+ Reply to Thread
Page 15 of 51 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 509
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,687
    Thanks
    1,089
    Thanked
    4,057
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ExcuseMyFrench View Post
    I was obviously assuming you are living with the father of the kids.

    Hang on though. If you are in a couple with a new partner and you are not working, said new partner is already factually supporting your kids isn't he?
    Unless you are getting a large payment from FOB which in turn is helping pay for childcare.
    I am working, to be able to support my kids, but him moving in meant more than 100% of my income went to childcare, giving me nothing left to pay child support (I'm the CS payee, dad refuses to pay CC), nothing left to pay for therapy for my kids, nothing left for rent, food, bills, fuel to get to work.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,322
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked
    2,539
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by BlissedOut View Post
    But ultimately you'd be financially better off not working and saving on childcare? Like my example?
    Minimum wage is $640 a week.

    Proposed childcare subsidy is at least 50% back.

    So for all your income to be "swallowed" by childcare you'd need to have 2 kids in care at a centre charging $256 per day - assuming father of kids pay for half of childcare costs.

    I don't know any centre that charges that much.
    So even with 2 kids in care, even on minimum wage, it's worth going back to work especially if you factor in superannuation, training, etc

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,396
    Thanks
    601
    Thanked
    1,398
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BlissedOut View Post
    But ultimately you'd be financially better off not working and saving on childcare? Like my example?
    Yes thats what i was trying to say

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,322
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked
    2,539
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by BlissedOut View Post
    I am working, to be able to support my kids, but him moving in meant more than 100% of my income went to childcare, giving me nothing left to pay child support (I'm the CS payee, dad refuses to pay CC), nothing left to pay for therapy for my kids, nothing left for rent, food, bills, fuel to get to work.
    In that case the issue is not with childcare subsidies but with the parent not pulling his weight.

    CenterLink should pay the support he is refusing to pay then get the money back from him.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,432
    Thanks
    1,018
    Thanked
    2,081
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ExcuseMyFrench View Post
    Minimum wage is $640 a week.

    Proposed childcare subsidy is at least 50% back.

    So for all your income to be "swallowed" by childcare you'd need to have 2 kids in care at a centre charging $256 per day - assuming father of kids pay for half of childcare costs.

    I don't know any centre that charges that much.
    So even with 2 kids in care, even on minimum wage, it's worth going back to work especially if you factor in superannuation, training, etc
    What if the father doesn't contribute anything? For a mother on $640 per week, if her daycare is $100 a day for two children, even at the 50% rebate she's only bringing home $140 a week, for working a 40 hr week away from her kids. Many would probably think that's not worth it.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clementine Grace For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (11-05-2015),Freyamum  (11-05-2015),ThenThereWereThree  (10-05-2015)

  7. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    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 Clementine Grace View Post
    What if the father doesn't contribute anything? For a mother on $640 per week, if her daycare is $100 a day for two children, even at the 50% rebate she's only bringing home $140 a week, for working a 40 hr week away from her kids. Many would probably think that's not worth it.
    Yep. Unless my kids were starving and I couldn't pay the bills $100 a week away from my kids wouldn't be worth it. No judgment for those that do it, but I wouldn't. But then I have different beliefs I guess. If money wasn't an issue I probably would work 2 days a week for the rest of my life and that's it. I work to live, not live to work.

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

    Rose&Aurelia&Hannah  (11-05-2015)

  9. #147
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,299
    Thanks
    2,376
    Thanked
    1,933
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    When I first heard this this morning I thought damn! But purely selfishly. I am one of the fortunate ones whose employer pays maternity leave (18 weeks full pay) so the government ppl is an extra on top of that. Lucky for me but I think it is a bit cheeky to get both and not surprised they would look to stop it.
    I think that given the system we have where it is employer choice to provide paid mat leave then the government ppl should be paid when there is no employer provision in place (or paid if the employer provision is less than the government ppl entitlement). So it becomes a minimum entitlement for all working mothers and if you're lucky enough to get a more generous scheme at work then great for you and government doesn't step in to pay extra.
    Ideally mat leave should be the same for all - replacement wage for a set period. But we don't have that system. I just think it's a bit rich that I'll get both payments, nice to have the extra $ but doesn't sit quite right.
    If we could not afford to have me home for a set time without either my employer ppl or government ppl then I would say we can't really afford a baby or need to make some big changes. At this stage (29 weeks pregnant) I will take 7-12 months off.

  10. #148
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,198
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked
    960
    Reviews
    13
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I'm going to preface this by very clearly saying I support mums wanting to be home well beyond the 6 weeks, but you dont have to be home beyond that. Want to? yes, and that's fully understandable. But technically it's a choice after the 6 week mark.

