I don't know what I truly think about the education payment and the potential axing of it. I do agree that if it is axed it will be replaced with some other payment or a return to being able to claim it at tax time.
I understand the principle behind it being for lower income families but I wonder whether we as a society are getting caught in the trap of holding people down by keeping them trapped in the welfare cycle rather than giving them a hand up out of it.
I also find myself getting slightly annoyed at the fact that we are missing out again on a rebate/bonus/payment - even though technically we do not need them and would not even notice them going into our account to be honest.
This feeling does not sit well with me though as my political leanings have always been towards the ALP and what it has traditionally stood for.
As a couple of others have mentioned as a household we would be much better off until the Libs but I just cannot bring myself to put them any higher then last on the ballot paper (regardless of who the leader or the local candidate is).
So, as my post demonstrates I am suddenly finding myself in the position of being one of the confused voters.
I don't think it comes from marital status but financial means. If a single mum earning good money said just budget better, I would say the same thing. That it's much easier to budget when you have a higher income. There is that room to shift money around. And I should add while we are considered low income, I also feel privileged bc we can afford the outlay (though it hurts us) and wait to be reimbursed later. So it's not an insult to say some are coming from a place of privilege. Just an observation that it's easy to say just budget when you have money to budget with.
And that is the total truth. I've just seen a lot of people come back to quote single parents. The fact is, that financial status isn't dependent upon marital status.
Or the fact that I'd forgotten two medical appointments for my son (one this week for the opthamologist and one next week for the ENT - both expensive appointments). I hate that these appointments are made months in advance, so I do forget about them.
It's sort of like Sunday trading (which has just really come into being in Western Australia). I do use the shops on Sunday, but my disposable income hasn't changed, so I spread my shopping out, or put it off. I still have the same amount of money to spend, I still spend it on the same things.
The reason that some payments were started to be staggered was to try to help people budget better. I think that's also the mentality behind giving half of the education bonus now and the other half (I think) in July.
For the record, I don't necessarily have money to budget with, I budget with my bills.
I do wonder if it does help and this thread is interesting for that - but perhaps I should start a new thread.
It's true that for the year you still get the same amount. But especially for the first year of school you have to come up with everything upfront and wait 7 months to get it back. Since it's the same amount, why not make things easier and keep it at the 2 payments? (and that's my musings rather than being specifically directed at you ) I guess that's what I'm not grasping. If they are going to keep the amount, why bother changing it back to tax time? what purpose does it serve?
I believe by the end of the year it will be gone altogether but hoping to be proven wrong.
I'm pretty left leaning, but I find the School Kids Bonus middle class welfare which should be unnessecary. Perfect world, but a satisfactory education in Australia is supposed to be free therefore there is no need for this payment.
We need a drastic review of our tax system.....what? Gonski has already done it, so why no real changes.
I agree with you Del - re: the keeping the same amount, so why change it musings.
And this is where the politics comes into play. A lot of payments don't change in their pure essence when the leading party changes in Australia. It becomes rebranding.
Was the baby bonus too much different in how the money was paid prior?
With my son, I got money back at tax time according to the difference between what I earned before i had him and after I had him, for the next 5 years. With my daughter I got something like $5k upfront. It ended up about the same.
I haven't done the sums, but expect for many people, the amounts with regards to PPL are probably similar (sorry if this is a lot different, it's my supposition given I haven't researched it as it hasn't been relevant to me).
It's how they play the politics game. It's all in the wording.
That's why I don't like watching "current affairs" programs, but do like seeing ads for upcoming stories, then go to read the info behind the propaganda - you usually see that it's all a beat up to grab the outrage of the people rather than to actually inform about "real" change.
I would presume people sometimes mention single mums because they tend to be among the lowest income earners in the country. Generally, a family with one adult has one or no income. A family with two adults has the potential for two incomes, and generally has at least one working.
To the PP, how is the school bonus middle class welfare? With DP and myself working we are 'middle income' and we didn't qualify for it. I think those on lower incomes are much more deserving, and those are the ones who received it.
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!