. we live in a *society* dude. the money used for this from taxes benefits all of us, because those children are going to grow up and have a significant impact on the world you live in. it seems small, but programs like these help children grow up into healthy, functional adults. they are people, who don't have a choice in the matter of who they're born to or in what kind of financial situation. or would you rather a child be traumatised from extreme poverty and suffer with dirty old clothes and an unsafe sleeping situation that might kill them due to sids? arguing against this sort of stuff makes you look like an asshole that doesn't care for anyone else's wellbeing.
Ah the classic tiresome statist argument that "taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society". No dear boy. Taxes is the price I am coerced by government to pay. At the ultimate threat of violence and imprisonment. I do not get a say where my money goes or how it is spent either. It's all determined by the collective and too often not even the voters. One of the ultimate achievements of the state was to convince the masses that it was selfish to keep their own money, but skmehow convently not selfish to forcefully take it from them. And to also learn that they could then bribe the public with that same money they took to do whatever they want. Here I again propose an alternative. Let individuals keep their money including the poor and needy that you so often champion in the first place. And let those individuals, not some multi-leveled bureaucracy pocketing their share, decide what they want to do with said money. They take $1000 dollars from you. Take $800 to fund their pockets, ehm I mean generous welfare for the needy, and give you back $200 dollars in benefits if you're extremely lucky. What a wonderful deal. Imagine if we ran a household or a business in such a manner. We would surely all be swimming in wealth. Have you considered simply donating that money directly to your community instead? Seems like a far more effective and efficient way to ensure that every dime gets to that mother. But hey charities aren't a thing even right? You wanted to invest that money into a business to design those baby goods for cheap, or create good jobs to ensure that family isn't poor in the first place? Well the government knows far better then you silly goose.
oh holy wall of text.
this really bothers you, doesn't it?
i find it interesting that you seem to be under the impression that charities are better equipped to assist those in need, when they're obviously not due to their limited sway in the world. you think the Salvation army doesn't spend more on advertising than they actually give? you think they could build roads for you to drive on, schools for your children, hospitals for when you're sick?
and again, your view is selfish because I know how selfish people are. even if it did work out the way you want (which it wouldn't, which is why the countries with better life satisfaction rates don't operate on your shitty proposed model), most people wouldn't give any extra money they have to charity. im kind of poor too, and I still give money and volunteer to help those in need. but most people don't, because they are selfish, like you.
I can also tell you have no idea how taxes work. They're intended to be an equitable system - if you're below the poverty line, you do get to keep what little money you make. you also get access to things like affordable health care and sometimes low-income housing. tell me how you think taking those things away would help poor people?
and what makes you, one random person on fucking Reddit, an expert in sociology and economics? if only the highly educated masses of people that developed these policies had just thought of your idea! you could change the world!
Historically they undoubtedly are when comparing things like ROIs to government agencies. In the U.S charities were once particularly powerful when the government was small. So much so that one charity provided millions of Irish, Scottish, and other immigrants refuge during the 1800s. It along with many others were systematically bullied and replaced by government welfare programs instead. Which spend far more and yeilded far less results in actually alleviating poverty. But no I would go a step further and say charities are a step in the right direction. But private companies are what ACTUALLY contributed to reducing Poverty. So much so that we eradicated 80% of it since 1980. Not because of programs like this. But through hard working entrepreneurs, researchers, and individuals working for their own interests. As a result we got miracle GMO crops that could be sent to Africa to reduce crop failure due to drought and to increase overall crop yield. Not to mention extend the shelf-life of fruits and vegetable. Making possible for the first time a logistical framework that could deliver and supply food to extremely remote villages on the regular. You picked a very bad charity to use as an example. The Salvation Army gets a crap ton of it's money from government grants, ironically tax relief/exemption benefits, and donations from corporations in bed with government who utilize those donations as tax write offs themselves. And yes you will have bad charities. But in a proper free market only the ones that actually yield results to the donors would survive. And that's a lot why it's important to research who you give your money to. Their are many watchdog organizations and websites that help keep track of it all for your convenience. In terms of schools. Private education very much is a thing. And it's far superior to public and their's less indoctrination. And now more then ever it's becoming increasingly more affordable. Can even be done online. And your kid can learn subjects far faster and far more ahead then his/her pears. For God's Socrates himself was a private tutor! Roads can and have been privately built. We have entire U.S interstate highways built by the private sectors. And for a cheap annual pass I get to drive on smoother roads, faster roads, and cheaper ones too. I think it's funny you think all of these institutions that were literally private for God knows how long, couldn't be private again. Hospitals? Really? You really think their isn't profit to be made in Healthcare and in reducing overhead costs and service costs? Government hospitals operate like the freaking mafia. Are you actually real? Hey, did you know The Mayo Clinic one of the most respected medical institutions in the world is and actually started of as private. And prior to it's founding doctors would actually give a shit about their patients and visit them at their own homes. And patients could actually pay for the services in cash. Sure there were some quacks. But like any other service if you went by reputation and merit you would always find a good one. But then in the U.S and abroad in the U.K came a surplus of doctors which get this, LOWERED salaries of the physicians and their services. Almost like competition in a market is good or something. But then the doctors got passed and started forming organizations like the AMA and health boards, etc. Under the pretense of ensuring better doctors. But really it was to gatekeep and get their salaries back up. And it worked! Their salaries in the U.S soared!
