Tony Abbott's nanny plan

[pennyk]

Wondering what people's thoughts are about Tony Abbott's "plans" to consider increasing child care rebate for nannies ...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/now-for-abbotts-nanny-state-20120324-1vqwf.html

I'm very fortunate to be beyond child care now, but our family benefitted from having live in au-pairs to care for our children. We used them for around 4 years, from when my youngest was in the year before school (she was also using child care).
It was overwhelmingly a positive experience. Financially, it was far better for us than using after school care, and socially, it meant the kids were home, homework done, dinner cooked etc when we got home, so we could relax as a family, rather than have to rush all those after school activities.
The aupairs (who were primarily "backpackers") received board, lodging and around $200 "pocket money" a week (for working from around 3-7pm week days).
Their responsibilities included child care, cooking, cleaning and occassional weekend babysitting. We paid towards the top of the spectrum that aupairs would receive. If they hadnt done cooking etc, the pay would be around $120/week. It is really pathetic pay, but you have to consider the additional benefits of board/ lodging etc. Live out nannies would obviously be paid quite a lot more, and they are less "flexible" in what type of work they will do, in terms of housework/cooking etc.

But I guess the question is, should it be subsidised by the govt?
I dont think aupairs should be, because there is too much of a mix of household tasks and child care...... and I think it would be easy to over-regulate the industry, so that it was no longer feasible to have aupairs.

 

[kathryn d]

Since the family is providing a job to the au pair, the payment ($200) and fair market value of the room/meals ($150?) should be deducted from the income of the family.

The au pair would pay taxes on the $200 +$150 value of the room/meals

 

[Ideo]

Just another example of middle class socialism.

 

[luckyone]

I think it's silly. It's already hard to attract people into childcare, and this will only encourage some of those people to go into these private arrangements. I mean how much easier would it be to look after 1-2 kids in a home then a room full of kids in a childcare center? I think it'll just put the cost of childcare up further to try to keep childcare workers from going into this line instead.

 

[Ocean Architect]

I'm going to be brief about what I think before I go nuclear and get banned from the board

The federal government has no business getting involved in peoples life like that. None. None at all. The federal government exists for 3 reasons:

1 national defense
2 system of laws
3 to establish and protect a currency

That's it. That's all those pricks get to do. They have no business putting their fingers in my pocket in order to subsidise someones babysitting. They have no business putting their fingers in someone elses pocket to subsidise my babysitting.

They have no business creating agency after agency in order to make this rule or that in order to regulate this or regulate that. People arent stupid. Im not stupid. I dont need a bylaw to direct me as to the proper way to look after my kids, or educate them, or scratch my bottom.

Lets get something straight - the government doesnt make any money. None. Not a dollar. All they do is tax the entire population in order to spend those taxes in a specific direction, for whatever reason. The more they get to tax us, the more they do a bunch of crap like the pink bat insulation scheme, or the carbon tax which is being regaled around the world, or the $900 bonus for people who didnt work as much as others, and whatever stupid ridiculous moron scheme they come up with.

I want their stinking fingers out of my pockets. If they didnt tax the living daylights out of us left and right, then maybe we could leave a wife at home to look after the kids instead of her going out to bloody well work in order to pay for whatever harebrained moron plan a bunch of fat mouthed nobodies in suits come up with when it doesnt cost them a single damn cent.

The taxpayer isnt some endless money growing machine that they can tax the life out of just because we arent organise to grab both Gillard and Abbot by the head and smash both of their empty skulls together. Probably hear a bloody hollow noise if I did that, too.

 

[HiEquity]

OA, I wonder who would build roads, train networks and ports under your model? State Governments? The Constitution is an interesting beast - it has evolved to give all the responsibilities to the states but the main levers of revenue raising to the Feds. So it's difficult to be too purist about these things.

But I agree with you. Another thought bubble policy (how easily a referral to the Productivity Commission gets called a policy these days... a policy to perhaps have a policy, if possible, within the existing funding envelope, maybe - it's just PC drivel!) without any clarity on how it will be paid for. Just like maternity leave, "direct action", superannuation imposts and NOT dropping the company tax rate (a lovely free kick to Labor to help them balance the budget, where no doubt they could use the help)... WTF - how does this stuff even get close to being Liberal party policy? The brown stuff is going to hit the rotating ventilator in the Federal Liberal party pretty soon unless they start bringing their policies back to basics...

