As a mum who usually works full time but I am on ppl lets make it fair for all working mums- any mum who has a baby should pay a reduced level of tax for the first 2-3 years.... There fair for everyone.... Everyone gets what they earn- I would gladly give back my ppl for a tax cut- that way people who choose not to work are no worse off, people who choose to work 4 hours a week get a tax break on that and people who work full time get a tax break too. Easy- fair for every mother. Why should the government pay us to have babies- my mum raised us with nothing- no handouts, no bonus's.... Nothing. Yes I take the ppl and I have recieved BB in the past. However if we didn't have so much middle class welfare and handouts would our taxes be lower- yes. Cut all payments and cut taxes
+ Reply to Thread
Results 121 to 130 of 166
15-05-2013 11:51 #121Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
The Following User Says Thank You to Meags82 For This Useful Post:
15-05-2013 12:02 #122
And of course for most of us it isn't, but one of the real failings of the BB policy is that it puts the already vulnerable at risk. Most of us know x number of dollars really doesn't put a dint in the costs of raising a child, but not everyone is blessed with this knowledge/understanding for whatever reason. Not only is the policy detrimental to these individuals it also creates a new generation at risk.
15-05-2013 12:11 #123
15-05-2013 12:29 #124
15-05-2013 12:31 #125
Even though I agree with scrapping it, I do resent the 'you don't pay tax, you shouldn't get money'.
We do pay tax, why is my husband's tax worth less than the tax a working mother pays?
I like PPL, because it assists parents in financially surviving through maternity/paternity leave, but I'm not a huge fan of the current structure, I think it should be 1/2 of what you would normally be getting, with a cap on it at some level. So if you work 4 hours a week and make $100 for that, you'd get $50 a week in PPL.
15-05-2013 12:40 #126
Ppl is designed to give parents time at home for the physical and emotional well being of their child and their family unit (e.g. Decreased risk of pnd, increased likelihood of successful sustained breast feeding, greater opportunity to meet other parents and form a community etc)
Any what's the rationale for disadvantaging those who have larger families?? After 2 or 3 kids your baby gear is pretty stuffed and needs replacing, much more so for number 4 than number 2.
15-05-2013 12:41 #127
I think the baby bonus should remain for women who are not currently working or on very low incomes.
Of course people in times gone past lived without payments, however we should be supporting mothers, and making sure that they can afford to have time off with their babies.
What women do at home is just not valued enough by society.
15-05-2013 12:48 #128
15-05-2013 12:53 #129
I don't think the argument that mother's in the past managed without payments holds. The cost of living was much cheaper back then.
I can honestly say that I would have my kids with or without BB but it was/is extremely helpful to us seeing as my DP is on apprentice wages.
We budget extremely well but as always life happens and it was helpful to have a little extra when DP's car broke and he broke his arm.
I think if we can live comfortably on less than 40k with 2 kids then people on over 100-150 should be able to.
Sent from my telecommunications device.
15-05-2013 12:58 #130
I still don't understand why this is such a big deal?
As mentioned previously, the baby bonus was put in place to compensate women for leaving the workforce, to have babies. To help cover their loss of income. It was never originally designed for those who were unemployed (for whatever reason), though they did reap the benefit.
Now that we have a PPL scheme, although it's not perfect, it does what the BB was originally designed for. So with PPL in place, why should the BB continue?
What would all those women do who had babies during the BB period, if the BB was never around? You can't honestly tell me that they wouldn't have had their babies, implying that the only reason they had their babies was because of the BB. Surely those women would be in the very tiny minority.
This is the very reason I was against the BB in the first place. It's proving to hard to get rid out, without people everywhere complaining or coming across as having an entitled attitude.
The BB may be going, but there is still some financial bonus, tho those eligble for FTB A. If you're not eligible for FTB A, then chances are, you *shouldn't* really need that $2/$1k anyway...
Hunter Women's Health CentreHunter Women’s Health Centre care for women of all ages, in the full spectrum of their gynaecologic and obstetric ...
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Coopers Brewery - Gay Marraige AdNews & Current Affairs
what method do you use to track your financesFamily Finances
Tea drinkers unite!General Chat
Finances as a coupleFamily Finances
CD8, Who's also at the start of their cycle and TTC?Conception & Fertility General Chat
Homework - is it necessary?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
High Natural Killer Cells #9Reproductive Immunology
Local Infant Adoption in VictoriaAdoption / Surrogacy