+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 171
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked
    376
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kw123 View Post
    Yeah it's primary carers:

    If the father is the baby's primary carer, he will receive the payment at the mother's salary. The scheme also applies to same-sex couples.

    http://m.theage.com.au/federal-polit...818-2s4jc.html
    But that means that men aren't getting the same entitlement - they are getting paid at the mother's salary, not their own. Given that men generally earn more than women, most families will be worse off if the father stays at home instead of the mother, so we are left in the same position where men are being actively discouraged from taking on the role of primary carer.
    I can't see any reason to base the payment on the mother's wage rather than on the wage of the person who will be the primary carer, regardless of gender.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,005
    Thanks
    1,052
    Thanked
    3,524
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg2 View Post
    But that means that men aren't getting the same entitlement - they are getting paid at the mother's salary, not their own. Given that men generally earn more than women, most families will be worse off if the father stays at home instead of the mother, so we are left in the same position where men are being actively discouraged from taking on the role of primary carer.
    I can't see any reason to base the payment on the mother's wage rather than on the wage of the person who will be the primary carer, regardless of gender.
    Yeah agree and great point!!

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to kw123 For This Useful Post:

    Meg2  (20-08-2013)

  4. #93
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,708
    Thanks
    9,558
    Thanked
    12,691
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg2 View Post
    But that means that men aren't getting the same entitlement - they are getting paid at the mother's salary, not their own. Given that men generally earn more than women, most families will be worse off if the father stays at home instead of the mother, so we are left in the same position where men are being actively discouraged from taking on the role of primary carer.
    I can't see any reason to base the payment on the mother's wage rather than on the wage of the person who will be the primary carer, regardless of gender.
    You seriously can't have a scheme where the Government pays full wage maternity leave then gives a couple the right to choose the higher income parent to stay home. That will send the country broke. Time for parents to take responsibility for their own lives.

    As for gender equality there has got to be a point where women face reality and accept that if they have kids they will be set back somewhat careerwise. As to what extent that's up to them: how much time will they have off, how many kids they want, at what point in their career they will they have kids, to what extent the partner they chose will help out. Instead of expecting the Government to be fully responsible for gender equality, we should be encouraging women to make smart choices and face reality.
    Last edited by VicPark; 20-08-2013 at 11:55.

  5. #94
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,644
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked
    1,735
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    The current scheme alongside the increase in compulsory super which this government brought in (originally supposed to be funded by the mrrt ) us a much greater cost to my boss as a small business owner than a scheme funded as suggested here

  6. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,003
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    You seriously can't have a scheme where the Government pays full wage maternity leave then gives a couple the right to choose the higher income parent to stay home. That will send the country broke. Time for parents to take responsibility for their own lives.

    As for gender equality there has got to be a point where women face reality and accept that if they have kids they will be set back somewhat careerwise. As to what extent that's up to them: how much time will they have off, how many kids they want, at what point in their career they will they have kids, to what extent the partner they chose will help out. Instead of expecting the Government to be fully responsible for gender equality, we should be encouraging women to make smart choices and face reality.
    I agree - this is the reality for the majority of families. I earnt more than DH when we had our first but it was never questioned that I would take the leave for 12 months as I wanted to breast feed for at least 12 months. My career went backwards for a few years while I was raising kids and breeding, but his took off, so it worked out for us. I also had to think outside the box and find a new way to work to still meet my own needs and well as the families.

    But, if DH had taken parental leave, he would have received an entitlement from his firm based on his income at that time. As for the Abbott scheme, I can't imagine too many couples where the father decides to take the parental leave in circumstances where his income is higher than that of his partners, without largely self funding it. I don't think the government should be expected to pay in that case.

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,699
    Thanks
    1,391
    Thanked
    7,288
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    We are all going to pay for this. Big companies will just pass the cost of the 1.5% increase onto consumers.

  8. #97
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked
    376
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    You seriously can't have a scheme where the Government pays full wage maternity leave then gives a couple the right to choose the higher income parent to stay home. That will send the country broke. Time for parents to take responsibility for their own lives.

    As for gender equality there has got to be a point where women face reality and accept that if they have kids they will be set back somewhat careerwise. As to what extent that's up to them: how much time will they have off, how many kids they want, at what point in their career they will they have kids, to what extent the partner they chose will help out. Instead of expecting the Government to be fully responsible for gender equality, we should be encouraging women to make smart choices and face reality.
    There wouldn't be any point in a couple choosing the higher income earner to stay at home simply because of their salary, as they would have the same money at the end of the day regardless of which parent gave up work - so this isn't really an issue.

    One of the options that you say a woman has is choosing a partner that will help out with raising his children. But, if we have policies in place that actively discourage men from taking time off work to 'help' raise their children then this severely limits this option (for both the woman and her partner).

  9. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,003
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    We are all going to pay for this. Big companies will just pass the cost of the 1.5% increase onto consumers.
    The ridiculous part of it is that it's the "big companies" (not sure who they actually are) who tend to already have very generous paid parental leave policies. So in effect many would be paying twice.

    But I can't see this ever becoming a reality. Never.

  10. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,699
    Thanks
    1,391
    Thanked
    7,288
    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 Sonja View Post
    The ridiculous part of it is that it's the "big companies" (not sure who they actually are) who tend to already have very generous paid parental leave policies. So in effect many would be paying twice.

    But I can't see this ever becoming a reality. Never.
    Coles, woolworths

  11. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,308
    Thanks
    3,424
    Thanked
    1,831
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by babyla View Post
    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but about 14% of Australians earn over $150,000?

    If that's the case then this scheme is supporting 86% of families continue living at their current standard of living whilst taking this maternity leave.
    Just curious - does the 86% include families with SAHMs who are not entitled to this support? I'm not saying that SAHMs should be entitled to anything, but wondering if your statistic is including this demographic.
    Last edited by Little Ted; 20-08-2013 at 14:00.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Kitchen colour scheme.
    By waterlily in forum House & Gardens
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 20-09-2013, 12:36
  2. National Rental Affordability Scheme
    By MuminMind in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 27-01-2013, 15:18

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
Nice Pak Products
Australian Made and Owned. The Baby U Goat Milk Skincare range is enriched with soothing goats milk sourced from country, Victoria. Goat's milk has a pH level close to that of our own skin and contains natural sources of amino acids and vitamins.
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
Pea Pods Reusable Nappies
Pea Pods are the smart choice when it comes to choosing what's best for you, your baby and the environment. Affordable and simple to use, Pea Pods keep your baby dry & happy. Visit our website to find your nearest stockist or order online.
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!