Home | WEB Guide | News | Community | Forums | Search
ForumsForums,
RulesRules,
GroupsGroups,
UnreadUnread,
RecommendRecommend,
DonateDonate,

Skip navigation

Member information

    [ Join | More options ]


,  



« Previous

1

2,



TOUGH LOVE: Budget targets single parents to save $700m
Posted 04 May, 2012, 10:14 AM
#48824
Silver Member

Rank image
This is great news.  Let's hope they go through with it and get even tougher.

http://www.news.com.au/money/federal-budget/tough-love-budget-targets-single-parents-to-save-700m/story-fn84fgcm-1226346302653?from=public_rss
Back to the top
 
Posted 04 May, 2012, 10:28 AM
#48825
Silver Member

Rank image
This is already the case. I believe there are work requirements starting when your youngest is 6 and if you don't have a job by the time your child is 8, then you are transferred to new start. The only people who were getting PPS til their child was 16 is when you were registered before June? 2006. It was announced awhile ago that they were getting rid of the granfathered status. Would be nice if Centrelink supported you in getting back to work. I went into C/L to see if I could link to a job network provider and was asked 'why, your child is only two. You don't have to work for another 6 years yet.' Because of this, I had to pay over $2000 to study my current qualification.
Back to the top
 
Posted 04 May, 2012, 11:20 AM
#48826
Avatar
Silver Member

Rank image
Well I suppose the next question is: where are all the extra jobs coming from. It's extremely hard to find work now. I've been trying to find work for months now, with no luck. I can see the theory in it but the reality is: it's just making the poor poorer.
Back to the top
 
Posted 04 May, 2012, 12:22 PM
#48828
Silver Member

Rank image
They have 1dollar jobs in Europe, where people are required to work in certain government support places, for 1 dollar per hour to be still eligible for center link payments. You refuse, you loose! They still consider someone's qualifications and most the jobs are from the government itself and others are private firms registered with the government.
Back to the top
 
Posted 04 May, 2012, 02:22 PM
#48831
Silver Member

Rank image
I'm sorry but the "it's hard to find work" argument is just an excuse.  There's thousands of jobs out there.  I've had no problem finding work.  Many of my friends have had no problems finding work.  The real issue is that people want a job which pays $100,000 a year otherwise it's not worth it.

As far as I'm concerned, the Government should also stop child support payments for single parents who refuse to work.  If it's ok for the CSA to force me to work every day, it should be ok for the Government to force single parents to work as well.
Back to the top
 
Posted 04 May, 2012, 04:51 PM
#48833
Silver Member

Rank image
I agree. I don't earn much but it's enough to stay alive and cover my Uni fees to be able to enter one of those 150k jobs one day. Some people expect $$$ but don't want to put the effort.
I also dOnt understand the entitlement some people think they do. I remember a friends ex pulling a bit stunt when he bought a new car from his hard earnt money, while in fact she recieved 80 percent of the assets and while he was paying 2k in child support per month for 3 children. She was angry because she isn't apperantly receiving enough support for the children and struggles, while he is purchasing another car, while refusing to pay for half of the children's medical costs and school uniforms. Funny, isn't it? Now she doesn't work and the children are in high school.
The other thing is, some women don't need to work, cause of the benefits they recieve.
My husbands ex is now self employed, claiming to earn 15k per year, while she was on 70k before. Obviously she is not earning 15k, but certainly is earning less (less hours) then before, which isn't a problem for het, since child support increased by 500 dollars and she might even claim other goverment benefits. There is no incentive for her to return to a well paid job. My bett is that she earns about 40k, receiving increase benefits and child support. Why should she work hard, if the ex husband can make up for the loss, especially when CS isn't spent on the children anyway?
I would be much better off divorcing my husband and hitting him up for spousal maintainance, cause it frustrates me working and studying a 70 hour week, to make up for our financial loss due to being cheated into extra CS. Now it would have been worse, if the SSAt wouldnt have decided in our favor, CS would have been increased by 1000.
Now my husband is close to loosing his job due to excessive time off due to struggeling with these proceedings and we moved out of financial distress. I wonder if she decides to work based on her capacity if CS goes down to almost 0?
Its slightly off topic, but yes I agree that parents should show employment, which CSA should check on if the youngest child is above 6. Otherwise they will need to proof that they are seeking employment, just like in European countries. If they fail to do so, centerlink shouldn't contribute and CS should be assessed on an average Australian income. 46k or what it is?  
Back to the top
 
