Prev
Next

A super idea for supporting new parents financially

Julia Thornton

by Julia Thornton

11 Mar 05:45am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Election 2010, Maternity Leave, Parents, Politics, Tony Abbott

51 comments

There is no point in complaining to my parents about what the Rudd Government has done to people in higher income brackets. My parents paid 60 cents in the dollar, worked a six-day week, raised two kids, five cats (not at the same time) and a dog and still saved for their own retirement.

This woman could have done with the Baby Bonus

In fact, there is no point discussing any sort of paid maternity leave system with my parents or anyone else who had children more than 10 years ago. Many didn’t have access to one, they don’t see the need for one and they don’t think mothers today deserve one.

And don’t get them started on the Baby Bonus.

Tony Abbott’s maternity leave plan is a great scheme, finally offering something for women who aren’t low income earners and don’t work for Westpac. It’s non-discriminatory, reflects the income of the mother and it would encourage professional women to take time out to have a child or two.

But the impost on business is too much. How much more should business be asked to pay for schemes like this? They’re expected to employ people, train them, protect them against injuries and illnesses, not discriminate against them, give them a rewarding career, pay them and fund their super. Oh, and make a profit.

Abbott’s scheme would require business to pay twice. First when they’re levied to pay for the scheme, and second when they lose the employee to maternity leave and have to pay the cost of backfilling the position. Westpac, of course, would be paying the levy and maternity leave. Do you think the shareholders will tolerate that?

I worry that this could backlash against women of childbearing age. More than the backlash I’ve already experienced from my parents when I’ve complained about not having an income when I gave up work to have my own child. (The only thing I miss about not working.)

We have a fabulous superannuation system designed to help people be less dependent on the government when they reach old age, but we have nothing to get young women saving and thinking about having a baby.

It makes sense to me that I should be able to salary sacrifice part of my wage to plan my own maternity leave. If I was a low income earner, the government could provide a co-payment similar to that of superannuation one currently available. Penalties could apply for accessing the account for non-parental leave purposes. And because it’s a long-term saving plan, people using them would benefit from natural growth in these funds.

A thoughtful woman in her early 20s could start an account. She says she wants two children by the time she’s 35. So she puts away $10 for each child each week. By the time she’s off on maternity leave at the average age of 31, she’s had around10 years of saving.

Add to that, while she’s a low income earner, she has access to a co-contribution from the government and gets, say 25 cents for each dollar she contributes.

That would be ($10 + $2.50) x 2 x 52 x 10 = $13,000 by the time she’s ready for the first baby. She withdraws half of it, or none of it. If it’s a bad time in the investment cycle as it was from August 2008 through to June 2009, she could apply to defer access for a year or two.

Less thoughtful women could salary sacrifice in the years immediately prior to having a baby. This reduces their tax burden, and gives them some practice at living on one wage.

If the salary sacrificing contributions caps are the same as those given to people over the age of 55 to save for retirement, there is no partiality or special treatment. And women who earn $200k per annum, can’t stash it in and pay no tax in the year before the birth.

If the woman ends up not having children, she gets the money back with the usual capital gains tax applied (at the marginal rate). If she has babies, capital gains tax is waived.

Men could also have these accounts either to supplement their spouse or if they wish to be the stay-at-home parent. This type of savings plan would also cover off on small business owners – the majority of whom are… women!
But we can’t keep holding our hands out and expecting the government to give us money. If for no other reason than people planning for their retirement are being told to not expect a pension from the government in 20-50 years time.

It isn’t fair that we start up a welfare scheme for people who choose to stop work and have children. Not when age, and the debilitating effects of it, stops you from earning your living, and is unavoidable.

Most commented

51 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Matty says:

      05:45am | 11/03/10

      It’s an interesting idea. Would it be open to prospective fathers as well?
      Also what would happen if the woman or couple were unable to have children but had a large balance in their account?

      Personally I believe that paid parental leave would deliver a huge social benefit to the community, but I agree this is probably hard to quantify.  We do need to lift the birth rate to try and combat our ageing population and at the moment there is little incentive for a professional woman to leave work to raise a child, other than maternal instincts. So while it is a personal choice, what would happen if none of us made it?

