+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 52 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 516
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Kimberley WA
    Posts
    4,622
    Thanks
    916
    Thanked
    1,180
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ExcuseMyFrench View Post
    http://gu.com/p/4899v

    The government will spend $3.5bn over the next four years on the childcare package – which takes effect after the next election in July 2017 – in addition to the about $7bn a year already budgeted for childcare spending. The new system will:

    • offer more generous payments of 85% of the cost of care to all families earning up to $65,000;

    • remove the $7,500 a year each child cap on payments to all families earning up to $185,000 a year;

    • continue to offer the 50% rebate to families earning over $185,000 and increase the annual cap for each child for these families to $10,000.

    But to save money it will also:

    • remove all childcare subsidies for families earning more than $65,000 where both parents are not in the workforce, replacing them with a sliding scale of payments to encourage parents to increase their hours of casual or part-time work;

    • reduce the number of hours of subsidised childcare offered to non-working families earning under $65,000 to 12 hours a week, but continue to subsidise those hours recognising that children from these families may have particular need of the pre-school education that childcare provides;

    • Stop parents from “double-dipping” by accessing both government- and employer-funded paid parental leave.

    And the entire package depends upon the Senate passing the cuts to family tax benefits proposed in last year’s budget but rejected by the Senate. They included:

    • ending family tax benefit B (paid to single-income families) when the youngest child turns six, saving $1.9bn over five years;

    • freezing all family tax payments for two years, saving $2.6bn over four years;

    • cutting end-of-year family tax benefit supplements, saving $1.2bn over four years.
    So what about families where both parents are working earning more than $65,000 but under $185,000? Nothing mentioned at all unless I'm blind.
    Last edited by Blessedwith3boys; 10-05-2015 at 17:13.

  2. #42
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Blessedwith3boys View Post
    So what about families where both parents are working earning more than $65,000 but under $185,000? Nothing mentioned at all unless I'm blind.
    you get 50% back uncapped.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Kimberley WA
    Posts
    4,622
    Thanks
    916
    Thanked
    1,180
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ExcuseMyFrench View Post
    @delirium Truth is that every working parent should have a PPL based on his salary, not on minimum wage, and should include super.

    It should be the same number of weeks for every worker.

    Then some companies could choose to offer more as part of the salary package.

    The current system is far from ideal but change they are proposing is not in the right direction.
    I agree. It should be the same number of weeks for every worker at their normal pay.

    When I was pregnant with ds2 I was shocked to discover that I was entitled to the government ppl tbh so it was a bonus for me. I was already getting 16 weeks ppl from my employer then took a heap of annual leave plus 3mths long service leave and then the 18 weeks government ppl which only equates to 4 weeks of my usual wage after tax but still.. it was handy. I don't think it was neccessarily fair considering what I was already receiving from my employer but then again I have worked fulltime since I was 15 so I see it as getting some of my taxes I had paid over the years back.

  4. #44
    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
    In answer to a few queries from previous posters:

    I'm on 100k. There I said it. But contrary to what you might think, I'm not sipping caviar and rolling in the Lexus.

    My husband is a teacher on about $35k so try to reframe in your mind for a second that our combined income of $135k is actually about equivalent to a couple of teachers incomes.

    It's not rolling in cash and like I imagine is the case for most families, our expenses are fairly close to our incomes.

    The difference between us and the two teachers though is that in their case if you take away the woman's income that's half the family budget.

    If you take away my income so I can stay home and breastfeed for six months like the WHO recommends - that's 74% of the household budget gone. How is the mortgage supposed to get paid?

    DH can't magically jump up the income ladder to compensate and he can't breastfeed for me.

    So we've turned the mortgage to interest only, we are scrimping everywhere we can and will spend all the money we've saved in the redraw to pay for mortgage payments and food when the income runs dry.

    My employer offers 5 weeks paid maternity leave. That's the 'generous package' I get as an employee. Being in the not for profit sector it's nowhere near what some govt jobs offer.

    The govt PPL at minimum wage is about $11,500 - which under our super scrimped budget will help keep us going so that hopefully I can get to six months maybe seven without having to default or sell the car.

    This is all on top of everything we've saved.

    Take that away and I've got five weeks to play with.

    On the question of why I think this sends a message that womens wages don't matter, well firstly every time the govt refers to women on higher incomes there's an unspoken assumption that the woman is married to a man earning more than her. I don't know any women on similar money to me who are in this position.

    What it says to me is that I shouldn't have bothered trying to climb the ladder at work because my salary was never really $100k. It's $100k minus the lost income and super that I'll get penalised for being a mother and supporting my family.

    There are so few women earning higher incomes who are still in their childbearing years, who've worked their guts out to get there.

    Seems like if I want to do what I think is the right thing by my baby (and myself - don't even get me started on the links to PND from going back to work too early) then I'd have been better off not striving to earn more and making sure as the little wifey that I don't ever earn more than my husband.

    But forget all that and forget me for a second.

    What if I was a single mother? What if my income was the only income at $100k? That's equivalent to two parents on $50k and no one would call that household rich but again at least in that even split you could take half away and still have 50% of the family budget to try and get by.

    What if my husband had an accident I was a carer on a sole income? That $100k income isn't looking so shiny anymore...

    What ****es me off is that every time these debates get raised there is this massive unspoken assumption that a woman who has fought to get to a higher income must be part of a union where there is a man who earns equivalent or more. People imagine BMWs and caviar and say well they should just save up and afford it themselves.

