+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 171
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    6,509
    Thanks
    5,909
    Thanked
    4,921
    Reviews
    21
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ChannyV View Post
    I am very sorry, I have struggled to keep up. In the link below it doesn't mention men at all. I am the higher earner in our house so that would actually mean more money for us.

    http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-new...l-leave-scheme
    Ah I've read so many conflicting statements in this thread

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to atomicmama For This Useful Post:

    ChannyV  (21-08-2013)

  3. #122
    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 Meg2 View Post
    Men will get paid parental leave based on the mother's salary, not on their own. Therefore, if the father is the higher earner the couple will end up with a reduction in income if the father takes the parental leave, but not if the mother takes the parental leave. In this situation the scheme discourages the couple from choosing the father to take the leave.

    ETA. my info is based on the details in this article. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-pol...818-2s4jc.html
    Thanks for clarifying, I find it all very confusing. Sounds like it would b of benefit to me if my husband stayed home as we would earn more if he got paid my wage for half a year and I went back to work too. But still I want to stay home with bub, money isn't everything and Im voting labour.

  4. #123
    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 Meg2 View Post
    Men will get paid parental leave based on the mother's salary, not on their own. Therefore, if the father is the higher earner the couple will end up with a reduction in income if the father takes the parental leave, but not if the mother takes the parental leave. In this situation the scheme discourages the couple from choosing the father to take the leave.

    ETA. my info is based on the details in this article. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-pol...818-2s4jc.html
    it be more attractive than the current scheme which only pays minimum wage. If a father wanted to take PPL based on the mother's wage rather than minimum wage, that is.

  5. #124
    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
    it be more attractive than the current scheme which only pays minimum wage. If a father wanted to take PPL based on the mother's wage rather than minimum wage, that is.
    Do you think taxing the big companies more to pay for it will make it harder on everyone with bills and groceries going up? That was my initial thoughts

  6. #125
    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 ChannyV View Post
    Do you think taxing the big companies more to pay for it will make it harder on everyone with bills and groceries going up? That was my initial thoughts
    Probably. But I also can't see how these companies will continue to pay PPL to employees as well as fund the government's scheme. The liberals are very tight with many of these companies so I just can't see this passing.

  7. #126
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,005
    Thanks
    1,052
    Thanked
    3,524
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonja View Post
    Probably. But I also can't see how these companies will continue to pay PPL to employees as well as fund the government's scheme. The liberals are very tight with many of these companies so I just can't see this passing.
    Yep I have pondered and I think that companies will simply stop their own PPL policies, possibly with a "top up" option for women who earn over $150k. So the employer pays the diff b/w the Govt pay and their actual salary would be for the 6 months.

    Hopefully employers could put the money back into other types of benefits like more paid leave for non-primary carers, emergency childcare costs for a certain number of days, or other benefits entirely.

  8. #127
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,311
    Thanks
    2,387
    Thanked
    4,600
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Isn't Abbott proposing to reduce the company tax rate for all companies by 1.5% so actually the big companies just won't get that cut and won't be paying any more than they currently are? So no excuse to pass on any costs to consumers.

  9. #128
    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 NancyBlackett View Post
    Isn't Abbott proposing to reduce the company tax rate for all companies by 1.5% so actually the big companies just won't get that cut and won't be paying any more than they currently are? So no excuse to pass on any costs to consumers.
    Yeah thats the way i had understood it too.

    I also recall reading one newspaper report that stated that the proposed ppl could replace employer funded ppls but not add to them. ie, you cant claim both (so no "topping up" as has been suggested).

  10. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seasme Street
    Posts
    3,952
    Thanks
    607
    Thanked
    323
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CicerFabaceae View Post
    That would make people with employer funded maternity leave worse off under this scheme then (leaving out the super part of it). i.e. I get 28 weeks half pay from my employer plus I got the government paid parental leave for the 18 weeks after that, even though it was at minimum wage not my actual wage.
    Well thats a bit silly, no? People complaining that the LNP PPL is too generous and unaffordable in this economy and some are arguing that because they get to 'double dip' into the current PPL then thats ok

    Of course this double dipping is just one aspect of the wasteful spending of the KRUDD/Gillard government.

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

    HowCrazyCool  (21-08-2013),steel magnolia  (21-08-2013)

  12. #130
    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 CicerFabaceae View Post
    Some people would have more generous maternity leave schemes than 6 months paid leave and would not want to have theirs replaced by a federal one.
    So obviously, they'd accept their employers scheme and not take the government one. Pretty simple isnt it? You can have your employers ppl, OR you can have the government ppl. Not both.

    There are winners and losers in every policy. It cant possibly benefit everyone. But the aim is to make the majority better off. I think this achieves that. I wouldnt qualify for it at all. Should i start whining "what about me???" Lol

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

    NancyBlackett  (21-08-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Kitchen colour scheme.
    By waterlily in forum House & Gardens
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 20-09-2013, 11:36
  2. National Rental Affordability Scheme
    By MuminMind in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 27-01-2013, 15:18

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
KindyROOKindyROO 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 ›