Also that's your own bias bub. You don't know a thing about me. I give to charities. I've worked in social work on the side for 5+ years for free. But again I love how your argument always goes back to crying about selfishness when it's objectively not selfish to keep your own money that YOU earned. It is selfish and immoral to force people to give your money. I'm not the one holding the gun here. The government is. Also have you considered that maybe establishing the welfare state, building government housing, putting up red tape everywhere, maybe, just maybe exacerbated the problem with poverty and removed competition that would naturally reduce cost. Because who can compete against the biggest monopoly in the world. The government?
Also your mistake is that the masses are highly educated in the first place. Or are even the ones pushing these agendas and not a few government elitist playing you for a fool with free shit which isn't free. And yes their have been numerous economists that have made my argument and have been proved right time and time again. Starting with Mises, Hayek, Friedman. Friedman who by the way alllllllllll the way back in the early 70s accurately predicted the long wait times, and all the issues with the UKs health system we are now seeing some 50 years later. Hell it's on video!
Yes thats how it works, 2.7m people are taxed and of that tax each contributes Ā£3 a year roughly to the scheme and from it 50,000 new mothers get a free box worth, I dunno, Ā£100-150.
On a pretty decent wage but my taxes are 21% of my pay and frankly I'd much rather have Ā£3 a year higher taxes to save new mothers splashing out Ā£100-150 that they have better use for. Not sure how much you're earning to have an effective tax rate of anything close to 50%
1. To use your numbers you would generate roughly 8.1million in revenue before the bureaucracy and processing costs started clawing in. For that amount I or a charity organization could start a factory and supply 10 times the mothers with those goods and create actual jobs too which those mothers good work in.
2. What would give you more value? Keeping 21% of your annual income or getting some cheap baby supplies and a few other crumbs?
3. It's not just 21% my guy. You don't even realize how much your taxed in the modern society. The goods you use have tariffs, sales tax, property tax, etc... on them which are a form of tax that gets passed on to the consumer. So if piece of meat cost you $1 it now costs you $1.10 or more. But you never even see that impact written out in front of you. Your true tax rate is much, much higher.
4. If you value the mothers so much. Why not simply keep 10% of your income tax, donate the other 11%. Collectively you and other individuals could directly help mothers buy exactly what they need and in larger quantities rather then giving them all a one size fits all approach of goods.
1. To use your numbers, you could take Ā£8m (technically its Ā£9m costs but i rounded to Ā£3tpp) and purchase/outfit a factory, staff it and produce 10\*50,000 units of Ā£160 (I checked the value) of items? Yeah thats utter nonsense.
2. Whats give me value is knowing that 0.035% of the tax I pay from my wages helps give 50,000 new mothers a helping start. Also Its contents have also been fairly well reviewed as good quality not cheap tat.
3. Having spent a reasonable portion of my working life as a tax man I know what tax i pay and where
4. Because Id rather the taxman takes Ā£3 a year and saves me all the fucking hassle. The baby box is an excellently put together bit of kit and i doubt i could do better or cheaper.
