I don't know why this shocks any of you. The liberal party is all about making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Just like PPL it doesn't cater for all women either. As a previous poster said people on contracts or casual aren't catered for at all. I'm a relief teacher and under his scheme I'd get nothing. Also what people need to think about is that the money has to come from somewhere. You'll just have to pay for it in different ways. Also Abbott's full of crap so who knows what he'll actually bring in. I don't think the system is catered for people going to work or for SAHM. I mean for most people to go to work they have to use childcare which takes up quite a lot of money unless you're on an extremely high income. Because of childcare I earn the most amount of money doing 2 days a week. If I do more than 2 days I actually lose money.
Last edited by Renesme; 19-08-2013 at 09:14.
I think the most important point in this proposal is the superannuation component. All previous leave incentives have ignored this and it has left most mothers with pitiful gaps in their highest compounding super-earning years. Today, women retire with $40k less than men. Most women in our generation will retire with upwards of $90k less than their partners. And if they split and are single in retirement? They face a pathetically inadequate governement pension to cover the gap.
I think it is a wonderful step towards gender equality. And i think being completely government funded will mean that there is no disadvantage to businesses employing women. Matching current wages $ for $ for six months is not an incentive to have kids, but it does certainly remove a major financial hurdle for most. I cant think of a fairer way to do it.
This doesn't say any different to how its been discussed here.
Under the current system its also difficult for small business owners who have to part fund it and can be a disincentive to hire women of childbearing age.
I didn't put it up to argue, I posted it so people could read it?
I understand, and my comment after reading it was that it brings nothing new to the discussion. I read and I commented.
Can someone clarify how this applies to men who are taking leave to look after their child? The original article implies that a man would get paid based on the mothers income - is this correct? If so I don't agree with that aspect of the policy. I think fathers should be treated the same as mothers and be able to take 6 months off at their own pre-baby income level if they are the primary carer. I think it would also be great if the parents could mix and match a bit when deciding who would take time off to care for the child. So, for example, the mother could take the first 4 months off, then when she goes back to work the father could take off the remaining 2 months to care for the child - with both parents still earning their respective pre-baby income.
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!