GOVT's new parametres aroung CCR........means tested?

[~mamaspice~]

I don't think an annual income of $150k for a couple is high. I would think it is middle income!

Well we must be low income then with a combined one of $85K. No freaking wonder we struggle. My DH works fulltime and earns just over 50k (works for state Govt funnily enough) and I work 3 days and earn just over 30k (in an industry I've been in for 14 years and have qualifications in) We work damn hard and sometimes I wonder what the heck for. If I didn't work we'd be stuffed and if they took our childare tax benefit away we'd be stuffed. It's a catch 22 for us.

[~MummaBear~]

wow we must be on the poverty line with a combined income of $49K

[Astrid]

I tried looking up what the actual definition of middle income is and could not find much other than others asking the same question. There is a lot on the ABS site and even though I have studied in that area it is just too much for me to take in right now.

It all seems to differ on who you talk to. MIL thinks we should be rolling in it and same with BIL (no kids). Other adults with whom I have been honest about our income say we are on a "getting by" salary for a family and getting by is all we do, with me going back to work it just means we wont go backwards.

So wish the news media would give their definition of middle income.

[e_p]

I don't think an annual income of $150k for a couple is high. I would think it is middle income!

wow...$150,000 p/a per couple middle income? I guess I'm used to dealing with couples that manage to get by on $30,000 per annum. $150,000 is 3 times the family income I grew up on.

[Snacks]

I'm used to dealing with couples that manage to get by on $30,000 per annum.

Is that in the city? How?!?
We did 50k combined without kids while I studied and some nights we ate cereal for dinner. Rent alone took a lot of that and then there was transport to work/study, then food came last. Entertainment was a video. We would eat at our parents' at least one night a week.

I would consider $80k to be middle income. I'd consider 150k+ to be high income. (But I like BG's sliding scale method - that seems much more fair!)
We too would be stuffed without the CCR - CC is more than half my pay. I think we are realistically high earners. We don't live a 'rich' lifestyle, but I don't think that's what it means. We don't even own our own home but we do own a business and we can afford to buy new things and go on holidays. It's all relative. Yes, there are people who earn HEAPS more than us - there's a heck of a lot of money out there, but those 'very high earners' I think are in a minority.

[RainbowBrite]

As I single mum with 7 kids I am on just about 45k per annum...really doesn't leave a lot left over but we do get by and the kids are feed, clothed and happy.
They still get extras...so it can be done if you budget carefully...and they don't eat cereal for dinner
That is also on $400 a week rent.
For me I basically can not afford to work...I have three 3 and under...the cost of daycare would almost take any of my wage.

[Snacks]

I'm super impressed, RB. You are much more careful with your money than we were obviously! Do you run a car?

[RainbowBrite]

I'm super impressed, RB. You are much more careful with your money than we were obviously! Do you run a car?

Yep (must admit my dad helped me out the other week and filled it up )
I do go without a lot myself so the kids don't miss out.
I am not saying it is easy and I wouldn't love to be able to give them even more but you learn to live within your means.
I do wish sometimes that I didn't have to be so 'careful'

[wysiwyg]

Really is difficult to generalize this at all because where you live makes a huge impact on how much money is left after spending on rent or mortgage etc, and the economy needs people to live in all different places so is not like we can all just choose to live where is cheaper. Any generalization such as a definition of middle income over such a wide number of variables tends to make the generalization of limited value.

I would tend to think that 80K would be middle income, and 150K+ high income - I certainly wouldn't think of 150K+ as middle income - just looking at the sort of jobs that offer 75K a year and then thinking about how many families in Australia would have two people in those sorts of jobs to give combined of 150K (or even an 100 + 50, or one 150K) I would think that if 150K+ was middle income that would put something like 75% of Australians into low income households, as simply not enough of those higher paying jobs.

Also just looking at Median household income (all incomes in a line pick the middle one) in 2007/2008 was 66,890 so has probably gone up a bit since then but not to the realms of 150K+. (google median household on wiki - there is also an interesting table showing differences between Median in the different states, (ACT nearly double TAS).

[~mamaspice~]

We're like you Astrid. Me working helps us get by and that's about it. There are so many variants and it all depends on your expences and who earns what etc etc etc. For example, if my DH and I had bought our duplex before the property boom we'd be sitting quite pretty right now. But we didnt even know each other before the boom. Our mortgage on a 3 bedroom small duplex is $545 per week. We have friends who have 2 children the same age as ours. She is a SAHM and he works in retail 4 days a week and earns about $40k. They have much more financial freedom than us right now. Why? becasue they get more Govt. benefits for one, but more importantly they have a beautiful 5 bedroom 3 bathroom home with no mortgage because it was bought for them. They can also afford to run 2 cars whereas we only have one car cause we can't afford to run two.

