ADVERTISEMENT

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 92
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    5,854
    Thanks
    1,073
    Thanked
    3,924
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Clementine Grace View Post
    What also irks me to no end is that for years, I think it was about 8 years, women got baby bonus as well as their work PPL and they were not called fraudulent double dippers.
    But that was money to buy plasmas!

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

    A-Squared  (24-10-2016)

  3. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,988
    Thanks
    2,719
    Thanked
    2,673
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Fauvette View Post
    To the "I never got it in my day" comment I like to throw the age pension reality to them. We tax payers are paying their pensions when they retire at 60-65 but our generation will need to work till around 70-75 to support their "early retirement"!! Why on earth can't we then get a lousy 18 weeks when it's most beneficial to our new babies!
    I actually find it interesting that in last week's thread about the rules changing with very little warning for current recipients of the old age pension, the consensus at the end of the thread seemed to be too bad, so sad, should have planned better. You own assets, just sell some, easy peasy.

    Now this week's target is new mums and bubhub is up in arms (understandably it is a parenting site).

    I don't understand why the BH majority think it is okay for the government to target one group and not the other.

    FWIW - I don't agree with the changes. I actually supported TA's gold standard PPL policy because I strongly believe the new mums should not be forced back too early. I hate the way the government is funding tax cuts for those earning over $80k per annum and company tax cuts by targeting vulnerable members of society.
    Last edited by SSecret Squirrel; 24-10-2016 at 11:22.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to SSecret Squirrel For This Useful Post:

    Sonja  (24-10-2016)

  5. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,494
    Thanks
    1,027
    Thanked
    2,117
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SSecret Squirrel View Post
    I actually find it interesting that in last week's thread about the rules changing with very little warning for current recipients of the old age pension, the consensus at the end of the thread seemed to be too bad, so sad, should have planned better. You own assets, just sell some, easy peasy.

    Now this week's table is new mums and bubhub is up in arms (understandably it is a parenting site).

    I don't understand why the BH majority think it is okay for the government to target one group and not the other.

    FWIW - I don't agree with the changes. I actually supported TA's gold standard PPL policy because I strongly believe the new mums should not be forced back too early. I hate the way the government is funding tax cuts for those earning over $80k per annum and company tax cuts by targeting vulnerable members of society.
    Was it the majority? I'm completely opposed to the changes to the old age pension.

    I guess you are right though.

  6. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,988
    Thanks
    2,719
    Thanked
    2,673
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Clementine Grace View Post
    Was it the majority? I'm completely opposed to the changes to the old age pension.

    I guess you are right though.
    Not sure if it was the majority or a couple of vocal members.

  7. #35
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    6,035
    Thanks
    4,773
    Thanked
    1,710
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    I think they should leave pensions alone and ppl.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Lil Smurfy For This Useful Post:

    Fauvette  (24-10-2016)

  9. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1
    Reviews
    0
    I think the harshest part about this policy is that it is going to effect those people who are already pregnant.

    Like the changes recently to family tax A supplements, the fact that is going to effect this financial year and not next, I know has put a strain on our family. I have had to overestimate our income to make sure we don't owe anything if OH does overtime, meaning our fortnightly payment has dropped but unfortunately it means if he doesn't get the overtime then we are left short. On the other hand the risk of going over is to high and we could end up owing without the supplements as an insurance policy as such. We will only go over by a few thousand at the most but that is enough for us to lose nearly $3000 a year in supplements.

    If this had come into effect next year, I could have planned for it better, in the same way if they give people a couple of years notice on changes to ppl then people could plan accordingly and possibly even come up with different agreements on how their employers can allow them to take extra time off.

    Imagine if we told politicians that as of today, their lucrative pensions would no longer exist, can you imagine the outcry!

    I am sure common sense will prevail in this situation and that the changes won't effect people in the short term, or I hope that is the case especially for people who are already pregnant.

  10. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,536
    Thanks
    4,047
    Thanked
    5,442
    Reviews
    9
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SSecret Squirrel View Post
    I actually find it interesting that in last week's thread about the rules changing with very little warning for current recipients of the old age pension, the consensus at the end of the thread seemed to be too bad, so sad, should have planned better. You own assets, just sell some, easy peasy.

    Now this week's target is new mums and bubhub is up in arms (understandably it is a parenting site).

    I don't understand why the BH majority think it is okay for the government to target one group and not the other.

    FWIW - I don't agree with the changes. I actually supported TA's gold standard PPL policy because I strongly believe the new mums should not be forced back too early. I hate the way the government is funding tax cuts for those earning over $80k per annum and company tax cuts by targeting vulnerable members of society.
    I don't know if I weighed in on that thread, but my thoughts are that you plan for retirement for your whole working life. You plan for becoming a parent in the time between realizing your partner is "the one" / getting married and falling pregnant and that's people who have planned pregnancies. Depending on your age, that might only be a year or two.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JR03 For This Useful Post:

    A-Squared  (24-10-2016),Fauvette  (24-10-2016)

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,486
    Thanks
    1,430
    Thanked
    9,007
    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 JR03 View Post
    I don't know if I weighed in on that thread, but my thoughts are that you plan for retirement for your whole working life. You plan for becoming a parent in the time between realizing your partner is "the one" / getting married and falling pregnant and that's people who have planned pregnancies. Depending on your age, that might only be a year or two.
    I see where you're coming from but I don't agree. The rules around superannuation change so frequently its ridiculous. Yes you have more time to plan for retirement but life isn't static. I don't necessarily disagree with the changes to the pension but think they should have a longer phase in time.

    Once again I find myself questioning what this government actually stands for.

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    65
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked
    25
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JR03 View Post
    I don't know if I weighed in on that thread, but my thoughts are that you plan for retirement for your whole working life. You plan for becoming a parent in the time between realizing your partner is "the one" / getting married and falling pregnant and that's people who have planned pregnancies. Depending on your age, that might only be a year or two.
    ....and retirement is longer than maternity leave. You retire for the REST of your life, they make changes that affect the next 20-30 years of someone's life and that's too bad, but target a payment that at maximum currently pays 18 weeks and it's somehow worse? Totally disagree with this!

  14. #40
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8,395
    Thanks
    5,947
    Thanked
    4,955
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/4/15100 Posts in a week

    Default Possible end to paid parental leave on January 1st

    How frustrating! This isn't about evening things up so its fairer for those already in a minimum wage, it's about helping ALL mums stay home as long as they feel they need. Nothing is that fair and equitable. I'm glad I'm done having kids as I got 26 weeks paid from my employer, I chose to work there for that reason, if this had come in when I was pregnant, there goes that benefit!

    And come on - increase access to child care (government run Childcare centres anyone!?) and be more generous with mat leave to encourage more women into the work force to begin with
    Last edited by A-Squared; 24-10-2016 at 14:14.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to A-Squared For This Useful Post:

    AdornedWithCats  (24-10-2016),Little Miss Sunshine  (24-10-2016)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Paid Paid Parental Leave on low hours per wk
    By mrswhitehouse in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22-06-2016, 16:10
  2. Paid parental leave question
    By Rocky27 in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-05-2016, 14:11
  3. Paid parental leave- self employed
    By twolittlemunchkins in forum Maternity & Parental Leave
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25-11-2015, 15:39

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

FEATURED SUPPORTER
Baby SensoryBaby Sensory is the only baby programme that offers a complete approach to learning & development. Our classes ...
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 ›

ADVERTISEMENT