So what about families where both parents are working earning more than $65,000 but under $185,000? Nothing mentioned at all unless I'm blind.http://gu.com/p/4899v
The government will spend $3.5bn over the next four years on the childcare package – which takes effect after the next election in July 2017 – in addition to the about $7bn a year already budgeted for childcare spending. The new system will:
• offer more generous payments of 85% of the cost of care to all families earning up to $65,000;
• remove the $7,500 a year each child cap on payments to all families earning up to $185,000 a year;
• continue to offer the 50% rebate to families earning over $185,000 and increase the annual cap for each child for these families to $10,000.
But to save money it will also:
• remove all childcare subsidies for families earning more than $65,000 where both parents are not in the workforce, replacing them with a sliding scale of payments to encourage parents to increase their hours of casual or part-time work;
• reduce the number of hours of subsidised childcare offered to non-working families earning under $65,000 to 12 hours a week, but continue to subsidise those hours recognising that children from these families may have particular need of the pre-school education that childcare provides;
• Stop parents from “double-dipping” by accessing both government- and employer-funded paid parental leave.
And the entire package depends upon the Senate passing the cuts to family tax benefits proposed in last year’s budget but rejected by the Senate. They included:
• ending family tax benefit B (paid to single-income families) when the youngest child turns six, saving $1.9bn over five years;
• freezing all family tax payments for two years, saving $2.6bn over four years;
• cutting end-of-year family tax benefit supplements, saving $1.2bn over four years.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 41 to 50 of 509
10-05-2015 16:10 #41
10-05-2015 16:14 #42
10-05-2015 16:26 #43
When I was pregnant with ds2 I was shocked to discover that I was entitled to the government ppl tbh so it was a bonus for me. I was already getting 16 weeks ppl from my employer then took a heap of annual leave plus 3mths long service leave and then the 18 weeks government ppl which only equates to 4 weeks of my usual wage after tax but still.. it was handy. I don't think it was neccessarily fair considering what I was already receiving from my employer but then again I have worked fulltime since I was 15 so I see it as getting some of my taxes I had paid over the years back.
10-05-2015 16:40 #44
In answer to a few queries from previous posters:
I'm on 100k. There I said it. But contrary to what you might think, I'm not sipping caviar and rolling in the Lexus.
My husband is a teacher on about $35k so try to reframe in your mind for a second that our combined income of $135k is actually about equivalent to a couple of teachers incomes.
It's not rolling in cash and like I imagine is the case for most families, our expenses are fairly close to our incomes.
The difference between us and the two teachers though is that in their case if you take away the woman's income that's half the family budget.
If you take away my income so I can stay home and breastfeed for six months like the WHO recommends - that's 74% of the household budget gone. How is the mortgage supposed to get paid?
DH can't magically jump up the income ladder to compensate and he can't breastfeed for me.
So we've turned the mortgage to interest only, we are scrimping everywhere we can and will spend all the money we've saved in the redraw to pay for mortgage payments and food when the income runs dry.
My employer offers 5 weeks paid maternity leave. That's the 'generous package' I get as an employee. Being in the not for profit sector it's nowhere near what some govt jobs offer.
The govt PPL at minimum wage is about $11,500 - which under our super scrimped budget will help keep us going so that hopefully I can get to six months maybe seven without having to default or sell the car.
This is all on top of everything we've saved.
Take that away and I've got five weeks to play with.
On the question of why I think this sends a message that womens wages don't matter, well firstly every time the govt refers to women on higher incomes there's an unspoken assumption that the woman is married to a man earning more than her. I don't know any women on similar money to me who are in this position.
What it says to me is that I shouldn't have bothered trying to climb the ladder at work because my salary was never really $100k. It's $100k minus the lost income and super that I'll get penalised for being a mother and supporting my family.
There are so few women earning higher incomes who are still in their childbearing years, who've worked their guts out to get there.
Seems like if I want to do what I think is the right thing by my baby (and myself - don't even get me started on the links to PND from going back to work too early) then I'd have been better off not striving to earn more and making sure as the little wifey that I don't ever earn more than my husband.
But forget all that and forget me for a second.
What if I was a single mother? What if my income was the only income at $100k? That's equivalent to two parents on $50k and no one would call that household rich but again at least in that even split you could take half away and still have 50% of the family budget to try and get by.
What if my husband had an accident I was a carer on a sole income? That $100k income isn't looking so shiny anymore...
What ****es me off is that every time these debates get raised there is this massive unspoken assumption that a woman who has fought to get to a higher income must be part of a union where there is a man who earns equivalent or more. People imagine BMWs and caviar and say well they should just save up and afford it themselves.
