PPL and child care

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6196
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

PPL and child care

Post by papabear » December 8, 2014, 1:11 pm

Hi All,

I know this is a political point but I thought it worthy of its own discussion.

I personally voted for the fat man preferencing Tony, one of the things that had me preferencing liberal over labor was their PPL policy.

I have a kid who went to child care this year and will be going again next year, in Sydney, I appreciate how difficult child care is and all the issues surrounding it and the rebate.

That said, regardless of whether funding to child care is extended past the initial $7,500 rebate cap or 50% point. I still think PPL is a good idea, currently the main carer gets 16 weeks off at minimum wage.

If you live in Sydney (and probably Melbourne, Perth or even Canberra although I cant speak about these places from experience) the housing market is geared towards two incomes. You can not raise a family within an hour of the CBD where most jobs are without two incomes... even renting. Labor in there good grace gave 16 weeks to the main carer off (at minimum wage) but atleast its something.

The libs now want to extend it to 6 months - give or take 26 weeks, and up the amount to tie it to wages. I fundamentally think this is a good idea - see vote made above. As a society when both parents have to work, how long do we want to give (in terms of time/money) one of the parents to bond with the baby. I think labor made a good start with 16 weeks, but I certainly do not think 26 weeks if overly generous.

The problem, the libs have lost there balls on this and don't appear to be selling it. Shorten, who I cant say I have a massive opinion of, seems to think it is the worlds worst idea even though it is an extension of labors original scheme.

So where do I vote when this is probably the biggest issue for me? Honestly the only party I think that would have the balls to push ahead with something like this is maybe the greens? Where should people who think PPL or something similar is a decent policy vote?

Oddly enough, there seems to be a bit of a "this is a rich persons scheme" undercurrent going on about this, which I think couldn't be further from the truth, big corporates and govt departments already have ppl type schemes, the biggest winners will be smaller corporates. Thus we will live in a world where more reproduction happens by public servants and big corporate employees.... whilst the innovators, the small to medium sized firms employees get squeezed?? The human race needs PPL!!!

Anyhow, I would appreciate everyones comments on the matter.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24637
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: PPL , Child Care etc

Post by Manbush » December 8, 2014, 1:27 pm

Or could be like the old days where if you can't afford a kid you simply don't have one or you make sacrifices.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Shezza
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18300
Joined: March 11, 2008, 12:15 pm

Re: PPL , Child Care etc

Post by Shezza » December 8, 2014, 1:48 pm

I was a fan of the scheme as proposed. The problem is that it is being viewed as a welfare entitlement, which I don't believe it should be.

It was meant to be a scheme to ensure productivity, but it's quickly losing that flavour.
Image
2013 'Nella Awards - MVP
2013 'Nella Awards - Spite Day Winner
2013 'Nella Awards - Worst System (The Club)

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: PPL , Child Care etc

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 8, 2014, 1:59 pm

papabear wrote:Hi All,

I know this is a political point but I thought it worthy of its own discussion.

I personally voted for the fat man preferencing Tony, one of the things that had me preferencing liberal over labor was their PPL policy.

I have a kid who went to child care this year and will be going again next year, in Sydney, I appreciate how difficult child care is and all the issues surrounding it and the rebate.

That said, regardless of whether funding to child care is extended past the initial $7,500 rebate cap or 50% point. I still think PPL is a good idea, currently the main carer gets 16 weeks off at minimum wage.

If you live in Sydney (and probably Melbourne, Perth or even Canberra although I cant speak about these places from experience) the housing market is geared towards two incomes. You can not raise a family within an hour of the CBD where most jobs are without two incomes... even renting. Labor in there good grace gave 16 weeks to the main carer off (at minimum wage) but atleast its something.

The libs now want to extend it to 6 months - give or take 26 weeks, and up the amount to tie it to wages. I fundamentally think this is a good idea - see vote made above. As a society when both parents have to work, how long do we want to give (in terms of time/money) one of the parents to bond with the baby. I think labor made a good start with 16 weeks, but I certainly do not think 26 weeks if overly generous.

The problem, the libs have lost there balls on this and don't appear to be selling it. Shorten, who I cant say I have a massive opinion of, seems to think it is the worlds worst idea even though it is an extension of labors original scheme.

