Should Childcare Expense Be Tax Deductible?

MiaSanMia on 26/06/2018 - 16:24

Long story short, what's your opinion about our current childcare expense level? Should out-of-pocket childcare expenses be deductible against income tax?

Our combined income is roughly $100k per year and we've been paying a childcare fee of more than $220 per week for one child, that's nearly $11,500 per year and this doesn't look like to change when the new Childcare Subsidy kicks in from July. I thinks it's too much out of our net pay and wonder why the Gov don't allow it as deduction against income tax? We send kids to childcare in order to go to work and earn income to pay tax, so shouldn't it be considered as part of the income earning activity under tax deduction definition?

Your thoughts please.

Poll Options

  • 92
    Childcare expenses should be tax deductible
  • 270
    Leave it as is, we need more tax in this country
Financial Childcare Income Tax

Comments

    • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 10:10

      Spot on!! Great idea. Why should the CEO make $10 million and take $1 million in shares.

      • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 11:34

        Why shouldn't they? If you object so much - go start your own company and see how easy it is.

    • eapster on 28/06/2018 - 18:43

      Whilst childcare provided by the employer is FBT free and can be salary sacrificed without any FBT implications, please be aware that you can't claim CCR/CCB since you're not paying for the fees, it's being paid by the employer.

  • Stevek1960 on 27/06/2018 - 10:50
    -5

    There is an easy way to stop the yuppies complaining about paying childcare - KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS
    FFS when we had our kids there were no Rebates or any sort of tech grants, You had kids you paid for everything.
    Too many people want to many handouts.
    DO IT TOUGH like your parents did and their parents before them and stop wanting every one else to pay for your bloody desire to have a family.

    • Slippage on 27/06/2018 - 11:21
      +16

      found the baby boomer…

    • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 15:26
      +10

      Hello person from generation that went through the era of low housing prices, an economic boom and still ended up landing the federal budget in the red.

      I am far from a fan of socialism but it's hard to take lessons about "doing it tough like the previous generation" when the previous generation took loans against the future generation.

      • Stevek1960 on 28/06/2018 - 08:22
        -1

        And you think that that is not happening now, delusional

        • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 08:33

          Which part? The increasing debt, low housing price or mining boom?

          None are actually happening now. It's not what I think. Just is.

          Also, current generation that's paying for the previous generation's gross mismanagement isn't preachy. Ironic.

    • MessyG on 27/06/2018 - 17:24
      +3

      Let's remove those blinkers for a sec and realise that having a person at home full time these days to do all the household management and child-raising with a support network of grandparents who are alive and other non-employed people to help them. You just can't do that now with house prices what they are.

      And why do you want future generations to do it tough? You don't become a developed-world nation by clinging onto developing-world ideals, why on earth would you not want the standards of living to improve with every generation?

      There's no virtue in 'doing it tough', no gold star. It's just a shitty outdated identity that some Australians hold onto - better to aim high and work hard, demand things be better for everyone.

      • minotaurian on 27/06/2018 - 20:27

        It's a shame really, everyone works to afford the security of housing. But because everyone works, housing becomes more expensive. A vicious cycled concocted by a shift in social norms and paradigms where housewives (or husbands) are frowned upon. I blame political correctness and modern feminism. Now people just work to prove a point, even, when the cost of childcare is equivalent to their take home net earnings. That's like working for free…

        • MessyG on 27/06/2018 - 20:46

          It's not working for free if you view it as part of a combined income.

          FWIW I don't work just to prove a point. I went to university and found a vocation I love and contribute to society with. A huge chunk of my money goes to childcare. A huge chunk goes to the mortgage. I don't see it as working for free on either count.

          With your argument you're essentially saying that literally half of society is to blame for wanting the opportunity to study something and work in a field that fascinates them. I don't think that holds up (as indulgently satisfying a thing it may be to blame).

        • minotaurian on 28/06/2018 - 11:01

          I'm not trying to generalise, but the median earnings for 2018 is 66k (including part time and casual) and I making assumpsions with regards to child care costing 40k a year after subsidies in Sydney. If you earn much more than 40k, sure, work, if you do not or earn around that figure, then it's like working for free.

          I didn't go into too much detail because I assume not all ozbargainrs are whirlpool users all earning 6 figure salaries

        • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 13:08

          @minotaurian: Yes but if you drop out of the workforce to raise the kids, the chances of returning to work after a few years on the same salary when the kids are in school drops precipitously, so you kind of have to.