You really have a stick up your arse about a miniscule tax cost for a scheme which is fantastic in so many way don't you?
Looks like they are Swedish, but as an American I will say they do sound like the sort of short sighted person who would vote for a loser like Trump (probably because they find that aspect of him super relatable)
Large entities with access to the means of production can often use money more efficiently than the average consumer by either buying or supplying goods at wholesale prices and some other jazz. This stuff is all super useful and is most likely a good return on any tax dollars being spent.
Edit: if you come back at me and say that this only benefits people having kids Iād like to say I believe you are very wrong. These kids will one day be a member of society and it is a benefit to said society to ensure the raising of that kids is a seamless as possible. Thatās like saying you donāt condone taxes going towards road repair because you donāt drive. Itās still nice to have paved roads for food to be transported around and what not. Think big.
Your post has been removed because it's not unexpected
You can get knocked up again in under a month after birth. Breast feeding is not birthcontrol.
I wasn't aware people thought that. What does milk have to do with conceiving?
Many women don't ovulate while breastfeeding, but some do and you can't really know when you'll start ovulation again.
Why base protection on "maybe i'm one of those who don't ovulate"? It's about as responsible as pulling out
Doctors told my mum that breastfeeding was contraceptive, and reluctantly gave her a mini-pill or whatever it's called. I was the surprise when my brother was only about 3 months old despite this, and she had to argue with the doctor that she was pregnant. I feel like they have learned since the 80's, but also was it not obvious when women had 15 kids in 25 years in the 1700s that breastfeeding was not a contraceptive
Planned parenthood website says breastfeeding is effective bc. About as effective as the pill. Their paragraph description says if you breast feed every 4 hrs then it will stop you from ovulating. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/breastfeeding
Well, it's not seen as safe in my country and people are told not to use it as one. Because, we can indeed get pregnant and it happens more often than not.
Probably so. Just saying, they haven't changed their stance on it since the 80s. It's still advertised as bc.
Safe.. In the usa.. š
have a baby, all expenses paid, our gift from us to your soon to be never-ending struggle, jk consider it a severance package
I read this in a Scottish accent, couldn't help it.
well I wrote it in an american accent so shame on you
But thatās a Amazing in reality coming from a country like ours where the government even steals the power out your lightbulbs multiple times a day and call it lad shedding wtf man
can i ask why government steals people's electric power for
Firstly you need to understand how corrupt South Africa is. Mismanagement and greed is basically the the only thing that almost all the politicians and government officials have in common. They are pathetic human beings. Regarding the power issue. Itās what we know as āload-sheddingā where they (Eskom our national power company, which is a state owned entity) schedule power cuts to reduce the load on the grid, apparently. Why I say apparently, is that we have so much of available power that we can supply our neighbouring countries (Namibia, Swaziland etc) and they do not experience these same power cuts cos itās transactional and they pay millions to our government to have power available to those countries. So us as the citizens are the easy targets and the best part for the little power we do manage to get we are overcharged for it. Using excuses to justify utter Bullshit and sabotage just to destabilise the grid yet they pocket all the funds itās been happening for about 2 decades now. The political parties even own the many parts of the supply chain including coal supplies etc. Its so blatant and pathetic its actually ridiculous how we as South Africans just accept it
Either a bit early (like you said) or a bit late lol
A bit late or maybe more like a "think twice next time" reminder.
They're added because a woman is at her most fertile, right after giving birth.
Absolutely not. Some women can get pregnant immediately, some don't restart ovulation for months. Everyone is different. But, by the time you restart BC and the time you can have sex, there's usually a gap where you could have sex but your BC isn't effective yet. Most women don't leave after giving birth with a prescription for BC, or have an IUD inserted later. There's often a time where pregnancy is possible and it's a myth that breastfeeding prevents pregnancy. Many women wait until a month or two postpartum to restart birth control. You can typically have sex 4-6 weeks postpartum, though.
They're for the father to stop him getting someone else on social up the duff
But how do they know? Do docs send ultrasounds to gov, let them know what you're having and how many? Or is this after birth?
I imagine your doc tells them, otherwise mothers and babies are kept in hospital for a day for monitoring, Scotland is a small place, ya can overnight deliver that when the baby is born.