So where do I vote when this is probably the biggest issue for me? Honestly the only party I think that would have the balls to push ahead with something like this is maybe the greens? Where should people who think PPL or something similar is a decent policy vote?

Oddly enough, there seems to be a bit of a "this is a rich persons scheme" undercurrent going on about this, which I think couldn't be further from the truth, big corporates and govt departments already have ppl type schemes, the biggest winners will be smaller corporates. Thus we will live in a world where more reproduction happens by public servants and big corporate employees.... whilst the innovators, the small to medium sized firms employees get squeezed?? The human race needs PPL!!!

Anyhow, I would appreciate everyones comments on the matter.
I don't think anyone would disagree that mothers should be paid to take an appropriate amount of time off when they have a child. 26 weeks seems fair. The unfair part is when the government is paying the money and when the government is paying more money to people who earn more and less money to people who earn less.

Government hand-outs should be fair and means tested. I would happily support a PPL scheme that paid 26 weeks at a woman's current salary provided it was capped at the median wage and no woman was paid less than the current minimum wage.

Child care is the bigger issue IMO. The cost of childcare, especially on weekends and out of hours is so expensive that it discourages many women from working fulltime. Many choose part-time work because child care costs are lower and there are family tax benefits available to offset the lost income.

The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44293
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: PPL , Child Care etc

Post by The Rickman » December 8, 2014, 2:07 pm

I feel so dirty about this, but I have to say I agree with GeM on this one.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Raidersrawesome
Mal Meninga
Posts: 47774
Joined: February 24, 2008, 7:47 am
Favourite Player: Captain Croker
Location: Gold Coast

Re: PPL , Child Care etc

Post by Raidersrawesome » December 8, 2014, 2:20 pm

Im a single income family. We chose it so the missus would stay home and look after the kids while I went to work. At some point I have had 2 jobs over the years.

Where is my tax break. Why do I get slugged the extra tax when I go into a higher bracket because Im doing the overime to compensate the missus not working.

This is only my opinion and its based on my situation. But I dont see why my taxes go to other familes who out their child in care.

I understand they choose to do that and may deem it necessary but why do I need to fund it when Im struggling to provide for my family.
Image

The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44293
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: PPL , Child Care etc

Post by The Rickman » December 8, 2014, 2:22 pm

I just don't like Government handouts. There should be a lot less, not more, IMHO.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24637
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: PPL , Child Care etc

Post by Manbush » December 8, 2014, 2:50 pm

The Nickman wrote:I just don't like Government handouts. There should be a lot less, not more, IMHO.
Same, we've really built a society around the sense of entitlement rather than one of people being prepared to make material sacrifices.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44293
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: PPL and child care

Post by The Rickman » December 8, 2014, 2:57 pm

Ugh, now I hate myself even more, but spot on, Hanbush.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6196
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: PPL and child care

Post by papabear » December 8, 2014, 3:04 pm

I agree it shouldn't be viewed as a hand out but for some reason it is now being sold that way. It should be viewed as an investment to pick up the income tax and other taxes when that person re-enters the work force.

I thought the purpose of it was to encourage people to take time off work then re enter work when it runs out.

Because if you have one person pull out permanently the loss to the ATO in income tax revenue is massive. The burden on other tax payers grows. I don't think it is fair for someone who is living in the sticks raising a family on 80k paying say 15k in tax to criticize a double income family on 80k each in the city paying 15k in tax each for being assisted whilst caring for the child.... Say they pick up 20k from the govt, under a ppl.

Currently the 1 income family has already picked up 5k Baby bonus. Second person never expected to return to work. Making life easier for the 1 income person. Government misses out on hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue if not more from no income tax from person 2, no increased taxes from other spending from that second person going to work, whether it just be the extra couple of grand the govt picks up from train tickets to get to work for the year.

The second income family has picked 10k on the current scheme. Second person is expected to return to work after 4 months. Both parents then go on juggling Work and childcare etc. If that second person returns to work. If that second person doesn't return to work they are then moved into paragraph above and govt again misses out on hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue. The queston then is shouldnt the government invest in keeping worker number 2 engaged in their career by some sort of ppl system so they want maintain there career and continue paying more taxes.

