How true

[***super_nova***]

[***super_nova***]

---

@am*3 wrote:

---

Annual salary -  is related to what is an affordable amount of mortgage payment/rent.

If a couple earning $300 000 p.a can afford to buy a house (with a mortgage) worth $800 000, should they not be able to do that, because a couple earning $100 000 p.a. couldn't afford to buy a house worth that much?

---

People need to live within their budget; somebody on $300k has to decide how much mortgage they can pay IF they also want a baby.  Welfare is not to keep us in luxuries, and the grandma on $19k has to compete for rental accomodation in the open rental market too.

[the_great_she_elephant]

If a couple earning $300 000 p.a can afford to buy a house (with a mortgage) worth $800 000, should they not be able to do that, because a couple earning $100 000 p.a. couldn't afford to buy a house worth that much?

The key word was basic. A couple earning $300.000 p.a. are entitled to spend their income on anything they think they can afford. However, I don't believe taxpayers should be expected to support that lifestyle every time the couple decide to have a child.

[cherry*135]

I don't agree. If anyone/couple are educated/skillled/experienced to bring home $300 000 pa or more in joint income, I think they are is no shame in buying what ever highly priced house they can afford, even if it is worth twice or 3 times as much as a couple on a lower income.

If the couple on high incomes, claim parental leave payment it is only for 6 mths (for each child). If they have 2 children and return to work, how much more tax will they pay in their working life than someone on $40 000 p.a?

They would  return a lot more to the tax system than the amount they received as parental leave payment.

The higher income couple would have paid a lot more into the tax system before they had a child also, compared to someone on a lower income.

[chinchuckchick]

I wonder how much tax she paid in her working lifetime (in comparision to women today)

[twinkles**stars]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@twinkles**stars wrote:

Nova that site is American?

---

Yes, but surely appliences would not be so much different?  There was a site that had Australian prices for 70s, but I cannot find it now. 

According to BUREAU OF CENSUS AND STATISTICS the average male wage in 1969-70

NSW 77.40

VIC 77.00

QLD 68.40

SA  69.90

WA  74.90

TAS 70.00

AU  75.00

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/3CE0FD337A1F0AB6CA2575160010C5CC/$File/63020_SEP1...

---

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the US $ was a lot higher than the A$ back then. I think we paid $120 for our first fridge in '76 and it was a biggish one. I was in the rag trade and earning well above those wages and we were paid low. In 1970 my first pay packet was $15. I gave mum $5 and my weekly train ticket was $3

[cherry*135]

---

@chinchuckchick wrote:

I wonder how much tax she paid in her working lifetime (in comparision to women today)

---

Who, Granny in the opening post?

Very little, my guess.

[lurker17260]

I think if you are going to allow that question (how much tax did she pay) then you also have to allow her the statement that she didn't cost the tax payers anything while having her family.

[*crikey*mate*]

It's not about giving wealthy people money, it is about pursuading/encouraging them to do something that the government wants them to do - reproduce more and contribute to population growth in that socioeconomic sector.

Short of legislating that people on a specific income must reproduce and be penalized if they don't, I'm not too sure what else they can do other than "warmly encourage" them.

[chinchuckchick]

I think they would be better looking at a cut in tax rates rather than a payment.

It would also encourage women into going back to work.

rather than all this maternity leave payment, I would like to see more places available in childcare (and OSH care) and even be able to pay pensioner grandparents to OSH care older children (with the rebate available)

[lurker17260]

Crikey, you seem to be again promoting your argument that somehow "the wealthy" only should be encouraged to re-populate the country, which I find socailly rather disturbing.

However

The topic of this conversation is why retirees should be funding the PPL scheme.  We retirees have a fixed fund upon which to draw our income until we die, with little if any prospect to replenish that fund, unlike young couples who have many years after their expensive early parenthood years to earn and save for their future.

In all seriousness why are we retirees being asked to finance a scheme which we will, even under your argument, recieve no benefit from?