SA Footy

Every time the federal government speaks, we hear the term "Working Families" and I'm over it.

I'd like to know what a "working family" is - it is such a generic term because most people work - or at least one person in a household does - and most of society is made up of families.

I'd like to know if there is anyone out there who does not believe that they are a part of a working family. Furthermore, the policies aimed at "helping working families" - do they help all of you or are some of you hindered?

It is ironic that after promising $20bn in tax cuts, the govt is now going to increase other taxes and remove other payments such as the baby bonus and the like for targetted income earners. Give with one hand and take with the other - and Kevin Rudd promised on election night he would govern for all Australians.

Promises promises.

And what will the growing surplus be used to fund in the future? A suite of election promises in 3 years time? Given we all pay state and federal taxes, why couldn't the feds give the states an extraordinary dividend to retire various state debts and unfunded liabilities like superannuation and work cover? These payments would not therefore contribute to inflationary pressures.

Maybe Bono should come back and ask Kevin07 for 1% of GDP towards retiring 3rd world debt? Now is as good a time as any.

"Working Families" - what or who are they? Do tell.

They were talking about this on the radio a few weeks ago with some political expert

"Working family" is a spin term created by the Howard Govt (I think) after survey feedback said that people in that category didn't like the term "middle class". Both terms mean the same from Govt's POV and they are meant to represent families on average incomes - ie, the bulk of the population

They're Howard's Battlers redefined I think.

Apparently they are going to give more breaks for Child Care...
My wife & I decide for her to go back to work as her earning capacity outweighed mine,
as a consequence I am a full time stay at home Dad, as we believe it is better for our
kids to have a parent home then being sent to child care (and we can afford it...JUST).
However, money is tight, on one wage, but that is a sacrifice we made for our families
benefit.
Why don't the government look at supporting the stay at home parents as well ? I know
families where both parents earn good money, and they put their kids in child care to enable them
to do so. They'd pull in close to 40 K MORE combined, than may wife does. So why the help ?
I know it's Personal choice. But why should those parents get more help than the one's that stay
at home choosing a family environment over a day care upbringing ?

It's almost IMO, as if the government prefer to get people to work, throw kids in child care, and remove
them from a family unit for greediness sake..

Now I know there are families where both parents have to work, and with this I have no problem.

Rant over

im with you SJABC. there is no financial benefit of raising a "traditional family" these days where one parent works full time and one parent stays home to look after the chidlren. i guess its just the world we live in nowadays where everyone is driven by money and the good old family values are thrown out the window. quite sad really. think back 40-50 years ago and the idea of having child care was non-existent.

Don't be too quick to knock child-care. Remember the child-care benefit is means tested, the high income earners aren't taking Govt money if they use child care.

In our case, one day a week is great for mummy to get a break and function in the adult world. It's also great for the kids in building up their social skills from a young age. As well as aiding their education in my experience kids in child-care have better speech and social skills at the same age as the ones who have stayed at home.

It's also good for mummy's work who were very short staffed and needed her back, even 1 day per week.

Plus some parents have no choice and if we get judgemental about the concept then it simply places more pressure on them than they already have.

But I agree with supporting families who have made their own choice to have their children at home the whole time. We should all respect each other's personal choices.

I agree some form of child care is good so the child can interact with other children etc, but definitely dont agree with mothers who put their kids in full-time child care from the time the child is six weeks of age until they reach school age. To me that just seems greedy, time spent with your child is more valuable than any form of material worth.

Judging the situations of others is folly, particularly when the full circumstances are unknown. People will raise their kids as they see fit.

smac wrote:Judging the situations of others is folly, particularly when the full circumstances are unknown. People will raise their kids as they see fit.

Correct, but why should Child Care incentives be given when it appears the stay at home family is ignored ?

I understand the need for child care for some, and as Hondo pointed out the need for a break, but surely
the stay at home parents deserve equal breaks to be given. Hopefully something comes out in the Budget.

I'm not a big fan of any kind of support in this area. People make their choices, people should pay for their choices.

smac wrote:I'm not a big fan of any kind of support in this area. People make their choices, people should pay for their choices.

What choices ? Stay at home or Child care ? I interpret that as saying don't assist anybody ?

All I want is equal breaks, and if that means nothing, then so be it.

Yep, both sides Jabber.

If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you can, don't ask for handouts.

Possibly too black and white, but it makes some sense to me.

smac wrote:Yep, both sides Jabber.

If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you can, don't ask for handouts.

Possibly too black and white, but it makes some sense to me.

Spot on. BTW, my rant wasn't about my family getting more money. As I posted
we are getting by OK. It's just that I believe in equality on the issue...

SJABC wrote:

smac wrote:Yep, both sides Jabber.

If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you can, don't ask for handouts.

Possibly too black and white, but it makes some sense to me.

Spot on. BTW, my rant wasn't about my family getting more money. As I posted
we are getting by OK. It's just that I believe in equality on the issue...

I have a mate who earns approx 40k with a mortgage of 200k with a wife and three kids at home and receive only a family assistance benefit, then you take a 'family' with two working parents earning in excess of 100k with kids in childcare who receive child care benefit/rebate, family benefit etc- it hardly seems fair.

mypaddock wrote: you take a 'family' with two working parents earning in excess of 100k with kids in childcare who receive child care benefit/rebate, family benefit etc- it hardly seems fair.

They wouldn't get as much as you might think

Apart from baby bonus and minimum family payment Part B, its all means tested (income limits) and your hypothetical family would blow all the threshholds.
Maybe very miniscule child-care benefit

Very different scenario to the $40,000 family

At the $100,000 level it's mostly as SMAC suggests it should be - they are making their own choices and funding them without Govt money. Even the baby bonus looks like it will be means tested in future now too.

mypaddock wrote:I agree some form of child care is good so the child can interact with other children etc, but definitely dont agree with mothers who put their kids in full-time child care from the time the child is six weeks of age until they reach school age. To me that just seems greedy, time spent with your child is more valuable than any form of material worth.

I reckon they'll come to understand that once their kids have grown up...

We have a 16 month old and my wife works three days a week. We could get by without her wage but an extra $500 a week means that we can go on the occaisional driving holiday, go out to dinner once every three or four weeks, etc.

To a certain extent I think that many working mums would say that they enjoy the social interaction aspects of working a few days a week. I also agree that kids do benefit from child care. My son's social skills are developing more rapidly than his cousin's who doesn't go to child care.

I counted about a dozen references to "working families" in Wayne Swan's maiden budget speech. It is the most over-used word atm with the following running close behind:

superstar (ie most afl players)
terrorism


It seems that the "working family" threshold is a household income of $150k. This is apparently based on a Sydney family needing to earn $120k per annum to meet mortagage repayments and exist at a basic level.

Squawk wrote:I counted about a dozen references to "working families" in Wayne Swan's maiden budget speech. It is the most over-used word atm with the following running close behind:

superstar (ie most afl players)
terrorism


It seems that the "working family" threshold is a household income of $150k. This is apparently based on a Sydney family needing to earn $120k per annum to meet mortagage repayments and exist at a basic level.

'working family' if thats what a 'working family is then i would hate to know what he calls people who earn no-where near that...

As a working dad with twins i am lucky my wife stays home to look after them. My wife studies at tafe part time to get two certificates so when the lads go to school she can work part time in office admin. We are lucky that i am in a well paying job we get by but with fuel/rates/food prices/ mortgage all on top of what i earn it does make things tight. We get by we don't have foxtel but we do have broadband Inet personal choice. Same goes with the mortgage we are paying more off it to have peace of mind and to get it paid quicker me make these lil sacrifices for the long term.
Strawbs

hondo71 wrote:Don't be too quick to knock child-care. Remember the child-care benefit is means tested, the high income earners aren't taking Govt money if they use child care.

In our case, one day a week is great for mummy to get a break and function in the adult world. It's also great for the kids in building up their social skills from a young age. As well as aiding their education in my experience kids in child-care have better speech and social skills at the same age as the ones who have stayed at home.

It's also good for mummy's work who were very short staffed and needed her back, even 1 day per week.

Agree Hondo, both my kids have been in Child Care since they were 6 months old, pre kids I always thought "look at those bad parents that chuck their kids into child care" but how wrong was I....

> Its a great learning environment for the kids as well as developing great social skills from a young age
> Its great for the kids to have that seperation from their parents so they are not fully reliant on them
> Its great for the parents to have a break and for the Mum to go back to work - even if the $ arent an issue I believe Mums need to go back to work part time to have that separation where they are out of the house and thinking for a few hours about other things...it benefits the kids long term

We have some friends with the same aged kids and you can easily tell the ones who have been to child care and the ones who sit on their mum's hip all day....

Only thing that sh1ts me is the parents that pay $5- per day while we pay $45- per day

Funny thing happend when No. 1 started school a fortnight ago, the school he is going to discussed the financial commitment with us (about $1.5k pa) we said "no problem there, we have been paying $7k pa on Child care - we are saving money sending him to school!"