        • minotaurian on 28/06/2018 - 21:38
          +1

          @MissG: I guess the best outcome is not to have kids. No kids means less population in the future and hence demand for housing will be less. Just like in Japan where death rate is higher than birth. Property prices there has been dropping.
          The problem is, there won't be enough tax to subsidised the aging population, but then again, I have a feeling the age pension may be phased out. But we have super so our retirement would be fine. So win win for everyone, except the child care companies that have been established to rort these government hand outs, similarly to the solar pane, grey water tank, first home buyers and roof batts rebates/grants/deductions introduced years back. Merchants just jack up prices whenever handouts are given.

        • c0balt on 29/06/2018 - 11:58
          +1

          @minotaurian:

          Exactly, don't have kids if the only way you can afford to is to expect other's to pay for your children. This whole ongoing exponential growth is just a ponzi scheme to keep paying pensions and centrelink anyway.

          Exponential growth is unsustainable. Better to have fewer people with access to more resources than more people with access to less.

    • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:24
      -2

      here here
      Totally correct
      We live in the era of privledge where everyone expects everything for nothing.
      But blame the governmenst for that with all thier election stunts.

      Once a govt benefit is introduced it very hard to pull it away again

      PS Aged pensions and public housing were originally introduced for the war veterans who never got a chance to establish a career.

      Look who expects to get these now…OMG!

      • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 10:13
        +1

        No they don't, they just want help.

        Take your blinkers off.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 11:35

          They want help for a purely optional and discretionary expense.

          It's like I bought a BMW and I want "help" with service costs.

        • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 14:28

          @HighAndDry: Nothing wrong with asking for help. They should have purchased a Toyota (options).

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 14:39

          @RocketSwitch: I guess, but I'd think if someone rocked up to OzB and started asking for subsidies to maintain their BMW, they'd get a fairly chilly reception too.

    • austrij on 27/06/2018 - 20:40

      I suppose let's also keep our women at home to do what they're born to do - cooking, washing, looking after kids. Just like the olden days.

      • MessyG on 27/06/2018 - 20:48

        Oh goody, hopefully we can get the Bex and a lie down going (and end up on dialysis), or the Valium addiction too, can't wait!

    • [Deactivated] on 27/06/2018 - 22:05
      +1

      Your generation also rang up, umm, how many billions of dollars in Australian debt? & how much of our country was sold off to support your gains?

      Admittedly most youth these days are useless but your own generation did little to look after the country they were entrusted with.

      There are a few of us that look at both sides with contempt (gen X).

    • RocketSwitch on 28/06/2018 - 10:10

      found grumpy pants lol

  • minotaurian on 27/06/2018 - 10:52
    +2

    In an Asians' mind, children are always an investment. That's what I learnt from watching the NAB ads.

    • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 11:30
      +4

      That's actually fairly accurate - generally most Asian cultures value family and having children (and raising them) very highly. That's why, for example, here and in other countries like the US, poor Asian immigrants tend to have far higher educational and other outcomes than immigrants from other cultures.

    • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:26

      Anything else you learnt from NAB ?

      • minotaurian on 27/06/2018 - 19:40
        +3

        NAB investment analysts do not invest in 80k high yielding cars and claim it as a tax deduction because it increases self worth and income due to the possibility of a promotion?

  • kaleidoscope on 27/06/2018 - 10:54

    No it’s not. It can’t be. There are enough childcare benefits provided by the govt.

  • Smaland on 27/06/2018 - 12:22
    +1

    I am about to start another thread for transport. Imho, transport to work should be tax deductable.

    Tradies or home business or sole trader are able to claim expenses related to car. White collars are not (unless you got company car, allowance etc). I think it is bit unfair.

    Having kids are our options. Wish I spend more times with them when they were young…

    • MessyG on 27/06/2018 - 17:25
      +1

      I support transport to work being tax deductable - it might make them invest in better PT or more support in working from home!

      Having kids is kind of necessary for society to have a future though, we should be investing in them. I'd rather fund childcare - remember that lump sum baby bonus? Everyone went and bought big TV's.

      • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 18:28

        Having kids is kind of necessary for society to have a future though

        Okay, this has been said in this thread a lot, and (not picking on you) having thought about it, is really bad logic. We also need a lot of other things for society to have a future, like bankers (yes, as much as you hate them - they allow savings to go into investment) for example. But we also understand that bankers are in it to make money for themselves, not to benefit society, and so society shouldn't subsidize them.

