As of Jan 09, every one that is entitled to the Baby Bonus will recieve it in fortnightly instalements over 6 months, and is around $380 p/f (I think?) tax free.
Does anyone else think this is a step in the right direction?? What if it was called Maternity Payment, and ALL mums got it, as in its not means tested?
Would more mums be able to stay home longer?
Would more mums be able to breastfeed longer?
Would more mums not have to use CC if they dont want too?
Most mums get CCB and/or Rebate, but if ALL mums got "Maternity Payment", not just low income earners, would that be better? Maybe mums got the choice of the payment or CCB after birth, and after 6 months, CCB kicked in for everyone??
I know the Baby Bonus is going to pay half our mortgage for 6 months, a massive bonus to us, and one less bill to struggle with, and I see it more as "paid Maternity".
Is it the same for the rest of you mums??
Will the installments help you more with week to week bills, and to stay home longer??
I dont think I could work, pay child care costs, and still come home $380 ahead a fortnight anyway!!
Is this the start of the gov paying our mums to be able to stay home if they choose, or am I just dreaming???
i honestly think it's a step backward to consider it under the guise of "maternity" payment - there are some, if not many, corporations that DO pay maternity leave, and would see this as a way to stop. for some of us, the baby bonus, or whatever they call it from Jan, would be a huge reduction in entitlement to what we're currently getting from our paid maternity leave. for me, i'm working part time at the moment, and getting the baby bonus on top of my half pay mat leave will mean, essentially, for six months i'll get full pay (well, full for what i'm being paid now).
i don't believe giving people an either/or option with CCB is realistic, or fair. to tell someone they only get CCB if they forfeit the baby bonus payments is essentially telling them that the government know better than them what is appropriate for a child under six months of age, which is ridiculous. every family, every situation, is different, and the need or desire to use child care under that age shouldn't negate entitlement to another payment. a lot of mum's, particularly first time mum's, need to return to work before that magic six month mark as $380 and the small amount they get for FTB isn't enough to supplement their wage. it's not appropriate to take away that bonus simply because they need to use child care.
PM - i understand where you're coming from with trying to find ways to encourage parents to stay at home with younger babies, but it's not something the government should legislate. personally, i could see it causing massive issues as a discriminatory action
I would like mums to have the CHOICE, not be forced, to stay home or work. At the moment a lot a forced.
And I agree, the ccb wasn't well thought out by me!
As someone who has never had real maternity leave, none that was paid, it is a MASSIVE bonus!!! I recieved nothing for staying home with my first 3, and now I do! I think a lot of mums are the same. We would get nothing from our boss anyway...
"PM - i understand where you're coming from with trying to find ways to encourage parents to stay at home with younger babies, but it's not something the government should legislate. personally, i could see it causing massive issues as a discriminatory action "
I didnt mean to "encourage" or "discriminate". I want everyone to get a say, a choice. At the moment it is already dicriminitive. If you stay home, you dont get paid enough, if you work and earn good money, you pay half back in fees. I dont feel that anyone is winning....
Obviously this doesnt help with b/f, but if they extended it to either parent staying home, we *could* afford DH to, but not me.
Unfortunately for families where the mum is the main income earner, there are often limited options available other than to return to work, and I dont think I should have to choose between a job and a family.
For me, having the baby bonus paid fortnightly will just make it easier for me to spend it before I need to. We will be using it so that I can take an additional month off work for maternity leave.
Last edited by Pandora; September 2nd, 2008 at 11:42 AM.
: Misunderstood the question.
I prefer the lump sum personally, but that's us in our situation. If we have money filtering in, it gets frittered away with nothing to show for it. Which is why we also get the FTB as a lump sum at the end of the year too. I'm already a SAHM, so don't need to supplement a wage. I guess tho with it coming in instalments, it could be looked at as a source of income rather than a bonus, and could go towards DH taking more time off or something. Usually the bonus reimburses our savings tho, which got depleted preparing for the baby (well.. bub #1 more than #2).
I know in our situation, we already use the baby bonus so I can stay home for 12 weeks - thats only paying 10 weeks of our mortgage repayments.
So unfortunately, unless I want me and my family out on the street - I have to go back to work when Mehkelti is 12 weeks old, and she will be going into care.
And its not like I work so I can have a big house, expensive car etc - we have a crappy old magna (yes only one car) and we live in a house that was made in the 60's and is falling apart around our ears. However, we brought in the cheapest suburb on the coast, and it wasn't the most expensive house (obviously).
I'm not complaining, thats just the way that our life is. So even if they made it a fortnightly payment like maternity leave payment, I would still have to go back to work at the same time, because I can't make it stretch enough to cover the mortgage repayments..
(Did that make sense? Sleep deprivation is ruling this house at the moment... )
i think it is stupid there was the big debate about paid maternity leave so now they have just changed we would normally be entitled to, to make it look like they r paying maternity leave.
i do family daycare so i am classed as selfemployed and when i took time off i had $0 pay and coudlnt get any money until dd was born and then i only got $50 a fortnight.
her baby bonus went to paying off my credit card because we had to put food and bills and some baby stuff on it from the time i had off with no pay.
its great that some companies pay maternity leave but i think if ne person gets paid then everyone should and not get their other benifits taken away because of it.
i had to go back to work when dd was a few days off 4 weeks. i had no choice we had no money and a few dramas witht he lady i got to replace me while i was gone but i so wish i got more time while dd was newborn. i was lookign at her the other day and was thinking she is so big now i missed out on so much.
i even have to put her in another daycare 2 days a week because she counts as one of my numbers but i dont get paid for her
I agree, it is a blessing
I think its wonderful and will help a lot of women stay home longer, some more than others.
Its just that a once size fits all doesnt always fit.
We are only able to afford this baby because I got made redundant from my job and was fortunate to get another one.
Otherwise we would be in the same position as Gudism - the BB will cover 2.5 mortgage payments and then Id be back at work.
Which for us, and in no way am I trying to judge or offend anyone, would have meant not having number 2.
Its a really tough one and I dont see an easy answer to it.
Its a great discussion topic though, that needs to be thrashed out, so thanks for bringing it up
LSK - up until Jan 1, 2009, baby bonus is paid in a lump sum unless you're under 18, or you choose to have installments. from Jan 1, it will be paid in 13 equal installments
BABY BONUS is not an entitlement - it was a bonus created to help in population growth - the goverment realised that, once the baby boomer generation entered aged pension age, we'd have a massive reduction in skilled workers in the country, a massive reduction in the number of tax payers, and the pension/welfare system would be under a massive amount of strain. by encouraging people now to have children, 20 years from now, they would be entering the work force and helping to support those baby boomers entering the age pension age. it was always a BONUS, no matter what name it was given - hence the reason it was given to everyone
from this year, with the Labour government taking over, the population growth wasn't seen as such an issue, so the baby BONUS was no longer a bonus for everyone, it became part of the welfare system and, as such, is only available to those considered to be on lower incomes (less than $75k in the six months after bub is born). as a result, not everyone is now "entitled" to the payment - you have to meet the eligibility criteria just like you do for every other welfare payment on offer
personally, i don't believe that receiving additional payments over a period of 13 weeks is enough to help a new parent - ideally, i would like to see a PROPER federally funded maternity scheme that takes into account the income of the SAHP and pays appropriately for a period of at least 6 months - if you're a FT SAHP, then minimum wage, but if you're someone that has a higher paying job, then you should be able to get a percentage of that, to a maximum amount (so as not to be excessive). supplement wages by more than the pitiful amount of FTB you get if you return to PT work when you were full time before bubs etc. it should be your choice as to whether you or your partner stay home - but ultimately, until something like this comes in, there is nothing the goverment, or anyone else, can do. trading off child care entitlement for baby bonus/maternity payment/whatever title we want to use, just isn't appropriate.
ideal world - federally funded maternity scheme, not a pitiful baby "bonus"
ideal world - goverment regulated child care - make sure there are enough places, and cap on fees to stop profiteering
just wish i knew how to make the idea world come visiting AU!
I'm in two minds about the fortnightly baby bonus payments.
I liked getting it in a lump sum like I did and would've been really annoyed if they'd changed it so that I had to have it doled out to me like I couldn't be trusted with what is after all my own money.
I do see why the government felt they had to change it so it's fortnightly. Although not everyone does it we all know people who have bought big ticket items for their homes or paid off debt with the baby bonus. I guess they still thought they were doing the right thing for their bubs.
I got 6 weeks paid maternity leave (which my company has just changed to 12 weeks, damn) so I don't see baby bonus as anything to do with being a maternity payment.
Australia is certainly behind most western countries when it comes to paid maternity leave and I'd like to see the day come when all working women are entitled to at least 3 months maternity leave as well as the baby bonus being available to all who earn under $100k a year.
I don't believe that the fortnightly payments will make any difference to BF - you don't give it up for financial reasons and you can still do it when you return to work.
A fortnightly payment of baby bonus wont allow women to stay home longer - you are getting the same amount of money so it goes just as far regardless of how often you are paid it.
Maybe if it was $380 per fortnight until the child was 18 it might be a different story but this is not what is happening.
What you need to remember with the $380 fortnightly payment is that it only goes til you reach whatever the amount is for the baby bonus at the time of the birth. After that you will get nothing from the government unless you are entitled to one of the other payments they now have. Originally I was told that we'd be getting a health care card and I can't remember exactly how much money but I think it was $200 or $250 per fortnight because my DF's income was below whatever threshold (I'm the main breadwinner in our household). This was because the stupid centrelink person presumed that because I was on maternity leave I woudn't be earning any money in the next year. When the figure was corrected because I am actually getting paid for much of my 8 months off (annual leave x 7 weeks, long service leave 8 weeks, 6 weeks maternity leave) we weren't entitled to either. We just get part of the benefit part A which is only something like $20-30 per fortnight. It sure doesn't pay to plan ahead for your pregnancy. If I wasn't getting any money from my workplace I could've got the benefit part B & the health care card til I returned to work. It makes absolutely no sense. When I go back to work I will still be better off financially once I pay for child care. I wish this wasn't the case cos I don't want to go back, but I have to.
To be honest the fortnightly payment disadvantages me over the lump sum. Last time that lump sum went to pay for my OB, paediatritian and all the other expenses that come with having an unplanned c/s and jaundiced baby in a private hospital. Of course you get some money back from health insurance and medicare but we were still thousands out of pocket.
However I would definitely prefer a Paid Maternity leave system to a Baby Bonus. To afford to have babies we have really had to save every penny and put it away so that we can afford to pay the mortgage while I'm not working. It can be really stressful and I'm sure there are many people who can't afford to save enough from their day to day expenses to even do this. It is particularly hard when the person staying home is the main income earner.
I hate that they're changing it to fortnightly payments I would have liked to use it to buy all the new stuff I will need for a new baby, or even a homebirth seeing as they won't pay for that. I agree with satya, feeling like they think I can't be trusted with the lump sum.
I would love Maternity leave for all, and BG, your idea of how to make it work sounds great!!
But in the meantime, as a starter, the BB is something we didn't have many years ago, we got nothing. And although 3 months off work isnt ideal, a few years ago you didn't even get that, so to me, its a bonus.
When I had my first 3 kids it was just a family allowance, nothing more, no bonus.
Nai, actually the lump sum also was better for me with Kane, with medical trips and costs too!!
But this time round, as an already SAHM, it supplements a "wage" in this house. And I guess that it only works that way if your already at home anyway.
For those mums earning a good wage, the BB would be a massive drop in income. And thats a shame that hard working Aussies, who contribute so much, aren't looked after unless their particular boss has maternity leave.
I too was self employed, and recieved nothing while not at work. It was EXTREMELY hard.
ETA...SJ, for first time parents, with all the start up costs, is does seem so unfair hon. That a few people who abused the bonus have ruined it for others. I would be mad too!! I'm just lucky I guess, I dont have start up cost, just week to week costs.
Last edited by Pretty Butterfly; September 2nd, 2008 at 01:33 PM.
Me-thinks castor oil will be getting ingested sometime after x-mas so I can afford to pay my doula and get a pram for the 2 bubs asap. Lump sum is definitly prefered this time around. Maybe next time when I don't have big ticket things to pay for and maybe some savings I will appeciate a fortnightly payment. It is hard when you only bring in a single income big enough to pay the bills and get some groceries and not much is left over to put into savings.
Wow, I guess the fortnightly payments are only useful if your already at home like me, with all the baby things you need. (sitting on my ar$e and being broke finally has an advantage! )
It doesn't seem to help too much to all you other ladies. I'm glad I started this thread, its opened my eyes a lot ladies. Thank you!!!
i'm in two minds in regard to the lump sum vs fortnightly payments - i guess there needs to be a firm line in the sand - midnight new years eve, the baby bonus $5000 ceases to exist. that's it - Howards bonus ends there and then. on January 1, 2009, a new payment to help with the additional cost of having a child is being introduced. it will be paid for the first 13 fortnights (so six months) of your childs life. for some people, receiving the payment in a lump sum would be helpful - getting all the big ticket items at once is great. BUT, how many of those big ticket items are essential within a month after birthing your baby? and how many of them can't be purchased before bub's is born? most places that sell baby items will allow layby - even if you dont' find out (or accept) that you're pregnant even til 13 weeks, that's 27 weeks to buy the essentials - and most people know before 13 weeks that they're pregnant, so can start saving straight away
for me, the payments over six months will be more beneficial. we're going through hell to get a child, we're used to scrimping by on, essentially, less than one income for the times i've not been well enough to go to work, and using my income as well as some of DH's, to pay for IVF as we went. so supplementing our income over that six months means that DH can be home more with his child when it is born. we will layby what we need, and pay it off over a period of time. we'll prioritise what we NEED when bub's is born, and those things that can wait a while, we'll pick up later on with the payments we receive. everyone is going to have a different POV on what is most beneficial for them, but the government of the day have worked out what is most financially viable for the CHILDREN of most families. not everyone does the right thing, not everyone does the wrong thing - the government had to do what they believed to be the best thing on balance as these payments are ultimately for the costs associated with bringing up your children
Baby Bonus V's Paid Maternity
Reply With Quote
I think a lot of mums are the same. We would get nothing from our boss anyway...
I would have liked to use it to buy all the new stuff I will need for a new baby, or even a homebirth seeing as they won't pay for that. I agree with satya, feeling like they think I can't be trusted with the lump sum.
)
Bookmarks