No incentive to work

Forums › Off topic › No incentive to work

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1481711 30-Jan-2016 12:35

Handle9:
joker97:

In many developed countries, childcare costs are heavily rebated.

In this country, you're on your own. Childcare costs more than parent's hourly wage, why work.

Not quite true. Child care costs are quite reasonable once the child turns three as the government subsidy kicks in. Saying that about 45% of my wife's income goes to pay for childcare for our 4 year and 1 year old girls.

Minimum wage job is it ?

But lets look at that.

At say 20 hours @$15 = $300, from this you get taxed @say 10% takes you down to $270 in hand

Now you loose $200 from your benefit because you can only earn $100 before they take dollar for dollar

That means you are effectively $70 up

Child care costs you $30 a day, you do 4 days so that puts you $50 into the red.

only way to works is if you do 2 days @ 10 hours a day and you are then $10 up.

doing 40 hours is no real improvement.

Either the minimum wage has to go up or the cost of childcare needs to come down.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1481715 30-Jan-2016 12:49

In other countries you get a rebate for your child care costs. Child carers need to eat too

Handle9

11390 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1481717 30-Jan-2016 13:18

sir1963:

Handle9:

Not quite true. Child care costs are quite reasonable once the child turns three as the government subsidy kicks in. Saying that about 45% of my wife's income goes to pay for childcare for our 4 year and 1 year old girls.

Minimum wage job is it ?

But lets look at that.

At say 20 hours @$15 = $300, from this you get taxed @say 10% takes you down to $270 in hand

Now you loose $200 from your benefit because you can only earn $100 before they take dollar for dollar

That means you are effectively $70 up

Child care costs you $30 a day, you do 4 days so that puts you $50 into the red.

only way to works is if you do 2 days @ 10 hours a day and you are then $10 up.

doing 40 hours is no real improvement.

Either the minimum wage has to go up or the cost of childcare needs to come down.

Umm your numbers aren't even close to real world (in Auckland anyway). In our case my wife isn't close to minimum wage - she's a primary school teacher so not well paid but well above minimum wage.

She works 3 days a week and child care costs us $280 per week (4 year old at $105 per week with the government subsidy, 1 1/2 year old at $175 per week subsidized). The big issue is once you have more than 1 child childcare gets really expensive fast.

It's still a lot better than our friends in Melbourne. Childcare cost them $38,000 per annum for 2 kids, 3 days a week. They get $15,000 back as a tax rebate but it's still $440 per week for child care.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1481744 30-Jan-2016 13:38

Handle9:

sir1963:

Handle9:

Not quite true. Child care costs are quite reasonable once the child turns three as the government subsidy kicks in. Saying that about 45% of my wife's income goes to pay for childcare for our 4 year and 1 year old girls.

Minimum wage job is it ?

But lets look at that.

At say 20 hours @$15 = $300, from this you get taxed @say 10% takes you down to $270 in hand

Now you loose $200 from your benefit because you can only earn $100 before they take dollar for dollar

That means you are effectively $70 up

Child care costs you $30 a day, you do 4 days so that puts you $50 into the red.

only way to works is if you do 2 days @ 10 hours a day and you are then $10 up.

doing 40 hours is no real improvement.

Either the minimum wage has to go up or the cost of childcare needs to come down.

Umm your numbers aren't even close to real world (in Auckland anyway). In our case my wife isn't close to minimum wage - she's a primary school teacher so not well paid but well above minimum wage.

She works 3 days a week and child care costs us $280 per week (4 year old at $105 per week with the government subsidy, 1 1/2 year old at $175 per week subsidized). The big issue is once you have more than 1 child childcare gets really expensive fast.

It's still a lot better than our friends in Melbourne. Childcare cost them $38,000 per annum for 2 kids, 3 days a week. They get $15,000 back as a tax rebate but it's still $440 per week for child care.

i was being optimistic which showed it did not work, reality makes it even worse

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1481810 30-Jan-2016 15:12

A friend of mine's wife has 2 children (now grown).

Many many moons ago, she commented than most of her $50,000 equivalent income (at current exchange rates UK£/NZ$) went on childcare.

I asked her why she went to work given that her husband earned plenty enough to support her and the kids and was happy to do so.

"Oh if I stayed at home all day with the kids I would go mad." was the reply.