      Reply

    • Julia Thornton says:

      07:59am | 11/03/10

      Yes Matty. Open to men and women. If they can’t have children they can still access it but pay capital gains tax on the growth of the fund at the marginal rate.

      My husband suggested if they can’t or don’t use it for maternity purposes, it should be able to be rolled over into their super with no penalties.

    • Peter says:

      02:46pm | 11/03/10

      Julie what a sorry little person you are.. My parent weren’t lucky enough to be earning enough money to be in the 60% tax bracket, they were both minimum wage earners bringing up 4 kids. They never turned to welfare even when my mum lost her job for a couple of years. You are proposing welfare for rich people like its a good thing, you know because someone on $150,000 a year with a husband earning $300,000 a year would be a “victim” if they don’t get some tax money. Taxation Julia was intended to look after our vulnerable, provide good education for our kids, and quality health care for our citizens. You are expecting too much and your attitude is just plain wrong. If you think that tapping into taxpayer funds for money that you don’t need is good for feminism, I can only feel sorry for you. I can guarantee you that I will not be employing women of child bearing age any more because it is simply not fair on the tax payer. If an employer wanted to do it themselves, i would have no problem with it. What you are saying is good for you, is bad for the next person I won’t give a job to because I have to give rich people $150,000 to have kids. Wake up to yourself love.. this is not a good thing…

    • Peter says:

      02:54pm | 11/03/10

      Sorry Julie, please accept my apology. In my anger about this issue, i didn’t read your article in full.. You are on the right path with what you are saying, however weathly people do not need any further help. Taxation should be for our education, our health system, and to protect our vulnerable. We don’t need paid maternaty leave as much as some people think they do. Even Labour has gone too far with what they are proposing.

    • John A Neve says:

      06:35am | 11/03/10

      Julia,

      I see more logic in this suggestion than either Rudd or Abbotts. Also it instills self worth in those that participate and is less of a drain on the public purse.

      Reply

    • Liz says:

      07:18am | 11/03/10

      It happens very successfully in other parts of the world why not here?

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      07:42am | 11/03/10

      Interesting idea Julia, Would you make it compulsary (like Super) or optional?

      As sensible as it is, I don’t see many low income earners salary sacrificing on an optional basis. Foresight is a lovely thing, but I don’t see many 20-somthing Gen Y’s optionally salary sacrificing during their first few working years when they are earning bottom dollar.

      I’d also like the idea of any additional funds transferred into people’s super accounts, at the age of 40 or 45 say.

      Any system that supports individuals that contribute seems worthwhile, but what do we do for people who can’t contribute?

      Good effort Julie

      Reply

    • Julia Thornton says:

      08:05am | 11/03/10

      Hi Macca. No. Not compulsory. But I do believe in compulsory financial education for people starting out in their 20s. We have too much money and we waste quite a lot of it.

      For people who have limited means, co-contributions. If you gave 25cents per dollar to a woman who earns $80k plus a year but $1.25 to a woman on the minimum wage (graduating up to the mooted $80k), it would encourage saving even at the low end - where I think we’re falling down.

      My husband agrees with you about the super idea too.

    • Macca says:

      10:54am | 11/03/10

      Thanks Julie, not overly convinced with compulsory financial education for people in their 20s? I’m not sure how you could roll out such an educational program en-mass in an effective manner without incurring large costs, however if it will stop my partner buying as many shoes I am in. I think saving and budgeting is something you learn (sometimes the hard way). If we had the mortgage crisis that the US is experiencing I might have a different view on this, but I’d be suprised if Australia is facing a bankruptcy crisis in the near future (I don’t have any figures to support this belief).

      A progressive contribution system ($1.25 seems too much, maybe half that, don’t want it to be a simple money making scheme for low income earners) based on taxable income, halting round $120K for singles, $200K for couples would add some incentive, however it would need to replace current welfare payments, i.e. abolish the baby bonus and such.

      Would also be in favour of tight restrictions to access the contribution funds, only in times of financial strain (the odd mortgage payment shouldn’t cut it). The money should be used as an income whilst parents are on unpaid maternity leave.