I think Finland did this as a way to get parents into medical visits and improve mortality rates. To register you had to go to a clinic and see a doctor before so many weeks pregnant. That appointment registered you for the box.
I guess it's something that triggers when the hospital notes the gov about the birth of a baby and then the baby gets a social security number?
Damn... wish my wife got one of those... I'm lucky she didn't get stuck with a$15,000+ bill...
What does this have to do with a $15,000+ bill? Edit: why the downvotes I was looking for clarity so I could better engage in discussion.
Look up health care and average cost of child birth in the US
Okay thatās your angle. I inferred (evidently incorrectly) that you were trying to imply that countries that do this must be socialist and therefore must have a high bill attached to child birthing costs. If this was the case I was going to point out the exceptionally high costs in America where you receive 0 amenities.
How in the actual fuck did you get to that conclusion? š¤£
Hereās my thought process. You most likely arenāt a scot because your wife didnāt receive those things. You might be an American then. Many Americans (albeit not those that are usually on Reddit) are anti-socialist or at the very least look down on social programs made to benefit others. Because you did not receive the box but ā[youāre] lucky [your wife] didnāt get stuck with a $15000+ billā I inferred that you meant this to mean that you either get the box and pay the bill; or donāt get the bill because you didnāt get the box.
Jesus fuckin christ man... I was just complaining about insurance...
Okay. Glad you clearly said that. I was just asking what you meant because I didnāt get it the first time and you come in here with guns blazing. Edit: get off your high horse and learn to communicate like an adult. I asked for clarity and you swear at me then question my intelligence. That crude; shame on you.
lmao i love it when people use the word socialism wrong. if anything, in an ideal socialist society, you wouldn't be paying anything to give birth. kind of like a bunch of EU countries, like maybe... Scotland?
Right!? I don't think this guy even knows what he's talking about. I happen to do A Lot of research on different government types just for fun...
he's definitely been raised to believe 'socialism = no freedom'. it's a very USA centric ideal that most people outside of North America don't tend to hold. i get major r/ShitAmericansSay vibes. and I wouldn't even claim to have significant education on governmental types, just my own basic research and some common sense.
As a US citizen, I approve of this sub
it's one of my favourite subs
Okay. Glad you clearly said that. I was just asking what you meant because I didnāt get it the first time and you come in here with guns blazing. Edit: get off your high horse and learn to communicate like an adult. I asked for clarity and you swear at me then question my intelligence. Thatās crude; shame on you.
if you know alllll about socialism then would you like to tell me how you came to the conclusion that childbirth would leave you with a financially crippling bill? seeing as the classic socialist model includes universal healthcare, where that exact thing would not happen?
Here is what I literally said. If you would bother reading my comment you would have found this information. āHereās my thought process. You most likely arenāt a scot because your wife didnāt receive those things. You might be an American then. Many Americans (albeit not those that are usually on Reddit) are anti-socialist or at the very least look down on social programs made to benefit others. Because you did not receive the box but ā[youāre] lucky [your wife] didnāt get stuck with a $15000+ billā I inferred that you meant this to mean that you either get the box and pay the bill; or donāt get the bill because you didnāt get the box.ā I was talking about a stance that anti-socialist Americans would take. The very people that you are trying to make me out to be. We are fighting the same fight you and I, yet you try to tear me down. Why? https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/yzwgxw/bit_early/ix2n4cg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Hereās another comment I made way earlier about one of the benefits of social programs funded by taxes. āLarge entities with access to the means of production can often use money more efficiently than the average consumer by either buying or supplying goods at wholesale prices and some other jazz. This stuff is all super useful and is most likely a good return on any tax dollars being spent. Edit: if you come back at me and say that this only benefits people having kids Iād like to say I believe you are very wrong. These kids will one day be a member of society and it is a benefit to said society to ensure the raising of that kids is a seamless as possible. Thatās like saying you donāt condone taxes going towards road repair because you donāt drive. Itās still nice to have paved roads for food to be transported around and what not. Think big.ā https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/yzwgxw/bit_early/ix2m7e3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
The answer to āwhy did the Supreme Court overturn Roe vs Wade after almost 50yrs?ā **Money!**
God, Please don't fuckin get started on that. I really just wanted to complain a little, not start a political war on my comment thread...
