Govt. wants to sponsor pregnancy

[natmarie73]

What woman in their right mind would work for a small business anyway?

Small businesses don't give you anything just make you work like a slave for crap wages. If this legislation passes only large companies will be able to get half decent workers because they can offer the benefits that working women and men want. The reason maternity leave was brought in in the first place was because the private sector couldn't compete with the public service and couldn't get workers. The same will happen again with small business losing out.

In a climate where there are severe skills shortages, and skilled employees can pretty much pick and choose, any business not prepared to offer workers what they want will be losing out.

Sure you can say "well I won't be employing women of breeding age", but if your only choices of employees are women of breeding age then you have a bit of a problem. Last time I looked there weren't too many male secretaries around.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

lets change change the rules and make it madatory for men instead of woman to stay at home for at least 6 months from the birth of each of their kids...

Good luck trying to get the overwhelming majority of mums to do that... If I was a new dad I'd jump at the chance. Once upon a time, when my ex and I talked about having kids (oy vey!) we agreed that we would wait until we had achieved financial independence as we both wanted to stay home and raise the children.

My brother and sister in law just had their first child earlier this year (she's the most gorgeous little lady in the whole universe, by the way) and one moment that has really struck me was the forlorn tone in his voice when my brother mentioned that he seems to always be at work when she does her 'first' things.

Mark

 

[Strannik]

Maybe in a world where every child has one mummy and one daddy.

unless we are talking science fiction, i'm yet to see the world where a kid would have more than one mummy or daddy

if the kid is born he either has only mother, or both parents
last time i checked, men weren't able to give birth

 

[RumpledElf]

'Women of breeding age' these days is any woman between 15-45, that is a very large range to discriminate against.

Totally agree. If all these women decided to give up work, those whose husbands are on less than 75K or thereabouts (obviously alot) can then claim the baby bonus, family payment A and family payment B.

Not true - on parenting payment partnered, your FTB cuts down as soon as your partner earns more than $4500 a year. If you are a single mother it cuts down after you earn more than $40,000 a year or thereabouts. This is one of my personal pet peeves with the welfare system and its enthusiastic bias towards single mothers.

A large percentage are collecting several thousand $ a year just on family payments, year in year out, without contributing much tax wise. You don't ever hear people complaining about that .

A single mother with several children can pull in $60,000 a year tax free.

Doesnt the baby bonus actually benefit the lower income earners more than maternity payments, which are paid at (or pro-rata of) income, meaning the less you earn, the less you get?

Oh yes, very true. The baby bonus is a joke as far as I am concerned. An unemployed mother on $220 a week scores a major windfall when they have a baby alone - 6 months income in one big payment, then that $220 a week jumps to over $500 with rent assistance. And you wonder why they buy plasmas?

I had my first when I was working and took my 3 months paid maternity leave half pay for 6 months, plus a little annual leave and the Christmas holiday season to top it up a bit. When I was in hospital I was approached by Centerlink and told I could claim for all these payments that I had no idea existed (I only went through with having the baby because I could get maternity leave). The amount of extra money and perks I was entitled to was insane (no baby bonus though), and it all vanished the instant I stopped being single, despite the household income not changing a cent - my income precluded him from getting any welfare at all, and him existing precluded me from getting any welfare at all. I quit work and ended up much better off financially, although the instability of being fairly low income self-employed isn't as much fun.

And remember the $5000 isn't for the baby, it is for the mother, which is why it arrives after the baby. It was supposed to be a maternity leave substitute. By the time we got the bonus for the latest kid we'd already built and furnished a bedroom, we had a tonne of clothes off ebay and hand-me-downs from relatives, and the $4000 wasn't needed for the baby. So we bought two tanks and a truckload of gravel with it.

 

[weg]

Not true - on parenting payment partnered, your FTB cuts down as soon as your partner earns more than $4500 a year. If you are a single mother it cuts down after you earn more than $40,000 a year or thereabouts. This is one of my personal pet peeves with the welfare system and its enthusiastic bias towards single mothers.

RE,
Did you mean $45,000 a year?
"If your actual annual family income is more than $42,559 for this financial year, your payment will reduce by 20 cents for each dollar above $42,559, until your payment reaches the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A." - Centerlink.

 

[RumpledElf]

RE,
Did you mean $45,000 a year?
"If your actual annual family income is more than $42,559 for this financial year, your payment will reduce by 20 cents for each dollar above $42,559, until your payment reaches the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A." - Centerlink.

No, I meant $4,500.

"Secondary earners can earn up to $4526 each year before it affects the rate of FTB Part B. Payments are reduced by 20 cents for each dollar of income earned over $4,526."