      Any chance you can get the BCA to back this maternity / paternity leave policy? its not as if they have to pay for it!

    • Randal says:

      01:13pm | 11/03/10

      “Compulsory financial eduction for people in their 20’s” and how do we “force” these dimwitted money spenders into class?

      So Julia, do we have mobile finance watcher squads walking the beat in department stores ready to tackle to the ground these would be 20 something money wasters?

    • Devil in the detail says:

      07:44am | 11/03/10

      This sounds like a better plan than taxing all taxpayers and getting everyone elese to pay for someone’s personal decision.

      Super is actually paid out of your own salary. This is why it is included in salary negotiations. You just miss out on 9% of your salary until you are of retirement age. The government has been saying for 25 years that there will no longer be a pension so you will have to support yourself. The SG was just made compulsory because the government knows most people are too stupid to think that far ahead.

      If you can’t afford kids then you shouldn’t have them. There are plenty of other countries in the world busting at the seems should we need labour to fill skills shortages. We can import it. Taxing ourselves to oblivion is not the answer. Our hospitals, schools and infrastructure are already underfunded without more being taken away. We are already overtaxed.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      08:23am | 11/03/10

      When I first heard of Tony Abbotts plan I thought:

      “Awesome idea”

      Then I read how he was planning to fund it and I thought:

      “WHAT THE F@&K!!”

      The proposed levy on Australia largest companies is absolutely atrocious.  Its the kind of crackpot scheme you would expect from the left of the ALP or the Greens.  I saw Bob Brown cheering it on and if ever Tony Abbott needs a sign that he’s cocked up I can’t think of a better one. 

      Frankly whoever Tony did run this one past has demonstrated that they are no longer suitable as an advisor.  I am hoping to see a massive backtrack on this asap.  There is no point in wasting any political energy or airtime in attempting to defend the indefensible. 

      I do like the idea of a “maternity savings account” though men should be able to have one too.  This is the kind of empowering policy the Liberals should be advocating, not the populist soaking of big business.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      08:36am | 11/03/10

      This scheme is far better than either Rudd’s or Abbott’s.
      And that’s why it would never get implemented.
      I mean you expect people to pay for their own decisions? Laughable.
      There’s too many votes in buying off parents with their now expected middle class welfare.

      Reply

    • rene says:

      02:43pm | 11/03/10

      I would like to ask exactly what middle income welfare? What the piddly $5K bonus that is given?  Thats a very small amount when you consider that the women/family income would have paid at least $20k in income tax that year. And every year before that. And that tax would also pay for other welfare and also say things like negative gearing. Why dont we remove that type of middle income welfare instead? Because really that is what it is, a welfare payment because you own an investment property.  I object to my taxes paying for that, in fact object to my taxes paying for the dole.  And superannuation. Yeah, when most of the population lost around 15% due to the GFC.

    • Tim says:

      03:25pm | 11/03/10

      Rene,
      i’m not a big fan of negative gearing either. I would be fine with cutting it. As to your assertion about families also being taxpayers, sure a lot are and good on them but you do realise that 40% of families pay no net tax after benefits and allowances are taken into account?

    • JJJ says:

      08:40am | 11/03/10

      I absolutely agree that people who have children should not be given financial benefits from me (the tax-payer). Your idea is a good one, however instead of salary sacrificing, why don’t people who chose to have children just save themselves before they have them, taking some responsibility for furthering their genes? People who breed are a burden on society - the environment, my access in shops (stupid, enormous, overpriced prams), the government, etc etc.

      We also need to introduce an IQ test that people have to sit before they are allowed to breed. It’s usually the lower educated people in our society that choose to have ridiculous numbers of children. We should not have to pay for their foolishness. If you want to have children, you should have to earn the money (save) before-hand to be able to afford that right.

      Matty - why do we need to lift the birth-rate? Is that so we run out of land and water and eventually suck this planet dry? There is no reason why the government should still be providing incentives for breeding. Reward those who do NOT have children. It’s my “non-baby bonus” scheme and includes a percentage increase in your super on retirement if you haven’t had more than two children (who you pay for, out of your pocket ... your children - your choice). Just because the rest of the world continues to breed like rabbits, Australia should have learnt that lesson. Rabbits have no place in Australia.