I'm still not sure what to make of that.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1481873 30-Jan-2016 16:46

Are you trying to make a point with this line of thought? If so, what is it?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1481910 30-Jan-2016 18:30

Handle9:

sir1963:

Handle9:

Not quite true. Child care costs are quite reasonable once the child turns three as the government subsidy kicks in. Saying that about 45% of my wife's income goes to pay for childcare for our 4 year and 1 year old girls.

Minimum wage job is it ?

But lets look at that.

At say 20 hours @$15 = $300, from this you get taxed @say 10% takes you down to $270 in hand

Now you loose $200 from your benefit because you can only earn $100 before they take dollar for dollar

That means you are effectively $70 up

Child care costs you $30 a day, you do 4 days so that puts you $50 into the red.

only way to works is if you do 2 days @ 10 hours a day and you are then $10 up.

doing 40 hours is no real improvement.

Either the minimum wage has to go up or the cost of childcare needs to come down.

Umm your numbers aren't even close to real world (in Auckland anyway). In our case my wife isn't close to minimum wage - she's a primary school teacher so not well paid but well above minimum wage.

She works 3 days a week and child care costs us $280 per week (4 year old at $105 per week with the government subsidy, 1 1/2 year old at $175 per week subsidized). The big issue is once you have more than 1 child childcare gets really expensive fast.

It's still a lot better than our friends in Melbourne. Childcare cost them $38,000 per annum for 2 kids, 3 days a week. They get $15,000 back as a tax rebate but it's still $440 per week for child care.

Aussie wages are about 30% higher (dollar for dollar) on average last I checked

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1481911 30-Jan-2016 18:33

Geektastic:

A friend of mine's wife has 2 children (now grown).

Many many moons ago, she commented than most of her $50,000 equivalent income (at current exchange rates UK£/NZ$) went on childcare.

I asked her why she went to work given that her husband earned plenty enough to support her and the kids and was happy to do so.

"Oh if I stayed at home all day with the kids I would go mad." was the reply.

I'm still not sure what to make of that.

I will try.

I think she meant she couldn't cope being at home all day. If she went mad, the kids will lose their mother. So she made the decision to be less well off.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1481980 30-Jan-2016 21:57

joker97:

Geektastic:

A friend of mine's wife has 2 children (now grown).

Many many moons ago, she commented than most of her $50,000 equivalent income (at current exchange rates UK£/NZ$) went on childcare.

I asked her why she went to work given that her husband earned plenty enough to support her and the kids and was happy to do so.

"Oh if I stayed at home all day with the kids I would go mad." was the reply.

I'm still not sure what to make of that.

I will try.

I think she meant she couldn't cope being at home all day. If she went mad, the kids will lose their mother. So she made the decision to be less well off.

Yes, I see that. Where I fail is the logic: if children drive you mad, why have them?

Handle9

11390 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1481987 30-Jan-2016 22:14

Because some excellent parents aren't wired to be at home with their kids 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. It can be incredibly stressful, especially if you've come from a professional career.

They're still good parents who are happy they've had kids.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1482033 30-Jan-2016 22:56

Geektastic:

joker97:

Geektastic:

A friend of mine's wife has 2 children (now grown).

Many many moons ago, she commented than most of her $50,000 equivalent income (at current exchange rates UK£/NZ$) went on childcare.

I asked her why she went to work given that her husband earned plenty enough to support her and the kids and was happy to do so.

"Oh if I stayed at home all day with the kids I would go mad." was the reply.

I'm still not sure what to make of that.

I will try.

I think she meant she couldn't cope being at home all day. If she went mad, the kids will lose their mother. So she made the decision to be less well off.

Yes, I see that. Where I fail is the logic: if children drive you mad, why have them?

A bit like Maseratis and girl(boy)friends

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1482034 30-Jan-2016 22:57

I was going to say Land Rovers but I didn't ;p

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1482040 30-Jan-2016 23:20

sir1963:

Minimum wage job is it ?

But lets look at that.

At say 20 hours @$15 = $300, from this you get taxed @say 10% takes you down to $270 in hand

Now you loose $200 from your benefit because you can only earn $100 before they take dollar for dollar

That means you are effectively $70 up

Child care costs you $30 a day, you do 4 days so that puts you $50 into the red.

only way to works is if you do 2 days @ 10 hours a day and you are then $10 up.

doing 40 hours is no real improvement.

Either the minimum wage has to go up or the cost of childcare needs to come down.

That won't work.

The cost of childcare can't come down without robbing Peter to pay Paul namely in tax, or by having far more kids to staff ratios so one on one development time fades away.

Being a working parent would be just boring if childcare was affordable. There would be not as many things to work hard at while coping with heaps of stress for little gain. The more you work, the more someone else has to get paid to do less of what you would if you were home with one.

The only thing I could see starting with, is looking for jobs, or even better, start a small business in a smaller town and look for more opportunity out of the employee mindset then spend more time with the kids doing r&r things, or not.

The economy in NZ though, I wouldn't say it's very child friendly if your goals are more carrier oriented than family. I think over the next 15 years we need to keep the future tax generation being created more. However where does the money come from to solve childcare problems? Raising the minimum wage or lowering childcare both come at a cost. Neither is free.

Getting the Government involved in more than it already is won't help anything. Unless they raise taxes higher to cover costs, they just have to rob another area of their budget instead. There's definitely a point where income gives you a net loss as a family. Increasing tax is just going to compound the problem by having to work even more for what you already have. Net loss.

Of course this is all a logical after thought to the reaction of some extremely strong biological chemistry. Nature vs capitalism.

Just another day in paradise... which is why underneath it all it gives us something to do as parents and another thing to keep juggling.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1482379 31-Jan-2016 19:15

sir1963:

Or its the result of economic policy where by one wage for most families is not enough. Where jobs are part time, or even zero hours so they need to have multiple part time jobs including weekends.

Then we get people bitching about increased crime and the break down of the family unit.

What is this "economic policy" to which you refer?

I'm not aware that any government has sat down and decided that it would adopt a deliberate policy of ensuring that one wage for a family isn't enough to get by on.

In fact, other than setting a minimum wage and the pay rates for some state employees, some anti-discrimination laws, and of course negotiating salaries with state-sector employees, governments don't actually set pay.

Pay is set by supply and demand in the economy. If you have scarce skills that are in high demand then your pay will be high. If you have skills that are abundant relative to demand then your pay will be relatively low. If you think your job underpays you relative to what other employers value your skills and experience at, and you can't persuade your current employer to match, then you can always put your CV out. That's what I have done in the past.

And the bad news is that the proportion of jobs that can be done by the low skilled is steadily contracting.

Long-term, the only way to get wage rates up is to get productivity up. That means businesses investing in capital, governments investing in skills training, and economic policies that don't inhibit competition, investment, free trade, and innovation.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1482460 31-Jan-2016 21:47

JimmyH:

sir1963:

Or its the result of economic policy where by one wage for most families is not enough. Where jobs are part time, or even zero hours so they need to have multiple part time jobs including weekends.

Then we get people bitching about increased crime and the break down of the family unit.

What is this "economic policy" to which you refer?

I'm not aware that any government has sat down and decided that it would adopt a deliberate policy of ensuring that one wage for a family isn't enough to get by on.

In fact, other than setting a minimum wage and the pay rates for some state employees, some anti-discrimination laws, and of course negotiating salaries with state-sector employees, governments don't actually set pay.

Pay is set by supply and demand in the economy. If you have scarce skills that are in high demand then your pay will be high. If you have skills that are abundant relative to demand then your pay will be relatively low. If you think your job underpays you relative to what other employers value your skills and experience at, and you can't persuade your current employer to match, then you can always put your CV out. That's what I have done in the past.

And the bad news is that the proportion of jobs that can be done by the low skilled is steadily contracting.

Long-term, the only way to get wage rates up is to get productivity up. That means businesses investing in capital, governments investing in skills training, and economic policies that don't inhibit competition, investment, free trade, and innovation.

I agree entirely.

I don't think any government exactly decided but I do wonder if it may at least partly be down to the law of unintended consequences and that if you analyse it closely, and I have neither the time nor the information to do so, I wonder if when we effectively doubled the workforce by getting most women to go to work, at the same time we did not actually double production, turnover or the amount of money available to pay wages, we probably increased it only by a smaller percentage (and your comments about productivity apply)

Logically if one man working before women generally worked could earn enough for a wife to stay at home, it seems to follow that if the wife earns the same they should have twice as much money as he did, yet adjusting for time etc it does not seem to me as though that is the case - neither party seems to have as much spending power as the man alone did pre significant numbers of women working.

Society still hasn't really adjusted to both parties working in a number of ways - for example, children are turfed out of school 3 hours before most working parents come home - a thing based almost entirely on the assumption that mother will be at home to receive them, which was the case when school hours were set.

In a modern world, school shouldn't end until about 6pm really.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9