I note that every Centerlink payment in existance is over $4,526, and if it rental income it is assessed BEFORE any gearing, so it is only possible to get maximum FTB as a single mother or an earning parent with a stay-at-home-and-earning-less-than-welfare partner, or some other welfare loophole that I don't know about that everyone else except me is probably exploiting. I just know that when my household income was much, much higher than it is now, I got maybe 3x more from Centrelink than I do now.

 

[weg]

No, I meant $4,500.

"Secondary earners can earn up to $4526 each year before it affects the rate of FTB Part B. Payments are reduced by 20 cents for each dollar of income earned over $4,526."

I note that every Centerlink payment in existance is over $4,526, and if it rental income it is assessed BEFORE any gearing, so it is only possible to get maximum FTB as a single mother or an earning parent with a stay-at-home-and-earning-less-than-welfare partner, or some other welfare loophole that I don't know about that everyone else except me is probably exploiting. I just know that when my household income was much, much higher than it is now, I got maybe 3x more from Centrelink than I do now.

I misunderstood, sorry. The figure I gave was for FTB Part A. Link shows the figures of some of the payments I was originally referring to for comparison to Maternity Leave Payment.

http://www.familyassist.gov.au/Inte...t/payments-ftba-how_much_ftba-32486_82052.htm

 

[Pushka]

What woman in their right mind would work for a small business anyway?

Small businesses don't give you anything just make you work like a slave for crap wages. Sure you can say "well I won't be employing women of breeding age", but if your only choices of employees are women of breeding age then you have a bit of a problem. Last time I looked there weren't too many male secretaries around.

Not all small business thanks! Actually, our best employees have been women in their forties plus!

 

[Dazz]

If I ever pull my finger out and start a business, I'm quite determined to employ as my primary staff member an organised elderly lady. I'm thinking someone in her late 50's or early 60's, perhaps a retired legal secretary or librarian....someone studious and methodical, who cannot and will not surf the internet for hours on end. I'll do enough of that nonsense for both of us.

My wife has a few criteria as well to keep me on the straight and narrow. She must be as ugly as sin and as wide as a barn door. I'm OK with that.

Hopefully we'll be able to provide employment for one of these pensioners who needs the extra money, and at the same time avoid all of the dramas involved with this thread.

Of course, business interruptions due to taking care of grandchildren then comes into play, to cover the dramas created by their children being inept and indulging in mortgages and lifestyle choices they cannot afford and then forced to both work.

 

[Aaron Sice]

but...natmarie - you dont HAVE to work for a small business if you dont want to.

 

[HiEquity]

Hmmm, we have support for pensioners that discriminates against people of non pension age. We have support for people with disabilities that discriminates against those with able bodies. Support for child bearing women that discriminates against men (although the support can be given to the man if elected by the couple anyway).

You get the drift. The fact that someone else gets something that you aren't seems to bring out the worst in people unfortunately. This is not an abundance mindset. It works to impact every aspect of life, your happiness and your net worth.

Focus on the abundance in your own life rather than what "your" tax dollars are being spent on. Or if you can't do that just remember it's the mining royalties that are paying for it anyway!

If new mothers or fathers get 15 weeks of one on one time with their new babies, with consequent health and wellbeing benefits for all concerned, is that really something that benefits you getting all worked up about? Where should your focus be?

 

[Petal]

If I ever pull my finger out and start a business, I'm quite determined to employ as my primary staff member an organised elderly lady. I'm thinking someone in her late 50's or early 60's, perhaps a retired legal secretary or librarian....someone studious and methodical, who cannot and will not surf the internet for hours on end. I'll do enough of that nonsense for both of us.

My wife has a few criteria as well to keep me on the straight and narrow. She must be as ugly as sin and as wide as a barn door. I'm OK with that.

Hopefully we'll be able to provide employment for one of these pensioners who needs the extra money, and at the same time avoid all of the dramas involved with this thread.

Of course, business interruptions due to taking care of grandchildren then comes into play, to cover the dramas created by their children being inept and indulging in mortgages and lifestyle choices they cannot afford and then forced to both work.

Just add to the criteria. old, ugly as sin, wide as a barn door and an orphan spinster then you will have the perfect package!!!

 

[ianvestor]

unless we are talking science fiction, i'm yet to see the world where a kid would have more than one mummy or daddy

if the kid is born he either has only mother, or both parents
last time i checked, men weren't able to give birth

Did you check recently?

I wasn't refuting biological science. I was just suggesting that families aint nuclear anymore. Some kids live with 2 gay mums or 2 gay dads or maybe just one parent.

Bottom line, I still don't think maternity leave can be thought of as 'all family income' as you put it.