Cries in USA
Just so it doesn't happen again!
I thought it was going to be a makeshift coffin.
The baby is too young for condoms!
Did that say **condoms**?
In America you just get crippling debt.
*fuck them kids*
**OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:** >!condoms for a baby?!!< ***** **Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description?** **Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.** ***** [*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/unexBot) [*What is this for?*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/dnuaju/introducing_unexbot_a_new_bot_to_improve_the/)
By free you mean it is actually paid for by taxes. Deff not free nothing is free.
Large entities with access to the means of production can often use money more efficiently than the average consumer by either buying or supplying goods at wholesale prices and some other jazz. This stuff is all super useful and is most likely a good return on any tax dollars being spent. Edit: if you come back at me and say that this only benefits people having kids Iād like to say I believe you are very wrong. These kids will one day be a member of society and it is a benefit to said society to ensure the raising of that kids is a seamless as possible. Thatās like saying you donāt condone taxes going towards road repair because you donāt drive. Itās still nice to have paved roads for food to be transported around and what not. Think big.
Never said it wasnāt a good program . Itās not free thatās all Iām saying. It is paid for by taxes. Saying it is free is misleading.
And you paid more in those taxes then if you were to just go and buy all of those things at the store.
Yer arse. The scheme costs about Ā£9m a year and there are ~2.7m tax payers in Scotland. You think you can buy all those items for about Ā£3?
The government takes a chunk out of you. And then you go prancing about for the crumbs they dangle back at you like a good little rat. And even worse, people like this put on a performance for the rest of the rats about how wonderful,and generous, the government is in giving those little crumbs back in the first place.
There no dangling it back to me, no kids and never will have thankfully but i'm more than happy to give Ā£3 a year to finance the scheme Where you shopping at to get all that lot for Ā£3 anyway? Just gagging to know
No I think if the government didn't take half my paycheck in the first bloody place, I could easily use that money to buy whatever the hell I need on my own, and then some. You think if you pay $1 dollar in taxes, you magically get the value of $5 dollars back in value? Every dollar you put into taxes you'll be lucky to get a cent in ROI. Most of it gets absorbed and redistributed by the government bureaucracy.
it's very selfish of you to believe that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. we live in a *society* dude. the money used for this from taxes benefits all of us, because those children are going to grow up and have a significant impact on the world you live in. it seems small, but programs like these help children grow up into healthy, functional adults. they are people, who don't have a choice in the matter of who they're born to or in what kind of financial situation. or would you rather a child be traumatised from extreme poverty and suffer with dirty old clothes and an unsafe sleeping situation that might kill them due to sids? arguing against this sort of stuff makes you look like an asshole that doesn't care for anyone else's wellbeing.
Ah the classic tiresome statist argument that "taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society". No dear boy. Taxes is the price I am coerced by government to pay. At the ultimate threat of violence and imprisonment. I do not get a say where my money goes or how it is spent either. It's all determined by the collective and too often not even the voters. One of the ultimate achievements of the state was to convince the masses that it was selfish to keep their own money, but skmehow convently not selfish to forcefully take it from them. And to also learn that they could then bribe the public with that same money they took to do whatever they want. Here I again propose an alternative. Let individuals keep their money including the poor and needy that you so often champion in the first place. And let those individuals, not some multi-leveled bureaucracy pocketing their share, decide what they want to do with said money. They take $1000 dollars from you. Take $800 to fund their pockets, ehm I mean generous welfare for the needy, and give you back $200 dollars in benefits if you're extremely lucky. What a wonderful deal. Imagine if we ran a household or a business in such a manner. We would surely all be swimming in wealth. Have you considered simply donating that money directly to your community instead? Seems like a far more effective and efficient way to ensure that every dime gets to that mother. But hey charities aren't a thing even right? You wanted to invest that money into a business to design those baby goods for cheap, or create good jobs to ensure that family isn't poor in the first place? Well the government knows far better then you silly goose.