        Likewise, I'm fairly sure most parents have kids to benefit themselves (or otherwise for their own reasons) and don't really think "Society needs children so I'm going to have children".

        • MessyG on 27/06/2018 - 20:49
          +2

          No they don't, but seriously, we need kids. If there are no kids, there is no future for society. We could lose bankers, humanity would continue. But without kids…well I'm not sure what you think would happen there! Rely on immigration?

        • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 21:16

          @MissG: Sure, but my point is - people don't have kids because "I want to help society". People have kids because they want kids. They'll still have kids even if childcare was expensive, if it wasn't subsidized, if it cost an arm and a leg (because it does). The whole "Omg what if people stop having kids" rhetoric is…. sheer hysterics. People aren't going to stop having kids.

        • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 13:12
          +1

          @HighAndDry: I know they don't, but that's no reason not to support children. Yes they'll still have kids. But if we want those children, i.e. our future society, to be functional taxpaying contributors to our economy, they will need support to do that. Compare and contrast with developing world countries where there is no support, and instead there is entrenched intergenerational poverty. It's not about people stopping having kids, it's about making sure the kids grow up into adults who can contribute meaningfully. I have no problem supporting this. I'd rather my tax money go into educating and supporting children and parents of children so this can happen. Working parents means it's much more likely their kids will work when they grow up too.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 20:13

          @MissG: Sorry, leaving the other conversation to reply to this very quickly:

          to be functional taxpaying contributors to our economy, they will need support to do that. Compare and contrast with developing world countries where there is no support, and instead there is entrenched intergenerational poverty.

          This just isn't true. It's a cultural thing more than it is a matter of how much free money government provides. South East Asian countries are almost all (except Korea and Japan) developing nations. They value children and education highly, and the support comes from immediate and extended family. I have no idea why this is apparently unworkable. South East Asian nations have also been some of the fastest growing economies in the world, with China and India raising literal BILLIONS of people out of poverty in the past decade. If that's not intergenerational success, I don't know what is.

          And my biggest issue is this: More money for childcare won't raise better children. That depends almost solely on better parenting. Encouraging this outsourcing of parenting from actual parents to third parties is utterly counter-productive. No nanny or childcare worker, no matter how well paid, is going to come close to replacing an engaged and attentive parent.

    • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:35

      @Smaland Thats not correct at all.

      Travel from home to and from work is not tax deductible for everyone.

      So for tradies also, travel to and from thier home is not tax deductible just like white collar workers.

      In the same vein whilst working, travel from one place to another is tax deductible for everyone.

      Its just that tradies work involves a lot of travel between work sites.

      To make it clear, tradies cannot claim travel to thier first place of work from home and from thier last place of work to home.

      Of course a tradie will stop in at the local Bunnings store to stock up for the day. Hence subsequent travel from Bunnings is tax deductible.

      • BobLim on 27/06/2018 - 22:18

        They carry bulky/heavy tools, and have nowhere secure to store them at work = all trips are deductible, even legs starting or finishing at home.

        No one will ever know whether they actually used said tools on the day they deduct the travel cost for carrying them though…

  • imurgod on 27/06/2018 - 14:10
    +3

    Our government wastes a giant amount of tax payer money on stupidity. If expenditure was correctly managed, childcare would rightly be subsidised.

    So many haters out there yet you don't realise we're an ageing population and their taxes will be required.

    There's nothing wrong with having children regardless of income and I'd rather my tax dollars went to supporting future workforce than bogus unemployment and disability payments which simply aren't policed.

    • HighAndDry on 27/06/2018 - 14:36
      +3

      You're assuming they'll police childcare subsidies any better than they currently police unemployment and disability payments. The rule generally tends to be: If the govt is giving out free money, someone will rort it. See for example:

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/nsw-family-daycare-vic…

      More than 165 family daycare providers have been forced to shut their doors across Australia after the operators were allegedly found to have been falsely claiming subsidies.

      To put it into perspective just how ridiculous this was…

      In NSW alone, 124 family daycare providers were shuttered between June 2016 and June 2017, representing about one-third of the sector.

      A third of the entire industry were closed down for rorting the system. A THIRD!!

      • imurgod on 28/06/2018 - 09:48

        Imagine the money saved if they policed all welfare properly

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 11:40

          Yup. Not gonna get any argument from me on that point - but the moment you do, you get bleeding hearts coming out of the woodwork whinging about how it's unfair people getting free money should have to take steps to show they're entitled to free money. You'd think it being free money would be enough.

