By ANONYMOUS
There’s a reason why I can’t write this post under my real name. You see, most of my friends have kids. I have god children and two nephews and a niece I adore.
But as a 43 year old woman without kids, it’s impossible for me to say what I really feel about the idea of the Liberal party’s paid parental scheme because my parent friends would be horrified.
Before I continue, let’s get one thing straight – I love kids. I also agree that raising children is the cornerstone of society and as such, should be supported by taxpayers. To an extent, anyway.
But here’s another thing I believe strongly: all kids should be treated as equal by our government. As should the adults having them.
Which is why I am against Tony Abbott’s paid parental leave plan. Because it is not egalitarian – it is elitist. To pay a primary carer 26 weeks paid parental leave is idealistic at best. To pay them on the wage they earn normally is quite frankly, ridiculous.
Under Labor’s paid parental scheme, the Government pays a baby’s primary carer at the minimum wage, currently $622.20 per week for 18 weeks. In the current economic climate, this is more than fair. Meanwhile, the Coalition wants to introduce a 26-week replacement wage scheme where women earning up to $150,000 each year would be paid their full salary for the period of leave, including superannuation, which could be as much as $75,000 per pregnancy.
Top Comments
I dont necessarily agree with it, but having no kids myself when the rest of my inner circle and workplace does, this is how I see it.
I already get a maternity leave from work, do I like the idea of more money from being in a professional job? Sure it pays for the mortgage and the cars I have worked my arse off for 40 hrs a week for the last 10 years. Is it fair? Is life fair? Half of the problems we are whinging about in politics at the moment were also legislated in the previous government (this one an exception).
If you have a look at the statistics of those having kids and getting benefits form the government they are young people from low socio-economical areas who probably couldn't afford to have kids in the first place but just keep going. You have a look at the high profile executives who would receive this benefit, they aren't having kids, and if they do it isn't many and its much later on in life. From a basic religious perspective, its not that religion believes in contraceptive but more being able to provide, care, love for a child. Those who can't afford children are the one boosting the economy and getting benefits from the government. Those who can afford children and entitled to these benefits are the ones not having children.
I think what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the women entitled to these payments are working women and therefore taxpayers themselves. Also someone on a higher income pays a substantially higher rate of tax so over the years these women on a higher income have already contributed many tax dollars, why shouldn't they get a little back over a 6 month period when they have a child?