labour promises increase for children!
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: Fun Stuff
Forum Name: In the news
Forum Description: Have your say on hot pregnancy and parenting topics in the news!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37530
Printed Date: 28 June 2025 at 10:47pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: labour promises increase for children!
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Subject: labour promises increase for children!
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 10:23am
|
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10700342
sounds good to me! National are crap for anyone who earns under $90k ------------- http://lilypie.com] 
http://lilypie.com] 
http://lilypie.com] 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Mucky_Tiger
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 12:10pm
|
if they change the NZ rules it would be awesome.
I do think that the 'baby bonus' definately needs to be increased in NZ, $1200 is crap considering you cant get it till after birth and you need it before then if you arent working during pregnancy how are you supposed to afford the pram/cot/carseat etc |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 1:13pm
|
It's still no where near enough, and is totally crap compared to what you get in Europe. ------------- 
 
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 2:01pm
| Yeah but alot of european countries are in the crap with their country finances big time |
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 2:06pm
You afford them through paying for them with your own money which you have budgeted for prior to getting pregnant! It bugs me that people think they are entitled to hand outs just because they have a baby. If you can't afford them, don't have them! |
Mucky_Tiger wrote:Posted By: Plushie
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 2:44pm
|
My only wish is that there wasnt a maximum limit - i'd like to be getting the same amount weekly as i did while working. I'm not a particularly skilled or high payed worker and i'm still down a couple hundred a week. For people who are highly skilled and highly paid then the bite is worse. However i get that if that was the case then the cost would probably have to be offset by offering less paid leave or with higher taxes or something else less then ideal.
I agree that some of the european countries have amazing parental care packages, but not sure how NZ could hope to rival that. |
Posted By: Limochick
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 3:53pm
I will deffinetly be voting Labour they are more about families 
Little Red - I thought your comment was a bit harsh, not everyone plans babies!! -------------  
 
|
Posted By: Nothing
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 7:16pm
|
The idea sounds much better, i probably wont be working enough by the time we have our next one so anything we get would be great.
Little_red- I though it was a bit harsh too, lots of people fall pregnant accidentally, and many dont have much money saved. I know that I underestimated how much DD was going to cost, but we are managing, hand outs or not. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Rachael21
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 7:24pm
AND only if your partner is working, if on ACC you don't get it! Marisa what do you get in Europe? |
Posted By: Plushie
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 7:50pm
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave#Europe - here is the wiki run down - Denmark pays 100% of wages for a year, two weeks must be taken by the father which is pretty ace i reckon!
I have an accident pregnancy here, no idea how i'm affording it considering i had no savings and was blowing through my paycheck each week on partying and expensive shoes. I used to joke i was able to pay for the baby solely by quitting smoking and drinking but in reality i havent brought anything thats not directly related to the baby in the last 8 months, except a couple of bigger maternity clothes/bras for me. |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 8:54pm
|
In England it has gone up to 9 months and you don't just get the government bit, most if not all companies offer entitlements over and above, normally tied into you having to return to work after your leave. Companies operate this way in general in England, not like here where most only give you the stat gov requirements and nothing above. Things like better sick pay, holiday leave, maternity pay etc are all built into your employment package. Where I use to work my contract allowed for six months sick leave at full pay and then another 6 after that at 80% pay and they offered 12 months maternity leave, paid, I think 4 months at full pay and then going down after that.
England was always one of the worse in Europe, of course since moving here I realise they are all just bitching about nothing...lol The min wage really gets me, I earn more than the max entitlement and I only work three days, it's grossly unfair to those of us who are in highly skilled jobs because it almost forces you to return to work earlier. I'm lucky that we can afford to live on one wage, but I remember with S worrying how we would survive and saving money to top up the PPL payment because it didn't even come close to replacing my wage. -------------
|
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 19 January 2011 at 7:56am
I agree a little, cots prams etc should be planned - even those who have surprise babies have 9 months to work on it, and some people just expect handouts. But yes it is soo easy to underestimate how much the cost of these little ones We arent broke, but I expected to be able to go back to work - and then I had a heart child and now I feel my time is best spent with her , so a little bit more would be nice - gets tough sometimes and I like my babes to have beautiful things I think the baby bonus is a good idea - even if they dont raise all the other stuff and really the government should be focusing on creating better families, communites, and contribute to raising happy healthy children, and supporting Mums or dads to stay at home if they choose to, its hard work when you have no choice but to go back to work ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
Posted By: Nutella
Date Posted: 19 January 2011 at 5:31pm
Denmark is really good for paying for almost everything but have you seen the tax rate there? People seem to forget that the money has to come from somewhere and everyone always complains when they raise taxes! ETA: I also think increasing the time allowed off would be detrimental to women...how much discrimination would happen if you had to keep a job open for two years for a employee to be coming back.... Not that I am against staying at home since I am a SAHM! I just think you have to balance the needs to everyone NOT just mothers. ------------- 
 Oct 11
|
Posted By: Plushie
Date Posted: 19 January 2011 at 6:00pm
|
Oh, i agree actually - i mean, i think its amazing that Denmark offers an awesome package like that but they're a whole different nation and culture to NZ and im not sure it would cross over.