As for the good old days, in the good old days house prices and rent aren't where they are now, but not only that generally speaking family budgets were more geared for only one person in the workforce and one person at home. However, that has changed, no longer are people walking barefoot 10ks in the snow to get to school but the reality is different and you have to consider what kind of future you want for your country and whom you want reproducing.

Currently the biggest incentive to reproduce is on:-
- Public Servants / Big corporates who have healthy PPL schemes and work practices that atleast try and reduce discrimination on carers returning to the work force.
- Welfare recipients that receive additional bonuses and parental payments for caring for their child who have no income.

Thus you will have a future population skewed from the above two groups.
- whilst you have less individuals coming from small to medium enterprises, or places with crappy ppl schemes ( as I am sure there are some govt departments and large corporates who are useless in this area too).

It goes to what you want with your future.

Then there is the question of the promise.

The fat old white men who got free university education and have done not much with it are bitter, who voted for the coalition to make a railroad all spending that does not directly help them? And certainly not one that will assist in families being raised in a way that they are uncomfortable with. Also add to more women in prominent positions which they are clearly very uncomfortable with.... Which is part of the reason labor did it in the first place and why it **** me that they wont support it.

Back on my voting, I am swing voter and vote all over the place. But I certainly will not vote for a negative labor govt, I can and I will vote for a negative coalition govt, because atleast you know they are going to do ruthless ****. But if labor can do anything it is to put in good ideas to help people, if they are basing there electoral campaign on a tony abbott no style they certainly will not get my vote anytime soon.

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6196
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: PPL and child care

Post by papabear » December 8, 2014, 3:21 pm

FTR I agree on sacrificing to get you want.

However, I do not think a first world country in 2014 should be promoting a society where the best option for raising a kid is one person sacrificing their career.

If anyone actually thinks that with an improved PPL scheme from the one in place there is still no or not enough sacrifice made on behalf of those parents, both of which are slaving away in gainful employment mind you. Then that will do me.

User avatar
Manchild
Jason Croker
Posts: 4846
Joined: September 28, 2011, 11:29 am
Favourite Player: Past: Brad Clyde
Present: Shaun Fensom
Location: Darwin, NT

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Manchild » December 8, 2014, 3:36 pm

Neither myself or my missus have ever received benefits from the government until we had our first child. 16 Weeks @ $500 per week was very handy considering we were renting at that stage and rent is around the $500 per week in Darwin.

I have no problems with someone who has worked since leaving school getting PPL. It is people who have never worked or attempted to gain employment that get hand-out from the government for having children.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 8, 2014, 5:13 pm

PPL is another example of Abbott making promises to idiots that he never intended to keep or knew full well he couldn't deliver.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: PPL and child care

Post by T_R » December 8, 2014, 6:14 pm

Makes you yearn for the good old days of competent, trustworthy Labor government, the people who gave us Grocery Watch, Fuel Watch, Climate Change “greatest moral challenge” abandonment, Copenhagen, $275 million 31 (later 450) GP Super Clinics promised with only three delivered, $47 billion National Broadband white elephant, without a business plan, 2.1 Billion Laptop for every child – without infrastructure, Mandatory Internet Filter, Commonwealth Health takeover 'reform', the Murray Darling River State non-deal, Asylum Boat people arrivals explosion, bank interest rates rises due to over stimulus, the stunning roll back Industrial relations, massive delivery failure of Public Housing promises, the 2020 Summit, the 'reform' of election funding, $3.45 billion pink bat Home Insulation debacle, $275 Million Green Loans debacle, the introduction and then immediate abandonment of political advertising ombudsmans office, the broken promise to halve homeless by 2020 / by 20% by 2013, build 222 childcare centres , utter devastation of the international education industry, Pacific Workers Scheme failure, mining Tax mis-design, mis-management and farcical implementation, $1 Billion Cash for Clunkers, and so on.

Abbott's a goose, absolutely, but let's not forget the hideous mess that the other side managed to fumble around with.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24637
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Manbush » December 8, 2014, 6:23 pm

Can I copy and paste that for some diehard labor heads on facebook TR, classic rant :lol:
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
jedski
Don Furner
Posts: 9007
Joined: January 8, 2005, 9:35 pm
Favourite Player: The Veloci-Rapana

Re: PPL and child care

Post by jedski » December 8, 2014, 6:27 pm

I suspect that it wasn't so much that he "never intended to keep or knew full well he couldn't deliver", I think that like all election promises he factored in a level of retreat space (ie promise $1000 but plan to get $900 eventually), but hadn't counted on such a hostile senate completely blocking almost everything he put to them.

