Interesting point raised RE: baby bonus no longer being needed. I agree, it's sole purpose as far as I'm aware, was to encourage working women away from work, to have a child (or two). We now have the Paid Parental Leave scheme, so the only people reaping the rewards of the BB are SAHP, people who were already at home.
I would love to see the BB scrapped altogether, and instead use those funds to go towards other payments. Use it to bump up the old age pension, or newstart (which hasn't seen a pay rise in something like 20 years). So much better could come of that money that is given to SAHP.
Currently, the government pays none of my super (previously I was in a scheme where they matched $ for $) but that was in pre kid days when savings existed, not the imbalance I have currently with bills.
So if currently the scheme is that the government will match up to $1000 then why not cut out the middle man and pay sahm $1000 a year into an account which they can't touch till they're 65? Currently they can get payments that working mums who earn over a certain amount don't get, so to fund it, the payments could be taken from ftb a, which is such a payment.
I don't know how you'd figure it otherwise. You can't find money for extra payments without taking from somewhere else. My employer can fund my super because I generate income for her.
I'm a part time worker, but full time mum. These threads always confuse me as on some days (when I'm helping at school or whatever) I'm classified as a sahm. On other days I'm a working mum (but still dropping kids off, making lunches etc)
I just accept that if I want money I have to figure it out myself, either budget around it or work more hours.
My dad told me from an early age not to depend upon the idea that there'd be government payments when I was older (so watch my super), as the government wouldn't be able to afford it.
The idea of the baby bonus was to increase the workforce to support the aging population.
Honesty isn't automatically virtuous. Someone can be honest about hating Greeks, women or redheads; their honesty doesn't make what they say acceptable.
Sure the government needs to keep people from poverty, but people also need to take responsibility for their own futures
I do agree pegasus, but there are a percentage of the population, usually women, that for a whole range of reasons can't do that.
Therefore it would make sense that the govt make small contributions irrespective of whether she does, so that taking into account decades of interest from the super, it may shave off 5 years of the pension down the track. The govt may have only actually paid 2 years, so they have saved 3 years out of the coffers, multiply that by thousands and that a huge saving with an aging population.
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!