And it would be easy to say that the govt will pay say, $500 a week for PPL and the employer must make up the shortfall so we get our normal weekly wage - but then employers would not want to hire woman for fear they would get pregnant. Which puts us back in the 50s! I was more talking ideal then practical. But hey, dreams at least are free... |
Posted By: Nutella
Date Posted: 19 January 2011 at 6:26pm
|
Yeah, I agree, I think it is great that things like healthcare are free..at least people who need to see a Dr can afford it....but imagine the outrage in NZ if tax increased to the same levels lol!
I wouldn't mind paying more tax if it meant that sick kids got seen and people who take their sick old selfs to work would stay home and keep their bugs to themselves haha! But we are sure luckier than some countries where you don't get any leave, might even be lucky to come back to a job..... -------------
Oct 11
|
Posted By: HoneybunsMa
Date Posted: 19 January 2011 at 10:13pm
|
Little Red I think your comment was harsh too.
DD was unplanned, wouldn't trade her for the world we were both working full time earning good money but had debts to pay from when I wasn't earning good money and DP was supporting me. Then I got made redundant from fulltime work at 3mths and despite trying as hard as I could I couldn't get work! I by no means bought brand new things either DD was dressed in second hand $1reserve bulk lots for the first 4mths aside from things we were given at babyshower or when she was born. Or else it was $5 stuff from farmers sales. So yes ideally you plan and save to make your purchases BUT things are unpredictable and things change that are beyond your control. I do think NZ needs to update their maternity packages etc I do like that its available to either the mum or dad. TBH if I earnt more then DP he would have been the stay at home, but I earnt way less so made sense. He had more of a career then I did ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"> 
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 19 January 2011 at 10:33pm
|
Bowie I think you might have misunderstood it's not enforced in England that companies have to pay you the extra, it's part of the packages they offer to make their employment offer more competitive, like offering more leave days, or a pension scheme etc. and you can negotiate these things as part of your contract, so if they won't budge on the money aspect you can negotiate for more paid leave, or better contributions to your pension, or for them to pay for a training course etc. That, from my employment experience anyway, doesn't seem to be the norm here which I think is a shame, it seems common place for the majority of companies to begrudgidly give you the stat requirements and all negiotiation when at an existing job or new one is centred around $$ not other benefits as well.
-------------
|
Posted By: freckle
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 7:05am
|
I agree LR... when I had my oldest (14) we didn't have any maternity leave or WFF... and we weren;t well off but managed to get everything we needed in the 9 months leading up to her birth... I don't think babies really cost that much tbh, it's once they get to teenagers they get damn expensive lol... I don't think it is harsh to expect people to pay for their choices. I think there are too many people that just expect everything to be handed to them. I definitely think these benefits have a place though, and in situations where people have unexpected break-ups or unplanned children with job loses etc I think it is fantastic that we have benefits to support people through these rough times. But, all too often these days we hear and read about people planning children they can't afford, which grates on me big time! It's not fair on the children or those who have to support them...
I agree with Nutella, in that increasing our maternity leave here could be very detrimental to woman in the workforce! ------------- mum to 3 lovely girls :D |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 7:24am
|
conversely though only have such a small amount of maternity leave could be seen as detrimental to families. It's about balance and at the moment I don't think we have it quite right. Some of us are lucky and can afford to choose to stay home, some don't have that choice and for them 14 weeks is all they get which I think is sad. -------------
|
Posted By: freckle
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 8:00am
|
Yeah I understand what you're saying, but we do have WFFs after the ML finishes which, for lower income families does provide a pretty decent top-up. We are by no means well off, we don't own a home, we don't have much in the way of savings or assets and we don't have a heap to come and go on... we live on one income so I can stay home with the kids but we do make a lot of sacrifices so I can. To me it seems pretty unfair to tax everyone more to give to those who CHOOSE to have families. It seems so unfair to those people who choose not to have kids and focus on their career, to then have to pay large amounts of tax for others that choose to have kids... I guess it's a tricky balance... ------------- mum to 3 lovely girls :D |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 8:01am
|
It would be good if PPL was taxed at the lower tax rate not based on the previous years earnings, $400 a week isn't a high income so why should it be taxed as though it is.
