Under the scheme, taxpayers would fork out 0.5 per cent of their gross annual salary. For a worker earning about $50,000 a year, that would amount to $5.70 a week. Employers would also be levied 0.5 per cent of their payroll to help fund the scheme.
Fathers as well as mothers would benefit from the scheme, gaining four weeks paid paternity leave after the birth of a child. And employers would get a subsidy from the scheme to help them replace the mother while she was on leave. The proposals would also fund the payment of 100 per cent of the mother's wages as well as her superannuation contributions while she was on maternity leave.
This is a very interesting proposal and worth consideration. What do you think?
3 comments:
I think the national maternity scheme for Australia is a great idea, but perhaps it needs to be worked out differently. It does seem unfair to make all workers pay for this as many may not be able to have children and some also decide (for whatever reasons) NOT to have children. This type of scheme would be ignoring this minority, taking money that they will not benefit from later. Maybe one idea to improve this is to offer people that aren’t having children a few months of general paid leave (sort of like long service leave). Then if people who have taken this leave ever change their minds and have children, they will not get the offer of this maternity scheme and need to do it on their own. Does this suggestion make it a fairer scheme for everyone? What are your thoughts?
Hi .. Firstly thank you for posting a comment. I love reading what others have to think on these topics.
I think that paid maternity leave is an interesting and sometime divisive topic. I agree that most of the proposals that are on the table (including the one that I have mentioned above) require in some way that all members of society contribute to a paid maternity scheme (whether that be via a direct levy or coming from other government funds). I agree that this unfortunately disadvantages people including those that for whatever reason choose not to have children and those that already have had there children. And I can understand people, especially those that will not be able to directly benefit from it, being reluctant to having to pay another tax or levy especially with the cost of living increasing so much at the moment. However the expected benefits for society as a whole (i think) are justification for its introduction.
Paid parental leave would provide benefits to society. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ inquiry into Births in Australia documents that the birth rate is declining and women appear to be having children later in life. If this trend is to continue, the evidence suggests that it will have ramifications for long term social support. I believe that whilst children and the role of parenting may be highly valued in society at an emotional level, we have stalled when it comes to recognizing this financially. Providing a term of paid parental leave or support would help address this and provide families with financial assistance during this important period.
Additional benefits for society include the reduction of costs and stresses on our public heath system. Research has shown return to paid work is a barrier to breastfeeding for some women. The public health benefits of breastfeeding are well known. Artificial formula feeding substantially increases the risk of gastrointestinal illness, respiratory illness and infection, eczema, and necrotizing enterocolitis, with increasing scientific evidence of its links with chronic or serious illnesses or conditions such as childhood diabetes, urinary tract infection, certain types of cancers, diseases of the digestive system such as coeliac disease and Crohn's disease, liver disease and cot death. Treating such preventable illnesses through Medicare payments, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the public hospital system has been shown by research to represent a major public and community health cost. Simply increasing the rate and duration of breastfeeding in Australia from 60% to 80% at three months has the potential to save over $11.5 million per year in Government health expenditure for just on 4 illnesses.
So while I agree that this levy is asking people to contribute again for something that they might not directly benefit, as through our taxes we already contribute to many programs that as individuals we may not benefit from, as a whole for society is worth it.
What do you think?
Thank you again for your comments!!!
Yes, I do agree with your reasoning. AS I have heard elsewhere, the tax system is not a system where everyone benefits from all the taxes they pay. This would help society as a whole :o)
Post a Comment