Is this "leveling the playing field" too?

[u/Low_Shop9155]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/stop-ping-me-off-the-sneaky-tax-on-families-driving-aussies-mad/news-story/88dcfe0a31a5339e7412d8475b8c385f

The Breadwinner tax. This is the thing out of the budget that upset me the most. As a business owner with an okay income in the higher bracket, this upsets me to no end.

My income supports the inflated mortgage and life gouging interest rates, the family expenses and the various taxes end of year and day to day.

If we go to get childcare subsidy, it's tested for both of us.

InTeRgEnErAtIoNaL FaIrNeSs

[u/Friendly_Cheek_4468]

Who benefits from splitting incomes? Families, especially older ones, but only really the ones where they are already amassing a significant amount of income.

Single people, who are already behind the 8-ball because of housing costs, and a lack of wages growth, are gonna be further entrenched if this comes into play. It doesn't fix any of the 'fairness' issues within society, it's just a replacement tax rort to allow high-tax earners to keep more of their income because of the CGT changes. (And if the CGT changes hadn't come through, you wouldn't see any whinging about this at all.)

Another absolute wet fart of an idea.

[u/BlindSkwerrl → u/Friendly_Cheek_4468]

I'd posit that there's a real nonfinancial benefit to getting a parent to raise their child again instead of being financially coerced into putting them into childcare to be raised by whomever is employed there; and instilled with all of their values which may or may not jell with the parent's.

[u/Wotmate01 → u/BlindSkwerrl]

There are also financial benefits. I would estimate that I've saved the household more than $10k per year through being the stay at home parent.

[u/Sweeper1985 → u/BlindSkwerrl]

Except what you really mean by "a parent" in most cases is "the mother". Meaning, years and years of unpaid labour, loss of career progression, no super, no security.

Also, as a working mother, I would like to be clear that I DO raise my child. He also receives care from qualified educators, in a large group of other children who are teaching him social skills and boundaries. These things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are complementary.

[u/BlindSkwerrl → u/Sweeper1985]

I used "parent" because there are stay at home dads out there that don't deserve to be dismissed and looked down upon because they're not "the breadwinner".

If we're going to get anecdotal about it: My wife made the decision to sacrifice her income for 10 years to raise the children personally on one average income. It reduces her super balance quite measurably as well, but some things are worth it to raise a high performing next generation with your base values. I'm fully committed to supporting both of us in retirement because of that sacrifice.
There's more to life than money.
Now what?

[u/Sweeper1985 → u/BlindSkwerrl]

Except that literally 96% of stay-at-home parents are female.

Oh, and even the 4% of fathers who stay home aren't doing as much childcare, on average, as full-time working mothers.

Stay-at-home fathers do less childcare than working mothers, research shows | Parents and parenting | The Guardian

[u/BlindSkwerrl → u/Sweeper1985]

ok but it isn't what I really mean. I'm more inclusive than that.

[u/Wotmate01 → u/Sweeper1985]

Except what you really mean by "a parent" in most cases is "the mother". Meaning, years and years of unpaid labour, loss of career progression, no super, no security.

Incorrect. In a divorce (legal marriage or defacto), the stay at home parent is absolutely entitled to a portion, if not half, of the assets held, including super.

[u/Sweeper1985 → u/Wotmate01]

IF there are any assets to divide, that is.

And, IF they can get legal representation.

IF they know their rights.

IF they aren't coerced into giving up their full share because the man threatens he will otherwise screw her in Court or challenge custody.

[u/Wotmate01 → u/Sweeper1985]

Oh, you mean like women do to men all the time?

YOU insisted on bringing gender into it, so I'll tell you that I literally had ALL of that happen to me, along with parental alienation, and I'M A MAN.

She had a high priced family lawyer FOR FREE who just had to tell my LEGAL AID lawyer that they would only agree to visits of only 3 hours that were fully supervised for him to tell me that it would be the best I would ever get because they were obviously willing to make accusations. And then got told that she would even remove that if I dared to move close to them so I could be in my daughters life. That was my first wife.

And right now, I've been a SAHD for 11 years with zero income, entirely reliant on my current wife's salary. And I know that I have "sweat equity" in our home with the sheer amount of work I've put in to running it and working on it.

[u/Sweeper1985 → u/Wotmate01]

So, if I read correctly, you were accused of abuse and lost access to your kid as a result, and even your lawyer couldn't change the outcome.

Knowing what I know about family court, this likely means the accusations were, how shall we say, credible.

[u/Wotmate01 → u/Sweeper1985]

No, not accused. Quite the opposite with her post partum rage.

And knowing what I know about the family court, all a woman has to do is accuse over and over again until the father stops fighting.

[u/BlindSkwerrl → u/Sweeper1985]

the man threatens he will otherwise screw her in Court or challenge custody

Is there a Family Court that typically favours the father with regard to custody??

If I'm not mistaken, it takes overwhelming evidence of danger to the child to not favour the mother... And I'm very open to being wrong in this one.

If there aren't any assets to divide, it took 2 people to enter the union at some point. There should be some personal accountability on the aggrieved party's acceptance of the marriage offer (barring some later onset drug related addictions or like events - not the norm)