Both the Greens and the Coalition have a cap, slightly different level if I remember rightly but I think both were 150K or under. Really if you read the stats I don't know why so much is made of cap or not - the percentage of women of childbearing age who are earning incomes above 150K is tiny, and not all of those will even want to have children/more children.:
I assume the cap is an issue because families on lower incomes resent the thought of their taxes supporting a family on 200k.
I know a lot of women who are of child bearing age who earn more than 150K and would love have children.
The problem is the lack of men :)
I think a lot of the policies will be reviewed come budget time
"Non-core promises"? :p
Reviewed = ignored, forgotten about, dumped.
Unfortunately, I'm not in that small percentage of women earning $300K per year, but this comment rubs me the wrong way. It's not ok to support for 6 months those women on a high income who choose to have a child, but it's ok for the (huge) taxes of that high income woman to support a crowd of low income earning women who make the same choice?? Whatever is paid to the high income earner will soon be recouped by the government when she returns to work and resumes paying tax. The money given to low income earning mother's often results in them making the choice to not return to the workforce and therefore paying no tax.:
I knew there'd be a variety of different responses when I posted this article and to be honest, I have absolutely NO idea how I feel about this policy.
I have a problem with people talking or acting like a govt payment is "owed" to them or is a "right". Governments choose to make payments to certain member of society for different reasons. If one of the platforms of the government is a pro-vax platform then you can expect certain exclusions to payments based on that platform. However, I also have a problem with government dictating parenting choices. I guess for me it comes down to what they are excluding. As payments are not a "right" I don't have as much of a problem with them being withheld. I would however, have a serious issue with state schools excluding non-vaxxed kids as state-funded education is absolutely a right. Not sure if that makes sense. It does in my sleep-deprived, pregnancy addled brain.
This quote confuses me. Isn't that the governments job? To do things that the majority of society think are brilliant ideas? No government should ever make policies based on a minority of society. I'm not saying I agree with the policy but I would have thought that with any policy, the government should be trying to gain approval from the majority population.:
He's done it in the face of a shaky support base - its a quick easy win. I read today that labour is in just as bad shape when things went nuts with Gillard ... and Abbott is preferred by far. Which is a very scary proposition too.:
This whole damn thing is just another hulabaloo putting vaxers against non-vaxers. I think it would kill some people to be respectful of others carefully thought out decisions.
You know what annoys me? That medical and religious grounds are the only exemptions. How the heck does religion trump so many things?? It's a load of old codswallop and it's supposed to be a good reason to chose vaccination exemption? What about other more well thought out reasons? We're in the states at the moment and we could opt-out based on grounds of medical or 'personal beliefs'. I think that is much more fair to those that have valid beliefs against vaccinating their children but don't subscribe to a religion. How does religion keep being such a trump card in a secular society?
I disagree here Glenny. The government's job is to do the right thing not necessarily the most popular thing.:
This policy is designed to create an emotional response IMO. And therefore to gain a popularity vote as the majority do vax. I'm not really sure that it would change much. Those who have forgotten to vax will get it up to date or choose to forgo the payment. Real CO's will either forgo the payment or come up with a medical or religious reason not to vax.
This paid parental leave thing irks me. It just doesn't make sense to me that some women should be paid more or less than other women based on their earnings. It is counter logical to my understanding of welfare. Surely the amount paid should go down as income goes up not the other way around. It is supporting lifestyle rather than providing necessary assistance. I would rather see a raise in pension rates or increased public housing funding.
I think this is my belief too. Women (or couples) on high incomes have greater capacity to prepare for pregnancy and leave in advance, and to make up their deficit more quickly once they return to work. I have heard the argument that they have greater expenses - but if you have a more expensive lifestyle you also probably have more areas where you can reduce payments out temporarily or long term, an advantage that those on lower incomes may not have.:
Wow. Massive generalisation. How many low income families can afford a stay at home parent? The workforce is full of women who would love to stay home but can't afford to.:
Umm clearly i live under a rock as ive not received a payment for my children having been vaxed. I had no idea i could get a payment.......was i ment to apply? Not that it matters seen as there now 13, 9 and almost 3.
Yes, Zazou, I am one of them. But the government doesn't pay me a cent and although I would love to remain at home, in order for my DH and I to make our parenting choices I am forced to go to work and earn an income to support those choices.:
More than half of my mother's group chose not to return to work as they had a greater income relying on government payments than returning to the workforce and factoring in the cost of child care. A small sample, certainly, but it is a situation I have seen often in my 10 years as a parent.
I'm not sure where the generalisation is, 'often' doesn't generalise?
I'm unsure why people can't just save money for whilst they're not working :dunno:
That's what we did, on average wages, paid off any outstanding debt prior to me finishing work, apart from working 2 hours a week for the past two years, we've survived on one wage, we don't holiday often, we make do, why can't others do the same? It was our choice to have kids.
I agree with olive. The baby bonus was awesome, but we weren't relying on it to survive. We saved hard throughout the pregnancy. Maybe it's because I'm done having kids, but I won't be voting for a party that offers a paid parental leave scheme.
I think that paid parental leave is important but I don't support a model that pays more for some parents to stay home than others. They are all doing the same job so they should all get paid the same. It would be great if families could choose between both parents staying home for a shorter time or one parent staying home for twice as long.
ETA - I think Abbott's idea about tempting 'women of quality' to have babies is ridiculous and insulting. It is so shallow to assume that a high wage is related to the quality of a woman. Many women choose careers in lower paid jobs that offer huge benefits to society (think teachers, social workers and so on). Suggesting that these women aren't women of quality is incredibly short sighted.
ETA - As for why religion trumps other issues. One of the cornerstones of secular democracy is freedom of religion. That means that even if you think something is gobblydygook you have to respect its importance to other people.