+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 52 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 516
  1. #151
    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 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
    You know I'm pro work but my daycare as of January 1 is going to be $98 per child per day. So with 2 and discount will be $98 per day or $490 per week. To actual get to work it costs me $40 a week, plus roughly an extra $10 pw for fuel so without anything else it's $540pw just to get the kids to daycare any myself to work.
    Add tax into my minimum wage and my after tax rate is roughly $580pw. That leave $40 a week. Super contribution on minimum wage is roughly $60 a week.

    Just with those basic figure I can see why it's an unattractive package if you're only capable of earning minimum wage .

  2. #152
    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
    Oh man, on a completely different note I just found this in the Canberra Times:

    "He is also cracking down on the rort that allows the employees of not-for-profit organisations to pay food and entertainment expenses out of untaxed income without limit. The new limit will be $5000, after which their employers will face fringe benefits tax."

    So basically a key tax benefit for the not for profit sector (delivering aged care, mental health care, disability care etc) which needs measures to attract good people is being shelved as a 'rort'.

    It was one of the few things that helped NFPs to attract quality staff who could generally get higher salaries elsewhere.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    137
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    141
    Reviews
    4
    All of this just makes me think that Australia should really do what Canada did several decades ago.

    In Canada, parental leave is part of a mandatory Employment Insurance scheme. Everybody pays a small levy from their income (it's a small percentage but I can't remember what that is now), and EI covers everything from being made redundant, being on extended sick leave, take leave to care for a sick child, spouse, or parents... and having a baby. Women in Canada get 12 months at 55% of their salary. It is capped, but I can't remember what the cap is now. Yes, it means that women who earn more, get more, but equally, they pay more because their levy is higher in real terms than someone on a lower income. Technically, parents are able to share the last 9 months, but in reality the vast majority is taken up by the mother. This actually is cost neutral for the government now because the levy covers all the entitlements that are paid out under the Insurance scheme. This is in contrast to our system which pays crap and actually costs the government money...

    It has become the norm for mothers to take 12 months off work, but it has also become the norm for mothers to return to work full time after that. Of my friends back in Canada who have children, only one stays home, and that is because she had twins and her husband travels a lot. The rest of them have all returned full time. They think it's very strange that women here will go back only 2 or maybe 3 days per week for a long period of time. In comparison, of my friends who have had children here, none intend to return full time.

    From my observations, what has happened is this:

    Before a couple have children, usually they are both working (we are using working parents here as an example since these are the target recipients of PPL), and have a standard of living commensurate to their income. When they have a child, and the mother is given a decent replacement wage while she is off work, they are able, mostly, to maintain that standard of living. Of course, there are some small adjustments made since it's not 100% of her wage, but it's usually enough that they don't have to make huge chances. Fast forward 12 months, and now the woman has a much stronger financial incentive to return to work because otherwise they lose that income which they have been counting on to continue to live the way they have been living.

    By contrast, when there is no PPL in place, that same couple will usually make the necessary sacrifices for the mother to stay home for some period of time. In some cases, that can only be temporary, but in many cases what happens is once the couple have dropped their standard of living and are now making due with one income, the drive to return to work for the mother decreases. Now, her income is seen as "extra". Those 2 or 3 days she may work are a great top up to the family income but have no longer become necessary - the mentality shifts to a primary and secondary income situation, rather than a dual income situation. And so we perpetuate this gender bias that we have in Australia where women earn less than men, they tend to work part time once they have children, their careers go backwards etc etc etc.

    Yes, part of the equation is childcare for sure, but Canada does not have a perfect childcare system - I hear the same complaint about costs and availability from my friends back in Canada. Yet Canada has a higher workplace participation for women after having children. And I genuinely believe a lot of that is due to their PPL system.

    Now none of this is to say that I don't support women who chose to stay home. I am one of those. But I'm just saying in terms of the budget and our economy, we would do better with this type of system.

  4. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to TeaM For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (11-05-2015),BH-KatiesMum  (11-05-2015),ChelleBH  (11-05-2015),ExcuseMyFrench  (11-05-2015),GrabbyCrabby  (11-05-2015),MINIRoo  (11-05-2015),MummaCat  (11-05-2015),munchkin275  (11-05-2015),Ra Ra Superstar  (13-05-2015),Sabre  (22-05-2015),ScubaGal  (11-05-2015),VicPark  (11-05-2015)

  5. #154
    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 TeaM View Post
    All of this just makes me think that Australia should really do what Canada did several decades ago.

    In Canada, parental leave is part of a mandatory Employment Insurance scheme. Everybody pays a small levy from their income (it's a small percentage but I can't remember what that is now), and EI covers everything from being made redundant, being on extended sick leave, take leave to care for a sick child, spouse, or parents... and having a baby. Women in Canada get 12 months at 55% of their salary. It is capped, but I can't remember what the cap is now. Yes, it means that women who earn more, get more, but equally, they pay more because their levy is higher in real terms than someone on a lower income. Technically, parents are able to share the last 9 months, but in reality the vast majority is taken up by the mother. This actually is cost neutral for the government now because the levy covers all the entitlements that are paid out under the Insurance scheme. This is in contrast to our system which pays crap and actually costs the government money...

    It has become the norm for mothers to take 12 months off work, but it has also become the norm for mothers to return to work full time after that. Of my friends back in Canada who have children, only one stays home, and that is because she had twins and her husband travels a lot. The rest of them have all returned full time. They think it's very strange that women here will go back only 2 or maybe 3 days per week for a long period of time. In comparison, of my friends who have had children here, none intend to return full time.

    From my observations, what has happened is this:

    Before a couple have children, usually they are both working (we are using working parents here as an example since these are the target recipients of PPL), and have a standard of living commensurate to their income. When they have a child, and the mother is given a decent replacement wage while she is off work, they are able, mostly, to maintain that standard of living. Of course, there are some small adjustments made since it's not 100% of her wage, but it's usually enough that they don't have to make huge chances. Fast forward 12 months, and now the woman has a much stronger financial incentive to return to work because otherwise they lose that income which they have been counting on to continue to live the way they have been living.

    By contrast, when there is no PPL in place, that same couple will usually make the necessary sacrifices for the mother to stay home for some period of time. In some cases, that can only be temporary, but in many cases what happens is once the couple have dropped their standard of living and are now making due with one income, the drive to return to work for the mother decreases. Now, her income is seen as "extra". Those 2 or 3 days she may work are a great top up to the family income but have no longer become necessary - the mentality shifts to a primary and secondary income situation, rather than a dual income situation. And so we perpetuate this gender bias that we have in Australia where women earn less than men, they tend to work part time once they have children, their careers go backwards etc etc etc.

    Yes, part of the equation is childcare for sure, but Canada does not have a perfect childcare system - I hear the same complaint about costs and availability from my friends back in Canada. Yet Canada has a higher workplace participation for women after having children. And I genuinely believe a lot of that is due to their PPL system.

    Now none of this is to say that I don't support women who chose to stay home. I am one of those. But I'm just saying in terms of the budget and our economy, we would do better with this type of system.
    Can you please run for government?
    Thanks, that would be great.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (11-05-2015),GrabbyCrabby  (11-05-2015),munchkin275  (11-05-2015),TeaM  (11-05-2015)

  7. #155
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12,708
    Thanks
    9,558
    Thanked
    12,689
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Today shoe news just said families earning over $65,000 won't be getting any childcare rebate help. Surely they have their wires crossed...

  8. #156
    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 VicPark View Post
    Today shoe news just said families earning over $65,000 won't be getting any childcare rebate help. Surely they have their wires crossed...
    It's literally impossible for 2 parents to work full time and the family only earn $65000 py as minimum wage is just over 33k a year so that's 66k combined

  9. #157
    SpecialPatrolGroup's Avatar
    SpecialPatrolGroup is offline T-rex is cranky until she gets her coffee.
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the messy house, Brisbane
    Posts
    9,481
    Thanks
    2,180
    Thanked
    5,405
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    Today shoe news just said families earning over $65,000 won't be getting any childcare rebate help. Surely they have their wires crossed...
    I read last night that this was single income, 2 parent families earning over 65ķ won't get ccr

  10. #158
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,868
    Thanks
    5,192
    Thanked
    3,894
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    It's single income over 66k won't get ccr to encourage work with other partner. Double income gets ccr till 170k

    wifey of hubby who is always away. mother of two girls who are always amusing.

  11. #159
    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 Rose&Aurelia View Post
    It's single income over 66k won't get ccr to encourage work with other partner. Double income gets ccr till 170k

    wifey of hubby who is always away. mother of two girls who are always amusing.
    I'm sorry but that's pathetic, I thought they were trying to encourage families to participate in the workforce.
    Whilst 66k a year might sound like a lot to some in reality tax takes a large %. It should be on combined only

  12. #160
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    385
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked
    124
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I personally think there should be a cap placed on PPL. Someone earning 150k a year should not need 75K in assistance to stay home. I fully support the notion of PPL, but just as SAHm's are told to own their choice to procreate, working parents should be saving and contributing to that 6 months too. I would love a 4th child but we simply can't afford it.

    Both groups need some level of financial responsibility in the care of their own child.
    Yes but that would be unfair to families where the mother earns significantly more than the father.

    I currently earn about 3 times what my DP does. As a family we earn just over the average family wage. Without the generous leave that my work gave me (14 weeks at full pay) I doubt I could have managed to stay home for the 7 months that I did. That would mean that I would have been unable to breastfeed my DS for the 6 months that I did manage because there's no way I could express at work.

    I have worked hard to get to where I am and certainly don't think that my family should be penalised because I have made the decision to have a child and have the audacity to earn moe than my partner.

    In saying that I recognise that it was my employer and not the government that gave me the opportunity to stay home and I don't necessarily agree with paying someone $150k to stay home but I think that if you go down this road, you need to take into account the family wage, not just the primary caregiver.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Amber4304 For This Useful Post:

    Lillac  (13-05-2015)


 

Similar Threads

  1. The Budget!! #2
    By beebs in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 278
    Last Post: 07-07-2014, 13:12
  2. What does the budget mean for you
    By loislane2010 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 52
    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
WaterWipes
Give your babies bottom a gift this Xmas! They are the only wipe made using just water and a drop of grapefruit seed extract and may help avoid nappy rash. Check out the great reviews on bubhub and see our website for more info and availability.
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
L'il Aussie Prems Foundation
An Australian charity supporting families of premature babies & children. The charity assists families who are at high risk of giving birth prematurely, who have babies currently in hospital and families with toddlers who were born too soon.
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!