I would like PPL extended to 6 months, especially as the govt/MOH keeps pushing bf for the first 6 months, how are mothers supposed to do that if they can't afford to stay home and do it. NZ is made up of a lot of small to medium sized companies who simply can't afford to have their workforce away for 12 months. Friend of mine works in HR in Aussie and one of her managers refuses to hire women in their late 20's, early 30's cause they'll leave and have babies and the firm will be left paying for their maternity leave. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">   [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Plushie
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 11:43am
|
Cuppatea - that wasnt meant to sound like it was aimed at your comment, sorry if it did!! I was still in my 'ideal' land not 'practical' land.
I might be a little wound up about it as i had to stop work at 30 weeks (my job as a chef demands 14hr workdays on my feet, only getting a break if i'm lucky, lifting heavy things, ridiculous hot temps, no time to eat or drink etc etc) and bubs wasnt growing enough so i stopped early and will now only have 4 - 5 weeks after he's born paid leave. Obv its my choice to have work in such a crappy industry but i do wish i had more of a package parental leave wise. No idea how that could be improved with fairness to all though. |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 2:08pm
|
I think it's about the government and taxpayers and companies looking at the bigger picture not the short term. If women can be in the work force contributing for 40+ years then really paying for a few months leave is a drop in the ocean in comparison. If workplaces were more family friendly for men and women they would have better staff retention/loyalty, and keeping trained staff makes economical sense even if it means giving them maternity leave, allowing flexi hours and part time hours etc.
Sucks about your job bowie, I left mine at 32 weeks with number one, I'm an electrician and I just couldn't do it anymore, once I got sciatica that was the end of it really and I had a really understanding company that I worked for. Luckily I had planned to take 6 months off so it wasn't too big a deal, and I never really went back even then as I found we could live on less money than I had thought but it would be awful to *have* to go back when your baby is only a few weeks old. -------------
|
Posted By: blossombaby
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 9:57pm
i agree P.P.L should be closer to your wages .. unsure how it would work but $700 a fortnight doesn't go far  even less for people with student loans etc!!
im back working parttime (which was always planned and i love my job!) but i would have gone back later had p.p.l been a little more or even for longer ..... me and dp are youngish (22 and 25) and our dd was not planned to come so soon  but i personally think nine months is more then enough time to collect stuff for a baby at costs you can afford eg $800 pram or $200 pram ..
we also arent entiled to ANY income suppluments (wff, accom, childcare) even if i didnt go back to work .. i think the cut off for one child is $72,000.00 which really isn't alot by the time you pay morg or rent, phone, power, food, petrol, insurance etc etc. i personally don't expect the gov to pay me $$ to bring up my child we chose to have a baby we chose to cover the costs up until they get a job as such or many years after that!!!! BUT think there should be more support for middle income earners ..... seems to be for lower income earners and high high earners don't need it but those making by on a average wage should be entitled to something 
|
Posted By: blossombaby
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 9:58pm
|
i agree P.P.L should be closer to your wages .. unsure how it would work but $700 a fortnight doesn't go far even less for people with student loans etc!!
im back working parttime (which was always planned and i love my job!) but i would have gone back later had p.p.l been a little more or even for longer ..... me and dp are youngish (22 and 25) and our dd was not planned to come so soon but i personally think nine months is more then enough time to collect stuff for a baby at costs you can afford eg $800 pram or $200 pram ..
we also arent entiled to ANY income suppluments (wff, accom, childcare) even if i didnt go back to work .. i think the cut off for one child is $72,000.00 which really isn't alot by the time you pay morg or rent, phone, power, food, petrol, insurance etc etc. i personally don't expect the gov to pay me $$ to bring up my child we chose to have a baby we chose to cover the costs up until they get a job as such or many years after that!!!! BUT think there should be more support for middle income earners ..... seems to be for lower income earners and high high earners don't need it but those making by on a average wage should be entitled to something
|
Posted By: WestiesGirl
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 11:14pm
|
I agree that if you choose to have a baby then you choose to support it. A surprise baby is a little different but I dont think it should become "I didnt want it so therefore the govt should support me" kind of attitude. Thats how we end up with generational social welfare issues. I find it sad when I see and hear people expecting the tax payer/govt to fund their family and children.
However I do think that PPL should be for longer i.e. 6 months (or more), particularly to promote longer breastfeeding etc. Even at min wage, something is better than nothing. And I also think that there should be more incentive for woman to re-enter the workforce i.e. better subsidised child care before the age of 3 years old, employers having onsite childcare or even employers allowing you to bring children to work if they cant go to DC but arent that sick IYGWIM. ------------- Our Angel July 08 Gone but not forgotten
And to complete our family, our princess has arrived 
|
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 21 January 2011 at 9:16am
| I forgot about this thread.....I don't see how it's "harsh" expecting people to take responsibility for their own actions. That's called being an adult! |
Posted By: Babykatnz
Date Posted: 21 January 2011 at 11:25am
|
Freckle I was the same with my oldest, we werent entitled to any govt assistance (back then the max earnings for one child was all of 35K!!) AND he was very much a surprise baby, we had huge debts to pay off, so we managed by buying cheap 2nd hand stuff, and accepting any hand-me-downs and gifts. The only thing I bought new for him for most of that first year was a tracksuit when we went camping at 3 months old!.