Posted 04 May, 2012, 05:09 PM
#48835
Silver Member

Rank image
The issue of the job availability is an important one.  OSHC finishes at 6.15 at my local primary school so if you work in the city you may not make it back in time to pick up kids.  Alternative is to find something more local which is harder to do unless you do part time work which is financially unviable.  I suspect that if there were more school hour friendly jobs then there would be no shortage of people wanting to take them on.  The availability of positions which permit flexibility for parents is crucial to this situation.
Back to the top
 
Posted 04 May, 2012, 05:23 PM
#48838
Silver Member

Rank image
That is a good point April. I found the cost of childcare also very excessive in Australia. The goverment needs to do something there to make it feesable. After school care wouldn't come cheap either, but some part time jobs may be feesable with school aged children. Certainly, teenage children, which do not require full time care, are a whole different story and there are no excuses not to work with teenage children.

I am not sure where you live, but here, most jobs are 9-5, which allow child care pick ups. Some mothers need to enroll their child in a city care center. Some people can engage relatives also. My sister in law is a nurse and her husband works interstate, not easy, but doable.

Sometimes, however, some people do not want to take certain jobs cause they apperantly pay to little.
Back to the top
 
Posted 04 May, 2012, 05:32 PM
#48839
Avatar
Platinium Member

Rank image
This will be interesting on so many levels. It will come down to having childcare available as to whether you can get work.

I agree that there are many jobs "out there" but there are also many hurdles for a single parent to cross in getting one of those jobs. This also becomes an issue about being able to pay for the extra costs of getting to job intervies, job provider interviews, being able to pay for housing (whilst you search for work), being able to pay for internet providers to look for work or having a car to get to your local centrelink office to look for work (then you have to be able to afford to pay for the upkeep of the car and for petrol). The Newstart allowance is not there for anyone to "live on" and if anyone can whilst they have majority care of children is kidding themselves. Another problem is if there are any places available in the local childcare if there is any chidlcare in your area. Then you have to go on a waiting list, and then you cant get work. Work within school hours is rare and snapped up extremely quickly.

This is going to place a burden on the already strapped NGO's such as The Salvo's etc. And I dont think "the work for the dole" scheme will work for single parents as if they have to work to receive their payment, then how to do they look for work, and how do they pay the extra costs that come with working?

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Back to the top
 
Posted 04 May, 2012, 06:30 PM
#48845
Avatar
Silver Member

Rank image
When/if this kicks in it will put a lot of stain on an already strained unemployment. The charities will be harder to obtain, and child support will go up. Can't see any good coming from this.
And haknbakr, it is hard to find work. When you are trying to get work within hours my husband dosnt work.
Back to the top
 
Posted 05 May, 2012, 10:02 PM
#48865
Silver Member

Rank image
My kids go to OSHC at Harrison and I work in Woden. I'm able to work my 8hrs a day and still get to afters in time to pick my kids up before they close at 6pm. It can be quite hectic at times but that's life (and no I don't work for the public service and get flexi time). IMOA, using children or the lack of OSHC as an excuse not to work is a cop-out.

BTW, for anyone thinking about telling me that the "quality of life my children have must be poor", don't waste your time. My kids have a great life and I spend far more time with them now than I ever did when I was living with their mother. They have not suffered one iota and they are all A grade students.
Back to the top
 
Posted 05 May, 2012, 11:17 PM
#48867
Silver Member

Rank image

haknbakr said

My kids go to OSHC at Harrison and I work in Woden. I'm able to work my 8hrs a day and still get to afters in time to pick my kids up before they close at 6pm. It can be quite hectic at times but that's life (and no I don't work for the public service and get flexi time). IMOA, using children or the lack of OSHC as an excuse not to work is a cop-out.

