+ Reply to Thread
Results 141 to 150 of 509
10-05-2015 21:05 #141
10-05-2015 21:12 #142
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
10-05-2015 21:15 #143
10-05-2015 21:16 #144
10-05-2015 21:42 #145
10-05-2015 21:54 #146
The Following User Says Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:
10-05-2015 21:56 #147Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
When I first heard this this morning I thought damn! But purely selfishly. I am one of the fortunate ones whose employer pays maternity leave (18 weeks full pay) so the government ppl is an extra on top of that. Lucky for me but I think it is a bit cheeky to get both and not surprised they would look to stop it.
I think that given the system we have where it is employer choice to provide paid mat leave then the government ppl should be paid when there is no employer provision in place (or paid if the employer provision is less than the government ppl entitlement). So it becomes a minimum entitlement for all working mothers and if you're lucky enough to get a more generous scheme at work then great for you and government doesn't step in to pay extra.
Ideally mat leave should be the same for all - replacement wage for a set period. But we don't have that system. I just think it's a bit rich that I'll get both payments, nice to have the extra $ but doesn't sit quite right.
If we could not afford to have me home for a set time without either my employer ppl or government ppl then I would say we can't really afford a baby or need to make some big changes. At this stage (29 weeks pregnant) I will take 7-12 months off.
10-05-2015 22:36 #148
10-05-2015 22:59 #149
Ps I'm wondering how many ( who are apposed the changes to cc and for changes to ppl) actually HAD to get your child into daycare? ( not just a want where any day, from any date suits) .
With DD 1 I put my name down when I was 5 months pregnant, I STILL DIDNT have a place until she was 12 months. If we didn't have that ppl over that period whilst I was off (where I had to extend my leave by a few months - thank goodness my employer let me) then we would have been up a creek without a paddle. We live within our means but thanks to our combined ( according to centerlink) "higher" income we didn't get any other assistance . (For the record the after tax amount sucks and I've worked out after that if we earn less during that time we would have had almost the cash in hand thanks to benefits, less tax etc go figure hey)
Simple matter of fact cc is hard to get into, and the two schemes work hand in hand.
The 18 weeks, whilst at minimum wage can and does help working families ( who otherwise are not entitled to other benefits) during that uncertain period of do I have a cc place or not.
The Following User Says Thank You to maternidade For This Useful Post:
10-05-2015 23:09 #150
Where's the logic there? A small number of women have a good scheme so 50% of working mothers will suffer (stat quoted in SMH of the number of mums who will lose out)?
I think it's more the case that your employer probably offers five star ppl because your workforce has bargained for it, probably trading a pay increase or several at some point in return for a good scheme.
It wouldn't have been rocket science to design the policy to only reign in your cheeky windfall (if that was even fair) and not take away from women who are miles away from 6 months leave with thee so called double dipping.
All the coalition would need to do is say that the govt PPL is no longer available to anyone who is getting 6 months or more at replacement wage.
Except they didn't do that because there are comparatively so few women on your type of package (which I actually think should be the standard for all) that there wouldn't really have been a noticeable saving, so instead it's affecting the women who get 4 weeks at min wage and can scrape together 10 weeks at replacement wage before they go backwards.
It's punishing women who were scraping by and using the example of you (the exception instead of the rule) to justify it.
This is how women are kept disenfranchised. By pitting us against one another.
....Meanwhile, any jobs going where you work?
By beebs in forum News & Current AffairsReplies: 267Last Post: 07-07-2014, 12:12
By loislane2010 in forum General ChatReplies: 50Last Post: 24-05-2014, 13:49
By Ellewood in forum News & Current AffairsReplies: 17Last Post: 18-05-2014, 18:44
Hills Swimming KenthurstLocated in the beautiful suburb of Kenthurst and boasts a heated 25m pool. We conduct world-leading Baby and Parent ...
LATESTToilet training: when is the best time to start?Why it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Dr Antony Lighten - Appreciation threadpregnancy and babies through IVF
Funniest thing your kid has said to youGeneral Chat
Rude 10 year old. Ideas?General Chat
Egg/donor code discussion - South AfricaEgg Donation
Happiness thread.General Chat
Awesome Mums of Autistic kids-how many of us are there (#3)????????Parents of Children with Special Needs
Support out there? ED issues, ttcMale Infertility Issues