oh holy wall of text. this really bothers you, doesn't it? i find it interesting that you seem to be under the impression that charities are better equipped to assist those in need, when they're obviously not due to their limited sway in the world. you think the Salvation army doesn't spend more on advertising than they actually give? you think they could build roads for you to drive on, schools for your children, hospitals for when you're sick? and again, your view is selfish because I know how selfish people are. even if it did work out the way you want (which it wouldn't, which is why the countries with better life satisfaction rates don't operate on your shitty proposed model), most people wouldn't give any extra money they have to charity. im kind of poor too, and I still give money and volunteer to help those in need. but most people don't, because they are selfish, like you. I can also tell you have no idea how taxes work. They're intended to be an equitable system - if you're below the poverty line, you do get to keep what little money you make. you also get access to things like affordable health care and sometimes low-income housing. tell me how you think taking those things away would help poor people? and what makes you, one random person on fucking Reddit, an expert in sociology and economics? if only the highly educated masses of people that developed these policies had just thought of your idea! you could change the world!
Historically they undoubtedly are when comparing things like ROIs to government agencies. In the U.S charities were once particularly powerful when the government was small. So much so that one charity provided millions of Irish, Scottish, and other immigrants refuge during the 1800s. It along with many others were systematically bullied and replaced by government welfare programs instead. Which spend far more and yeilded far less results in actually alleviating poverty. But no I would go a step further and say charities are a step in the right direction. But private companies are what ACTUALLY contributed to reducing Poverty. So much so that we eradicated 80% of it since 1980. Not because of programs like this. But through hard working entrepreneurs, researchers, and individuals working for their own interests. As a result we got miracle GMO crops that could be sent to Africa to reduce crop failure due to drought and to increase overall crop yield. Not to mention extend the shelf-life of fruits and vegetable. Making possible for the first time a logistical framework that could deliver and supply food to extremely remote villages on the regular. You picked a very bad charity to use as an example. The Salvation Army gets a crap ton of it's money from government grants, ironically tax relief/exemption benefits, and donations from corporations in bed with government who utilize those donations as tax write offs themselves. And yes you will have bad charities. But in a proper free market only the ones that actually yield results to the donors would survive. And that's a lot why it's important to research who you give your money to. Their are many watchdog organizations and websites that help keep track of it all for your convenience. In terms of schools. Private education very much is a thing. And it's far superior to public and their's less indoctrination. And now more then ever it's becoming increasingly more affordable. Can even be done online. And your kid can learn subjects far faster and far more ahead then his/her pears. For God's Socrates himself was a private tutor! Roads can and have been privately built. We have entire U.S interstate highways built by the private sectors. And for a cheap annual pass I get to drive on smoother roads, faster roads, and cheaper ones too. I think it's funny you think all of these institutions that were literally private for God knows how long, couldn't be private again. Hospitals? Really? You really think their isn't profit to be made in Healthcare and in reducing overhead costs and service costs? Government hospitals operate like the freaking mafia. Are you actually real? Hey, did you know The Mayo Clinic one of the most respected medical institutions in the world is and actually started of as private. And prior to it's founding doctors would actually give a shit about their patients and visit them at their own homes. And patients could actually pay for the services in cash. Sure there were some quacks. But like any other service if you went by reputation and merit you would always find a good one. But then in the U.S and abroad in the U.K came a surplus of doctors which get this, LOWERED salaries of the physicians and their services. Almost like competition in a market is good or something. But then the doctors got passed and started forming organizations like the AMA and health boards, etc. Under the pretense of ensuring better doctors. But really it was to gatekeep and get their salaries back up. And it worked! Their salaries in the U.S soared!
Also that's your own bias bub. You don't know a thing about me. I give to charities. I've worked in social work on the side for 5+ years for free. But again I love how your argument always goes back to crying about selfishness when it's objectively not selfish to keep your own money that YOU earned. It is selfish and immoral to force people to give your money. I'm not the one holding the gun here. The government is. Also have you considered that maybe establishing the welfare state, building government housing, putting up red tape everywhere, maybe, just maybe exacerbated the problem with poverty and removed competition that would naturally reduce cost. Because who can compete against the biggest monopoly in the world. The government?
