She is continuing to add to her super, making her less likely to need to rely on a government pension or have to continue to work 15 more years after her male counterpart to make up for time taken off for child rearing.
I also see it from a work force participation issue, women need to be financially supported to be in the workplace. There are many industries that are made up of mostly women. I work in health care and my team is all women, 80% of the team has small children, if the government did not support us to be in employment via CC subsidies that is a large brain drain on that industry.
I personally disagree with rebates full stop. I would rather see child care be a tax deduction as a workplace expense. As I personally see child care as a work requirement, nothing more.
Don't get me wrong NotetoSelf. I actually am agreeing with a lot of your points. But I'm questioning if this decision is really about saving money and more about value judgments of SAHM's from a lib govt that believes only the wives of the wealthy have a right to be at home. Bc if it's purely about money.... well then a good portion of working mums of under 6's are a drain as well.
I think this all comes back to the government funding childcare centres appropriately so that it is affordable for all. Rather than give the parents the CCB why not invest those funds into a sustainable funding model for all centres that will reduce the fees. With the provisional of funding for at risk children etc. in my mind it would work similar to how school funding works.
However, parents would still have to pay, like any service out there if you want your child to attend it needs to fit within your budget.
@delerium, I agree, there are most likely value judgements within the policy, as I think there are in the current 7.5k cap, you can work, but not more than 3 days a week otherwise it will cost you.
I am not denying if someone needs to use CC because of their mental health they should be able to access it.
But when did CC stop becoming a means to an end to attend work? I can't be bothered finding any links but I am sure I have seen research that says (unless in at risk situations) there are no benefits to CC for 3 and under. You can't say there is disadvantage to kids (unless in at risk situations) by not attending CC before Preschool. My daughter won't attend CC until Preschool, and I don't think she is disadvantaged at all.
Yes @ExcuseMyFrench, I agree, but when ever there is a rebate, for anything, the costs of the sector rise to meet the rebate...first home owners grant, the solar rebate, water tank rebate, medicare rebate for IVF, child care rebate. Rebates don't work. I don't know how else it can be done, aside from knocking down the whole system and having a purely government funded early education scheme like public schools.
I'm just trying to clarify. Is this a financial or philosophical view that only working mums should get the rebate?
You did say that though! You said earlier you personally see childcare as a work requirement, nothing more.
I have learnt a lot from your posts in this thread, but that's where you lost me, tbh. It seemed to contradict your other statements so left me feeling a bit confused?
ETA or are you referring to *subsidised* child care?
Last edited by harvs; 02-05-2015 at 15:55.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!