We're supposed to have skills shortages, right!?

Single mothers of school-aged children are expected to satisfy work-tests or other 'mutual obligation' tests to receive Parenting Payment/Newstart, right!?

So, why is our Govt still effectively-paying 'sit-down money' to other women via working their husband's tax offsets, without any 'mutual obligation' requirements whatsoever!?

Discuss.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/00216847.htm

http://www.ato.gov.au/content/images/00216847-1.gif


Quote:

T1 - Spouse (without dependent child or student), child-housekeeper or housekeeper About question T1 Question T1 image from tax return for individuals form. The following definitions will help you determine whether you are eligible for this tax offset. Your 'spouse' includes another person (whether of the same sex or opposite sex) who:    you were in a relationship with that was registered under a prescribed state or territory law,    although not legally married to you, lived with you on a genuine domestic basis in a relationship as a couple. A housekeeper is someone who kept house for you full time and also cared for your dependent children, students or invalid relatives, or your dependent spouse who received a disability support pension. A child-housekeeper is your child who kept house for you full time. Your child includes your adopted child, stepchild, ex-nuptial child or child of your spouse. However a child who is a full-time student or a full-time employee is not considered to keep house full time. (See the full definition of child.) Keeping house means more than simply child-minding or performing domestic duties. It includes having some responsibility for the general running of the household. See an explanation of Adjusted taxable income (ATI). Did you have a dependent spouse, child-housekeeper or housekeeper for any part of the year? No    go to question T2 Senior Australians (includes age pensioners, service pensioners and self-funded retirees), or        return to main menu Tax return for individuals instructions. Yes Read below. Shared care You had shared care if you, and your spouse if you had one, cared for your child for some of the income year, and someone else, such as a former spouse, cared for the child for the rest of the income year. If you received family tax benefit Part B as part of a shared-care arrangement, you will need to know your family tax benefit (FTB) shared-care percentage to calculate your spouse offset. Your FTB shared-care percentage is usually not the same as your 'Shared care percentage' which appears on correspondence you have received from the Family Assistance Office (FAO). If you do not know your FTB shared-care percentage, contact the FAO on 13 61 50. Answering this question If you had a dependent spouse, read on. If you had a child-housekeeper, go to part B. If you had a housekeeper, go to part C. If you are claiming a combination of these tax offsets, work through the relevant parts in order. Part A - Dependent spouse You cannot claim this tax offset if:    your adjusted taxable income (ATI) for 2009-10 was more than $150,000    your spouse's ATI for 2009-10 was $9,254 or more. You can work out your ATI or go to www.ato.gov.au/calculators to use the online income test calculator. You can claim a dependent spouse tax offset for any period in 2009-10 that you had a spouse and you met all these conditions:    you maintained your spouse - see What is maintaining a dependant?    your spouse was a resident - if you are not sure, read Are you an Australian resident?    you were a resident at any time during 2009-10    neither you nor your spouse (during any period they were your spouse) was eligible for family tax benefit (FTB) Part B or if one of you was eligible for it, you were eligible at the shared-care rate only. To work out your spouse's ATI for the period you can claim use Worksheet 1 - Working out a person's ATI for the relevant period. The maximum spouse tax offset you can claim is $2,243. If you are entitled to claim a dependent spouse tax offset, go to part A of Completing your tax return. Part B - Child-housekeeper You cannot claim this tax offset if:    your adjusted taxable income (ATI) for 2009-10 was more than $150,000, or    you had a spouse for all of 2009-10 and the combined ATI of you and your spouse was more than $150,000, or    you had a spouse for only part of the year and the sum of the following is more than $150,000        your ATI        your spouse's ATI for 2009-10 multiplied by the number of days they were your spouse divided by 365, or    you had a child-housekeeper for the whole year and their ATI for 2009-10 was $7,594 or more, or $9,042 or more if you had another dependent child or student. You can work out the ATI for you and your spouse or go to www.ato.gov.au/calculators to use the online income test calculator. You can claim a child-housekeeper tax offset for any period in 2009-10 that you had a child-housekeeper and you met all these conditions:    you maintained your child-housekeeper - see What is maintaining a dependant?    your child-housekeeper was a resident - if you are not sure, read Are you an Australian resident?    you were a resident at any time in 2009-10    you were not eligible for a dependent spouse tax offset under part A    you were not eligible for FTB Part B or were eligible for it only at the shared-care rate. To work out your spouse's ATI for the period you can claim use Worksheet 1 - Working out a person's ATI for the relevant period. The maximum child-housekeeper tax offset you can claim is $1,828, or $2,190 if you had another dependent child or student. If you are entitled to claim a child-housekeeper tax offset, go to part B of Completing your tax return.