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      11:17am | 11/03/10

      So who is going to be paying working and paying taxes when you are 80?

      Despite belief, Australia will still continue to exist long after you are gone, JJJ. Shall our entire working population be supplemented from immigration?

      Would you abolish pensions too?

      The principle concern here is that a capitalist economy is built on the back of Growth.

    • JJJ says:

      12:04pm | 11/03/10

      Macca - if every two people have two children, we will continue on on our merry way - already over-populated and destroying our planet, running out of oil fast & not introducing acceptable/sustainable alternatives. Of course, in my ‘non-baby bonus’ scheme, if you/people want to have more than two children, that’s nice, just don’t expect other tax-payers to have to contribute their money to fund your opulent life-choices. Claims that populations growth = economic growth are great, but it’s simply not sustainable. This planet is only so big (and already, it seems, too small to handle the colossus that is your brain).

    • Matty says:

      12:14pm | 11/03/10

      I’m not exactly sure why you class people who breed as a burden on society - what is the point of life if not to sustain itself?

      People who “breed” will spend their lives contributing to the future of society, whereas if you choose not to then fundamentally you are only consuming resources for no eventual gain until the day you die. That sounds harsh no doubt, but when you strip it down that’s what it comes to.

      I’m also really not sure about your IQ test idea and I sincerely hope it was your attempt at humour!

    • JJJ says:

      01:16pm | 11/03/10

      Matty. People with babies are a burden on society. Babies cannot look after themselves, so parents with small children are useless to the rest of us (in caveman speak) while they care for their child (or they should be, if they are doing a proper job of it). They are additionally a current burden because they are rewarded financially for what I view as a priviledge, not a right. Any twit can have a baby - but if you really want a baby, you need to recognise that you will be useless to everyone else for a while once you have it and will therefore need to save for this time. People who rely on govt pay-outs to enoy children are appauling.

      IQ tests I was serious about. I don’t mean an test on intellect per-se, but certainly a ‘test’ on the roles, requirements, and expenses of a parent before people can just pop one, or two, or eight, out. People have no idea how much children cost and I sadly see too many abused or neglected children who come from two people who obviously didn’t realise that the reason sex is so good is so we have babies.

      And Matty - there is no point to life… that’s the point. You make it what you want it to be. Having children does not make your life more meaningful than anyone else’s. 42 and out.

    • Alex says:

      01:35pm | 11/03/10

      JJJ says “I absolutely agree that people who have children should not be given financial benefits from me (the tax-payer).”

      I’m fine with that - as long as JJJ doesn’t get any financial benefits from my kids.

    • Randal says:

      02:03pm | 11/03/10

      Well the only good thing that I can see from an IQ test for parents is that it would mean that JJJ could never breed and that really would be a good thing for the planet!

    • Macca says:

      02:07pm | 11/03/10

      Alex, sounds fair enough, but I’d rather lived in a society where people looked out for more than just themselves

    • Tim says:

      02:44pm | 11/03/10

      Alex,
      I’m fine with not getting any benefits from your kids as long as I can stop paying the proportion of my tax that is currently going to pensions, aged care, PBS benefits and other things for the elderly currently.

      See we can go round and round with this if you want.

      People have been funding the aged care of the last generation for many years now. This generation however, is the first that thinks that we should pay them to provide the next generation(kids) as well as pay for the last generation(old people) at the same time.

    • rene says:

      02:49pm | 11/03/10

      To JJJ, As per my earlier comment, lets get rid of all types of “welfare” payments. One good example is negative gearing. Why should my tax dollars be used for this type of welfare? And in addition, I am a parent and I do pay taxes thank you very much and I probably pay more taxes every year than you.  And no, I dont get anything from the govt for my kids but that does not mean that I whinge about that fact.  Perhaps your parents should have thought like you do and not bred at all.

