+ Reply to Thread
Page 25 of 42 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 419
  1. #241
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked
    47
    Reviews
    0
    Those recommendations make much more sense. Why have such intelligence make 'recommendations' and leave the actual decisions to the politicians? It will really frustrate me if the PPL doesn't make it through the senate because Tony is too stubborn to take on the recommendations.

    Surely any increase in PPL & childcare subsidy would benefit everyone. And the let employers top up the PPL for employees if they wish.
    Last edited by poochella; 02-05-2014 at 20:53.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    73
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    6
    Reviews
    0
    A lot of focus has been on the higher end of the ppl scheme. What about all the women who work only part time that are eligible for the ppl, and due to the fact of working less hours means they actually earn less than the weekly minimum wage. In receiving ppl under either the existing scheme or the proposed one, the would actually receive more each week in ppl than what they do while working. I don't know the numbers, but I would hazard a guess that the financial costing of the area, would be at least equivalent or possibly substantially more than the cost of providing the higher income bracket women with ppl considering they make up a much lower percentage of the population.

    Economically, a universal ppl makes sense. Yes, it is an expensive exercise. So are roads, schools, medical facilities, etc. In all of these, the outlay by the government, far outweighs the returns in taxes. But they all provide a greater social benefit and also provide opportunities for greater participation in the workforce, which in the end means more tax revenue, to provide more services for the population.

    The ppl may directly increase participation in the workforce, especially between having children. It may also decrease medical costs associated with ivf and other medical issues associated with having children slightly older by making it more affordable to have a child when you want to. And people will spend more because they can afford to, meaning more tax revenue.

    I wholeheartedly agree that much more needs to be done to make childcare more affordable and accessible both to enable the benefits of a universal ppl to be achieved and for greater workforce participation.

    Ultimately, do something that the government doesn't and take a good hard look at what you think life will be like for you children 20-30 years down the road. What do you want for them to make their lives better and more liveable.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Carrie77 For This Useful Post:

    Legeyt  (03-05-2014)

  4. #243
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,196
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked
    960
    Reviews
    13
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrie77 View Post
    A lot of focus has been on the higher end of the ppl scheme. What about all the women who work only part time that are eligible for the ppl, and due to the fact of working less hours means they actually earn less than the weekly minimum wage. In receiving ppl under either the existing scheme or the proposed one, the would actually receive more each week in ppl than what they do while working. I don't know the numbers, but I would hazard a guess that the financial costing of the area, would be at least equivalent or possibly substantially more than the cost of providing the higher income bracket women with ppl considering they make up a much lower percentage of the population.

    Economically, a universal ppl makes sense. Yes, it is an expensive exercise. So are roads, schools, medical facilities, etc. In all of these, the outlay by the government, far outweighs the returns in taxes. But they all provide a greater social benefit and also provide opportunities for greater participation in the workforce, which in the end means more tax revenue, to provide more services for the population.

    The ppl may directly increase participation in the workforce, especially between having children. It may also decrease medical costs associated with ivf and other medical issues associated with having children slightly older by making it more affordable to have a child when you want to. And people will spend more because they can afford to, meaning more tax revenue.

    I wholeheartedly agree that much more needs to be done to make childcare more affordable and accessible both to enable the benefits of a universal ppl to be achieved and for greater workforce participation.

    Ultimately, do something that the government doesn't and take a good hard look at what you think life will be like for you children 20-30 years down the road. What do you want for them to make their lives better and more liveable.
    It's your wage or minimum wage what ever it greater so lower income earners may have a good win.

  5. #244
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked
    127
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrie77 View Post

    The ppl may directly increase participation in the workforce, especially between having children. It may also decrease medical costs associated with ivf and other medical issues associated with having children slightly older by making it more affordable to have a child when you want to.

    I wholeheartedly agree that much more needs to be done to make childcare more affordable and accessible both to enable the benefits of a universal ppl to be achieved and for greater workforce participation.
    .
    These are excellent & interesting points. Thank you

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Legeyt For This Useful Post:

    Carrie77  (03-05-2014)

  7. #245
    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
    Couple more interesting articles:http://www.theage.com.au/comment/abb...505-zr4r4.html and http://www.theaustralian.com.au/exec...-1226905074915 (not directly PPL related but interesting all the same!). The Age one confuses me somewhat as I thought the new scheme was either replacement wage or minimum wage, whichever is higher. So nobody will be worse off.

