+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 171
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,006
    Reviews
    3
    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 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Coles, woolworths
    Not sure what you mean. I didn't say all.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    5,270
    Thanks
    1,058
    Thanked
    1,765
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Only earning 51k I think I fall into a different category to a lot of the high earning mums in this discussion but if this scheme went ahead it would def benefit me however not this time around as I'm due In January. I work for a small company so will only receive the current ppl of 18wks at $622/wk before tax which is a huge pay cut. I will be taking 26wks all up and am just going to have to save as I am also the higher income earner (we don't earn a lot between us) and need to still pay mortgage and bills etc. I realize my lifestyle will change and I accept this, I'm just grateful to get any ppl at all. As much as the tony Abbott scheme would benefit me a lot, I won't vote for him. I mean if they tax the big companies more we will just have to pay more for things so it works about the same in the end. Just my opinion

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    18,205
    Thanks
    1,433
    Thanked
    7,831
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Coles, woolworths
    Was just answering when you said you weren't sure who they are???

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Among the gumtrees
    Posts
    1,170
    Thanks
    739
    Thanked
    394
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg2 View Post
    You're right that raising kids is mainly the responsibility of women. But just as women have made massive headway into fields that were once male dominated, there is no reason why men can't take more of an active role in raising young children in this day and age, if only we encourage it. It is counter productive to propose a paid parental leave scheme that doesn't give men the same entitlements as women. All it does is make it less likely that men will take the time off work to care for their young children. So women are still the ones left making the sacrifice of lost career opportunities from taking extended leave from their careers.
    You've misinterpreted what i said. What i said was: continuing the human race rests on the shoulders of women - ie, giving birth. I made no assumptions about who raises the children. No matter which partner raises the kids, the woman still has to take some time off to actually give birth and recover from that ordeal. Not to mention time taken off for medically imposed bed-rest, antenatal appointments, etc. These are things the partner cannot do on her behalf!!

    The proposed scheme will be available to men. I dont see how that is counter productive.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Among the gumtrees
    Posts
    1,170
    Thanks
    739
    Thanked
    394
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Little Ted View Post
    Just curious - does the 86% include families with SAHMs who are not entitled to this support? I'm not saying that SAHMs should be entitled to anything, but wondering if your statistic is including this demographic.
    I'll try my best to word this without offending anyone... but i think we need to look at the country as a whole unit and ask ourselves what is best for our country and to improve our economy - do we want to encourage more women to stay home and be SAHMs or do we want more women back in employment? That is a genuine question, and i dont really know the answer. I guess ideally we should have support in place for both.

    But speaking from my own position, my DH is a low income earner, as was i before kids. I have been a SAHM for 6 years now - not really by choice, but because the cost of me going back to work was more than we could afford. I cannot earn enough to cover child care. To me, that is just silly! Apart from my own desire to return to work (for self esteem, etc) there is actually more incentive for me to stay at home. Me returning to the workforce would be a very tough uphill battle for our family. I feel almost forced into this role. But then again, Labor has a long history of creating welfare-dependancy.

    So yeah, i would welcome more support for women to stay in the workforce, and less incentive to stay home. But again, i am just speaking from my own situation here. I wont be having any more kids anyway, so my interest in this policy is purely from a "whats best for the country?" point of view.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    10,495
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,006
    Reviews
    3
    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 17/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Was just answering when you said you weren't sure who they are???
    My comment was that so many of these policies aimed at "big companies" never really identify which companies they mean. It's often these companies that have good paid parental leave entitlements. I think the detail of this policy is what's missing.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    5,270
    Thanks
    1,058
    Thanked
    1,765
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonja View Post
    My comment was that so many of these policies aimed at "big companies" never really identify which companies they mean. It's often these companies that have good paid parental leave entitlements. I think the detail of this policy is what's missing.
    Oh I thought the big companies were just going to b taxed more to pay for the scheme?

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,113
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked
    653
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    I don't get the big companies being taxed more? One of Abbott's plans is to lower company tax.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Renesme For This Useful Post:

    HowCrazyCool  (21-08-2013),soccer mum  (24-08-2013)

  10. #109
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,565
    Thanks
    2,851
    Thanked
    1,254
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    The plan is to tax the top 300 companies an extra 1.5% to fund the scheme, so individual tax payers & small companies don't have to fund it.

  11. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    396
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked
    384
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Little Crow View Post
    You've misinterpreted what i said. What i said was: continuing the human race rests on the shoulders of women - ie, giving birth. I made no assumptions about who raises the children. No matter which partner raises the kids, the woman still has to take some time off to actually give birth and recover from that ordeal. Not to mention time taken off for medically imposed bed-rest, antenatal appointments, etc. These are things the partner cannot do on her behalf!!

    The proposed scheme will be available to men. I dont see how that is counter productive.
    Recovering from birth and antenatal appointments will rarely justify 6 months leave from work.
    As noted previously, the scheme does not offer the same entitlements for men, therefore it limits the choices couples have when deciding who is best placed taking time out from work to care for the newborn.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Kitchen colour scheme.
    By waterlily in forum House & Gardens
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 20-09-2013, 12:36
  2. National Rental Affordability Scheme
    By MuminMind in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 27-01-2013, 16:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
GymbaROOGymbaROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. ...
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›