        • imurgod on 28/06/2018 - 14:13
          +1

          @HighAndDry: yep. It's a flawed system run by incompetent fools with their finger far from the pulse.

    • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:38

      @imurgod CHILDCARE IS SUBSIDIED!!!!!!

      • imurgod on 28/06/2018 - 09:49

        Not enough. I still pay far too much. I had to sacrifice by buying a lower spec Mercedes-Benz AMG this year. You don't know the troubles I have, pal. Walk a mile in my shoes.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 11:42

          And I'm sure you also feel the pain of how much it costs to service and maintain that Merc AMG, which I'm sure you need to use for work from time to time. It's a travesty the government hasn't stepped in to help hardworking Australians be productive and contribute back to society. Rest assured, I'll be writing to my MP for you!

        • imurgod on 28/06/2018 - 14:11

          @HighAndDry: service is actually very reasonable. I use it for work 100% of the time so the tax breaks help a bit with the struggle. Appreciate your support! You're welcome to my huge tax dollars that I pay into the system.

  • T1OOO on 27/06/2018 - 16:06
    +4

    So sad , other people should pay for my children. I really hate this world sometimes.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 08:38

      It's no different to any other welfare. Someone's offspirng is taking money from someone else.

      • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 11:46
        +1

        It is different. Or it's supposed to be. Welfare is supposed to be there when people hit a rough patch, it shouldn't be basically a sure thing, or a permanent income.

    • outlander on 28/06/2018 - 09:54

      I don't have a problem with that, provided they're decent kids. If your breeding drug-addicted, rapist criminal scum, I really feel like you should at least pay for your own childcare costs.

  • ruddiger7 on 27/06/2018 - 16:38
    +1

    I think GoCard/Public Transport fees should be tax deductible. The only reason I use the service is to get to work.

  • Ace26 on 27/06/2018 - 17:08

    Wonder what annual income is considered rich these days (for someone who lives in Sydney)

    • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 18:40

      Its all relative

      With the average home in Sydney at $1M everybody is a miiionaire.

      So what does that mean????

  • srhardy on 27/06/2018 - 17:16
    -1

    Should it be? well if its NOT then you should CLAIM it and when its denied, APPEAL it and WIN for everyone Id hope.

    SAME AS PRIVATE EDUCATION, that should be tax deductible but NO public money should be put into PRIVATE education either IMO

  • Illian on 27/06/2018 - 17:30

    No. That's a stupid idea. They definitely DEFINITELY shouldn't be so expensive though! From what some people have mentioned in other threads here you could hire a full time live-in nanny for the same freaking price! Ridiculous. Besides, easily a quarter of people who do have kids SHOULDN'T, they just want something to do, don't give them even more incentive.

  • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 17:40
    +2

    Dear OP

    Please explain why you think child care should be tax deductible?

    Does it have anything DIRECTLY to do with earning an income - no!

    Anyone can put kids into child care for any reason.
    On top of that you get family tax benefit part A and B from the government already.
    And on top of that a child care benefit as well.

    Soon you will be asking to get paid for dropping the kids off and picking them up too.
    Just how much do you want from the government?

    What about travel to and from work? Maybe that should be tax deductible too?
    After all you could argue its related to earning an income - much more so than child care.

    Would you like your washing and ironing and maybe even your food expenses to be tax deductiable too? You could argue these are necesary to earn an income. It's much the same question really.

    And do you know what happens any time the govt gets involved in subsidising anything to make it cheaper for everyone?
    The price doubles and even triples because now everyone wants it and there is not enough to go around.
    So instead of being better off, everyone including the govt is worse off.

    Does that answer your question?

  • HeWhoKnows on 27/06/2018 - 17:57

    "We send kids to childcare in order to go to work and earn income to pay tax"

    I think you answered your question already.

    You want to pay tax!

    If child care is so expensive then one of you stay home to look after the kids
    Its that simple!

    We are not going to pay you with our taxes to go to work to earn more money at our expense.
    Thats for sure!

    And you know why child care is so expensive???

    Because people like OP want family tax benefit A & B plus child care benefits and tax deductions too.
    Totally unreasonable demands make for totally unreasonable costs

    • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 11:55

      Thanks

  • RefusdClassification on 28/06/2018 - 03:12
    +1

    "Should Childcare Expense Be Tax Deductible?" No. Rich middle class folk already get a truckload of handouts from the government. Sadly, there is nothing Australian love more than 'middle class welfare' (which I define as welfare without a social stigma attached).