  8. #246
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked
    47
    Reviews
    0
    I have to agree with many points of the first article. I mean for one, if it's going to be a 'working' entitlement not a 'welfare' payment (as TA says) why does centrelink have to be the agency handling the payments. I HATE dealing with centrelink and have chosen not to for 10 years because of the stress you end up dealing with.

    I don't agree with the statement "
    paid parental leave beyond 20 weeks "appears to have a negative effect on female participation". It annoys me. I think childcare has a much bigger influence on female participation in the workplace than an extra 6 weeks at home with your baby.

    The second article is a sad truth. I will be going back to work full time straight after my PPL finishes & despite the fact I will be back full time, they will have to replace me temporarily and I know that will come at a cost to me. Having 4-6 months away from work can obviously be a burden to your employer and after that time, the staff, even your boss could have completely changed. I feel even though hubby will be at home full time & me at work full time therefore not needing as much flexibility as those with working partners, by boss will know that my priorities would have changed, so work will be down the list a bit. It's going to take a long time to crawl my way back to where I was, if I get there at all.







  9. #247
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,196
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked
    960
    Reviews
    13
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Can I ask a personal question.
    For those that are apposed the current scheme, do you receive other welfare benefits / financial assistance?

  10. #248
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,316
    Thanks
    1,551
    Thanked
    2,536
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    The Australian article is so depressing yet so true.

    I have been contacted by a head hunter for a senior role in a big company. One of his questions during the interview was all about my DS, his care arrangements, who would look after him if he gets sick, what about late night at work etc.
    Talking with my male peers at work with small children, not one ever had to answer this type of questions

  11. #249
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,196
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked
    960
    Reviews
    13
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lili81 View Post
    The Australian article is so depressing yet so true.

    I have been contacted by a head hunter for a senior role in a big company. One of his questions during the interview was all about my DS, his care arrangements, who would look after him if he gets sick, what about late night at work etc.
    Talking with my male peers at work with small children, not one ever had to answer this type of questions

  12. #250
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    73
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked
    6
    Reviews
    0
    I support the scheme and the way it's looking now, will not even receive any ftb. I get some ccb and ccr. I have previously received single parent payment, new start, austudy at different times.

    Until recently, I have been working part time and dp and would have received minimal ftb. I also would have been one of the women who would received more from ppl than from working. Plans have changed and baby plans have been put on hold and whatever happens with ppl I will still be better off getting ppl in its current form than before anything was legislated for.

    I believe ppl is and should be a working entitlement and not welfare. Can you imagine how far back it would put women in the workplace if legislation were to make employers pay for their own female employees ppl? That is why it is government funded, albeit as someone said we all pay for it in the long run.

    Generally we will have worked for 10 years give or take when we have children. Even if we were to take 10 years off to raise them, we would still work for about another 20 years after that. For a lot of us, we won't take anywhere near 10 years off work though. If we were to only take 6 months ppl, and then return to work, in whatever capacity, why shouldn't ppl be properly termed as a working entitlement? Or even 6 months ppl and 6 months unpaid.

    The reality is, the way we have to live has changed, the cost of living has increased, society has changed and we need to catch up.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Paid Parental Leave
    By Silvana in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-07-2013, 23:29
  2. Paid parental leave
    By joannamarie in forum General Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 17-05-2013, 07:51
  3. Paid parental leave
    By joannamarie in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16-05-2013, 00:42

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
Tambo Teddies
Visit our online store and select your individually handmade natural sheepskin teddy bear. Our soft and loveable bears come in a range of styles and colours. Created in Outback Queensland each bear is unique individual. 100% Australian made!
sales & new stuffsee all
Wendys Music School Melbourne
Wondering about Music Lessons? FREE 30 minute ASSESSMENT. Find out if your child is ready! Piano from age 3 years & Guitar, Singing, Drums, Violin from age 5. Lessons available for all ages. 35+ years experience. Structured program.
Use referral 'bubhub' when booking
featured supporter
Impressionable Kids
Impressionable Kids are Australia's leader in framed children's memorabilia and specialise in framed baby hand and feet sculptures. With franchise locations throughout Australia you can be assured you will receive a quality handmade product with a lifetime warranty on all frames.
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!