BTW, for anyone thinking about telling me that the "quality of life my children have must be poor", don't waste your time. My kids have a great life and I spend far more time with them now than I ever did when I was living with their mother. They have not suffered one iota and they are all A grade students.

So, obviously all your kids are school aged? Are any of them special needs? Do you understand how many appointments and therapy a week a special needs child takes? Do you understand the logistics in trying to get a special needs child into daycare? I will give you a clue. My son has a minimum of 3 appointment a week, as well as hours spent at home doing speech and occupational therapy. Daycare can only do so much when the ratios are around 8:1 in a centre. Sure, I can head back to work right now. But then my son wouldn't have a chance of being a fully functioning member of society one day. Because of his age, we still dont know where he is on the spectrum and what kind of quality of life he will have. My full time job is looking after him and his therapies. Plus studying part time. Anyone who wants to say that it isn't work, can spend a day with him. You will be begging to go back to your office job quick smart.
Back to the top
 
Posted 05 May, 2012, 11:36 PM
#48868
Platinium Member

Rank image
This is a good incentive for those single parents affected to find a partner.
Back to the top
 
Posted 06 May, 2012, 06:12 AM
#48873
Platinium Member

Rank image

DSnME said

So, obviously all your kids are school aged? Are any of them special needs? Do you understand how many appointments and therapy a week a special needs child takes?

If you read into it you will find that single parents with disabled children will be given exemptions from working - just as they are now. Same with parents who have other special circumstances, like not being able to access adequate child care ect ect .
Back to the top
 
Posted 06 May, 2012, 09:18 AM
#48875
Silver Member

Rank image

DSnME said

haknbakr said

My kids go to OSHC at Harrison and I work in Woden. I'm able to work my 8hrs a day and still get to afters in time to pick my kids up before they close at 6pm. It can be quite hectic at times but that's life (and no I don't work for the public service and get flexi time). IMOA, using children or the lack of OSHC as an excuse not to work is a cop-out.

BTW, for anyone thinking about telling me that the "quality of life my children have must be poor", don't waste your time. My kids have a great life and I spend far more time with them now than I ever did when I was living with their mother. They have not suffered one iota and they are all A grade students.
  So, obviously all your kids are school aged? Are any of them special needs? Do you understand how many appointments and therapy a week a special needs child takes? Do you understand the logistics in trying to get a special needs child into daycare? I will give you a clue. My son has a minimum of 3 appointment a week, as well as hours spent at home doing speech and occupational therapy. Daycare can only do so much when the ratios are around 8:1 in a centre. Sure, I can head back to work right now. But then my son wouldn't have a chance of being a fully functioning member of society one day. Because of his age, we still dont know where he is on the spectrum and what kind of quality of life he will have. My full time job is looking after him and his therapies. Plus studying part time. Anyone who wants to say that it isn't work, can spend a day with him. You will be begging to go back to your office job quick smart.
  My youngest started kindy this year. My statement above also applies to when she was in daycare as I've had my children 50% of the time for the last 5 years.

Perhaps you should read the article again as you seem to have missed the paragraphs dealing with disabilities.
Back to the top
 
Posted 06 May, 2012, 02:00 PM
#48877
Platinium Member

Rank image
Single parents with school aged children in a shared care arrangement should not be eligible for parenting payment. If the other parent can make the effort to work and share the care, then so can the other parent.
Back to the top
 
Posted 07 May, 2012, 01:57 PM
#48915
Silver Member

Rank image

Fairgo said

Single parents with school aged children in a shared care arrangement should not be eligible for parenting payment. If the other parent can make the effort to work and share the care, then so can the other parent.
  It appears that i have annoyed Sisyphus as my "Spot on" reply does not adhere to site rules with regards to the length of replies i.e. one-liners are not allowed (despite the fact that I have seen many one-liners on this forum).