/contd.


Quote:

Part C - Housekeeper You cannot claim this tax offset if:    your adjusted taxable income (ATI) for 2009-10 was more than $150,000, or    you had a spouse for all of 2009-10 and the combined ATI of you and your spouse was more than $150,000, or    you had a spouse for only part of the year and the sum of the following is more than $150,000        your ATI        your spouse's ATI for 2009-10 multiplied by the number of days they were your spouse divided by 365. You can work out the ATI for you and your spouse or go to www.ato.gov.au/calculators to use the online income test calculator. A housekeeper is a person who worked full time keeping house for you and cared for:    a child of yours under 21 years old, irrespective of the child's ATI    any other child under 21 years old who was your dependant and whose ATI for the period you maintained them was less than the total of $282 plus $28.92 for each week you maintained them (to work out your child's ATI for the period you can claim go to Worksheet 1 - Working out a person's ATI for the relevant period)    your invalid relative who was your dependant and for whom you can claim a dependant tax offset (if you are not sure, you will need to read question T10 Parent, spouse's parents or invalid relative in TaxPack 2010 supplement), or    your spouse who received a disability support pension. Keeping house means more than simply child-minding or performing domestic duties. It includes having some responsibility for the general running of the household. You are eligible for the housekeeper tax offset for any period during which you had a housekeeper (who kept house for you wholly in Australia), provided you were an Australian resident at any time during 2009-10 and you:    did not have a spouse and        were not entitled to claim a child-housekeeper tax offset under part B, and        were not eligible for FTB Part B or were eligible for it only at the shared-care rate or    had a spouse who received a disability support pension and you were not entitled to claim a child-housekeeper tax offset under part B or    had a spouse who did not receive a disability support pension and        you were not entitled to claim a dependent spouse tax offset under part A or a child-housekeeper tax offset under part B        neither you nor your spouse was eligible for FTB Part B or were eligible for it only at the shared-care rate, and        special circumstances applied - for example,            your spouse deserted you and your children, and you did not enter into a relationship that resulted in you having a new spouse            you had a child with a severe mental disability who required constant attention            your spouse suffered from an extended mental illness and was medically certified as being unable to take part in the care of your children. Where you consider that special circumstances applied, you will need to complete this item and provide additional information. Print SCHEDULE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - ITEM T1 PART C on the top of a separate sheet of paper, print your name, address and tax file number and explain your situation. Sign your schedule and attach it to page 3 of your tax return. Print X in the Yes box at Taxpayer's declaration question 2a on page 12 of your tax return. If we do not consider special circumstances applied, we will advise you. The maximum housekeeper tax offset you can claim is $1,828, or $2,190 if you had more than one dependent child or student. If you are entitled to claim a housekeeper tax offset, go to part C of Completing your tax return.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/00215174.htm


Quote:

Dependent spouse tax offset - income tests The dependent spouse tax offset provides tax relief for personal circumstances. To be eligible for the offset you must meet specific criteria. From the 2009-10 income year, the introduction of a new income test may affect your eligibility for this tax offset. You may no longer be eligible for the tax offset or only be entitled to a lesser amount. In previous years, your taxable income and the separate net income of your spouse was used to assess your eligibility. From the 2009-10 income year your adjusted taxable income will be used. All other eligibility requirements remain unchanged. Your adjusted taxable income is the sum of the following amounts:    taxable income    adjusted fringe benefits (reportable fringe benefits x 0.535)    tax-free pensions or benefits    target foreign income (income from overseas not reported in your tax return)    reportable super contributions (includes both reportable employer superannuation contributions and deductible personal superannuation contributions)    total net investment loss (includes both net financial investment loss and net rental property loss)    less    child support you've paid. For further information regarding child support you paid (deductible child maintenance expenditure), refer to the Family Assistance Guide. For the 2009-10 income year, you will be eligible to claim a dependent spouse offset if all of the following apply:    your adjusted taxable income was $150,000 or less    your spouse's adjusted taxable income for the year was less than $9,254    you met all the following conditions:        you maintained your spouse        your spouse was an Australian resident        you were an Australian resident        neither you nor your spouse were eligible for family tax benefit Part B or were only eligible for it at a shared-care rate. The following example shows how the change in income tests affect eligibility for the dependent spouse tax offset. Example 1    Toni and Brett are married. Toni works for a charity as a volunteer and is not in paid employment. They have rental properties and a share portfolio. Brett also has entered into a salary sacrificing arrangement to boost his super.    For the 2008-09 income year, Brett's taxable income was $120,000 (after claiming a rental loss of $17,000 and a financial investment loss of $8,000), and he had reportable employer superannuation contributions (salary sacrificed amount) of $10,000.    As Brett's taxable income was $120,000 and under the income threshold, he was eligible to claim the dependent spouse tax offset.    For the 2009-10 income year, Brett's financial situation remains similar. His taxable income is $120,000 (after claiming a total net investment loss of $20,000), and he has reportable super contributions of $15,000.    The income test for this offset has changed and Brett's adjusted taxable income is now used to calculate his eligibility for the offset. Brett's adjusted taxable income is $155,000.    $120,000 + $20,000 + $15,000 = $155,000.    As Brett's adjusted taxable income is over the income threshold for this offset he is not eligible to claim the dependent spouse tax offset. Example 2    Tony and Dana are in a de-facto relationship. Dana is on unpaid leave. Tony wants to claim the dependent spouse tax offset for Dana in his 2009-10 income tax return.    While Dana has no salary or wage income, her employer has made $10,000 in reportable employer superannuation contributions for her during the 2009-10 income year.    As Dana had no other taxable income or fringe benefit amounts for the income year, her taxable income is nil, but her adjusted taxable income is $10,000. This is because reportable employer superannuation contributions are included in the income test.    Therefore, Tony is not eligible to claim the dependent spouse tax offset as Dana's adjusted taxable income is more than the dependent spouse income threshold of $9,254 for the 2009-10 income year. More information For more information, refer to Spouse (without dependent child or student), child-housekeeper or housekeeper. http://www.ato.gov.au/content.asp?doc=/content/00216847.htm Last Modified: Monday, 12 July 2010

This is an example of mid-upper class WEALTHfare - which is counted outside usual welfare payments because it is paid as a so-called 'rebate' via the ATO instead of Centrelink.

Oooooh there's that angry streak again....


You really don't like the middle - upper incomes do you?

I don't like reading 'tax-speak' at tax time, let alone any other time.  What exactly is your issue?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

Oooooh there's that angry streak again.... You really don't like the middle - upper incomes do you?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)

This thread is about anomalies and double standards in our welfare and WEALTHfare systems - it is simply not good enough to deprive needy people of a reasonable standard of living (and constantly harass them in the process) whilst doling out non-means-tested and reverse-means-tested payments to the already-well-off!

Of course all middle to higher incomes are parasites who are deliberately keeping poor people poor too.

It's nothing to do with the fact people earn low incomes because they are thick as pig-shite and didn't bother at school you know....

It's because they have been deliberately picked on and they will be poor forever.

The world according to our Stalinist mate Thy.

So correct me if I'm wrong - but your issue is with more of a persons taxable income being retained for use by their family?  No actual payments being made to them, just that they get to keep more of THEIR hard-earned than someone who doesn't have any dependents?

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:37am:

So correct me if I'm wrong - but your issue is with more of a persons taxable income being retained for use by their family?  No actual payments being made to them, just that they get to keep more of THEIR hard-earned than someone who doesn't have any dependents?

In a nutshell yes.
Thy dislikes middle incomes not paying about 80% in tax.

Its not exactly a double standard.

Dependent sposes are no drain on the economy in any way, and since they are depended upon their partners income they also draw no government wlefare.

The offset is essiently a "redistribution of tax", in that a single income household receiving no government benefits of any sort and have a non working partner gets taxed at the marginal tax rate of the one person.  

Had that income been split over two people, their income tax would be much lower.

The spouse tax offset is a "thankyou" from the government for saying thanks for not going on the dole, so here is an offset on your tax to even it a bit.

The highest claimers of this I seen was in our baby boomers where the wife raised the kids and never went back to work, it was never the "rich" or middle class at all.

The biggest career block I seen was probably road transport where the father was rarely at home and a parent was needed at home, and then when the kids left they are now pretty much helping raising grandkids as well.

Its not such a bad thing.

Verge wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:03pm:

Its not exactly a double standard. Dependent sposes are no drain on the economy in any way, and since they are depended upon their partners income they also draw no government wlefare. The offset is essiently a "redistribution of tax", in that a single income household receiving no government benefits of any sort and have a non working partner gets taxed at the marginal tax rate of the one person.   Had that income been split over two people, their income tax would be much lower. The spouse tax offset is a "thankyou" from the government for saying thanks for not going on the dole, so here is an offset on your tax to even it a bit. The highest claimers of this I seen was in our baby boomers where the wife raised the kids and never went back to work, it was never the "rich" or middle class at all. The biggest career block I seen was probably road transport where the father was rarely at home and a parent was needed at home, and then when the kids left they are now pretty much helping raising grandkids as well. Its not such a bad thing.

quite possibly the best post of 2011. Well done !

And its not like the dependant spouse rebate is that much anyhow. it is a trifling amoun give  - as someone said - as a thank you for not taking someone elses job and for looking after your own kids and not using government assisted child care.

The amount could be doubled and it would STILL be trifling comparead to what is saved.

Get rid of all capitalist class Bourgeois welfare and handouts - these people neither need nor are they entitled to tax breaks, childcare, stay at home pay or any other rort of the tax payers dollars.  This money belongs to the working class and the battlers on legitimate welfare - not these rich parasites with a massive sense of entitlement and blame assignment mentality... 8-)

http://thoughtsonliberty.com/files/2011/01/capitalist_pig.jpg :)

nemesis my dear friend, you are getting your hair all mucked up over nothing at all.
Do you realise that there is hardly anybody at all who gets the dependent spouse rebate or has done for 20 years? The income test is so tight that the only people who might be entitled can't afford to have a spouse sitting at home.
There may be odd cases, where perhaps illness prevents someone working or whatever but really it's a non-issue.

So, do we have a skills shortage, or not!?

So, do we have capacity constraints, or not!?

So, is it preferable for us to continue to import and accommodate foreign workers, when there is a portion of the existing community which is effectively being paid sit-down money to stay out of the workforce (and in existing dwellings)!?

Seriously, I do appreciate that this rebate essentially covers the tax-free threshold of the non-working spouse - but I maintain that it is a serious anomaly in our tax and transfer system which belies certain rhetoric of our LibLab pollies...

BTW, another associated anomaly is the scope for concessional spouse contributions to Superannuation - which is an even bigger reverse-means-tested tax rort...

How about the middle class wealthfare of negative gearing? It is afterall only the 'so called' wealthy who can afford to take advantage of this.

Guildford wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 10:51pm:

How about the middle class wealthfare of negative gearing? It is afterall only the 'so called' wealthy who can afford to take advantage of this.

Who then, is going to invest in accomodation for bludgers, if we abolish negative gearing?   I suppose we could impose a 160% tax rate on people who work, and give it all to the layabouts?  ;)

It's about time, that the Federal Govt stopped paying sit-down WEALTHfare money to some (via their spouses) - whilst forcing genuine Welfare recipients to jump through draconian so-called 'mutual obligation' hoops...

Equitist wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 11:03pm:

It's about time, that the Federal Govt stopped paying sit-down WEALTHfare money to some (via their spouses) - whilst forcing genuine Welfare recipients to jump through draconian so-called 'mutual obligation' hoops...

Where mutual-obligation fails is that the govt can
(and has) abandon their side of the deal at will.

Whereas the PBR (poor bloody recips) cannot.

In fact, the govt has breached its side of the deal by reducing
the unemployed to below-subsistence levels of benefit, while
simultaneously refusing to provide training OR jobs.

And no, I DON'T believe the govt's job-creation figures.

Although it seems, after the budget, that the training problem
may be improved somewhat.

They STILL need a fair rate of payment, though.

Glad I don't have a spouse who's not working.
I'm smart.

Bobby. wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 11:34pm:

Glad I don't have a spouse who's not working. I'm smart.

So you obviously dont have young kids do you?

Bobby. wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 11:34pm:

Glad I don't have a spouse who's not working. I'm smart.

Wish I could say the same bobby.

However with 2 girls aged 2 and 6 months who do you propose look after them when my wife would go to work?

Bear in mind when she stopped we took a hit to our budget of $200k per year!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:09am:

Bobby. wrote on May 10th, 2011 at 11:34pm: Glad I don't have a spouse who's not working. I'm smart. Wish I could say the same bobby. However with 2 girls aged 2 and 6 months who do you propose look after them when my wife would go to work? Bear in mind when she stopped we took a hit to our budget of $200k per year!!

She should be thankful that she's not a single teen mum reliant upon below-subsistence welfare payments - since the Labs (and, by default, the Libs) seem to think that teen mums should be able to return to school once their youngest child reaches the ripe old age of 1 year!

I, for one, hope that this draconian measure is intended to improve support for existing teen mums - whilst acting as an effective-deterrent for future would-be teen mums!

Equitist wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:56am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:09am: Bobby. wrote on May 10th, 2011 at 11:34pm: Glad I don't have a spouse who's not working. I'm smart. Wish I could say the same bobby. However with 2 girls aged 2 and 6 months who do you propose look after them when my wife would go to work? Bear in mind when she stopped we took a hit to our budget of $200k per year!! She should be thankful that she's not a single teen mum relyiant upon below-subsistence welfare payments - since the Labs (and, by default, the Libs) seem to think that teen mums should be able to return to school once their youngest child reaches the ripe old age of 1 year!

So that's the best we have??

Just be thankful she is not a teen mum?

Yeah don't worry she spent 6 years post-school studying for her qualifications, then spent 10 years in investment banking - she doesn't deserve anything my wife eh?
Just be thankful she isnt a teen mum.

Really heard it all now.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:09am:

Bobby. wrote on May 10th, 2011 at 11:34pm: Glad I don't have a spouse who's not working. I'm smart. Wish I could say the same bobby. However with 2 girls aged 2 and 6 months who do you propose look after them when my wife would go to work? Bear in mind when she stopped we took a hit to our budget of $200k per year!!

That's a problem for all couples, when they decide to have a baby, irrespective of how much their budget may be!

perceptions_now wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:09am: Bobby. wrote on May 10th, 2011 at 11:34pm: Glad I don't have a spouse who's not working. I'm smart. Wish I could say the same bobby. However with 2 girls aged 2 and 6 months who do you propose look after them when my wife would go to work? Bear in mind when she stopped we took a hit to our budget of $200k per year!! That's a problem for all couples, when they decide to have a baby, irrespective of how much their budget may be!

This is true PN but the last thing you need is a Government ripping you off from your benefits left, right and centre and telling you how rich you are when you've seen your budget taken a $200k hit do you??

Crikey andrei give it a rest would ya?

You're NOT doing it tough, and the taxpayer doesn't owe you a penny to keep you in the luxury you became accustomed to.

... wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

Crikey andrei give it a rest would ya? You're NOT doing it tough, and the taxpayer doesn't owe you a penny to keep you in the luxury you became accustomed to.

I've never said I was doing it tough.

By the way the Australian taxpayer has never given me a cent.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

... wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 11:27am: Crikey andrei give it a rest would ya? You're NOT doing it tough, and the taxpayer doesn't owe you a penny to keep you in the luxury you became accustomed to. I've never said I was doing it tough. By the way the Australian taxpayer has never given me a cent.

What about that $5000 baby bonus?  Or is $5K so insignificant, you just forgot about it?

... wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 11:29am: ... wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 11:27am: Crikey andrei give it a rest would ya? You're NOT doing it tough, and the taxpayer doesn't owe you a penny to keep you in the luxury you became accustomed to. I've never said I was doing it tough. By the way the Australian taxpayer has never given me a cent. What about that $5000 baby bonus?  Or is $5K so insignificant, you just forgot about it?

Wasn't on my tax return.
My wife got the baby bonus. I was a resident of the Channel Islands for tax my friend. Ask the ATO.

Big earners' benefit for non-working wives gets the chop

WAYNE Swan says it is time to take action to stop big earners receiving a tax benefit for spouses sitting at home.

So he moved yesterday to phase out the Dependent Spouse Tax Offset, which delivers a $2286 reduction to the tax payable by anyone earning $150,000 or less who has a spouse and no children.

"To remove tax breaks that encourage people without kids to stay at home, we will phase out the Dependent Spouse Tax Offset beginning with partners under 40," Mr Swan said last night in his budget address.

The measure, beginning on July 1, will not affect taxpayers if their dependent spouse is a carer, or an invalid, or permanently unable to work, or if the couple has children.

It will phase out the benefit gradually, beginning with taxpayers whose dependent spouse is under 40 years of age.

"This will encourage younger dependent spouses without children to seek paid employment," the Treasurer said. "Those aged in their 20s and 30s are of prime working age and have a reasonable prospect of gaining employment, particularly given the strength of the Australian conomy."

The measure will be phased in because the government felt that employment prospects of over-40s who may not have worked for more than a decade are not strong.

As well as delivering a message that the government will not tolerate welfare payments for the rich, it is a revenue-raiser, delivering $755 million in savings over the next four years.

The government said the benefit was now out of date, and it was moving to encourage more women to re-enter the workforce.

Link -
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/big-earners-benefit-for-non-working-wives-gets-the-chop/story-fn8gf1nz-1226053619265
========================
This measure seek to do two things -
1) Assist in cutting the Deficit.
2) Push more people toward joining the workforce, which will begin to be stretched very thin by retiring Baby Boomers.

It is aimed at those earning over $150,000 (Taxable income), who may be able to afford losing what is a relatively small benefit for them and it is an interim measure, which is likely to be followed, in future, by those with spouses over 40 (without dependent children) also losing the benefit.

Perhaps, they could have done that now, but it is likely to follow shortly.

However, the main reason behind this move was to push more people into what will be a dwindling workforce.

On average, some 30,000 "official" Baby Boomers, each month, will turn 65 over the next decade or so and that will severely strain Australia's workforce capacity, unless immigration is ramped up substantially or the OZ Economy starts to head south, as the Global Economy tanks again, which is likely.

Anyway, at this point, both Labor & the Liberals will try to push up the Workforce Participation rate, as possible and top up via immigration.

This appears to be a cost effective and reasonably balanced approach.

Well I don't really have an issue with it being removed for childless couples.  It's still probably not that fair, but childless couples have it pretty sweet anyway.  I'm sure they can handle it.

... wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

Well I don't really have an issue with it being removed for childless couples.  It's still probably not that fair, but childless couples have it pretty sweet anyway.  I'm sure they can handle it.

I don't disagree on that point.

When I think back to when we were both working and earning about the same.
We had a $4k per month mortgage and it was not even 20% our monthly after tax income.


Ahhhhhhhh, them's the days.

Its funny how you look at it, to me it was a just a small "evener" for having a marginal tax system where one doesnt work.

Also, if you can afford for your wife to stay at home and not work with no kids, the tax offset is just a sweetener.

To me, its leaving jobs open for people who want and need them.

'Sweetener' or not, it was a socio-economic perversion, to impose draconian, stressful and child-unfriendly 'mutual obligation' requirements on genuinely-disadvantaged welfare-reliant sole parents, whilst subsidising relatively well-off men to keep stay-at-home 'spouse-housekeepers' on the shelf...

Equitist wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 8:05pm:

'Sweetener' or not, it was a socio-economic perversion, to impose draconian, stressful and child-unfriendly 'mutual obligation' requirements on genuinely-disadvantaged welfare-reliant sole parents, whilst subsidising relatively well-off men to keep stay-at-home 'spouse-housekeepers' on the shelf...

Where do you come up with this garbage.

It has nothing to do with the laws in place for single people.

I always thought it was a good measure, and kept the job sector open for people wanting a job.

Would you rather the workforce be filled with spouses who didnt really want or need the job, but the couple of grand a year paid for their beauty treatments and they dont pay tax on it anyway?

Were you aware, Verge, that Howard and Costello increased the Dependent Spouse Rebate in the very same Budget under which they both introduced Welfare to Slavery for Single Mums and changed the formula to reduce Child Support payments!?

Ironically, the Welfare to Slavery changes were made on the pretext of skills shortages and the Dependent Spouse Rebate increase was slipped in without any fanfare (or scrutiny). There was also a simultaneous and costly TV demonisation and vilification propaganda campaign which insidiously-stereotyped single mothers as welfare rorters who shacked up with new blokes and didn't disclose their changed circumstances to Centrelink.

What kind of people demonise, vilify and punish vulnerable women and children in such ways - whilst rewarding others!?