I was glad to see the government change how it was paid a few years back, giving it out in dribs and drabs over 18 weeks instead of in a lump sum, stopping the baby bonus plasmas that anecdotally were being bought, but offering much more generous schemes that aren't means tested just seems plain wrong. My understanding of a welfare system is that it should be lending a hand to those who actually need it, not propping up those who are already well off.
* INSERT SIGNATURE HERE *

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 8, 2014, 6:47 pm

Bipolar Bear wrote:I suspect that it wasn't so much that he "never intended to keep or knew full well he couldn't deliver", I think that like all election promises he factored in a level of retreat space (ie promise $1000 but plan to get $900 eventually), but hadn't counted on such a hostile senate completely blocking almost everything he put to them.

I was glad to see the government change how it was paid a few years back, giving it out in dribs and drabs over 18 weeks instead of in a lump sum, stopping the baby bonus plasmas that anecdotally were being bought, but offering much more generous schemes that aren't means tested just seems plain wrong. My understanding of a welfare system is that it should be lending a hand to those who actually need it, not propping up those who are already well off.
It isn't the senate stopping the PPL it is Abbott's own party room.

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26058
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: PPL , Child Care etc

Post by Botman » December 8, 2014, 8:37 pm

Shezza wrote:I was a fan of the scheme as proposed. The problem is that it is being viewed as a welfare entitlement, which I don't believe it should be.

It was meant to be a scheme to ensure productivity, but it's quickly losing that flavour.
'
100% agree
I believe it's in the countries best interests to incentivise women, to get back into the work force but it's also in our best interests to have these people starting families... those of high income included, because y'know, they are actually smart, capable and highly productive women... and the more of them we have in our work force the better and the more of them having children the better.

I completely disagree with means testing this kind of thing. Means testing is for welfare, this isnt welfare. We should be doing all we can to ensure ALL women are given the chance to spend an appropriate and fair amount of time with their newborns before returning to the work force.
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10107
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: PPL and child care

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2014, 10:31 pm

Pigman wrote: I completely disagree with means testing this kind of thing. Means testing is for welfare, this isnt welfare. We should be doing all we can to ensure ALL women are given the chance to spend an appropriate and fair amount of time with their newborns before returning to the work force.
Do they not have the chance to spend that time with their newborns on the median wage? They can't be worse off than those of lower incomes surely?

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 9, 2014, 6:26 am

Pigman wrote:
Shezza wrote:I was a fan of the scheme as proposed. The problem is that it is being viewed as a welfare entitlement, which I don't believe it should be.

It was meant to be a scheme to ensure productivity, but it's quickly losing that flavour.
'
100% agree
I believe it's in the countries best interests to incentivise women, to get back into the work force but it's also in our best interests to have these people starting families... those of high income included, because y'know, they are actually smart, capable and highly productive women... and the more of them we have in our work force the better and the more of them having children the better.

I completely disagree with means testing this kind of thing. Means testing is for welfare, this isnt welfare. We should be doing all we can to ensure ALL women are given the chance to spend an appropriate and fair amount of time with their newborns before returning to the work force.
Of course it is welfare.

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26058
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Botman » December 9, 2014, 6:43 am

Unfortunately the median wage wont help those families cover their mortgages, least of all the rest of the bills.
and contrary to popular belief, people earning 150k arent sitting around on golden thrones, swimming in pools of money. I know plenty of people who what you might say is "high income" and none of them are sauntering around the joint, wiping their arses with stacks of notes.

What happens right now is woman are feeling fianacial pressure to return to work before they are ready, but more importantly, before their children are ready for them to leave. You can make sacrifices all you like, but you have to pay the bills.

My wife and i saved, we got ahead of our mortgage, we made "sacrifices", and yet still eventually that money ran out, and it ran our sooner than we thought, sooner than my wife wanted, and certainly sooner than my son wanted. Of course we are better off than those of low income, that's not the issue here, as i said, this is not a welfare issue.