 

[Strannik]

how old 'kids' are we talking about?
i would've thought - newborns, hence i don't see how gay dads make it there, and out of two gay moms the one who gave birth would get it anyway

and considering that government doesn't recognize gay pairs as a 'family' they would be considered single parents anyway

with singles - they would be getting it regardless of sex

 

[RumpledElf]

Maybe not in Australia, but gay dads can adopt or use a surrogate to get a newborn (or very young anyway), and there's always sperm donation for lesbians. And don't forget a lesbian relationship involving a m2f transgendered who hasn't has the big operation yet can result in an "oops" baby with two mothers

And apparently the government is thinking of recognising gays as family one of these days - its always seemed a bit odd that if you are in a sharehouse with someone of the opposite sex centerlink sends you 500 forms interrogating you as to how much of the toaster you both own, yet if you are 100% sharing finances with someone of the same sex it doesn't count. I cant see them putting polyamorous relationships into the system any time soon though ...

i would've thought - newborns, hence i don't see how gay dads make it there, and out of two gay moms the one who gave birth would get it anyway

and considering that government doesn't recognize gay pairs as a 'family' they would be considered single parents anyway

 

[Trogdor]

or bring in maternity leave and get rid of most of the family benefits.

why a couple on $130,000/yr need family benefits, i'll be damned. there should be a cutoff point of the average wage and pay the money to the kids schools to fund fees and excursions.

There is a very good reason - the very sort of people you dont want breeding do the most, and the very sort of people you do want to breed arguably dont breed enough!!

The opportunity cost (both financial and other) for those you want to reproduce is often very high, and prohibits or delays their decision to do so.

A flat bonus of a few K doesnt make much to affect this decision. A %age of wages for a period may just do this.

Mark - I am very surprised by your attitude. "Your taxes" are often going into paying single teenage skank mums who have never had a job to get welfare, and have 3 kids who will then go on to get more welfare. This sort of new policy may actually encourage responsible people to have children who will grow up to be themselves responsible people. Think about it.

 

[josko]

There is a very good reason - the very sort of people you dont want breeding do the most, and the very sort of people you do want to breed arguably dont breed enough!!



Trogdor,

I have never thought of it that way before. What a great point.

With that in thought, it is more than likely the professional women with careers that go back to work after having a baby to full-time. These women would have the drive and possibly the need professionally to stay in the work force, for fear of being left behind.

Pshychologically, if the more professional woman was assured of maternity leave and the assurity of an income while she took time off, then maybe more of the diserable "type" of mother would be having babies.

The single mum's and teenage mum's you talk of are more than likely not holding down full-time positions anyway.

So to sum it up, maybe this maternity leave IS a better thing not as far as SB's are concerned, but as far as the people who deserve it the most are going to get it. It should NOT be means tested.

Regards JO



Regards JO

 

[Dazz]

the very sort of people you dont want breeding do the most, and the very sort of people you do want to breed arguably dont breed enough!!

...yes, but in the real world....whose gonna volunteer to be a member of the first bunch ??

Social breeding judges - deciding who can breed and who can't. Brilliant.

I can just imagine the appeals court. "Your honour, I must object, I was rejected for breeding 3 years ago because I didn't have a job, ate junk food constantly and have a very long criminal record. But I'm good now."

"I volunteer down at the charity shop, I haven't eaten Maccas for at least 2 weeks and I haven't bashed anyone since August. Me gonads are banging around me knees and I'm quite desparate sir. Please sir....can I have a temporary licence to breed just for tonight. I'd be ever so grateful."

 

[ethereal]

I think it is terrible that mothers feel the need to put their tiny little newborns in care to get back to work, whether it be due to money or fear of letting down their employer. It is hard on Mums too. I went back to work part time when my 1st child was 5 weeks old. I really felt torn and left out, missing out on my baby and spending all of every break holed up in an office trying to express milk. To have had government sponsored paid maternity leave would have made this time easier on everyone and far better for baby.

Now that I am entering the 'breeding program' for the third time, I must say I would gladly give up any entitlements, or just pay out 20k or so to stop constantly vomiting. I have lost 2 kg in the last 48 hours. Not only could I not work if wanted to, but hubby is at home to care for our kids and me because I am so ill with this pregnancy. Any blokes with 'balls' out there care to swap positions? You can even have my baby bonus.

Louise

 

[fokas]

Perhaps something to do with the actual process of giving birth to a child which might translate into a longer recovery period for mothers than dad's.., hence a bit longer period of paid leave for mothers.

Is it really worth getting upset on to something that trivial... perhaps another way of looking at this would be that fathers now have 2 weeks paid maternity leave compared to nothing previously.. Glass is half full

Harris

Agreed. Also the dates/roles can be reversed...ie the mother can take 2 weeks whilst the father thats the full 18.

In Luxemborg first time mothers get 2 years paid maternity leave..and the fathers get something like 6 months?