The Greenhouse

Shezza wrote:Ok, I get it.

The threshold is set where Manbush deems it to be.

Green eyed Mick wrote:Explain to me why $35K (roughly half the median wage) over 6 months is not enough?

Manbush wrote:

Shezza wrote:Ok, I get it.

The threshold is set where Manbush deems it to be.

No but common sense should prevail, if you don need the money you shouldn't get it.

Hopefully this article helps put things in some perspective, in a time when so many are living under the poverty line why should we be paying welfare to those who don't actually NEED it to survive. If our economy was going through the roof then maybe it could be argued it's the right thing to do, but our economy isn't.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-1 ... bs/5807624

Green eyed Mick wrote:Explain to me why $35K (roughly half the median wage) over 6 months is not enough?

Manbush wrote:There has to be a means test for it, chick at work is currently on her 13month of maternity leave and doesn't look likely to be coming back for another couple of months, obviously she didn't need it but people appear to be happy to just give it to her regardless. (She was on about 80k husband around the 200k mark).

The Nickman wrote:

Manchild wrote:I would have ended up homeless without PPL. We put ourselves in a position financially whilst both working to be paying off a mortgage. Factor in buying stuff to bring a child into the world and the extra expenses that go with it and then you take away an income.

I know that there are people in this country far worse off than me, but for you to be against me receiving assistance from the government after both my partner and I have worked since both leaving school to keep the life we built for ourselves in tact is ridiculous.

After we finished receiving our payments, my partner had to go back to work permanent part-time after 5 months. My mother looks after our young fella for those days as child care is far too much and frankly I would rather someone I know raising my son until he can at least do the basics.

So you receive it already?? I didn't realise the scheme was already in place!

Manbush wrote:There has to be a means test for it, chick at work is currently on her 13month of maternity leave and doesn't look likely to be coming back for another couple of months, obviously she didn't need it but people appear to be happy to just give it to her regardless. (She was on about 80k husband around the 200k mark).

Green eyed Mick wrote:Explain to me why $35K (roughly half the median wage) over 6 months is not enough?

Manbush wrote:There has to be a means test for it, chick at work is currently on her 13month of maternity leave and doesn't look likely to be coming back for another couple of months, obviously she didn't need it but people appear to be happy to just give it to her regardless. (She was on about 80k husband around the 200k mark).

The Nickman wrote: Hahahahahahaha Hanbush has been Googling.

Love it.

T_R wrote:

Green eyed Mick wrote:Explain to me why $35K (roughly half the median wage) over 6 months is not enough?

Explain to me why a single guy living in a one bedroom apartment feels that he's in any position to comment on the needs of working families?

Manbush wrote:There has to be a means test for it, chick at work is currently on her 13month of maternity leave and doesn't look likely to be coming back for another couple of months, obviously she didn't need it but people appear to be happy to just give it to her regardless. (She was on about 80k husband around the 200k mark).

She's probably just using it to buy drugs.

Which is good!

For the health benefits!

Manchild wrote:

The Nickman wrote:

Manchild wrote:I would have ended up homeless without PPL. We put ourselves in a position financially whilst both working to be paying off a mortgage. Factor in buying stuff to bring a child into the world and the extra expenses that go with it and then you take away an income.

I know that there are people in this country far worse off than me, but for you to be against me receiving assistance from the government after both my partner and I have worked since both leaving school to keep the life we built for ourselves in tact is ridiculous.

After we finished receiving our payments, my partner had to go back to work permanent part-time after 5 months. My mother looks after our young fella for those days as child care is far too much and frankly I would rather someone I know raising my son until he can at least do the basics.

So you receive it already?? I didn't realise the scheme was already in place!

No we had our kid when it was 16 weeks at minimum wage ($500 p/w).

Lucy wrote:

Green eyed Mick wrote:Explain to me why $35K (roughly half the median wage) over 6 months is not enough?

Who the hell gets $35k for 6 months?

T_R wrote:

Manbush wrote:There has to be a means test for it, chick at work is currently on her 13month of maternity leave and doesn't look likely to be coming back for another couple of months, obviously she didn't need it but people appear to be happy to just give it to her regardless. (She was on about 80k husband around the 200k mark).