    I do appreciate people's perspectives. I'm holding my baby as I type and I've been a bit emotional reading how desperately women want to be home but can't be. My heart broke a little reading Meplushe's post We have made sacrifices for me to be home but I feel so so lucky.
    I actually had physical issues "down there" that caused significant pain for the first few MONTHS, even if i had to return after 6 weeks I wouldn't have been able to.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to maternidade For This Useful Post:

    ScubaGal  (11-05-2015),TeaM  (10-05-2015)

  12. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,198
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked
    960
    Reviews
    13
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Ps I'm wondering how many ( who are apposed the changes to cc and for changes to ppl) actually HAD to get your child into daycare? ( not just a want where any day, from any date suits) .
    With DD 1 I put my name down when I was 5 months pregnant, I STILL DIDNT have a place until she was 12 months. If we didn't have that ppl over that period whilst I was off (where I had to extend my leave by a few months - thank goodness my employer let me) then we would have been up a creek without a paddle. We live within our means but thanks to our combined ( according to centerlink) "higher" income we didn't get any other assistance . (For the record the after tax amount sucks and I've worked out after that if we earn less during that time we would have had almost the cash in hand thanks to benefits, less tax etc go figure hey)
    Simple matter of fact cc is hard to get into, and the two schemes work hand in hand.
    The 18 weeks, whilst at minimum wage can and does help working families ( who otherwise are not entitled to other benefits) during that uncertain period of do I have a cc place or not.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to maternidade For This Useful Post:

    smallpotatoes  (12-05-2015)

  14. #150
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    3,267
    Thanks
    1,892
    Thanked
    1,916
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the WeekBusiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/9/2014Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/7/2014200 Posts in a week100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by gingermillie View Post
    When I first heard this this morning I thought damn! But purely selfishly. I am one of the fortunate ones whose employer pays maternity leave (18 weeks full pay) so the government ppl is an extra on top of that. Lucky for me but I think it is a bit cheeky to get both and not surprised they would look to stop it.
    I think that given the system we have where it is employer choice to provide paid mat leave then the government ppl should be paid when there is no employer provision in place (or paid if the employer provision is less than the government ppl entitlement). So it becomes a minimum entitlement for all working mothers and if you're lucky enough to get a more generous scheme at work then great for you and government doesn't step in to pay extra.
    Ideally mat leave should be the same for all - replacement wage for a set period. But we don't have that system. I just think it's a bit rich that I'll get both payments, nice to have the extra $ but doesn't sit quite right.
    If we could not afford to have me home for a set time without either my employer ppl or government ppl then I would say we can't really afford a baby or need to make some big changes. At this stage (29 weeks pregnant) I will take 7-12 months off.
    But so because your employer offers a bells and whistles ppl scheme is it fair that all women including those who are getting a pittance of 4 weeks (by comparison to yours) should lose out?

    Where's the logic there? A small number of women have a good scheme so 50% of working mothers will suffer (stat quoted in SMH of the number of mums who will lose out)?

    I think it's more the case that your employer probably offers five star ppl because your workforce has bargained for it, probably trading a pay increase or several at some point in return for a good scheme.

    It wouldn't have been rocket science to design the policy to only reign in your cheeky windfall (if that was even fair) and not take away from women who are miles away from 6 months leave with thee so called double dipping.

    All the coalition would need to do is say that the govt PPL is no longer available to anyone who is getting 6 months or more at replacement wage.

    Except they didn't do that because there are comparatively so few women on your type of package (which I actually think should be the standard for all) that there wouldn't really have been a noticeable saving, so instead it's affecting the women who get 4 weeks at min wage and can scrape together 10 weeks at replacement wage before they go backwards.

    It's punishing women who were scraping by and using the example of you (the exception instead of the rule) to justify it.

    This is how women are kept disenfranchised. By pitting us against one another.

    ....Meanwhile, any jobs going where you work?


 

Similar Threads

  1. The Budget!! #2
    By beebs in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 267
    Last Post: 07-07-2014, 13:12
  2. What does the budget mean for you
    By loislane2010 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 24-05-2014, 14:49
  3. The Budget?
    By Ellewood in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 18-05-2014, 19:44

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
Babybee Prams
Save $50 in our pre-Christmas sale! All Comet's now only $500. Our bassinet & stroller set includes free shipping AUS wide, $75 free accessories, 18-months warranty & a 9 month free return policy. Check out our new designer range today!
sales & new stuffsee all
CarmelsBeautySecrets
Growing your own natural nails is easy. Years ago, I devised a simple and very effective technique which really helps boosts the nails' growth in as little as three days! And most importantly keeps them that way.
featured supporter
Little Rugby NSW
Catch, weave, chase, run, but most of all have FUN! Little Rugby runs a NSW network of fun, safe and non-contact footy classes for BOYS and GIRLS aged 2yrs – 7th birthday.
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!