As the statistics show, it's tough enough for women in the work place already. We don't need to making it harder.
As manbush said, you are now making high functioning women decided to either focus on a good career, or focus on being good mothers. What part of that makes sense? Why shouldnt they be able to have both? Or rather, why shouldnt we have policy that helps them be and have both?

I look at my specific circumstances. My children will be privately educated and have private healthcare, that alone covers with ease what ever outlay the government might give us. Policy should be encouraging people in our position to have children, we are lessening the burden on the public systems. I see this kind of thing as a pretty sound investment into the future. Less people in public school and hospitals etc means more resources and money for people who actually need the publc systems.

It's a slam dunk investment, tbh. But i dont expect many here to agree with me
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10107
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: PPL and child care

Post by gangrenous » December 9, 2014, 6:48 am

Pigman wrote: What happens right now is woman are feeling fianacial pressure to return to work before they are ready, but more importantly, before their children are ready for them to leave. You can make sacrifices all you like, but you have to pay the bills.

My wife and i saved, we got ahead of our mortgage, we made "sacrifices", and yet still eventually that money ran out, and it ran our sooner than we thought, sooner than my wife wanted, and certainly sooner than my son wanted. Of course we are better off than those of low income, that's not the issue here, as i said, this is not a welfare issue.
So if you're planning on having kids, don't have a mortgage that cripples you. Only buy a 700k house instead of 1 mil until the kids are older. Cry me a river affluent people...

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 9, 2014, 7:19 am

gangrenous wrote:
Pigman wrote: What happens right now is woman are feeling fianacial pressure to return to work before they are ready, but more importantly, before their children are ready for them to leave. You can make sacrifices all you like, but you have to pay the bills.

My wife and i saved, we got ahead of our mortgage, we made "sacrifices", and yet still eventually that money ran out, and it ran our sooner than we thought, sooner than my wife wanted, and certainly sooner than my son wanted. Of course we are better off than those of low income, that's not the issue here, as i said, this is not a welfare issue.
So if you're planning on having kids, don't have a mortgage that cripples you. Only buy a 700k house instead of 1 mil until the kids are older. Cry me a river affluent people...
Spot on. If you want children plan for it and adjust accordingly. Welfare exists to provide a safety net not to guarantee unfettered prosperity.

User avatar
Shezza
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18300
Joined: March 11, 2008, 12:15 pm

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Shezza » December 9, 2014, 7:29 am

But this policy isn't a welfare policy. Good grief.
Image
2013 'Nella Awards - MVP
2013 'Nella Awards - Spite Day Winner
2013 'Nella Awards - Worst System (The Club)

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26058
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Botman » December 9, 2014, 7:36 am

gangrenous wrote:
Pigman wrote: What happens right now is woman are feeling fianacial pressure to return to work before they are ready, but more importantly, before their children are ready for them to leave. You can make sacrifices all you like, but you have to pay the bills.

My wife and i saved, we got ahead of our mortgage, we made "sacrifices", and yet still eventually that money ran out, and it ran our sooner than we thought, sooner than my wife wanted, and certainly sooner than my son wanted. Of course we are better off than those of low income, that's not the issue here, as i said, this is not a welfare issue.
So if you're planning on having kids, don't have a mortgage that cripples you. Only buy a 700k house instead of 1 mil until the kids are older. Cry me a river affluent people...
I dont have a house worth near to those figures. I live in a fairly modest 2 bedroom town house
this is kind of what i mean, you **** idiots seem to believe that earning 150k somehow makes you swimming in money. It doesnt.

I am utterly middle class. Not even in the **** realm of affluent.
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
Shezza
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18300
Joined: March 11, 2008, 12:15 pm

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Shezza » December 9, 2014, 7:44 am

Do you all understand the link between female workplace participation and productivity? And return on education investment? And lower strain on govt. finances via super contributions etc?
Image
2013 'Nella Awards - MVP
2013 'Nella Awards - Spite Day Winner
2013 'Nella Awards - Worst System (The Club)

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 9, 2014, 7:46 am

Shezza wrote:But this policy isn't a welfare policy. Good grief.
You can try and spin it anyway you want but anytime the government takes money from one group in society and gives it to another it is welfare.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: PPL and child care

Post by T_R » December 9, 2014, 7:50 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:
Shezza wrote:But this policy isn't a welfare policy. Good grief.
You can try and spin it anyway you want but anytime the government takes money from one group in society and gives it to another it is welfare.
Such as the Labor/Greens carbon tax?
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6196
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: PPL and child care

Post by papabear » December 9, 2014, 7:51 am

Whether or not it is called welfare is imo semantics preying on certain nerve points.

