+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 80
  1. #61
    Guest Guest
    I'm a wahm and can't get a childcare space and there's no flexibility in it. I was looking at a nanny but it was too expensive. I think this is a great option for families to have and something I can re visit (if it actually happened)

    I'm not sure what the argument is regarding sahm's. I'd love to get paid by the government to be a fulltime sahm, but that's just so unrealistic. We can't expect our government to come up with the funds for that, people need to work, it's just how it is.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by NutsyK View Post
    Actually $150 a day with rebates would be pretty damn good if you have more than 1 child.. if you had 3 or 4 you'd save **** loads of money with a nanny. A daycare centre costs $90 a day PER CHILD here where I am.. and that's a fairly cheap centre.. I know some that cost $100 a day per child.
    This is actually an excellent point and I didn't think of that. But wouldn't a nanny charge more for additional children?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,525
    Thanks
    1,890
    Thanked
    2,539
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I reckon we're darn lucky to get anything from the government... We are certainly privileged in this country. I was amazed at what I was entitled to after DS was born... Had no idea and had been saving my **** off for ages. It's great of our government IMO

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Ellewood For This Useful Post:

    BbBbBh  (27-03-2012)

  5. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lala Land
    Posts
    1,599
    Thanks
    235
    Thanked
    376
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    I'd like to see a bit more investment in helping SAHM reenter the workforce after extended career breaks. More retraining should be available and employers should be educated on the benefits of offering work place flexability.

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Blue Mountains
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    97
    Thanked
    115
    Reviews
    25
    Does the rebate cover sahm who choose to run a business from home - because the ccr doesn't agree with this - apparently I actually have to travel away from home for work to qualify for a ccr??? Or am I mistaken - when it comes to entitlements I am so misinformed and sure I miss out on a lot that I am entitled to

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Can I ask you how much they paid you a day not including super and how many kids?

    and that is my concern that only the wealthy, even with the rebate can afford a nanny. The rest of the average families are still left to fight for DC places and have their children cared for out of the home

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    495
    Thanks
    106
    Thanked
    127
    Reviews
    0
    I am hating how all the threads lately seem to end up as a debate about who has it harder or easier or right or wrong..

    I think that the real reason the government is so keen to have working mothers back is because the government benefits so much!

    For each working mother who returns to work they are gaining a fully trained person (so no HECS/HELP or other government funded training), a taxpayer, less to payout for FTB, any childcare worker the mother has to rely on also has to pay tax, they get super payments so less pension reliance, higher chance of private health cover instead of Medicare, etc. It makes better financial sense for that person to return to work rather than a person (like me) who has been out of full time employment for 6 years raising children and will be put for another 3 years at least.

    Making it about what is best for children is not what the government cares about.

    For the record I am a SAHM, student and casual employee and it is just not worth it for me to return to work.. I would make about $50 per week after working 40 hours and paying for 2 kids in Childcare..

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    second star to the right
    Posts
    2,112
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    40
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Raising Leprechauns View Post
    I'd like to see a bit more investment in helping SAHM reenter the workforce after extended career breaks. More retraining should be available and employers should be educated on the benefits of offering work place flexability.


    I think this is equally as important as Paid Parental Leave. If there was some sort of assistance for job re-training that would demonstrate that our government considers "SAHPs" at valuable as parents who return to work.

    A few people have mentioned the Family Tax Benefit. My understanding is that the FTB part B is to compensate for the fact that a family with only one income loses a tax-free threshold on the second income (because there is none). I may be wrong, but that's my understanding. (FTB part A is to help families with the cost of raising children, which is why it is available regardless of how many incomes.) Two thoughts on this:
    1) If income tax was based on a 'household' rather than on individuals, and the tax-free threshold was adjusted according to number of adults and children in the household then we could scrap the whole family tax benefit system.
    2) FTB part B is reduced considerably once your youngest child reaches school age. I think this sends a message that staying home without young children to care for is frowned upon.

  10. #69
    Ana Gram's Avatar
    Ana Gram is offline 2008 WINNER - straight shooter award
    Winner 2008 & 2009 - Community Minded thread
    Winner 2009 - Mod Award - most passionate member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18,597
    Thanks
    1,028
    Thanked
    3,125
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    Can I ask you how much they paid you a day not including super and how many kids?

    and that is my concern that only the wealthy, even with the rebate can afford a nanny. The rest of the average families are still left to fight for DC places and have their children cared for out of the home
    Oh gosh, it was like 15 years ago I was earning a decent wage though. About $500 a week, super on top of that. That was for 3 kids, one teen two small children. The agency I was originally with put the cap on 3, anymore that that, you would have had to pay more.

    now I know $500 doesn't sound like a lot but this was 15 years ago and it was a very good wage back them. god I sound old.

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Ana Gram View Post
    Oh gosh, it was like 15 years ago I was earning a decent wage though. About $500 a week, super on top of that. That was for 3 kids, one teen two small children. The agency I was originally with put the cap on 3, anymore that that, you would have had to pay more.

    now I know $500 doesn't sound like a lot but this was 15 years ago and it was a very good wage back them. god I sound old.
    It does sound like a lot though It would $700 now, a grand with tax plus at least $100 a week super. So that would be about $250 a day


 

Similar Threads

  1. Leigh Sales beats Tony Abbott with the truth....
    By delirium in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 24-08-2012, 23:00
  2. Do you feel guilty if you stay at home all day?
    By babynomad in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-08-2012, 22:12
  3. Tony abbott does a runner VERY funny!!
    By Bubbygirl in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 31-05-2012, 13:29

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
BAE The Label
Versatile, premium maternity wear that you will love throughout pregnancy and long after. Cleverly designed for for all stages of motherhood so that you can 'Just be you (+1)'.
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
Baby Sensory
Baby Sensory is the only baby programme that offers a complete approach to learning & development. Our classes offer an exciting world full of fun sensory experiences for parents and babies to enjoy.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!