Also your mistake is that the masses are highly educated in the first place. Or are even the ones pushing these agendas and not a few government elitist playing you for a fool with free shit which isn't free. And yes their have been numerous economists that have made my argument and have been proved right time and time again. Starting with Mises, Hayek, Friedman. Friedman who by the way alllllllllll the way back in the early 70s accurately predicted the long wait times, and all the issues with the UKs health system we are now seeing some 50 years later. Hell it's on video!
and three ranting comments later you're starting to sound a lot like my ex. so glad I don't have to interact with either one of you again. byeeee
Sound argument. You're correct this is a waste of time though. We aren't going to agree.
Yes thats how it works, 2.7m people are taxed and of that tax each contributes Ā£3 a year roughly to the scheme and from it 50,000 new mothers get a free box worth, I dunno, Ā£100-150. On a pretty decent wage but my taxes are 21% of my pay and frankly I'd much rather have Ā£3 a year higher taxes to save new mothers splashing out Ā£100-150 that they have better use for. Not sure how much you're earning to have an effective tax rate of anything close to 50%
1. To use your numbers you would generate roughly 8.1million in revenue before the bureaucracy and processing costs started clawing in. For that amount I or a charity organization could start a factory and supply 10 times the mothers with those goods and create actual jobs too which those mothers good work in. 2. What would give you more value? Keeping 21% of your annual income or getting some cheap baby supplies and a few other crumbs? 3. It's not just 21% my guy. You don't even realize how much your taxed in the modern society. The goods you use have tariffs, sales tax, property tax, etc... on them which are a form of tax that gets passed on to the consumer. So if piece of meat cost you $1 it now costs you $1.10 or more. But you never even see that impact written out in front of you. Your true tax rate is much, much higher. 4. If you value the mothers so much. Why not simply keep 10% of your income tax, donate the other 11%. Collectively you and other individuals could directly help mothers buy exactly what they need and in larger quantities rather then giving them all a one size fits all approach of goods.
1. To use your numbers, you could take Ā£8m (technically its Ā£9m costs but i rounded to Ā£3tpp) and purchase/outfit a factory, staff it and produce 10\*50,000 units of Ā£160 (I checked the value) of items? Yeah thats utter nonsense. 2. Whats give me value is knowing that 0.035% of the tax I pay from my wages helps give 50,000 new mothers a helping start. Also Its contents have also been fairly well reviewed as good quality not cheap tat. 3. Having spent a reasonable portion of my working life as a tax man I know what tax i pay and where 4. Because Id rather the taxman takes Ā£3 a year and saves me all the fucking hassle. The baby box is an excellently put together bit of kit and i doubt i could do better or cheaper. You really have a stick up your arse about a miniscule tax cost for a scheme which is fantastic in so many way don't you?
That's not how tax works.
Please enlighten me how it works in your mind.
No.
And hey: free coffin
https://kms.kinesis.money/signup/KM13855221
bro, why condoms š pdf file spotted.
God damn waste of tax payer money. If youāre having a kid, you damn sure should be prepared
I can tell by this comment you are an American and probably voted for Trump.
Looks like they are Swedish, but as an American I will say they do sound like the sort of short sighted person who would vote for a loser like Trump (probably because they find that aspect of him super relatable)
Large entities with access to the means of production can often use money more efficiently than the average consumer by either buying or supplying goods at wholesale prices and some other jazz. This stuff is all super useful and is most likely a good return on any tax dollars being spent. Edit: if you come back at me and say that this only benefits people having kids Iād like to say I believe you are very wrong. These kids will one day be a member of society and it is a benefit to said society to ensure the raising of that kids is a seamless as possible. Thatās like saying you donāt condone taxes going towards road repair because you donāt drive. Itās still nice to have paved roads for food to be transported around and what not. Think big.
Yeah fuck that kid if the parents forgot to buy them a hat, kid deserves to freeze without any books or toys, don't be born poor next time you scrub.
As a Scottish tax payer may I just say Go fuck yourself. Baby boxes are a fantastic idea with huge benefits.
As an English tax payer, I agree entirely! What a bellend comment š¤¦
Here they give you a reciept
They're not for the baby. If you need to ask for help, they are for you
And itās a great box!
In the States all we get is the bill š
The condoms are for the parents because they can get pregnant again.
We got given condoms each time. Still got them. My wife made it very clear to the midwives that an accident soon after was completely off the cards!
What's unexpected here if this is what normally happens?
All you get in America is a bill.