Ultimately I think employers should pay a replacement wage to all employees for a decent minimum period. That would be fair, it should be a blanket workplace entitlement. But until that magic day, I'm pretty sure we are going backwards.
To protect myself against this situation I should, years ago, have siphoned off 30% of my income annually to pay for future losses in the gender pay gap, lost earnings through childbearing years and lost super. But what sort of message is that sending to women about their worth? How is the glass ceiling to be broken if it's financially unviable to earn a better salary unless you get yourself a nice wealthy husband?
The Following 27 Users Say Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:
babyno1onboard (10-05-2015),Barnaby (10-05-2015),besha (10-05-2015),BettyW (10-05-2015),Blessedwith3boys (10-05-2015),calicocat (11-05-2015),clbj (10-05-2015),Clementine Grace (10-05-2015),DJ Nette (10-05-2015),ExcuseMyFrench (10-05-2015),Frankenmum (10-05-2015),harvs (10-05-2015),ilex (10-05-2015),JR03 (10-05-2015),Lillac (10-05-2015),MINIRoo (10-05-2015),mrsboyts (10-05-2015),MrsK1984 (10-05-2015),MrsKLM (12-05-2015),MsViking (15-05-2015),MummaCat (10-05-2015),Preshy2008 (10-05-2015),Rose&Aurelia&Hannah (10-05-2015),Sabre (17-05-2015),smallpotatoes (12-05-2015),Star Light (12-05-2015),Starfish30 (13-05-2015)
10-05-2015 16:42 #45Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
I won't get maternity pay from my employer as I won't have been there long enough so it doesn't affect me personally but I do feel for those who it will.
I know people who have made responsible long term employment plans, seeking employment and staying loyal to a company for years as they have researched the companies maternity policy. I really feel for them and don't think it's fair.
On a slightly different note
Can someone shed someone shed some light for me on if the governments maternity payment will change. From what I know it's 18 weeks minimum wage (was proposed to go up to 26 weeks at existing wage but was shot down in last years budget?). Is this correct? In not too up to speed on politics but am due in 4 months so would like to be prepared.
Thanks ladies! Xx
10-05-2015 16:48 #46
To those saying that parents are double dipping and they should not feel entitled to it etc – I see the PPL from employers and GOVT as a way of ensuring the best start for a child. A parent who gets 5 – 6 weeks from an employer will not be eligible for govt PPL and may have to go back to work earlier than expected. The child then goes into child care instead of being with a parent longer which has proven benefits. Having a child at home with a parent for 12 months would be ideal and we, as a society, should be doing everything possible to ensure that all children have the best possible start as it affects the society long term – not just the family who is getting support.
I am seeing some positives with the child care/ benefit numbers, but it baffles me that the budget doesn’t seem to discuss big hitters (such as the tax breaks/ benefits to very extremely high income earners), instead looking at ways that will actually affect the long term positive effects possible on the society as a whole. A government that looks at raising children properly through supporting families, funding child care and early education as education as a whole will never have the issues that a government that supports businesses over people.
I see got PPL as a long tem investment in, not a short term cost, to society.
I also have a question … If I get 14 weeks ppl from my employer – can my DH claim govt PPL after I go back to work ( for instance). I do think that a family should be able to access the PPL and once one parent’s leave is used up, the other should be able to piggy back his/ her leave onto his/ her partner’s so that the child can have a parent at home for longer.
10-05-2015 16:52 #47
The Following User Says Thank You to ExcuseMyFrench For This Useful Post:
Monkey Joy (10-05-2015)
10-05-2015 16:54 #48
In much simpler terms, under the budget package our family will supposedly be $1500 better off, but that's little compensation when at the same time I'll be $11,500 worse off because I was silly enough to earn a greater proportion of the household income.
The Following User Says Thank You to ScubaGal For This Useful Post:
10-05-2015 16:55 #49
The double dipping argument is ridiculous.
For it to be double dipping it would
need to come out the same pocket...
10-05-2015 16:57 #50
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
ProSwimProSwim runs learn to swim classes for babies, children and adults. Our indoor centre in Plympton Park has lessons all ...
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 ...
IVF babies due Sep/Oct/Nov 2017pregnancy and babies through IVF
Funniest thing your kid has said to youGeneral Chat
Largest bassinets on market?Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
Chickenpox after being immunised?Pro-Vaccination
Mixed slumber partyGeneral Chat
Primary IVF SydneyConception & Fertility General Chat
Pokemon go. Chat #2General Chat
Selling your house privately...General Chat
Cashless society - all for it, or disagree?General Chat