    Ultimately I think employers should pay a replacement wage to all employees for a decent minimum period. That would be fair, it should be a blanket workplace entitlement. But until that magic day, I'm pretty sure we are going backwards.

    To protect myself against this situation I should, years ago, have siphoned off 30% of my income annually to pay for future losses in the gender pay gap, lost earnings through childbearing years and lost super. But what sort of message is that sending to women about their worth? How is the glass ceiling to be broken if it's financially unviable to earn a better salary unless you get yourself a nice wealthy husband?

  5. The Following 27 Users Say Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:

    babyno1onboard  (10-05-2015),Barnaby  (10-05-2015),besha  (10-05-2015),BettyW  (10-05-2015),Blessedwith3boys  (10-05-2015),calicocat  (11-05-2015),clbj  (10-05-2015),Clementine Grace  (10-05-2015),DJ Nette  (10-05-2015),ExcuseMyFrench  (10-05-2015),Frankenmum  (10-05-2015),harvs  (10-05-2015),ilex  (10-05-2015),JR03  (10-05-2015),Lillac  (10-05-2015),MINIRoo  (10-05-2015),mrsboyts  (11-05-2015),MrsK1984  (10-05-2015),MrsKLM  (12-05-2015),MsViking  (15-05-2015),MummaCat  (10-05-2015),Preshy2008  (10-05-2015),Rose&Aurelia&Hannah  (10-05-2015),Sabre  (17-05-2015),smallpotatoes  (12-05-2015),Star Light  (12-05-2015),Starfish30  (13-05-2015)

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    46
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked
    22
    Reviews
    0
    I won't get maternity pay from my employer as I won't have been there long enough so it doesn't affect me personally but I do feel for those who it will.
    I know people who have made responsible long term employment plans, seeking employment and staying loyal to a company for years as they have researched the companies maternity policy. I really feel for them and don't think it's fair.
    On a slightly different note

    Can someone shed someone shed some light for me on if the governments maternity payment will change. From what I know it's 18 weeks minimum wage (was proposed to go up to 26 weeks at existing wage but was shot down in last years budget?). Is this correct? In not too up to speed on politics but am due in 4 months so would like to be prepared.
    Thanks ladies! Xx

  7. #46
    Oblena's Avatar
    Oblena is offline I've done it in public and I'll do it again - I don't care who sees!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,585
    Thanks
    374
    Thanked
    309
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    To those saying that parents are double dipping and they should not feel entitled to it etc – I see the PPL from employers and GOVT as a way of ensuring the best start for a child. A parent who gets 5 – 6 weeks from an employer will not be eligible for govt PPL and may have to go back to work earlier than expected. The child then goes into child care instead of being with a parent longer which has proven benefits. Having a child at home with a parent for 12 months would be ideal and we, as a society, should be doing everything possible to ensure that all children have the best possible start as it affects the society long term – not just the family who is getting support.

    I am seeing some positives with the child care/ benefit numbers, but it baffles me that the budget doesn’t seem to discuss big hitters (such as the tax breaks/ benefits to very extremely high income earners), instead looking at ways that will actually affect the long term positive effects possible on the society as a whole. A government that looks at raising children properly through supporting families, funding child care and early education as education as a whole will never have the issues that a government that supports businesses over people.

    I see got PPL as a long tem investment in, not a short term cost, to society.



    I also have a question … If I get 14 weeks ppl from my employer – can my DH claim govt PPL after I go back to work ( for instance). I do think that a family should be able to access the PPL and once one parent’s leave is used up, the other should be able to piggy back his/ her leave onto his/ her partner’s so that the child can have a parent at home for longer.


  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Oblena For This Useful Post:

    Rose&Aurelia&Hannah  (10-05-2015),smallpotatoes  (12-05-2015),Starfish30  (13-05-2015)

  9. #47
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey Joy View Post
    Can someone shed someone shed some light for me on if the governments maternity payment will change. From what I know it's 18 weeks minimum wage (was proposed to go up to 26 weeks at existing wage but was shot down in last years budget?). Is this correct? In not too up to speed on politics but am due in 4 months so would like to be prepared.
    Thanks ladies! Xx
    Yes PPL is 18 wks at minimum wage and it excludes super.

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

    Monkey Joy  (10-05-2015)

  11. #48
    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
    In much simpler terms, under the budget package our family will supposedly be $1500 better off, but that's little compensation when at the same time I'll be $11,500 worse off because I was silly enough to earn a greater proportion of the household income.

    Silly me.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:

    Starfish30  (13-05-2015)

  13. #49
    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
    The double dipping argument is ridiculous.
    For it to be double dipping it would
    need to come out the same pocket...

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ExcuseMyFrench For This Useful Post:

    Apple iPhart6  (13-05-2015),BettyW  (10-05-2015),JR03  (10-05-2015),Rose&Aurelia&Hannah  (10-05-2015),Starfish30  (13-05-2015)

  15. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Kimberley WA
    Posts
    4,622
    Thanks
    916
    Thanked
    1,180
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ExcuseMyFrench View Post
    you get 50% back uncapped.
    Thanks for that.

    Wow we will actually benefit for once then. We will be $7,450 better off. Gosh it's been great not having daycare fees to budget for this past year though.


 

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
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
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
Heinz Baby Basics
Our BPA Free range offers you a choice for every stage of your baby’s feeding development. You’ll love our brilliant colours, inspired designs and innovative features. Heinz Baby Basics caters for your baby’s needs!
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!