One thing i don't get though is this. We are on a combined income of about $85k (me 33K, DH 52K) and we get $102 per fortnight FTB part A. But if I was a SAHM and was lucky enough to have a DH who earned $95k (so 10K more than our existing combined family income) then not only would we get the $102 ftb part A but we'd also get $136 ftb part B per fortnight as well. It doesn't seem fair, but I guess perhaps that is govt's incentive for SAHM's (or SAHD's)?

[AnyDream]

Really is difficult to generalize this at all because where you live makes a huge impact on how much money is left after spending on rent or mortgage etc, and the economy needs people to live in all different places so is not like we can all just choose to live where is cheaper. Any generalization such as a definition of middle income over such a wide number of variables tends to make the generalization of limited value.

I would tend to think that 80K would be middle income, and 150K+ high income - I certainly wouldn't think of 150K+ as middle income - just looking at the sort of jobs that offer 75K a year and then thinking about how many families in Australia would have two people in those sorts of jobs to give combined of 150K (or even an 100 + 50, or one 150K) I would think that if 150K+ was middle income that would put something like 75% of Australians into low income households, as simply not enough of those higher paying jobs.

Also just looking at Median household income (all incomes in a line pick the middle one) in 2007/2008 was 66,890 so has probably gone up a bit since then but not to the realms of 150K+. (google median household on wiki - there is also an interesting table showing differences between Median in the different states, (ACT nearly double TAS).

Yes but median household income is not necessarily a good measure of what's going on for families with children because it includes low income groups like retirees who look like they're earning diddly squat but in actual fact are loads wealthier and better off than everyone else. Having said that, based on all the reading I've done (with lots of sets of figures) I do think that $80K is probably in the middle income area-ish and $150K is getting into the higher income area-ish.

There is some really interesting reading here: Family economic wellbeing which sets out income and affordability issues specific to families in Australia.

I find it all fascinating because I look at our income on paper (since I went back to work) and i think, that should be paying for more than it is!!! But I know we're still recovering from the time when I was ill and we had less income and more expenses as a result. I've been back at work for 8 months and my income is only just starting to "touch the sides" after all this time. I don't want to whinge because I know we're much better off than when I was a SAHM with DD1 (and a lot fewer resources) but it has been really tough at times too.

[Amaunet]

Two classroom teachers (in NSW) with more than 10 years experience and working full time would earn over $150k combined and there are no BMW's in our carpark at work just an example of regular, working, middle class/income (IMO) people who would be penalized under this proposal. If I worked full time my childcare would cost over $20k per year at a centre or $14k at FDC (I currently work 3 days per week and pay almost $10k (before rebate) using a combination of FDC and centre based care (both full fees) which is about 25% of my net income) the CCR means we can have savings for emergencies and try and get ahead n our mortgage. A luxury to some I guess but we receive no other govt payment or subsidy. I feel like the CCR is an acknowledgment that my return to work is important and my skills are important to our economy. Just wanted to give some examples I guess we are certainly not struggling but coming up with the cash for childcare can certainly be difficult. We plan on having another child or two. If all were in care it would take more than half of my pay.

[MrsBexie]

We're like you Astrid. Me working helps us get by and that's about it. There are so many variants and it all depends on your expences and who earns what etc etc etc. For example, if my DH and I had bought our duplex before the property boom we'd be sitting quite pretty right now. But we didnt even know each other before the boom. Our mortgage on a 3 bedroom small duplex is $545 per week. We have friends who have 2 children the same age as ours. She is a SAHM and he works in retail 4 days a week and earns about $40k. They have much more financial freedom than us right now. Why? becasue they get more Govt. benefits for one, but more importantly they have a beautiful 5 bedroom 3 bathroom home with no mortgage because it was bought for them. They can also afford to run 2 cars whereas we only have one car cause we can't afford to run two.

One thing i don't get though is this. We are on a combined income of about $85k (me 33K, DH 52K) and we get $102 per fortnight FTB part A. But if I was a SAHM and was lucky enough to have a DH who earned $95k (so 10K more than our existing combined family income) then not only would we get the $102 ftb part A but we'd also get $136 ftb part B per fortnight as well. It doesn't seem fair, but I guess perhaps that is govt's incentive for SAHM's (or SAHD's)?

Thats cant be right, I am a SAHM and DH only earns $60k and we get the minimin FTB A which is about $80.. We get no rent assistance either.
So on $60k for 2 adults and a child we get minimum FTB A, full FTB B and no rent assistance.

So really we are on min wage ($30k for me and $30k for DH) every year and dont get much support at all! I dont know if i would qualify for CCB (not that it matters for at least a year) or how much we would get.

Just seems like we pay all these taxes and for what?? Our roads are crap, most systems (health etc) are crap and under funded.. What is our money going to? Julia Gillard has no children and no grip on family life so of course she will scrimp in those areas because its not important to her.



Sent from my iPhone so sorry for the spelling and punctuation!!

[Floweryfields]

Don't think I agree with the comment about being on a high income, but still being cash poor. Anyone could use that as their reasoning, ie I earn say, $50000 but choose to live a lifestyle that means I have so many loans that at the end of the day, I have little cash left over. Surely people can't expect the government to look at what you have left over from however much you earn? Someone could earn millions but still live a lifestyle that means they have no cash!

[RhiChiChi]

I heard on the news this morning it is not going ahead (or I am confused??!!)

[FabFiona]

Despite me encouraging people not to buy into the speculation over whether the Govt are going to means test the rebate or not, there is an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today. Another very reliable journalist (Keiren Gilbert from Sky News) also posted on twitter that he had independepent confirmation of this. Hopefully good news!

Parent backlash forces Wayne Swan to retreats on child care cuts

By Simon Benson
From: The Daily Telegraph
April 19, 2011 12:00AM


Proposal to means test childcare rebate rejected
Sources claim decision based on policy, not politics
Other measures agreed to "would be unpopular"

A BUDGET proposal to means test the 50 per cent childcare rebate for families was rejected by Treasurer Wayne Swan's razor gang after a marathon session yesterday.

Government sources revealed Mr Swan ruled out the measure, in which families would be means tested for the first time for generous childcare help of up to $7500 a year.

Sources confirmed the Treasury and Departmental wish list of Budget cuts put at the meeting in Canberra included means testing of the 50 per cent rebate for families on incomes above $150,000.

"If you live in western Sydney with a family and you earn $150,000 combined, you wouldn't exactly be going around saying you are well off," a Government source said yesterday.

It has been confirmed the proposal was put to a meeting of the expenditure review committee in a "rule in rule out" session of savings measures to be ticked off between key ministers and Treasury and departmental officials, ahead of the May 10 budget.

The move comes as employers have warned the government that they would oppose any means test on the childcare rebate in the budget if it reduces women's participation in the workforce and exacerbates the nation's skills shortage.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief Peter Anderson told The Australian while his organisation supports moves to reduce government benefits to middle- and high-income earners, "particular care is required on childcare".

"The criteria we would apply is whether the means test has the effect of reducing the net overall participation of women in the workforce, and if it were to do that, we would oppose it," he said.

Unions have warned that a means test would hit ordinary workers such as teachers and nurses and could add to skills shortages by encouraging women to cut back their hours to get incomes under the $150,000 threshold.

Meanwhile the budget razor gang also rejected another proposal to slash funding to the National Health and Medical Research Council which would have saved more than $300 million.

The Treasurer's rejection of two key savings measures flagged over the past week came as the Gillard Government slumped to a new low in the polls yesterday.

Sources claimed, however, that the decision not to go ahead with the means testing for the 50 per cent childcare rebate was based on policy, not politics.

Mr Swan had previously refused to rule the measure out.

However, he is reported to have argued in the meeting yesterday that the axing of the rebate would kill the Government's long-term plans to boost workforce participation, despite the measure also being potential political dynamite for the Government.

The Treasurer has been softening Australians for the prospect of a horror budget, warning that savage cuts will have to be made to government programs to achieve its goal of returning the budget to surplus by 2012/13.

Sources claimed, however, that other measures which were agreed to yesterday by the razor gang would be very unpopular.

[nothing2lose]

" seems like we pay all these taxes and for what?? Our roads are crap, most systems (health etc) are crap and under funded.. What is our money going to? Julia Gillard has no children and no grip on family life so of course she will scrimp in those areas because its not important to her."

Mrs B you know I love you but I think this is a little harsh. I think the fact Julia Gillard has no biological children has no bearing on her ability to govern and make provisions for families. Also how much financial pressure do you think male pms feel with regards to raising their families? Very little I suspect.



Sent from my iPhone so sorry for the spelling and punctuation!

[nothing2lose]

" seems like we pay all these taxes and for what?? Our roads are crap, most systems (health etc) are crap and under funded.. What is our money going to? Julia Gillard has no children and no grip on family life so of course she will scrimp in those areas because its not important to her."

Mrs B you know I love you but I think this is a little harsh. I think the fact Julia Gillard has no biological children has no bearing on her ability to govern and make provisions for families. Also ho much financial pressure do you think male pms feel with regards to raising their families? Very little I suspect.



Sent from my iPhone so sorry for the spelling and punctuation!![/QUOTE]