    • JD says:

      09:47pm | 11/03/10

      JJJ, totally agree. I have no idea why people are paid to breed. Have kids, great, but don’t expect society to fund your choice. For all those who say “my kinds will fund your retirement” well actually, no they won’t, because there is super now. Also, even if you have kids, if they are a girl, they might go on to have more kids and not work (and be on welfare), so really, its just cycle a isn’t it.

      And don’t get me started on those gigantic prams that could house an adult…

    • Napolean says:

      08:44am | 11/03/10

      Brilliant idea.

      Reply

    • Kenny says:

      08:53am | 11/03/10

      Excellent idea

      Reply

    • Bitten says:

      09:02am | 11/03/10

      Well, I can tell you right now this won’t be popular. People don’t want to have to pay for their choices! This is Australia, the land of the bloated whinger who thinks everything should be paid for by someone else!

      Reply

    • Othello Cat says:

      10:34am | 11/03/10

      This is a great idea—the notion of self-funded parental leave. Jessica Brown has also canvassed similar ideas. But as you say BItten, the entitlement-poisoned middle-class child-makers would not support this idea. The child-burdened martyrs seem have a touch of eveny as well as an expectation of a zero-sum impact financial and social impact after they have whelped; they want to continue living like the hipster couple they once were and they seem to gloat that money is redirected out of the pockets of those who have been deemed to dodged the bullet—the DINKs and SINKs, no matter how poor —to pay for it.

      We live in a great country. Most have access to fresh water, literacy, reasonable medical care and no war. In many parts of the world, this would be remarkable.  Middle Australia (and its aspirants)  these days keep themselves dissatisfied with their income by always comparing themselves with people who have more and never with people who have less who they rarely see up close.

      The bottom line is that despite all of the endless hand-wringing and angst about the state of the nation’s children, assistance isn’t being directed toward kids at the greatest risk. It’s a charade designed by and for the child-makers who aren’t thrilled with the consequences of their own choices and who, after decades of funding welfare for the poor, no matter how parsimonious, are demanding theirs.

      It is telling that middle-class Australia did not so much as blink an eye at the imposition of conditional welfare for the genuinely disadvantaged such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, single parents and the long-term unemployed. Yea verily, they encouraged it, applauded it and made the usual ruminations about dole-bludgers, unmarried slut mums, good-for-nothing blacks and the like. Yet it seems that married middle class (white)  mothers are the special exception to the rule. Hand these ladies an unconditional and non-means tested wad of other people’s cash and the magic of perfect breast-fed child-raising will simply come to fruition. Class warfare much?

    • Bitten says:

      03:10pm | 11/03/10

      Othello Cat, you raise a very interesting point. I too recently was struck by the hypocrisy of the white middle-class welfare.  Apparently parents receiving the baby bonus, FBT and lining up greedily for paid parental leave, have their eyes tight shut against any suggestion that in fact, a welfare bludger is a welfare bludger is a welfare bludger.  If Aboriginals receiving welfare/drug addicts/disability pensioners, if those people are bludgers, then white middle class welfare recipients are themselves also bludgers and parasites. It would be fascinating to see if a politician could introduce the idea of conditional welfare across the board - if you want us to pay for your kid, then we become shareholders in your kid and I want status reports and KPI assessments. Is your child polite, well-behaved, doing well at school? What about your skills as a parent that I’m paying you for - are they up to scratch?

      Having children is not an altruistic act as the maternal-martyr brigade suggests in an effort to hide their greed. I’d be less caustic if parents would at least grow up and take some responsibility for their choices. Or be honest about their motivations and how much they leach off the government.

