I have been on maternity leave or working part- time for almost 5 years since having children and if I was working full-time, I would have over 50% more contributed to my super in that time.
We will have to buy investment property once I am returning to work full-time as my super will not be enough for when I retire.
If the government shouldn't fund SAHPs, then isn't the reverse also true? That they shouldn't have to fund people's decision to return to work either? I'm thinking of PPL, and child care rebates/benefits.
Yeah, fair enough.
Wouldn't super for SAHMs address some of the gender imbalances re us retiring with so much less super?
I tend to think that husbands should have to put some of their super into their wife's super account when she is a SAHM. When I split with ex I had given up several years of work to support him working (by caring for our son we created together) and was left with nothing but a big empty hole in my accounts.
My understanding is that it would be at the mums wage, so should I feel discriminated against as some one who earns more, therefore gets more? No just like a sahm shouldn't feel discriminated against.
Please keep in mind that by earning my wage I will continue to pay my level of tax.
Next financial year I will be earning part pay on my maternity leave, and thanks to our investment property ( and deductions) and lower income i won't be paying tax so the government is loosing over 20k in tax revenue from me alone. IF I got my full wage they would still "earn" that revenue through tax.
I would also like to point out that sometimes in life you do things you don't want to do just because you have to. When I return full time I'll be working 4 days at extended hours, hubby will do 4 nights two of which will be Friday and Saturday nights.
We don't want to do that but we are
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!