    Child care is very expensive, but people earing $100,000 a year can afford it. Tax rebates for child care would simply jack up the prices, just like government housing subsidies raise the price of houses. Childcare ought be be socialized; government run childcare in France is cheap.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 08:41

      What handouts do $100k earners get?

      Isn't socializing childcare essentially getting someone else to pay for it, hence essentially forcing handouts from those who contribute more in taxes?

      • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 11:47

        I think they want actual full-blown, China-style socialism as in - government owned and run childcare centres.

        They're in for a shock though if they think that'll be run any better or more efficiently than private childcare, rorts and all.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 11:58

          Government owned. Tax payer funded.

          And yes, anything government operated is usually mismanaged.

  • Exorcist on 28/06/2018 - 09:10
    -1

    Don't be a crying baby, it's simple:

    Can't afford kids, don't have kids
    Can't afford food, don't eat
    Can't afford house, don't live
    Can't afford funeral, don't die

    • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 10:02

      If you're equating "having kids" with "eating"… I'm sorry but I just don't have the professional skills to help you.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 10:08
        +1

        I do.

        Now where did I leave my clinical cast iron skillet…

  • baj on 28/06/2018 - 09:33
    -1

    A hefty proportion of my tax goes to dole and disability support. By the same logic a lot of people mentioning here, why the bloody hell should I pay for any such income support and disability but yet we still have it. Childcare industry is milking the government.

    • Baghern on 28/06/2018 - 09:56

      No it doesn't… you must not be paying much tax if you haven't bothered to look the tax breakdown of where your taxes go when you receive your tax return statement

      https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Lodging-your-tax-return/I…
      I dont know how accurate that sample is, but it looks familiar

      Welfare is big, but unemployed is one of the smallest expenditure, I know from memory its the old farts that take up most of the welfare

      • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 13:13

        As it should be. The 'old farts' tended to have worked their arses off and paid tax over their lifetime. I'd much rather pay for their pension than some of the other sh*t we pay taxes for.

        • BobLim on 28/06/2018 - 23:05

          If they worked so hard, why don't they have any savings to show for it?

          They clearly didn't pay enough taxes or our infrastructure wouldn't be so shit today…

    • outlander on 28/06/2018 - 10:02

      I'd check those figures. As a per-person thing, you'd be paying in the order of 6% of your total tax on those two combined. Around $1500 of a $24000 tax liability. Hardly describable as 'hefty'. Age support alone chews up 2.5x that.

  • JuryWheel on 28/06/2018 - 10:05

    Im always suprised by how many people have kids, and within 3 years want both parents to be back at work 4+ days a week. So much money spent on childcare, and I can only imagine the research would show this isnt great for the child - childcare with 15 other kids from 7am - 6pm.

    We are about to have our third, and have spaced them so that one is at childcare, one is at kinder (council run), one is at school (public) which seems to work for us. My wife works 5 days a fortnight, 2 days in the week, one day every second fortnight. This seems to be affordable (2 days childcare a week is about $120 a week out of pocket), and reasonable for my wife to get time with the kids, whilst still progressing her career.

    Each to their own though…

    • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 13:15

      Actually the research is in favour of working parents - more for girls than boys though. And funnily enough it also pans out that daycare has no deleterious effect on the child. It takes a village…

  • TheCunningLinguist on 28/06/2018 - 11:47

    obviously no

    you cant have your cake and eat it too

    There are already insane middle class welfare honey pots like the child care subsidies and child care rebates.

    Those shouldnt exist either - why should i pay for other people to have kids?

    • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 13:16
      -2

      You're not. You're paying for people to get back into the workforce and contribute taxes, and entrench working values into their kids so that those kids grow up and contribute to the workforce and economy too.

      • smuggler on 28/06/2018 - 20:58

        oh give me a break. I'd like to see less people in this country.

      • TheCunningLinguist on 04/07/2018 - 16:33

        ok then, going off your logic why should i pay for other people to get back into the workforce? and why am i responsible for the values of other peoples kids?

        • HighAndDry on 04/07/2018 - 16:34
          +1

          Thank you! I'm not going to see a cent of their pay when they return to the workforce - as far as I see, they get all the benefits of that.

  • mini2 on 28/06/2018 - 12:20

    Hang on, if you're already getting subsidies then why should your expenses be a further deduction? Wouldn't that be effectively a double or even triple dip?

  • dr on 28/06/2018 - 12:43

    Applying the same logic as the original poster, in order to be able to work, I need to stay alive, and in order to stay alive I need my daily sustenance, right? And I looove my smashed avo on toast with deconstructed decaff soy latte for brekky. I'm absolutely wasted and unable to work without them, so they should definitely be tax deductible expenses if this government want any taxable mullah from me. #TaxDeductibelAvoAndSoyLatteForAll

  • frostman on 28/06/2018 - 13:35
    -3

    For the 199+ naive sheep that voted "We need more Tax in this country" I would like to point out to your naivety that pouring tax into a country doesn't necessarily make that country a better working-class country. It's the spending that we need to control, and this is the part your simple sheep life is oblivious to.

    Here, read this:

    https://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/glossies/overview/…

    Let's not even go near $158 billion in social security and welfare, but anyway;

    $89 Billion spent on "Other purposes"
    $47 Billion spent on on "All other functions"

    When you break these 2 categories down (as i've spent time reading) you will find the government spending on useless initiatives and services as mind-boggling. You will need to also ignore the massive junkets too.
    So no, paying more tax is not going to help when the wallet has a hole in it, it will help when each and every one of you question the Federal Budget and choose to elect a decent party that will not squander our money, THAT is the change.

    • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 16:04

      May I point out that calling a group of people agree with a certain course of action, sheep, may not be the best way to get them round to your way of thinking? As personally satisfying as it must feel to call them that, it is somewhat counterproductive to your argument.

      I would also argue that social security and welfare is what separates us from the developing world where there is none of this. Safety nets are important for the standard of living and while different sides of politics may disagree over the amount we should spend in this regard both sides realise it's importance.

      I do agree that there's an absolute boatload of inefficiency in our taxation system and adjusting the amount we pay before adjusting the expenditure isn't a great idea. But please, don't call people sheep if you want them to see the value in what you're saying.

      • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 16:09

        I would also argue that social security and welfare is what separates us from the developing world where there is none of this. Safety nets are important for the standard of living and while different sides of politics may disagree over the amount we should spend in this regard both sides realise it's importance.

        I'd argue that it's the fact that everyone has a high minimum standard of living which separates us from developing nations, but this can be achieved through ways other than a welfare safety net. Again, I like Singapore's system (I'm not Singaporean but I love their economic model), which is basically mandatory private health insurance (paid by the individual), and a VERY high level of mandatory savings (something like 40%+) to pay for superannuation and other government services. Not a tax - so your money stays yours - but mandated savings so as long as you were productive in your working life, you can't be broke in your retirement.

        Singapore also has a 90% home ownership rate, so it's solved the "housing availability/affordability" problem, and for all those who want citizens to have priority over non-citizens, they'll be happy to know that Singapore's services and benefits extend to citizens only. And all this, without a European-style Socialism-lite structure where the government takes your money, wastes half of it, and distributes the other half inefficiently.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2015/03/31/singapor…

        • frostman on 28/06/2018 - 16:39
          +1

          please, don't call people sheep if you want them to see the value in what you're saying.

          There is no better word than 'Sheep' to use, I am not using it arbitrarily, but it befits my argument.

          HighandDry, Agreed. Singapore's highest tax bracket is somewhere like 25% or 28%.
          What we have here is highest tax bracket 45%, this country claims more Tax than any other country in the developed world.
          Your arguments above presents a structure where Tax claiming is not the only way a country can maintain it's standard way of living.

          Scenario:
          Picture a high earning CIO of a mid-large company in AU earning $200,000.
          Whopping income right? his wife stays home and looks after 2 young kids.
          Income is ~ $137K take home after rorted $63K tax
          Keep in mind this family no longer qualifies for any social payment or benefit,
          So $137K / 2 (split with wife) = $68,500 each / year.

          These high tax brackets should be set to people earning 500K+
          Anyone under 100K should be taxed 25% and under 60K something like 10%
          Government should stop squandering our money on junketts and useless services then we can progress…

        • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 18:46

          @frostman: It might befit the argument you're making but it sure as shit doesn't befit the argument anyone is reading.

    • burningrage on 29/06/2018 - 14:01

      I just want to let you know that I voted Leave as is but don't like that "we need more tax in this country" bit.

      The poll wasn't done well.

  • MementoMori on 28/06/2018 - 16:31

    WARNING: Alternative thought ahead!

    I have a friend who says this is why the global banking and political elite got women into the workforce. They sold it as 'girl power', and you're a sexist misogynist if you even explore this idea (watch the negs this will attract).

    What used to take just one wage in the 1900's -> 1970's, two wages can't afford in the 2000's now that the labour force has doubled and wage growth has been non-existent.

    Labour cost halved + cleaning, take-away food, child carer services and other previously un-taxed services are now taxed on top of the income of the additional worker.

    He points to this similar campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom

    For the record, he has no issue with women in the workforce - his laywer, accountant and lead dev are all female. He just doesn't think it's the 'empowering and fulfilling' fantasy it's sold as - the career corporate / cubicle farm life will grind us up and spit us out at 65 while we miss out on our kids growing up (if we can afford any).

    I thought it was a pretty interesting theory. Thoughts?

    • try2bhelpful on 28/06/2018 - 18:18
      +1

      It should all be about work life balance - two people working and two people looking after the kids and doing the housework. Work is not just about earning the money it is also about career fulfilment etc. A lot of current business claims are completely bogus - I think childcare should be a tax deduction and or better provided. I never had kids so it was never an issue for me personally but if society wants people to have kids then they need to accept better support for families.

    • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 18:50

      Look if you view things from a purely economic standpoint then maybe this argument holds up. But like I said in an earlier post, a lot of women didn't enter the workforce because girlpower. They wanted to experience university, they wanted a vocation, they wanted to explore things outside the home and contribute to the world in other ways. And there was a time when women weren't allowed to vote, have a bank account, or a mortgage. You place restrictions like that on half of society, eventually they're gonna revolt just to see what it's like to be afforded those things. I'd argue it was always going to happen.

      I'm not empowered by working, I'm empowered by having a choice that was completely denied to my Nanna, who to this day feels ashamed for having no university education in spite of the fact that she was forced to leave school at 14 to help her mother at home. It's about being afforded the choice, not the power.

      Edited to add: I also just want to point out that the thing that sparked women in the workforce was the 2 world wars. The men went off to war and there was no one to run things back home, so women were recruited. After that there was no going back.

      • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 19:22
        +1

        a lot of women didn't enter the workforce because girlpower. They wanted to experience university, they wanted a vocation, they wanted to explore things outside the home and contribute to the world in other ways

        I only write this reply because from previous comments you seem interested in this kind of discussion. I wonder if you would concede that this is glaring evidence of a kind of privilege enjoyed by women, because to the great majority of men, work is not thought first and foremost as something 'enjoyed' or 'explored', but rather a responsibility and an obligation.

        • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 19:45

          Again if you deny something to a group of people, even if it is a responsibility or obbligation, those being blocked are going to want to explore it. I never used the word enjoyed though. Exploration != enjoyment. And that obligation is still a freedom to those denied that choice. I also said women wanted to contribute outside the home and with contribution comes obligation and responsibility. You speak as though women don't understand obligation and responsibility when up until a century ago they were responsible for keeping small humans alive every day.

          And now, generations later, women see work as a responsibility and as an obligation to their families. The load is now shared. Yes that's been capitalised upon by market forces, but it's not the sole obligation of men anymore - they are now free-er to fight for their choice to raise children or work instead of locked into a breadwinner role that they may not want.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 19:49
          +2

          @MissG: Whoa hold your horses. I don't disagree - you ban something, it only makes it more attractive. But women were never really banned from working; they were discouraged sure, and to an extent that in a lot cases were practically the same as a ban. But again, your choice of words is… well here's an example:

          women wanted to contribute

          If they wanted to, but didn't need to, that already makes it not an obligation or responsibility. To mirror the phrasing somewhat, men didn't necessarily want to contribute, they had to. And as to it being the "freedom" to do so… an obligation is not a freedom. You wouldn't say that a prisoner, for example, had the 'freedom' of enjoying free lodging and meals.

          I'm not actually that women had it better. Just that it's far more nuanced than a black-and-white, "men had it all better than women". Men had some privileges. Women had others.

        • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 20:02

          @HighAndDry: But they did need to. The World Wars required it. And once they did contribute, they wanted to take on that responsibility too.

          I didn't say anywhere anyone had it better or worse, I explained that women wanting to work was not done for reasons of 'girlpower', but simply because they had not been allowed to do so before, and when they were needed in the workforce, they wanted to stay and contribute. And in achieving that choice, men gained it too. Men can now choose to stay home or work.

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 20:18
          +1

          @MissG: I mean…. I'm going to go out on a limb and arguing that literal centuries of expectation and obligation to provide for the family is a little different from sporadic need to contribute to war efforts which totaled around 10 years (for both world wars).

          As to:

          I explained that women wanting to work was not done for reasons of 'girlpower'

          Possibly in terms of individual motivation, but this was certainly the main reason for feminist and gender equality movements throughout the ages. Equality is good - but it's always been premised on the notion that "men had it better, women are catching up." I think this is almost universally accepted as gospel, and I don't see it.

          I will concede you haven't yourself said either side had it better or worse though.

          And in achieving that choice, men gained it too. Men can now choose to stay home or work.

          That's great and all, but did those people "achieving" this stop and ask men if they wanted it? I'm not sure being handed something you didn't want counts.

        • MessyG on 28/06/2018 - 21:34
          +1

          @HighAndDry: No one ever asked women if they wanted that role either.

          I don't think it was men had it 'better' so much as it was 'men had more choices'.

        • MementoMori on 29/06/2018 - 09:51

          @MissG: Can I just say I love how everyone is able to have a civil discussion on this! Mention something like this and you can get your head bitten off… this is awesome, really.

          So, let's recall I didn't say it was done FOR reasons of 'girl power', it was SOLD AS 'girl power'. Reasons of curiosity, exploration, a desire to do something different that appears fulfilling - excellent and I'm sure accurate reasons.

          My point is the sham nature of the illusion. Work is a pain in the neck, it's mostly a hard slog and means the majority of my time on this earth spent with people I wouldn't choose to otherwise, battle 2 hours a day on jam packed public transport, difficult people and so on with only very brief moments of reward, and that's from someone who considers himself reasonably lucky in that I'm passionate about my career in a nice country. Think of garbo's, toilet cleaners and so on… most of us would much rather be doing something else.

          Knowing and speaking with many women in their late 30's it starts to dawn on them, this 'climbing the corporate ladder thing' isn't all it's cracked up to be as their miracle to create life slowly fades and is taken away from them, and study after study shows who are the happier women. Sure, maintaining a household is no walk in the park either but is one really better or worse than the other? I don't think so. And we haven't even touched on what 'generation daycare' is doing to our families and society…

          Having said that, we're too far gone now. I honestly don't know how average wage earner single income households survive at all. If it were me I'd go live in a regional area, even with a slight pay reduction I think you'd be better off overall.

          Anyway…. better get back to the grindstone, my boss has his eye on me…

        • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 13:27

          @MissG:

          I don't think it was men had it 'better' so much as it was 'men had more choices'.

          But that's the thing. I don't think this is true. Men had to work. For the great majority of men, it was work in whatever job they could find, including in the mines, on the docks, etc. I mean, if you work today, you should understand - the job market isn't exactly a buffet.

        • minotaurian on 29/06/2018 - 16:13
          +1

          @MissG: The places I worked for in the past were male dominant, and I swear the amount of cash handouts and lowering of standards so women could join in the industry of arm services and engineer is crazy. The sad thing, no females wants to apply. This is happening with the federal police too. At one point, we had 100 male applicants for 10 female for 15 positions. Due to quotas had to be met, all female applicants were hired and the top 5 of the male candidates. It was ridiculous, some of the female were way too under qualified and underskilled. One woman could not even lift 10kg, and yet the worse of the men was carrying 80kgs. Women always had choice in this century, its just women do not want to do it.

      • MementoMori on 29/06/2018 - 10:46
        +1

        Interesting fact - back when women weren't 'allowed to' vote, most of them didn't want to vote. In fact, the majority campaigned against it and vast majority voted against it

        "IN 1895 the women of Massachusetts were asked by the state whether they wished the suffrage. Of the 575,000 voting women in the state, only 22,204 cared for it enough to deposit in a ballot box an affirmative answer to this question. That is, in round numbers, less than four per cent wished to vote; about ninety-six per cent were opposed to woman suffrage or indifferent to it. That this expresses fairly well the average sentiment throughout the country can hardly be questioned."

        Check it out -
        https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/05/did-most-women-want-the-…
        https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-some-examples-of-women-s-…
        https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1903/09/why-wom…

        Notice the stark difference between the common (mis)conception of 'the evil male patriarchy forbidding the oppressed women to vote' and ask yourself why does this exist? Who perpetuates this? Who benefits from this divisive thinking?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join