    • OldGirl says:

      09:01am | 11/03/10

      I had my child at a young age 17 years old, I was married and I realised at that time any hope of a career till my son was older was gone.  My father died when I was 10 years old, my mother then had to go to work to support myself and her. I was a latch key kid and very lonely. I was determined my son would never face what I had to. I got $2.00 endowment a month for my son. I think my mother got even less for me. Countless generations have paid for and supported their own children. They simply did without to provide for their familes. In all honesty I think a bit of a hand when the child is born, is fine but these payments are all way to much.. You can toss money at a problem but it doesn’t solve it. All you get is a dependency on money.  I think allowing mothers who want to stay with their children untill school age, to have some sort of small payment from centerlink would be better. Children need nutruring, they need a mum or dad who is there for them. 18 weeks is long enough to bond with your child BUT then you leave them and let grandma or a career do your mothering for you. Not all taxpayers have babies so there is no balance for their tax dollars. I am sure you will think I am wrong but I am not alone in thinking like this. Have a good day all

      Reply

    • DG says:

      09:01am | 11/03/10

      As I suggested yesterday under the article “Abbot the progressive”:

      “Allow people to sacrifice up to 5% of their pre-tax income to go to a “parental leave” fund that they can draw from if they have a baby (or any time after 40 years of age). where the income tax is payable at the date they choose to draw from the fund. Also allow persons to deduct from their super during any “maternity leave” period.”

      To flesh it out further, make it CGT exempt if accessed in the 12 months after giving birth, within 12 months after a medical practitioner certifies that the individual is biologically unable to have a child or after the person retires.

      Cap the amount that can be saved in this manner at the annual salary (after tax) of the person on their 40th birthday or the amount they were paid when last employed before the age of 40.

      Any amount in excess of that limit should be treated as a CGT asset.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      09:02am | 11/03/10

      Note: your parents didn’t pay 60% tax. They may have faced a 60% marginal tax rate, and therefore paid 60 cents in the dollar on any additional dollars they earned, but this is not the same thing as paying 60% of their total income in tax.

      The widespread confusion regarding marginal and average tax rates leads people to conclude that they pay more tax than they actually do, which has political implications.

      Reply

    • John Sanger says:

      09:54am | 11/03/10

      You are partially right in fact but incorrect in substance. Yes the marginal rate does make people think they are paying more in direct taxation than they really are. Howerer, when you factor in indirect taxes, rates, fees & levies and then also include the contribution they pay to others’ Taxation ie Woolworth’s/Coles Tax bill is paid by their customers etc then it really can approach this kind of figure or more.

    • Matt says:

      10:38am | 11/03/10

      John,
      The easiest way to factor in all Government imposts is by looking at Government revenue as a proportion of GDP. That currently is around 30%, one of the lowest in the OECD.
      In other words, total Government revenue (including all fees, levies, etc) takes up around 30% of our national income each year. Of course, much of this revenue is returned to households in the form of transfer payments or the provision of services (hospitals, schools, police forces, ADF, etc).

    • N says:

      09:47am | 11/03/10

      Well considered Julia. I like ideas that don’t rely on tax dollars and instead makes people more responsible for their own outcome.

      Reply

    • Big Jay says:

      09:49am | 11/03/10

      I think this is a great idea but should be expanded to include far more choices. Something like a deferred income account where deposits are a tax deduction (or via salary sacrifice, pre-tax) and withdrawals are taxable income. This would let people do more things like self-insure their unemployment, plan parental leave, work 4yrs then take a year off to travel, smooth out unemployed period in project industries (like software, or even construction).

      Sadly, as some people have alluded to, a massive number of people in this country tend to be too lazy and/or stupid to manage their own affairs. The fact that we have compulsory super because too many people didnt work out they should save (& invest) for their retirement throughout their working life is testament to this. Again, reiterating what others had said, personal responsibly and paying for your own choices are not in vogue with a lot of people in the electorate.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:16am | 11/03/10

      What about an insurance scheme similar to income protection insurance? Or does income protection cover maternal leave? Also what about people who have babies unexpectantly at a youg age? Perhaps we can reverse the program so that they pay off their maternity leave entitlements through work after having the child.

      I really like the concept and feel with some more serious thought it could become a solution to the maternity issues in australia.

      Reply

    • DG says:

      10:44am | 11/03/10

      A HECS type system would be flawed.

      It would work so as to reduce the persons motivation for ever going back to work. If they were going to have to pay when they did go back to work, why go back? They’d be better off having another kid and keeping the payments going. It wouldn’t take long before the cost of repaying the debt would make it so that going back to work would not be financially rewarding.