Unfortunately even with planned babies, there are circumstances that you just cant foresee that can affect your financial security. And at times like that, its a blessing to be able to use the govt assistance available to make up some of the shortfall. Just because you can afford a baby NOW, doesnt necessarily mean in 9 months time you will still be just as stable financially. I had every intention of going back to work after having Jae, but after doing a lot of number crunching, it worked out no better off me going back to work (and losing all entitlements in the process) than if I were to stay at home and accept the $ that the govt provides for the kids I have. I certainly didnt PLAN to do it that way when we tried for her, right through the time we were TTCing, and during my pregnancy I was only planning on taking the 14 weeks paid as I thought we couldnt afford any other way. This time around I thought we would be able to manage easily, but a lot of things have come up since I got preg that mean for every step forward we take financially, we keep falling back 2 more, and we never seem to get ahead. ------------- Brandon - 05/12/2003  
|
Posted By: Plushie
Date Posted: 21 January 2011 at 11:48am
|
I started off accidentally pregnant but with a supportive partner and we could work it out with the help of my fantastic boss and within a couple of months was a single pregnant woman with a new boss who is less then fantastic (and who told me i should get an abortion). My ex hasnt payed for anything for the baby and i don't expect anyone else to be covering me because my relationship didnt work out - the baby has everything he will need and more (i went a bit spend crazy). But my plan when i found out about my pregnancy to go back to work part time after the 14 weeks (doing opposite shifts with the father) has been pretty quickly screwed over by a whole bunch of crap i didnt see coming.
I agree, Little_Red that people shouldnt get knocked up and expect a payout so they can buy cots/carseats/clothes etc as if i can manage as a single young person with a low payed job to provide all that then surely everyone else can. BUT a baby bonus of 4-5k (like Australia) would allow me to not go back to work for another 2 - 3 months with careful fund management. Even if i got the $1200 on top of parental leave payments thats another 4 - 6 weeks i could stay at home. I guess though, thats how i would use it, others might chose to leave the baby with their parents and go on a holiday or something. ETA: I know that the 'baby bonus' is INSTEAD of paid leave - if we were entitled to both it'd certainly be handy. |
Posted By: TheKelly
Date Posted: 21 January 2011 at 12:40pm
|
Good grief, I've been sitting here, thinking "now, I had a surprise pregnancy and I managed to have everything I needed for my child " and for the life of me I can not remember how......it must be because im 29, 30 next year, clearly, the old age is setting in.......
I was on the DPB for a few months after she was born,to pay rent etc,then I went back to work parttime and was working full time by the time she was a year.....but for the life of me I can't remember where I got the cot etc maybe it was handed down? Poor me, poor me and my bad memory ... ------------- 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: TheKelly
Date Posted: 21 January 2011 at 12:43pm
|
oh and as for going back to work etc,im lucky that my DH earns enough for us to live comfortably so long as we live within our means and he (actually more than me ) prefers that I don't go back till Amelia is at kindy or school. -------------
http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: blossombaby
Date Posted: 21 January 2011 at 7:56pm
|
my dp doesnt understand why I like being at work he wanted me too be home fulltime .. but I couldn't handle it i enjoy the people contact and for a few hours a week not being "mum" iykwim.
when we found out we were expecting we changed our lifestyle ....... no more expensive dresses that get worn once for me or flashy high heels! .. i even stoped wearing makeup everyday because I didnt want to buy fondation as often and wasnt prepared to change brands! and dp traded his 'baby' fast car for a suitable family car! we also had already planned an overseas holiday but insted off spending as much on ourselfs we came home with lots of goodies for baby! i have seen many of my friends not prepared to change lifestyle, quit jobs because they felt 'sick', go on the dpb even tho they are still with the dad ....... and they bag me for been back at work and oh how my 'baby has all the fancy things'. 
i agree bowie a baby bonus would be great and careful management would allow alot of people more time off work but as you said people would most likely abuse it
|
Posted By: WestiesGirl
Date Posted: 22 January 2011 at 12:10am
|
If NZ brought in a 'baby bonus' scheme it just needs to be paid weekly or fortnightly to avoid people playing the system. In Aus if you get the baby bonus its paid at $400 per fortnight for 13 fortnights (6 months). There is no other payment option, this is the only way it is paid. ------------- Our Angel July 08 Gone but not forgotten
And to complete our family, our princess has arrived
|