Back to the scheme itself, you have to be earning money in a job, paying taxes, before you give birth to get it.

As it stands most carers have a choice come back to work after four months and keep their shoulder to the wheel, or take the full year off and return to their job where they have to put up with the bias that everyone knows they have enough cash to take 8 months off unpaid, or just not to return to work.

IMO extending it a further two months does not all of a sudden move it in welfare. It gives the primary carer two more months to bond with their child without adversely effecting their career to much.

It also moves what is expected of people and their careers and gives individuals raising / caring for children more opportunity to go back to work and be successful which is something we all want.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 9, 2014, 7:56 am

T_R wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:
Shezza wrote:But this policy isn't a welfare policy. Good grief.
You can try and spin it anyway you want but anytime the government takes money from one group in society and gives it to another it is welfare.
Such as the Labor/Greens carbon tax?
The Carbon tax itself was a consumption tax. The compensation paid to people when the carbon tax was introduced was clearly a welfare payment.

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6196
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: PPL , Child Care etc

Post by papabear » December 9, 2014, 8:02 am

Raidersrawesome wrote:Im a single income family. We chose it so the missus would stay home and look after the kids while I went to work. At some point I have had 2 jobs over the years.

Where is my tax break. Why do I get slugged the extra tax when I go into a higher bracket because Im doing the overime to compensate the missus not working.

This is only my opinion and its based on my situation. But I dont see why my taxes go to other familes who out their child in care.

I understand they choose to do that and may deem it necessary but why do I need to fund it when Im struggling to provide for my family.
For one income families, I am not sure how the current family benefit system works.

but I would allow the primary income earner to allocate an amount of say 40k to the person staying at home to take advantage of lower tax rates.

That said I would also amend the tax rates I think Julia fiddled making the non tax threshold 18k or something which is a tad ridiculous imo?

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24637
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Manbush » December 9, 2014, 8:03 am

gangrenous wrote:
Pigman wrote: What happens right now is woman are feeling fianacial pressure to return to work before they are ready, but more importantly, before their children are ready for them to leave. You can make sacrifices all you like, but you have to pay the bills.

My wife and i saved, we got ahead of our mortgage, we made "sacrifices", and yet still eventually that money ran out, and it ran our sooner than we thought, sooner than my wife wanted, and certainly sooner than my son wanted. Of course we are better off than those of low income, that's not the issue here, as i said, this is not a welfare issue.
So if you're planning on having kids, don't have a mortgage that cripples you. Only buy a 700k house instead of 1 mil until the kids are older. Cry me a river affluent people...
Pretty much, it's about planning, reorganising budgets to suit one income, not getting everything you want, down grading your lifestyle. Problem is now days everyone wants the best of everything straight away rather than upgrading throughout life when finance permit.

Need accountants more than welfare.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26058
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Botman » December 9, 2014, 8:13 am

Shezza wrote:Do you all understand the link between female workplace participation and productivity? And return on education investment? And lower strain on govt. finances via super contributions etc?
No, they clearly do not.
I think the replies thus far prove that.
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24637
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Manbush » December 9, 2014, 8:26 am

Can't see how paying more welfare will encourage a return to the workplace, is that the solution for those on the dole as well? Surely paying less welfare is more of an incentive to return to work.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Shezza
Laurie Daley
Posts: 18300
Joined: March 11, 2008, 12:15 pm

Re: PPL and child care

Post by Shezza » December 9, 2014, 8:31 am

Simply put Manbush, offering flexibility to female workers increases participation.

Do some of that fancy internet researching you like to do, and I'm sure you'll find something to support this.
Image
2013 'Nella Awards - MVP
2013 'Nella Awards - Spite Day Winner
2013 'Nella Awards - Worst System (The Club)

Post Reply