I don't think it's fair for people to say that women who earn $150k don't deserve to be a part of this scheme. One of my close friends earns $150k and she has 2 kids, and although she earns almost double the money that I do, they struggle much much more than we do, and our household incomes are almost the same. It's easy for people who don't earn very much to judge those who earn a lot more and assume that they have all this extra money to spare. This scheme would mean that I could take a good amount of time off to stay home with my newborn and not stress about how we're going to pay the bills or mortgage like I would under the current scheme - issues we all would have no matter how much money we make.
So I guess it has to be looked at as a whole picture not just the first year after the baby is born.
I think it is a good idea. The current system really has gaps to support all woman.
I am the primary income earner in our family and my DH is in the lower category (but above minimum wage) even though he works full time. When I took mat leave I didn't qualify for PPL due to my income, however we then needed to sustain our family on 20% of what we were living on previously. When on mat leave, if all our money was split between us we were on less than minimum wage.
PPL should be tested against a family's total income, not just the mothers. Under the current scheme, if my DH was the big earner and i had his salary, I would qualify which isn't fair and encourages the message that women can't be very successful in their careers and have a family.
I hope this new system gets in. Women on large salaries don't always have wealthy husbands rolling in cash who can support them when they leave the workforce to raise their children.
Also isn't the tax rate like 50% in Sweden? I heard they also get childcare covered too..
I totally agree bedlover!!
I think the scheme is a great idea (assuming it can be funded by the increase in company tax).
I have no issue with governments proposing changes like these - largely they reflect the values that society has at the time. I remember very clearly under the Howard years feeling like working mothers were pariahs, as he wanted women to be able to stay at home as long as possible, and many policies reflected that. The pendulum has swung around towards working / part time working mothers. I see it at our school - 5-10 years ago most families had one parent at home for a few years; increasingly the landscape has changed and more and more families have both parents back in the workforce, often because jobs have become more flexible. I see on here all the time people saying school hours jobs don't exist - yet I know so many people who work in one, including myself.
I don't see this policy as valuing one person's contribution over another's, rather it is reflecting what is a reality for many, many families already (namely that the mother will go back to some form of part time work at some stage during the 2nd year of her baby's life). If it makes the balance more equal so those who earned more before having children receive a higher payment, I don't have an issue with that (and no I won't be the beneficiary of this as my baby making days are well and truly o.v.e.r.
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!