The au pair system works - why mess with it? And kathryn I doubt many (read any) backpackers would declare their cash income while here. And seriously, at that level, who really cares? It works already, all by itself... let it be!

 

[kathryn d]

The au pair system works - why mess with it? And kathryn I doubt many (read any) backpackers would declare their cash income while here. And seriously, at that level, who really cares? It works already, all by itself... let it be!

I wasn't actually referring to backpackers at all.
Au pairs/ nannies are a job titile.

When the parent wanted to claim the nanny as a tax deduction, they would need to provide the tfn of the nanny. If, when the ATO did a cross reference, and the nanny hadn't filed, then appropriate meaures would be taken.

 

[Ocean Architect]

Mate did you just pick the wrong guy to ask those questions to. I am Greek of heritage, Australian by birth, rational by design and both capable and irritated in conscience.

OA, I wonder who would build roads, train networks and ports under your model? State Governments?

No. Local governments. Private enterprise.

Think about it. Every time the federal government gets involved we have a combination of both uselessness in decision making, and graft to personal interests. That is a given, before I even start on the corruption found in this country. Even that in law, that favours the "queen". (aint my queen.)

Human beings are not stupid. They (we) are not incapable. If a town wants a road built, the men (and women) of that town will make it so. There is this idea, this fallacy, that the federal government is required to build a road. ********. I am a builder. I can make a road. I've done it. My fellows can help me. We can do this thing at the local level. We can do this at the personal level. Building a road is not hard. Building train tracks is not hard. We, as Australian citizens, with personal capacity, do not have to wait for the federal government to say "you have our permission to build a road, now go do it for us" in order to build it.

This idea that federal government must be involved in order to recruit local builders to build a local road with federal permission is *** about backwards.

We, as Australian citizens at a local level, with builders at a local level, with funds at a local level, do not need the bloody federal government to give us the okay to build a road, or port, or airport, or mine.

Remember, the government makes nothing. The government merely regulates what we as citizens may do, with law. My view is to tell the federal government to get lost, and we, the local and state citizens, with our own money, will provide for ourselves, because we, as local or state citizens, KNOW HOW.

The feds don't know how to spend money in local communities. Local communities do. I do not think it logical that I as a local resident must give my money to a federal agency to give to a state agency that gives it to a local agency to spend it, when we at the local level can do it ourselves with less fuss, less waste, and targeted spending.

The Constitution is an interesting beast - it has evolved to give all the responsibilities to the states but the main levers of revenue raising to the Feds. So it's difficult to be too purist about these things.

It is not difficult. It merely requires balls. The balls to say that the US constitution is better. The balls to say that a bill of rights should be had properly. The balls to say, as a human being - ******** to all this. My balls are bigger than your rules, and how about that you pansy girlie man bastid.

But I agree with you. Another thought bubble policy (how easily a referral to the Productivity Commission gets called a policy these days... a policy to perhaps have a policy, if possible, within the existing funding envelope, maybe - it's just PC drivel!) without any clarity on how it will be paid for. Just like maternity leave, "direct action", superannuation imposts and NOT dropping the company tax rate (a lovely free kick to Labor to help them balance the budget, where no doubt they could use the help)... WTF - how does this stuff even get close to being Liberal party policy? The brown stuff is going to hit the rotating ventilator in the Federal Liberal party pretty soon unless they start bringing their policies back to basics...

blee blee, blah blah, BS, BS...you said nothing in all of that. Because the whole thing is a pile of BS, and we both know it.

The au pair system works - why mess with it? And kathryn I doubt many (read any) backpackers would declare their cash income while here. And seriously, at that level, who really cares? It works already, all by itself... let it be!

What in Gods name are you talking about? A flawed beast within a flawed system? Id rather talk about the weather.

 

[Indifference]

Just another example of middle class socialism.