    • Anna C says:

      10:39am | 11/03/10

      I think it is a great idea and it will encourage people to plan more when they have children.  I think that a major problem with society today is that we reward people who don’t take personal responsiblity for their own decisions and actions.  For example why should people who choose to become sole parents be allowed to bludge off the system via welfare payments?  You should have to contrinbute to society (via paying taxes) before you access welfare payments etc.  Julia’s idea is a great way encouraging people to take control of their lives.  People should only have children if they can afford them and this superannuation style system would be of great benefit.

      Reply

    • Anna C says:

      10:42am | 11/03/10

      I think it is a great idea and it will encourage people to plan more when they have children.  I think that a major problem with society today is that we reward people who don’t take personal responsiblity for their own decisions and actions.  For example why should people who choose to become sole parents be allowed to bludge off the system via welfare payments?  You should have to contrinbute to society (via paying taxes) before you access welfare payments etc.  Julia’s idea is a great way encouraging people to take control of their lives.  People should only have children if they can afford them and this superannuation style system would be of great benefit.

      Reply

    • Anonymous says:

      12:22pm | 11/03/10

      Well, guess what? That’s exactly what my husband and I did before having children, we had our “maternity leave” fund that we planned to get to a certain amount before we even tried to conceive. I believe it was the responsible thing to do, and the only way I was able to stay home for a year (as I wanted to be able to breastfeed my child for as long as possible). We had fertility issues, so were able to also draw on that fund to pay for some treatment. However, when I told others about this, many were astounded and said “wow, we never had to do that, we never even thought about things like that”. With inflated house prices the way they are, those in their 20’s now will find it very hard to be able to fit in a child unless they prepare themselves financially.  But it just seems like most people don’t even think about these issues before getting pregnant.
      By the way, I’m not talking about some long forgotten past even her with my maternity leave, I’m on my last month of it now, going back to work next month.
      However, had a maternity leave scheme been in place, we probably wouldn’t have had to wait so long to have children, and probably saving us the heartache and enormous cost of our fertility problems (the baby bonus was spent and more before we even conceived).
      If you want responsible, educated and hardworking women to “breed” the next generation of responsible, educated and hardworking members of society (to pay taxes when those high and mighty “children are a burden on society” types are retired), then a maternity leave scheme will go a long way in providing that.  An across the board payment scheme like the baby bonus will just encourage irresponsible people to have children just for the money. Get rid of the baby bonus, bring in paid maternity leave.

      Reply

    • Mel says:

      03:25pm | 11/03/10

      I’m in the same position as you were a few years ago, Anon…
      My husband & I are trying to save as much as we can, so that I can afford a year off when we have a child.
      Unfortunately, that is a time consuming process, and by the time we have saved enough, I will probably be around 35.
      If a paid maternity/paternity leave scheme was in place, we could afford to have kids now, instead of waiting at least 5 more years, and finding ourselves in a situation similar to yours….

    • JD says:

      09:55pm | 11/03/10

      People have super now, so the statement that children are needed to fund people’s retirement is not quite accurate. Something to think about.

    • Shelley says:

      02:45pm | 11/03/10

      I think way too much negativity has been made of Abbotts proposed scheme and how it’ll be funded. It’s doable. I’d rather parents got paid leave than we pay interest on borrowings to fix budget blowouts for failed government policies.

      And Labor fund their women 100% . Why should the rest get crumbs?

      One law for them and another for us?

      Reply

    • rene says:

      03:02pm | 11/03/10

      Paid maternity is already available to a number of women and especially so in the public sector employment. So why should some women have ti and others not, and yes, taz dollars already pay for these public sector women.
      ie From the Apesma website,  http://www.apesma.asn.au/women/articles/paid_maternity_leave_june_01.asp
      *********AWIRS (The Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey) 95 found that 34 per cent of workplaces with 20 or more employees had paid maternity leave. AWIRS 95 also reported that 36 per cent of employees have access to paid maternity leave, 57 per cent of public sector employees and 24 per cent of those in the private sector.
      An analysis of agreements during 1998 and 1999 showed that paid maternity leave was provided for in 10 per cent of agreements, up from 4 per cent in 1997.
      Twelve weeks paid maternity leave is standard for all Commonwealth employees, and for some State public servants, as well as some semi-government bodies and those with a historical relationship to the public sector.Paid maternity leave is also agreed in significant areas of local government.************

      In addition,
      International standards
      Paying women during a period of maternity leave is internationally recognised.
      In fact the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women states:

      “Parties shall take all appropriate measures … to introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment seniority or social allowances”.