I totally agree that a parent who refuses to work should not be able to claim parenting payments.  I also agree that if one parent can make the effort to work, so can the other parent.
Back to the top
 
Posted 07 May, 2012, 02:12 PM
#48917
Avatar
Master Editor

haknbakr said

Fairgo said

Single parents with school aged children in a shared care arrangement should not be eligible for parenting payment. If the other parent can make the effort to work and share the care, then so can the other parent.
 It appears that i have annoyed Sisyphus as my "Spot on" reply does not adhere to site rules with regards to the length of replies i.e. one-liners are not allowed (despite the fact that I have seen many one-liners on this forum).

I totally agree that a parent who refuses to work should not be able to claim parenting payments. I also agree that if one parent can make the effort to work, so can the other parent.
You received an inline request which you wish to make public. You have been a member of this site for over 12 months and have made upwards of 80 posts -is it really too much to ask that you follow posting rules? Many one line posts are deleted if they do not add to the topic and some leeway is given to brand new posters. You did it twice to the same post in less than 24 hours and are not a brand new poster.


 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
Back to the top
 
Posted 07 May, 2012, 02:17 PM
#48918
Silver Member

Rank image

Sisyphus said

haknbakr said

Fairgo said

Single parents with school aged children in a shared care arrangement should not be eligible for parenting payment. If the other parent can make the effort to work and share the care, then so can the other parent.
 It appears that i have annoyed Sisyphus as my "Spot on" reply does not adhere to site rules with regards to the length of replies i.e. one-liners are not allowed (despite the fact that I have seen many one-liners on this forum).

I totally agree that a parent who refuses to work should not be able to claim parenting payments. I also agree that if one parent can make the effort to work, so can the other parent.
 You received an inline request which you wish to make public. You have been a member of this site for over 12 months and have made upwards of 80 posts -is it really too much to ask that you follow posting rules? Many one line posts are deleted if they do not add to the topic and some leeway is given to brand new posters. You did it twice to the same post in less than 24 hours and are not a brand new poster.


  The reason why it was added again was because my previous post just "vanished" (something that seems be be happening to others "very" frequently lately) so I thought I hadn't posted it.  You talk about being courteous however you're not even courteous.  Maybe if you had provided "positive" feedback instead of just deleting a post without explanation, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Back to the top
 
Posted 07 May, 2012, 02:44 PM
#48920
Avatar
Master Editor

haknbakr said

Sisyphus said

haknbakr said

Fairgo said

Single parents with school aged children in a shared care arrangement should not be eligible for parenting payment. If the other parent can make the effort to work and share the care, then so can the other parent.
It appears that i have annoyed Sisyphus as my "Spot on" reply does not adhere to site rules with regards to the length of replies i.e. one-liners are not allowed (despite the fact that I have seen many one-liners on this forum).

I totally agree that a parent who refuses to work should not be able to claim parenting payments. I also agree that if one parent can make the effort to work, so can the other parent.
You received an inline request which you wish to make public. You have been a member of this site for over 12 months and have made upwards of 80 posts -is it really too much to ask that you follow posting rules? Many one line posts are deleted if they do not add to the topic and some leeway is given to brand new posters. You did it twice to the same post in less than 24 hours and are not a brand new poster.


 The reason why it was added again was because my previous post just "vanished" (something that seems be be happening to others "very" frequently lately) so I thought I hadn't posted it. You talk about being courteous however you're not even courteous. Maybe if you had provided "positive" feedback instead of just deleting a post without explanation, we wouldn't be in this situation.
haknbakr this is a CSA forum not a forum for you to whinge in.
Courtesy is when you read the site and moderation rules (you have had more than enough time) You even joined with a "No explanation need be given" Please read the site and moderation rules.
If you thought your post had just vanished why did you not report it a site fault?


 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
Back to the top
 
1 guests and 0 members are viewing this: None
Control functions:

« Previous

1

2,



,  





, Back to the top, www.familylawwebguide.com.au,