Well, almost..... perhaps at the micro level but not really at the macro level.

this is a giant shell game. OA, correctly points out the government "produces" nothing, they merely collect & spend tax dollars. Let's think about that for a second!

The government is interested in raising revenue. The more they raise, the more election promises they can keep & therefore stay in office. Now, in order to raise revenue they can do various things & in this case it is to raise the participation rate.

By attempting to "legitimize" the Au Pair employment sector through "tax incentives" they are trying to bring the Au Pair into the taxable income spotlight & further encourage the middle class stay at home parent to get back into the workforce. This will see an increase in the participation rate & win more middle class votes whilst paying for itself. This is not about redistribution of current tax dollars but rather increasing revenue through increased participation in the workforce.

I don't agree with it, but let's see it for what it really is. It is a tax grab, not merely a tax redistribution to the middle class.

Like I said, this is just a giant shell game so stop looking at the ball and start looking at the hands.... then you might actually begin to see the "sleight of hand" that is really going on here.

 

[dan c]

But I guess the question is, should it be subsidised by the govt?
I dont think aupairs should be, because there is too much of a mix of household tasks and child care...... and I think it would be easy to over-regulate the industry, so that it was no longer feasible to have aupairs.

No, no, no. If people want a nanny, they can pay for it themselves.

Abbott, on one hand, talks of government waste and how his govt will strip $70 billion (that's $70,000,000,000) in spending, yet on the other hand, he will keep all the middle class welfare largesse of his Liberal Party predecessor.

In fact, not only will he keep it, he'll increase it, with a much more lucrative maternal leave scheme, and now this 'nanny' payment.

The numbers don't add up.

 

[Ideo]

No, no, no. If people want a nanny, they can pay for it themselves.

Abbott, on one hand, talks of government waste and how his govt will strip $70 billion (that's $70,000,000,000) in spending, yet on the other hand, he will keep all the middle class welfare largesse of his Liberal Party predecessor.

In fact, not only will he keep it, he'll increase it, with a much more lucrative maternal leave scheme, and now this 'nanny' payment.

The numbers don't add up.

No. It's their right. Like tax breaks on lease cars and negative gearing and government funding of private schools.

It's the other handouts that are bad and evil.

Disgusting hypocrisy.

 

[dan c]

I don't agree with it, but let's see it for what it really is. It is a tax grab, not merely a tax redistribution to the middle class.

Really?

So, if the family decides to engage a nanny, they will only receive the benefit if the stay at home partner goes to work?

 

[evand]

Tony knows he's off with women voters in this country after his many dumb and misogynist remarks over the years. He's attempting to shore up votes.

 

[dan c]

The other thing I read about Tony, in Misha Schubert's article, was that he drinks something called a 'shandy light'.

I thought my grandmother was the only person who still drinks shandy. But at least she drinks it with full strength beer. Shandy Light? I can't vote for a man whose drink of choice is a shandy light.

 

[Aaron_C]

dan_c I don't think you're not choosing to vote for Tony Abbott because of the type of beverage he drinks.

 

[dan c]

dan_c I don't think you're not choosing to vote for Tony Abbott because of the type of beverage he drinks.

It was a little tounge-in-cheek, but you can tell a lot about a man from his drink of choice.

 

[Aaron_C]

It was a little tounge-in-cheek, but you can tell a lot about a man from his drink of choice.

Are you saying he is a 'girlie-man'?

 

[coastymike]

Well could be worse could have the wonderful Bob Katter in power pronouncing that Queensland has no homosexuals. Thought society had progressed so much from the redneck days but seems as though it hasn't.

 

[Macca]

This sort of policy stems from buying the vote of working women. If we go back to when few women worked and stayed home looking after the kids we didn't need to provide child care.

Then women wanted to work so subsidising child care became a vote winner. Now that child/carer ratios have changed it has become cheaper to have a Nanny than to pay child care fees when you have more than one child.

I don't really see any difference between subsidising child care or subsidising a Nanny assuming it is a similar cost to the Govt.

 

[Aaron Sice]

Just another example of middle class socialism.

careful.....you mean middle class welfare, surely.