Um...who's paying for her maternity leave then, Manbush?

The Nickman wrote:So what's the current deal with maternity leave anyway?? One of my staff is pregnant and she's the major breadwinner in her marriage, but I'm pretty sure we're not just putting her out on her **** while she's off work.

Manbush wrote:

T_R wrote:

Manbush wrote:There has to be a means test for it, chick at work is currently on her 13month of maternity leave and doesn't look likely to be coming back for another couple of months, obviously she didn't need it but people appear to be happy to just give it to her regardless. (She was on about 80k husband around the 200k mark).

Um...who's paying for her maternity leave then, Manbush?

Her and her husband, optoms within our company are subcontractors but her and her family are very respected within the industry so the position is being kept open for her indefinitely.

They're very well off not only due to income but they've never been the frivolous type with money.

T_R wrote:

Manbush wrote:There has to be a means test for it, chick at work is currently on her 13month of maternity leave and doesn't look likely to be coming back for another couple of months, obviously she didn't need it but people appear to be happy to just give it to her regardless. (She was on about 80k husband around the 200k mark).

She's probably just using it to buy drugs.

Which is good!

For the health benefits!

Lucy wrote:

The Nickman wrote:So what's the current deal with maternity leave anyway?? One of my staff is pregnant and she's the major breadwinner in her marriage, but I'm pretty sure we're not just putting her out on her **** while she's off work.

That pretty much sums it up.

gangrenous wrote:

Lucy wrote:

Green eyed Mick wrote:Explain to me why $35K (roughly half the median wage) over 6 months is not enough?

Who the hell gets $35k for 6 months?

Try reading the thread. GeM is arguing for the PPL to be pushed out to 6 months, but capping the amount lower than the proposed scheme.

Another day on the greenhouse with personal attacks and straw men outweighing rational debate.

Shezza wrote:

Manbush wrote:

T_R wrote:

Manbush wrote:There has to be a means test for it, chick at work is currently on her 13month of maternity leave and doesn't look likely to be coming back for another couple of months, obviously she didn't need it but people appear to be happy to just give it to her regardless. (She was on about 80k husband around the 200k mark).

Um...who's paying for her maternity leave then, Manbush?

Her and her husband, optoms within our company are subcontractors but her and her family are very respected within the industry so the position is being kept open for her indefinitely.

They're very well off not only due to income but they've never been the frivolous type with money.

I can't really be certain because that doesn't make a lot of sense. But it appears to me she is being paid by the company, or not at all now (and the job is simply being held for her).

So it's not a govt handout, its part of her work package, funded by the company.

Please describe how this is relevant?

Manbush wrote:
Relevance is means testing any PPL, she obviously didn't require it so why should the tax payer fork it out for her and others in her position.

gangrenous wrote:Straw man away Lucy. The main objection is the higher income earners receiving large sums for the same period.

If you want the discussion to be 6 months vs 1 year for all that's a separate issue.

T_R wrote:

Manbush wrote:
Relevance is means testing any PPL, she obviously didn't require it so why should the tax payer fork it out for her and others in her position.

Because this one person that I happen to know didn't need to be supported, no one does.

Actually, that's very reasonable. Sample sizes of '1' are almost always entirely representative of a population.

gangrenous wrote:Straw man away Lucy. The main objection is the higher income earners receiving large sums for the same period.

If you want the discussion to be 6 months vs 1 year for all that's a separate issue.

gangrenous wrote:Am I wrong T_R?

Manbush wrote:[
Your comprehension skills surely aren't that deplorable TR,

T_R wrote:

gangrenous wrote:Am I wrong T_R?

In my experience in this thread, almost entirely and almost always.

The Nickman wrote:Hanbush is right (in a ****ing roundabout kind of way). This "chick" didn't get the pay out, certainly doesn't need it, but probably would've got it if it were in place.

I am strongly opposed to middle class welfare and the argument that "we pay enough tax, we should be entitled to it" just doesn't wash with me.