+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 156
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,846
    Thanks
    6,200
    Thanked
    16,892
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    IDirecting funds so people can use CC to go grocery shopping is not a good use of government money.
    But how is that different to funding the 20k a year earner whose husband is on a decent income and she's working (and getting rebates) to pay for a family trip to Fiji while paying literally $500 in tax? Where is the line?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    ThenThereWereThree  (02-05-2015)

  3. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    But how is that different to funding the 20k a year earner whose husband is on a decent income and she's working (and getting rebates) to pay for a family trip to Fiji while paying literally $500 in tax? Where is the line?
    I guess you could argue that the 20k a year she is earning is going back into the economy, benefiting a wider group. The trip she books to Fiji is supporting someone to work at flight centre, the airline etc.
    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.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NoteToSelf For This Useful Post:

    BlissedOut  (02-05-2015),Marshy68  (02-05-2015),Star Light  (03-05-2015)

  5. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,321
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked
    2,537
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    @NoteToSelf a tax reduction would be overly unfair.

    High tax brackets would get a lot back while lower tax brackets would get close to nothing...

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

    ThenThereWereThree  (02-05-2015)

  7. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,846
    Thanks
    6,200
    Thanked
    16,892
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    I guess you could argue that the 20k a year she is earning is going back into the economy, benefiting a wider group. The trip she books to Fiji is supporting someone to work at flight centre, the airline etc.
    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.
    I think you make excellent points, I agree with everything you said wholeheartedly, but bar the super, these are non tangible aspects. Just as SAHM's have a right to mental health time or a right to equitable access to CC. They are ideals. Not direct financial aspects. Does that make sense? People train in gaps in the job market. If women left a hole in health services men would fill them. Of course I don't support that, but it's an ideal. If we are looking at pure economic rationalism here. Those aspects don't really count anymore than a SAHM's mental health day.

    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.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    Mokeybear  (02-05-2015),ThenThereWereThree  (02-05-2015)

  9. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    424
    Thanked
    599
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    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.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cheekychook For This Useful Post:

    AdornedWithCats  (02-05-2015),ThenThereWereThree  (02-05-2015)

  11. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    @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.

  12. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,846
    Thanks
    6,200
    Thanked
    16,892
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    @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.
    So for you, this isn't about $$$ but the fact CC should only be for the working, even if they are in fact not contributing financially to the economy? I struggle to understand this. I get the basis of what you are saying. CC is clearly a need for the working mum. But you initially said this was about money. That effectively SAHM's cost too much with rebates bc they didn't pay tax unlike working mums. I argued that under that argument many working mums should not receive the rebate either.

    I'm just trying to clarify. Is this a financial or philosophical view that only working mums should get the rebate?

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    harvs  (02-05-2015),RipperRita  (02-05-2015),ThenThereWereThree  (02-05-2015)

  14. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    So for you, this isn't about $$$ but the fact CC should only be for the working, even if they are in fact not contributing financially to the economy? I struggle to understand this. I get the basis of what you are saying. CC is clearly a need for the working mum. But you initially said this was about money. That effectively SAHM's cost too much with rebates bc they didn't pay tax unlike working mums. I argued that under that argument many working mums should not receive the rebate either.

    I'm just trying to clarify. Is this a financial or philosophical view that only working mums should get the rebate?
    I did not say that. You said it is about equitable access, and I questioned why there needed to be equitable access prior to age 3 as there is no need for CC unless you are working (or family at risk) before 3. So I was questioning where did equity come into it as no one was being disadvantaged.

  15. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,265
    Thanks
    469
    Thanked
    581
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    to even break even to pay for the CCR they recieve tax wise, women need to be earning around 50+k a year. Most working mums I know are not earning more than that. It could be argued that in these cases the tax payer is funding these women to top up the family income. They are receiving the rebates but not paying the tax. Where is the line? If this is about $$$ do we only fund CCR for women paying over 7500 a year in tax? Otherwise you can argue they are a drain just like the sahm's getting ccb.
    That is a very short sighted view. children are only daycare age for a few short years. Keeping women skilled and in the workforce (even if they are only part time) is a necessity and makes complete financial sense. Think of their contributions to their super, this alone is huge.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Barnaby For This Useful Post:

    2015  (03-05-2015),Beetlegeuse  (02-05-2015),Star Light  (03-05-2015)

  17. #110
    harvs's Avatar
    harvs is offline Winner 2014 - Spirit of BubHub Award
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    9,995
    Thanks
    6,239
    Thanked
    15,892
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 2/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/3/15Busiest Member of the Week200 Posts in a week

    Default No more subsidised childcare for non-working parents?

    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.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Families with 2 working parents
    By pinksand in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 23-12-2014, 07:57
  2. Nightly routine for working parents??
    By Monkey'sMummy in forum General Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 21-10-2014, 20:40
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 09:51

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
Springfree Trampoline
Give the Ultimate Christmas Gift Springfree Trampoline
The World's Safest Trampoline™ is now also the world's first Smart Trampoline™. Sensors on the mat detect your every move and your jumps control fun, educational and active games on tablet. Secure the Ultimate Christmas Gift today!
sales & new stuffsee all
The Health Hub
Give a new mum a fitness boost for Christmas & New Year. Studio-based, small group training sessions - cardio, strength, core, Pilates & boxing. Choice of 16 hrs per week, flexible-arrival feature - bubs & kids welcome! Gift vouchers available.
featured supporter
ProSwim
ProSwim Rostrevor runs learn to swim classes for children and adults. Lessons are run during the Summer months (Oct-Mar). Our indoor centre at Plympton Park has lessons all year round, including school holidays.
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!