+ Reply to Thread
Results 181 to 190 of 509
11-05-2015 08:35 #181
11-05-2015 08:37 #182
11-05-2015 08:40 #183
I just feel duped - I've always been so proud of having worked so hard to drag myself of benefits and up the ladder and it turns out I get penalised for it over and over.
But I'm not expecting anyone to feel sorry for me, I don't need the bleeding hearts.
It's the women, like my sisters on a more average wage who if they are lucky might get a nice little four weeks from their company that they can couple with the govt PPL (as originally intended by the policy designers) to give them a chance to spend some time with her new baby before she goes back to working her guts out because she hasn't got a choice. Nowhere near the goal of six months, maybe three if they're really lucky.
I've survived on the pension, so I'll find a way to make it work.
But I think it's a really crappy mean budget measure to send PPL backwards and force women to choose between a workplace entitlement they bargained something away for and the measly top up in minimum wages that at least makes a little bit of difference.
As I said in a previous post the govt ppl only replaces the average Aust income for about 9 weeks.
Fundamentally are we ok with that?
Babies in childcare from 9 weeks?
I haven't had my baby yet (not for want of stressing out and ranting in this thread) but I'm pretty sure 9 weeks is quite little.
The Following User Says Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:
11-05-2015 08:41 #184
11-05-2015 08:43 #185
11-05-2015 08:47 #186Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
The reality is though, that we'd receive 50% back up to $20k so we'd pay $495 for 20 weeks, and full fees for the remaining 32 weeks. It's a complicated system.
I totally understand though that as a family our income is high, that is due, in full, to my DF earning a high wage which he has worked very hard for. I don't really expect to get assistance when as a family on paper we do not require it. Instead I'm going to take the opportunity to study for the next few years until my daughters are in school & increase my earning potential but not everyone has that luxury.
11-05-2015 08:49 #187
I guess it depends on who the government wants to encourage to have more children.
We know socioeconomic disadvantage creates or can create challenges in lots of areas. We know (for example) that socioeconomic status is the biggest indicator for educational success)
Why not encourage professional women to have more kids? When you are a working parent each child costs dearly, lost earning while you are on leave, and much higher child care expenses with each child. Your wage doesn't go up with each child.
I'd love a third child, but the disposable income I've got available now doesn't allow me to save up enough to replace a wage while I go on leave. I can budget to pay for our increased living costs as a family of 5, but not to pay for months of no income. PPL allows our household to keep ticking over while I'm home with a baby.
Welfare dependent households get more income with each child. It makes no sense to discourage employed families not to have children.
Last edited by NoteToSelf; 11-05-2015 at 08:51.
11-05-2015 09:00 #188
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, so don't shoot me 😂
But this thread is still suggesting that the onus is on the woman to stay home and raise babies. Men can raise babies too.
So if you as the woman earns the higher income, you still have a choice to keep working afyer thr initial post-partum period. Sure, it may not be your ideal for say, breastfeeding reasons, but it's still a valid choice for you these days to keep working.
I KNOW how important breastfeeding is to some, I was a fullterm breastfeeder. BUT if i was the main earner in my family, then my DH would have been a SAHD.
So yeah, just saying, women don't have to bear this sole responsibility of child rearing these days.
11-05-2015 09:09 #189
@Lillynix I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Outside of maternity leave, because we have to give birth etc, we need to rely on fathers a lot more and push for them to take half the chid raising leave.
I am a big believer in getting the exact same paid parental leave for all parents. 3 months each.
Then employers wouldn't see child rearing aged women as such a burden in them organization since men would take the same leave for new babies.
My work offers 14wks full pay to new fathers if they are the primary carer. I think only one took it.
Last edited by ExcuseMyFrench; 11-05-2015 at 09:13.
11-05-2015 09:11 #190
By beebs in forum News & Current AffairsReplies: 267Last Post: 07-07-2014, 13:12
By loislane2010 in forum General ChatReplies: 50Last Post: 24-05-2014, 14:49
By Ellewood in forum News & Current AffairsReplies: 17Last Post: 18-05-2014, 19:44
Prams and StrollersLooking to buy a pram or stroller? :: Viewer reviews of prams :: Pram Buyers ...
LATESTHow to get your kids to bring home empty lunch boxesIs the secret to saving for your child’s education in your home loan?Games to play with your baby – newborn to 12 months
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 ...
What age can teenagers consent to flu needles?Immunisation & Vaccines
baby boy for adoption pls readAdoption / Surrogacy
Is this a thing?General Chat
Being a foster carerFoster carers, kinship carers & grandparent carers
Losing friends because I am infertileConception & Fertility General Chat
Finding My Cooking MojoGeneral Chat
April/May TTC group chatConception & Fertility General Chat
IVF babies due March/April/May 2017#2pregnancy and babies through IVF