      Although Australia is a signatory to the Convention, it does not accept and is not bound to implement the intention of the above excerpt as it has a “reservation” in place. This reservation continues despite the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission recommending that Australia withdraw this reservation and implement the Convention in full.

      The International Labour Organisation has also set standards for paid maternity leave dating back to 1921, with the Convention concerning the Employment of Women before and after Childbirth. This Convention was revised in 1952 but was not ratified by Australia.

      In 2000, a revised Convention was adopted by the ILO, and supported by Australia. The Convention provides for maternity leave of not less than 14 weeks. The Convention also deals with the benefits payable to women absent on maternity leave:

      1. Cash benefits shall be provided in accordance with national laws and regulations, or in any other manner consistent with the national practice, to women who are absent from work on leave (for maternity purposes).

      2. Cash benefits shall be at a level which ensures that the woman can maintain herself and her child in proper conditions of health and with a suitable standard of living.”

      Paid maternity leave standards in different countries
      Most developed countries provide for between two and six months maternity leave, paid at 80-100 per cent of the women’s previous earnings. Maternity leave is funded generally through a contributory social security or social insurance scheme, paid by employees and employers with government contributions.

      The United States does not have national provision for paid maternity leave. However, a number of states are introducing legislation to provide for access to unemployment benefits during the 12 weeks period of unpaid leave available under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act for purposes including caring for a newborn or newly adopted child. It is also common for paid maternity leave to be provided by employers by agreement.

      In developing countries leave is most commonly two to four months paid at 60-100 per cent of previous earnings.

      Reply

    • Gerry says:

      07:39pm | 11/03/10

      ” My parents paid 60 cents in the dollar .... ” I don’t think so ... maybe a marginal rate of of 60% but certainly not as you have stated.

      Reply

    • Hayley says:

      10:04pm | 11/03/10

      All I can say is that the game of having kids these days is ridiculous. You get a baby bonus, family assistance, family tax benefit A, family tax benefit B, maternity leave…. why? I understand that we all pay tax at certain stages in our lives and that this provides roads, schools and hospitals etc. but I was under the old-fashioned notion that if you chose to have children you funded this yourself. I also thought that welfare was for the down-and-outers who genuinely needed a temporary helping hand. But now we have this generation of welfare-entitled parents who believe the world owes them because having a child is the most significant thing a person can do. Well how many noble prizes are given out for having a kid? None! Having kids is a lifestyle choice and has nothing to do with me or how much tax I should have to pay. Why is a woman paid for not working? I simply don’t understand. You want kids? Save up and be prepared to budget!

      Reply

    • SarahJaneJones says:

      10:29am | 12/03/10

      This is a fantastic idea! Everyone, men and women, should have it as soon as they start working, just like Superannuation. Once they reach the age of 50 anything leftover can be put into their superannuation account I think.

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      11:13am | 05/05/10

      Go to the UK and see all the young girls who have babies, it has become a business because of the benefits in that country like cheap housing even getting it painted free of charge ,is this why the child abuse is on the rise females getting paid for having babies they don’t really want.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 13 10:15PM

Found a TV meteorologist on Twitter with the last name Piotrowski. There's a whole newsroom of Piotrowskis out there

Paul Colgan

Colgo 22 May 13 09:41PM

RT @businessinsider: Man Being Questioned For Boston Bombing Connection Shot And Killed By FBI by @paulszoldrahttp://t.co/OtypP2PRgI

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 13 09:19PM

This is a must read @TheAtlantic. Whether you think you know everything or think you know nothing http://t.co/naoUutCoWF

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 13 07:53PM

RT @JoshuaWithers: Have you seen the Australian version of Breaking bad? He get's cancer and Medicare covers his costs and the series ends.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter