Not sure if anyone was watching Sunrise this morning, and I don't know how accurate this info is...but there was talk about the CCR being aimed at non-working mums and it also being means tested???
Printable View
Not sure if anyone was watching Sunrise this morning, and I don't know how accurate this info is...but there was talk about the CCR being aimed at non-working mums and it also being means tested???
The ccr is for working parents though, non working mums usually qualify for the full amount of ccb as they are on one income. Wish they would stop changing it all around!
Just heard it fully on the news. One option they are considering is limiting it for non-working mums...but I thought they didn't get it, so does this mean they would get it? and it is going to be means tested..FML. Trust them to change it. Our fees are HORRENDOUS....so not fair!
Just gives mums more of a reason not to go back to work!
I saw it. It was limiting the amount of childcare stay at home mums can access, and means testing the CCR. A figure of combined income of $150,000 to $200,000 would not receive any CCR.
Thanks Little Chicken that makes sense but why shouldn't sahm have a break? The govt really don't think about the effect their decisions will have they just want to save money wherever they can because they will need it for the ETS.
A SAHP who is looking for work needs access to affordable care. Without Childcare you can't really apply for work. It helps to have 1 or 2 days that you can build on, especially in areas that have long waiting lists. Also to look for work you need child free time to go for interviews and even to make phone calls. I have finally found work that I doubt I would have gotten if I did not already have some care to access.
Also what about the child, they need settling in time. Imagine being thrown in to full-time care without some kind of build up.
The budget is being released in a couple of weeks - there is always massive speculation about what the government will and won't do with payments before then. i would take anything in the media at the moment as speculation until the budget is released
CCR is currently available to those working, studying, training, looking for work, on paid (or unpaid) parental leave from work (for first 12 months), and those who have, or care for, someone with a disability. a lot of these are stay at home parents as well. the number of hours you're eligible for that varies depending on your situation and the number of hours you put into your activity
Sorry, confused a little.
Is CCR the 50% you get back quarterly?
I get this but I dont get the other hourly fee reduction.
I really hope they dont cap it :( It's the only government benefit we get...
I find this so frustrating. The only CL payment we get is CCR. No ccb, ftb...nothing. I HAD to go back to work to keep my job, I pay a ****load of tax as does my DH and we are going to be penalized again. We in no way live a fancy "rich" life :wall: I have no probs with SAHP who are looking for work using subsidized childcare but I do have issue with subsidized childcare for those who just want "a break" (My son is in care 3 days per week and i work 3 days per week) They should definitely have access to cc, but not govt subsidies. Preschool/school readiness programs are different, but my at my fdc I am the only working parent and the only one paying full fees. There are lots of playgroups for children of SAHP to get socialization etc.
To be honest I think there are a lot of other areas that should be targeted before childcare!!! I definitely plan on writing a few letters to politicians this week!!!
Although my DD is in OSH Care, not daycare, I understand where you are coming from Amaunet.
I dont mind so much that they are subsidised but I think fulltime childcare unless you are working, studying, etc is a bit much.
this comes down to your own day care service and their prioritising system. Mum used to do FDC, and priority was always given to those who NEEDED care for work or study (or those needing respite because themselves or their child had a disability) - respite for SAHP's was lowest on the list of priorities:
i, personally, dont have a problem with full time care for some stay at home parents - i have personally seen the difference it can make - for a mum that lost her first two children to DHS because she couldn't cope AT ALL, to that same woman having her next two children still with her for their whole lives due to having them in care when they were very full on - she could cope with overnight and periods of time in the morning and evening, but not all day. i also don't think that stay at home parents should be expected to do it all on their own all the time. they need some time out sometimes. balance is the key
wait for the budget though - it is likely it's all speculation at the moment!
Technically you can have a place taken away from you for a working parent. I know I was warned that when I first signed up down here (no family, pregnant and a DD used to going to CC). I was also warned I could be forced to change days. When the year clicked over I lost a day, which I was ok with as I understood. Now I am in a place of needing more care to meet work needs and may have to change centres in order to get all my days (same management though). Oddly though this time, no-one is being made to drop a day. Thinking now that maybe I should talk to management about their ad hoc application of their own rules.
That's a really valid point BG.
I too have known children for whom fulltime childcare was the best thing that could have happened to them as the quality of care was infinitely better than they received at home.
I also know of a case where a mother with three kids working part time and supposedly studying, had her children both in daycare (creche) during the day and overnight family daycare. The o/n care also extended to the weekends.
Essentially the only time she saw her kids was driving between the two...
We are in exactly the same boat hun. We by no means live an extravagant life even with the income we are on. Child care fees for us are HUGE.....infact more than half my DP's wage.:
And don't get me started on how much tax we both pay!!! argh its never ending for us higher earners! Plus I am studying and paying off HELP debt. How long till they cut that for us too!?
There were kids that would stay for up to five or six days full time with Mum due to circumstances with their families (24/7) to stop them having the stress of swapping locations during the day. there were a couple with cerebral palsy that would often stay two or three nights in a row. it was safer for them to be at our place (yes, i was personally witness to the way their dad treated them - and i suspect the CP came around due to the abuse dished out on their mother while she was pg - definitely safer at our place):
I do love Budget speculation! Drives me a bit batty really.
All of this talk is just that - speculation. Whilst I'm sure the media are acting on whispers they are hearing, some people find it very upsetting and confusing because they think it's really happening rather than just whispers. Sunrise also couldn't get the name of the benefit right, calling it by its old name. Doesn't give me much confidence in the media really.
That being said, I'll be a very cranky staffer if the CCR is modified. After all, I'm the one who takes the cranky phone calls and responds to the cranky emails.
The Budget is released on May 13 so we will know more then.
I think the system does a good job of trying to be fairly consistent when it comes to fairness. At risk children should definitely have access to as much care as the system can provide them - and if that care is provided well, it may not be apparent to other families who use the services which children are there because they're at risk.
Having said that, there are all sorts of situations which the current childcare and funding guidelines don't help. When I was having chemo, for example, I could not get a FDC place for love nor money on the day after treatment. No way I could have looked after my boisterous 18 month old, and yet there was no way a place could be 'created' for us by the service (not a priority category). Likewise, Defence families - who may face periods of upto 10 months functioning as single parent families under very stressful circumstances and usually geographically distant from their existing family/support networks - are often forced to get by with insufficient care because every time you move state it's waiting list time again. No help with paying for it, either.
I did see that there is talk that it will be means tested in the next budget, which if correct, totally stinks because working parents already pay a heap more than non working in fees to begin with,. I think the govt would be well advised to leave it alone! If anything, there needs to be MORE help for high income parents and childcare in my opinion.
i tend to think Middle to High income families need some more support - i don't believe CCR should be open slather for everyone - when you have people on 700k plus asking why they can't get it if their partner is SAHP, and then working the system so that she is, on paper anyway, doing work for his business just to qualify for CCR - nope, not a fan of that behaviour:
i don't believe ANY payment should have a hard cut off. personally, i think the 75k baby bonus estimate, the 150k ftbb cut off - it's not reasonable. all payments should have a sliding scale so that an extra dollar in income doesn't make the difference between qualifying and not qualifying. currently the payments deemed as income support have sliding scales - the more you earn the less you get. i don't believe there is a problem with having a similar scheme in place for CCR for those in the 200k plus family income bracket. perhaps at 200k your 50% starts to reduce, by 300k it's at nothing. far more reasonable than 199 999 being eligible for 50%, 200k eligible for nothing
or maybe that's just my personal sense of fairness trying to show through lol
I agree with you BG - I guess my idea of a high income and the reality of high income are two different things! For my service, I look at the ccb% and fees parents who are on the $80000 combined income amount and it doesn't seem fair. They are doing their best to support their families, then there are those who choose not to work (and I mean both parents on centrelink, not sahm)they are seemingly rewarded because they get full ccb and pay next to nothing.
I completely agree with you BG. I do hope that the speculation that it will only be affected for incomes over $150k is right though. DH and I have a combined income of about $85k. I went back to work simply because financially I have to and if our child care tax rebate was cut we'd be absolutely freaking stuffed!:
I'm not sure whether $80K counts as a high income for a couple these days? The average weekly income (ABS figure) was around $67K last time I checked. So $80K isn't even 1.5 average incomes and yet many families report that they both need to work (to some extent) to make ends meet.:
I hate how they keep on taking things from SAHM's... I stay home because I want to be there for the boys whilst young... it doesn't mean that it's an easy ride or that we're rich or anything... but if I was working, for what I'd get paid working FT and having to pay fees for both boys in childcare... wow, so would not be worth my time working and missing out on so much with them... we pay currently... $510 per month for Oskar to go to kindy 2 days a week... yep 2 days a week and that's out of our pockets... so without the CCR that would just make it even harder for us!! We barely get any CCB. I'm hoping that I'm not going to be losing out on it in the budget!
There was a good point on Sunrise, that being " just because you look rich on paper, you may still be cash poor"................where do we draw the line in deciding who is better off. I'm sorry that is just my opinion, but just because you get more doesn't mean you deserve less help in instances such as a rebate - I (again just IMO) believe with things like that & the baby bonus it's all or nothing, available to everyone or no one.
And yes, as unpopular as this may make me I do get a little upset that because my partner and I work VERY hard, or have done extra study etc to make a good amount of $$$ we are entilted to nothing but others out there can choose to sit around and do nothing (I'm not talking SAHM), I mean neather couple wants to work and they get $$$ etc here & there.
I hear you Erin, it gets frusrating with the way these things work and how they are calculated!
I just worked out that two children in care three days per week would cost me $26760 per year without the rebate. Makes working seem not that worthwhile....
We're similiar FabFiona! The rebate has made it way more worth going to work from a $$ POV. I also agree that there should be more incentives/assistance to return to the workforce. Not sure who will fund everyone's old age and health care in the future otherwise??
Also think that the ideas of a high income family need to be reassessed in line with the average mortgage, bills etc.
It's funny too, because if I stop work we will then be eligible for FTB which we aren't now. So not only am I NOT contributing to the taxation base, but I'm now eligible for a Govt payment.
Le sigh.
What I find laughable is the way child care cost statistics are collected and expressed as an "average" with the CCB and CCR adjustments already made:
Which would lead a casual observer to assume families are paying $100 a fortnight for care (AND THE REST)! I keep wondering why, based on our new improved income since i returned to work, we still seem to have diddly at the end of each fortnight...then I remember that I spend nearly half my pay on childcare (!!) and suddenly it all makes sense.:
The average net cost to parents for formal care (taking into account the Child Care Benefit and Child Care Tax Rebate entitlements) was $53 per week.
When I start my new job in a week I am looking at $10,000 a year after CCB, but before CCR, for 1 in care 4 days per week. We have chosen to not think about CCR and just treat it as a nice little bonus when it does come in (well I hope it works out like that for us).
I don't think an annual income of $150k for a couple is high. I would think it is middle income!:
One of the latest articles:
Tearful parents protest as up to 64,000 may face childcare rebate cuts in federal Budget | News.com.au
In line with what md said before if 67k is average anything over 134k would be considered high.
That's per person. So for a couple it doubles. So 150k would be middle income.
Eta:.sorry misread your post...still think it wouldn't be classified as "high" though!
Actually I think the middle income is usually taken to be 80 - 120% of some magic figure that is not actually the average weekly earnings - it has to do with your earnings after tax and medicare levy is paid and then it's equivalised based on the extra expenses involved in having children - so the answer to the million dollar question is - after lots of reading - I still can't work out exactly what "middle income" refers to :rofl::
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.:
wow we must be on the poverty line with a combined income of $49K
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.
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.: