Add tax into my minimum wage and my after tax rate is roughly $580pw. That leave $40 a week. Super contribution on minimum wage is roughly $60 a week.
Just with those basic figure I can see why it's an unattractive package if you're only capable of earning minimum wage .
+ Reply to Thread
Results 151 to 160 of 509
10-05-2015 23:12 #151
10-05-2015 23:22 #152
Oh man, on a completely different note I just found this in the Canberra Times:
"He is also cracking down on the rort that allows the employees of not-for-profit organisations to pay food and entertainment expenses out of untaxed income without limit. The new limit will be $5000, after which their employers will face fringe benefits tax."
So basically a key tax benefit for the not for profit sector (delivering aged care, mental health care, disability care etc) which needs measures to attract good people is being shelved as a 'rort'.
It was one of the few things that helped NFPs to attract quality staff who could generally get higher salaries elsewhere.
10-05-2015 23:27 #153Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
All of this just makes me think that Australia should really do what Canada did several decades ago.
In Canada, parental leave is part of a mandatory Employment Insurance scheme. Everybody pays a small levy from their income (it's a small percentage but I can't remember what that is now), and EI covers everything from being made redundant, being on extended sick leave, take leave to care for a sick child, spouse, or parents... and having a baby. Women in Canada get 12 months at 55% of their salary. It is capped, but I can't remember what the cap is now. Yes, it means that women who earn more, get more, but equally, they pay more because their levy is higher in real terms than someone on a lower income. Technically, parents are able to share the last 9 months, but in reality the vast majority is taken up by the mother. This actually is cost neutral for the government now because the levy covers all the entitlements that are paid out under the Insurance scheme. This is in contrast to our system which pays crap and actually costs the government money...
It has become the norm for mothers to take 12 months off work, but it has also become the norm for mothers to return to work full time after that. Of my friends back in Canada who have children, only one stays home, and that is because she had twins and her husband travels a lot. The rest of them have all returned full time. They think it's very strange that women here will go back only 2 or maybe 3 days per week for a long period of time. In comparison, of my friends who have had children here, none intend to return full time.
From my observations, what has happened is this:
Before a couple have children, usually they are both working (we are using working parents here as an example since these are the target recipients of PPL), and have a standard of living commensurate to their income. When they have a child, and the mother is given a decent replacement wage while she is off work, they are able, mostly, to maintain that standard of living. Of course, there are some small adjustments made since it's not 100% of her wage, but it's usually enough that they don't have to make huge chances. Fast forward 12 months, and now the woman has a much stronger financial incentive to return to work because otherwise they lose that income which they have been counting on to continue to live the way they have been living.
By contrast, when there is no PPL in place, that same couple will usually make the necessary sacrifices for the mother to stay home for some period of time. In some cases, that can only be temporary, but in many cases what happens is once the couple have dropped their standard of living and are now making due with one income, the drive to return to work for the mother decreases. Now, her income is seen as "extra". Those 2 or 3 days she may work are a great top up to the family income but have no longer become necessary - the mentality shifts to a primary and secondary income situation, rather than a dual income situation. And so we perpetuate this gender bias that we have in Australia where women earn less than men, they tend to work part time once they have children, their careers go backwards etc etc etc.
Yes, part of the equation is childcare for sure, but Canada does not have a perfect childcare system - I hear the same complaint about costs and availability from my friends back in Canada. Yet Canada has a higher workplace participation for women after having children. And I genuinely believe a lot of that is due to their PPL system.
Now none of this is to say that I don't support women who chose to stay home. I am one of those. But I'm just saying in terms of the budget and our economy, we would do better with this type of system.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to TeaM For This Useful Post:
10-05-2015 23:30 #154
11-05-2015 05:03 #155-
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
Today shoe news just said families earning over $65,000 won't be getting any childcare rebate help. Surely they have their wires crossed...
11-05-2015 05:17 #156
11-05-2015 05:43 #157
11-05-2015 06:16 #158
It's single income over 66k won't get ccr to encourage work with other partner. Double income gets ccr till 170k
wifey of hubby who is always away. mother of two girls who are always amusing.
11-05-2015 06:26 #159
11-05-2015 06:27 #160Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
I currently earn about 3 times what my DP does. As a family we earn just over the average family wage. Without the generous leave that my work gave me (14 weeks at full pay) I doubt I could have managed to stay home for the 7 months that I did. That would mean that I would have been unable to breastfeed my DS for the 6 months that I did manage because there's no way I could express at work.
I have worked hard to get to where I am and certainly don't think that my family should be penalised because I have made the decision to have a child and have the audacity to earn moe than my partner.
In saying that I recognise that it was my employer and not the government that gave me the opportunity to stay home and I don't necessarily agree with paying someone $150k to stay home but I think that if you go down this road, you need to take into account the family wage, not just the primary caregiver.
The Following User Says Thank You to Amber4304 For This Useful Post:
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
KindyROOKindyROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. ...
LATESTWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?7 ways to break the ‘mumnotony’ at homeGuide to government family benefit payments
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 ...
IVF babies due Sep/Oct/Nov 2017pregnancy and babies through IVF
Missed miscarriage... waiting, waiting, waitingPregnancy Loss Support
The Vampire Diaries LAST EPISODEMovies / Music / Books / TV Chat
Come chat, Ladies who are 40+ TTC or ExpectingConception & Fertility General Chat
Primary School in St George areaPreschools and Schools
For those of you with babies and toddlers....General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat