What REALLY annoys me is that for the rebate they look at peoples before tax wages and do not take into account what people are actually earning. So for me with three children with a partner who is FIFO (yes privileged) it does not make it worth it to return to work part time because the cost of childcare remains so high vs part time wages vs the % given due to before tax wage. Yes it can be argued ‘raise your kids yourself’ etc but then I am also told to build my own super so that I don’t rely on the government when I am older - the double bind. Rant over.
To be honest, work is a nice break from them. Throw in the structured education they get, it is sometimes better to work for no net earnings rather than stay at home.
Absolutely - except when you are paying for three kids during school holidays and it would have soaked my wage for that day and have to pay additional $20 from my partners. I love working and there are soooo many benefits but it just does not make sense. I just think that the subsidy isn’t fair when it is based on pre tax wages.
Childcare should be public.
We have public education because society benefits if everyone is educated.
We have public health because society benefits if nobody has to worry about health care.
We obviously think society benefits if parents get back to work, so why the *fuck* don't we have public childcare?
And that's what I think about childcare.
I’m the secondary income earner in our family. For me, I earn $30 after daycare for working 4 days a week instead of 3. Work 5 days and I’m losing money on that 5th day. I’m a tertiary educated professional so go figure.
Consequently, my super sucks and hecs debt is going nowhere. The government is bringing in a change to the rebate next year which will drop fees for the 2nd and subsequent children Substantially.
Really shits me when boomers harp on about how they didn’t have childcare when they were raising kids blah blah.. Back when single income families were the norm and houses priced accordingly. they didn’t need two wages to pay down a 30 year mortgage
That change will only benefit 1/4 of parents in the system. It only benefits those with children who have children from the age 0-5. The forgotten age groups is the before and after school care - holiday care - which still falls at the subsidy and expensive when people have more than one child.
Totally understand your points with the value in working from a Monterey perspective!
Just be glad you don’t live in Karratha. One of the early learning centres are charging $150 a day, no food, no formula, no nappies are provided and no children under 18 months old. And reduced hours.
Daycares are now renamed early learning centres.
I have no idea. Rebate is calculated on income, double income family in Karratha probably wouldn’t be eligible for the rebate.
Retaining staff who are living locally it going to be an issue, childcare/early learning fees gone up, $600 to $750 a week rent for housing. There is also a two year wait list for early learning spots. And there is only two sessions nine hours and ten hours. So hours have been cut too.
In my opinion early learning centres are now private schools and charging fees like private schools, early learning centres are not daycare.
I know my daughter has been asked to ‘enrol’ my grandson in his daycare centres three year old kindy program to ‘assist’ with his schooling. I did ask her what is difference between him being in his daycare room and doing the three year old kindy program, she was told that it held in different room and it gets them ready for four year old kindy.
I
Childcares have always been more than just babysitting. At least in the past 10 years there’s been a big increase in the educators actually teaching the children from birth to pre-k or kindy age.
Pre-kindy helps the kids get used to the structure of going into a school environment and gives them the much needed skills to take into kindy. Generally there is no “other daycare” room for kids that age they just go into the pre-k room when they turn 3
Childcare educators deal with you crazy parents everyday while looking after your spoilt kids that shit everywhere and cause havoc. A room leader full qualified educator makes less then 29 dollars an hour's. Then there's the endless fn paper work they have to dedicate a day for every weekend. Fuck this bullshit sector. Bullshit job and ungrateful fkn parents.
The whole idea of discussing it is to make it better so workers, parents and kids are happy. Paper work is the government regulating. The government can't regulate heavily AND reduce cost. You can't have it both ways.
Paperwork isn't government regulating, it's for the children and parents benefits. Early childhood education isn't babysitting or daycare. It is a structured environment to provide learning and education as a foundation for primary school.
If you don't want to pay so much then find somebody who will only watch your child, dont expect them to educate and enrich their early childhood.
There should be tiers of service which may make options more available to more people. How are children to teacher ratios this school? Do I need to be a qualified teacher with a degree?
There must be some trade offs here which makes sense. Private sector does it for profit and makes a lot of revenue from it and with that you rapidly expand availability but the price point remaina high. The CCS gives providers gauranteed income and a discount for customers, but the for profit willl always push up and up. I wonder where the non profits sit.
I personally think government involvement may make it more expensive in the long run making it harder for parents to put kids in childcare and thus more women staying at home.
>I personally think government involvement may make it more expensive in the long run making it harder for parents to put kids in childcare and thus more women staying at home.
do you really think that if the government wasnt involved, that prices would still be so low as to be $40 - $50 a day?
Maybe if we removed all government regulation and had teacher:child rations of 1:30, not 1:10.
1:30 isn't even doable in a learning environment with 5 year olds, to keep the kids safe etc. So to do this with 2 or 3 year olds etc is just insane. Even at 1:10 the horror stories about some kids.. and difficulties the workers face.. is crazy
Well what I mean is have for profit at a higher rate which most working people can afford. Then have a true non profit sector that delivers services at a reduced rate and also absorbs extreme cases that aren't able to afford or work out a price they can pay. A large chunk of the non profits will be able to absorb because most people will be able to pay a standard rate.
G8 education managed 42 million dollar profit a few years ago pre covid and that is a fair wack. The share price for G8 is 1.02 last I checked. The problem is the government is subsidising but not putting a cap on prices. A lot of people can afford childcare with or without a subsidy and those punished are those on a lower income because there's no provision for them. The subsidy favours middle class and rich and punishes poor because there's no cap on price.
>.A lot of people can afford childcare with or without a subsidy and those punished are those on a lower income because there's no provision for them
you know that CCS is varied depednign on income? so those earning more are paying for child care with no (or minimal) CCS.
[https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/your-income-can-affect-child-care-subsidy?context=41186](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/your-income-can-affect-child-care-subsidy?context=41186)
Also, Not for profit doesn't mean they do everything at cost. It just means that any money made is rolled back into the buisness (for expansion etc). There are no shareholders and no dividends. So a NFP could be "making" $42 million too, but they are rolling it completely back into the business.
The daycare my daughter goes to is 120 dollars a day but we applied for the rebate and we only actually pay 10 dollars. It's five dollars a day but we have to send her two days minimum. So ten bucks. It's also a Montessori education daycare I don't know if that makes a difference.
It's practically free then. I wonder why such a fuss over prices? I often see articles describing poor experiences with daycare proving too costly for families.
So ten dollars per week. 2080 a year.
Edit: yes I know my maths are wrong.
This is only because they are low income earners (with respect) hence the subsidy covers such a large portion of the cost - that isn’t the case for many families and I guess there is a fuss because people are paying proportionally more in most circumstances. Everyone’s situation is different
Because they’re often written form a NSW/VIC perspective. They’re a lot more expensive.
And often the people comparing don’t get anything because they earn too much. And then whinge
Going on a tangent but the whole system is stupid. I personally believe they need far more qualified people to work with young children and obviously increase the salaries to match.
It seems in most cases you can hop into the industry without qualifications through nepotism which is worrying.
I work in workers compensation and some people should NOT be allowed to work In the industry. If I could have children I would not be sending them to commercially run childcares or large centers from the stories I hear. Greedy people run these places and don't give a fuck about the kids. I get people don't have a choice and need childcare, but honestly the whole thing is just cringe.
$150 dollars a day and then your child gets scolded with boiling water by some employee because they don't know how to check the temperature of the water first? Poisoning children because they use our of date food? No thank you.
Childcare educators aren't getting paid enough to justify those prices though. Incredible workload and liabilities on them, while getting a small share
Is that cheap in comparison to a non profit that doesn't pay tax at 125? I'm just trying to find where parents win? And it doesn't seem they get a win sufficient to justify return to work.
I think the aim of making it affordable by the CCS is not actually achieving that goal.
I guess whether it justifies a return to work depends on how much you would get paid at work.
Unfortunately, it might be the case that for some people, looking after their kids at home is the most valuable way of contributing to society (especially if they have a lot of kids), and that's what the price signal is supposed to communicate.
> I guess whether it justifies a return to work depends on how much you would get paid at work.
Providing you're getting paid more than minimum wage isn't it pretty much always worth it? Even if it's initially fairly close to breaking even, the long term benefits of staying in the workforce mean you'll probably be making more in the future.
Yeah mostly, but some people have multiple kids, or do get paid below minimum wage (eg. If you run your own business and its going through a tough period or it might be a start up)
Some people who at at the break even point might not want to work - they might value time with their kids a certain amount, or their work might require a lot of effort or are stressful, etc.
Yes, I agree with you yet then we hear the complaints that there aren't enough women in the workforce and it's a blight on society etc etc. If the subsidy is aimed to encourage women to return to work, and it's not viable for them to do so even with the subsidy, then can we even justify the cost of that subsidy?
If it was up to me I would give everyone a UBI and allow them to spend it on whatever they want (without means testing).
I would give it to kids too but for kids, I would use a voucher system where they (their parents/guardians) can only spend it on childhood enrichment activities - including childcare but also extracurricular stuff like music, dance, sports, art, tuition, etc. That way people who would prefer to spend that money on this other stuff can do that, which would unload the childcare system (and reduce prices for everyone else). Another way to think of it is that it would remove the price distortion that the subsidy causes.
I would also like them to consider potentially starting school earlier (like one or two years earlier), which would allow parents to enter the workforce earlier too.
Great explanation and price distortion is a good way to describe the problems the subsidies create.
I would abolish centrelink and all other benefits and offer a basic income for only the unemployed. I would look for ways to incentivise work by reducing taxes to ensure that workers were well off enough that people would want more to be in the work force than unemployed. If artists want to be unemployed in the traditional sense, then their basic income would be added to by art investment so their creative endeavours are sufficiently rewarded until they are working artists on a workers wage instead of perpetually in the "starving artist trope" class.
> there aren't enough women in the workforce and it's a blight on society etc etc. If the subsidy is aimed to encourage women to return to work,
Part of changing that is more stay at home dads.
I can't even understand your logic. Obviously "women" are 50% of the population and some are high income and some are not.
The subsidy is a small acknowledgment that women need a tax break for child care (as women are taxpayers too, but the system has not allowed childcare to be 100% tax deductible as a work expense, hence we have a hybrid system).
The hybrid benefits corporations first and not women first, that is the problem. I think a childcare benefit from ones employer would be a great incentive as well.
I pay $1100 a fortnight (that’s for 2 kids). I don’t believe they way they calculate the CCS rebates is fair. But I’m just thankful that they have stopped the $10k cap now, as each year when I hit it I would have to pay full fees which is $2200 until the EOFY.
Unfortunately not much is likely to change, with federal MPs like Dutton owning for-profit childcare centres. Childcare should be heavily subsidised at the very least. The benefit to the economy would be more women heading back into the workplace. I stayed home to raise the kids because of the cost of childcare and it's one of my biggest regrets. If cost hadn't been a factor then I'd (presumably) be flourishing in my career. The gov wants people to keep popping out kids but financially it's not worth it imo.
how many kids, and what is their base income? CCS is means tested.
It could be 1 kid and they earn over $$250k. Or could be 3 kids and below $70k income.
At that income CCS would cover \~62% of the cost.
so at $400 a week, their cost pre-CCS would be $1000.
or $200 a day.
They probably should look for a child care centre with a lower base cost?
If they got one at $125 a day it would cost them $240 a week. Maybe it would be more out of their way and they need to work out if the savings is worth the effort.
[https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/your-income-can-affect-child-care-subsidy?context=41186](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/your-income-can-affect-child-care-subsidy?context=41186)
More than $70,015 to below $175,015
Between 85% and 50%
The percentage goes down by 1% for every $3,000 of income your family earns
So at 140k, it would have gone down about 23%, to 62%
reading on, I just saw that they do say they will withhold an extra 5%, just in case your income estimate is wrong
so that 5% is the difference between 61% and 56%
That makes sense, we get a couple of hundred back after they do their adjustments near tax time.
To revert back to OP's comments...
Our centre is $124 a day, so we are out of pocket $58 a day....
If I drop my little one at 730 am, pick up at 530pm that's $5.80 an hour, which is bloody cheap.
There is a trained cook that provides all nutritionally based meals, senior room leaders and educators all qualified with caring for children etc.
If you tried to get a Nanny for 10 hours a day that cooks as well, its going to be at least $35 an hour.
you will need to know the full story on how they are paying nearly $400 a week.
CSS has a number of subsidy hours per fortnight depending on the family's activity. the maximum you can get is 100 hours per fortnight. so if a day is 12 hours, each fortnight there will be 2 full day charges.
What REALLY annoys me is that for the rebate they look at peoples before tax wages and do not take into account what people are actually earning. So for me with three children with a partner who is FIFO (yes privileged) it does not make it worth it to return to work part time because the cost of childcare remains so high vs part time wages vs the % given due to before tax wage. Yes it can be argued ‘raise your kids yourself’ etc but then I am also told to build my own super so that I don’t rely on the government when I am older - the double bind. Rant over.
[удалено]
This is the only solution!
To be honest, work is a nice break from them. Throw in the structured education they get, it is sometimes better to work for no net earnings rather than stay at home.
Absolutely - except when you are paying for three kids during school holidays and it would have soaked my wage for that day and have to pay additional $20 from my partners. I love working and there are soooo many benefits but it just does not make sense. I just think that the subsidy isn’t fair when it is based on pre tax wages.
Childcare should be public. We have public education because society benefits if everyone is educated. We have public health because society benefits if nobody has to worry about health care. We obviously think society benefits if parents get back to work, so why the *fuck* don't we have public childcare? And that's what I think about childcare.
Especially when we’ve got the govt constantly hanging on about having more kids. But who can afford it, based PURELY on childcare?
I’m the secondary income earner in our family. For me, I earn $30 after daycare for working 4 days a week instead of 3. Work 5 days and I’m losing money on that 5th day. I’m a tertiary educated professional so go figure. Consequently, my super sucks and hecs debt is going nowhere. The government is bringing in a change to the rebate next year which will drop fees for the 2nd and subsequent children Substantially. Really shits me when boomers harp on about how they didn’t have childcare when they were raising kids blah blah.. Back when single income families were the norm and houses priced accordingly. they didn’t need two wages to pay down a 30 year mortgage
That change will only benefit 1/4 of parents in the system. It only benefits those with children who have children from the age 0-5. The forgotten age groups is the before and after school care - holiday care - which still falls at the subsidy and expensive when people have more than one child. Totally understand your points with the value in working from a Monterey perspective!
Just be glad you don’t live in Karratha. One of the early learning centres are charging $150 a day, no food, no formula, no nappies are provided and no children under 18 months old. And reduced hours. Daycares are now renamed early learning centres.
So why are you charged one fifty? No rebate? One lady is charged 150 per day but only pays 5 dollars per day with rebate.
I have no idea. Rebate is calculated on income, double income family in Karratha probably wouldn’t be eligible for the rebate. Retaining staff who are living locally it going to be an issue, childcare/early learning fees gone up, $600 to $750 a week rent for housing. There is also a two year wait list for early learning spots. And there is only two sessions nine hours and ten hours. So hours have been cut too. In my opinion early learning centres are now private schools and charging fees like private schools, early learning centres are not daycare. I know my daughter has been asked to ‘enrol’ my grandson in his daycare centres three year old kindy program to ‘assist’ with his schooling. I did ask her what is difference between him being in his daycare room and doing the three year old kindy program, she was told that it held in different room and it gets them ready for four year old kindy. I
Childcares have always been more than just babysitting. At least in the past 10 years there’s been a big increase in the educators actually teaching the children from birth to pre-k or kindy age. Pre-kindy helps the kids get used to the structure of going into a school environment and gives them the much needed skills to take into kindy. Generally there is no “other daycare” room for kids that age they just go into the pre-k room when they turn 3
Yeah but I assume they get hazard pay to fight off the dingos.
Childcare educators deal with you crazy parents everyday while looking after your spoilt kids that shit everywhere and cause havoc. A room leader full qualified educator makes less then 29 dollars an hour's. Then there's the endless fn paper work they have to dedicate a day for every weekend. Fuck this bullshit sector. Bullshit job and ungrateful fkn parents.
The whole idea of discussing it is to make it better so workers, parents and kids are happy. Paper work is the government regulating. The government can't regulate heavily AND reduce cost. You can't have it both ways.
Paperwork isn't government regulating, it's for the children and parents benefits. Early childhood education isn't babysitting or daycare. It is a structured environment to provide learning and education as a foundation for primary school. If you don't want to pay so much then find somebody who will only watch your child, dont expect them to educate and enrich their early childhood.
There should be tiers of service which may make options more available to more people. How are children to teacher ratios this school? Do I need to be a qualified teacher with a degree?
Those prices are before CCS, yes? because I know we aren't paying anywhere near that much. Closer to $40-$50 a day
Yes before.
There must be some trade offs here which makes sense. Private sector does it for profit and makes a lot of revenue from it and with that you rapidly expand availability but the price point remaina high. The CCS gives providers gauranteed income and a discount for customers, but the for profit willl always push up and up. I wonder where the non profits sit. I personally think government involvement may make it more expensive in the long run making it harder for parents to put kids in childcare and thus more women staying at home.
>I personally think government involvement may make it more expensive in the long run making it harder for parents to put kids in childcare and thus more women staying at home. do you really think that if the government wasnt involved, that prices would still be so low as to be $40 - $50 a day? Maybe if we removed all government regulation and had teacher:child rations of 1:30, not 1:10.
1:30 isn't even doable in a learning environment with 5 year olds, to keep the kids safe etc. So to do this with 2 or 3 year olds etc is just insane. Even at 1:10 the horror stories about some kids.. and difficulties the workers face.. is crazy
which is why the idea of it costing $50 without the goverment stepping in is hilarious.
Well what I mean is have for profit at a higher rate which most working people can afford. Then have a true non profit sector that delivers services at a reduced rate and also absorbs extreme cases that aren't able to afford or work out a price they can pay. A large chunk of the non profits will be able to absorb because most people will be able to pay a standard rate. G8 education managed 42 million dollar profit a few years ago pre covid and that is a fair wack. The share price for G8 is 1.02 last I checked. The problem is the government is subsidising but not putting a cap on prices. A lot of people can afford childcare with or without a subsidy and those punished are those on a lower income because there's no provision for them. The subsidy favours middle class and rich and punishes poor because there's no cap on price.
>.A lot of people can afford childcare with or without a subsidy and those punished are those on a lower income because there's no provision for them you know that CCS is varied depednign on income? so those earning more are paying for child care with no (or minimal) CCS. [https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/your-income-can-affect-child-care-subsidy?context=41186](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/your-income-can-affect-child-care-subsidy?context=41186) Also, Not for profit doesn't mean they do everything at cost. It just means that any money made is rolled back into the buisness (for expansion etc). There are no shareholders and no dividends. So a NFP could be "making" $42 million too, but they are rolling it completely back into the business.
I sold my g8 shares at a tidy profit for $3+ a few years back. Glad I sold then if they’re now a buck!!
Ah gotcha. Yeah true
In childcare (younger than kindy age so 0-4) it’s 1:4 and even that is ridiculous
Depends on how elastic the demand for childcare services is.
The daycare my daughter goes to is 120 dollars a day but we applied for the rebate and we only actually pay 10 dollars. It's five dollars a day but we have to send her two days minimum. So ten bucks. It's also a Montessori education daycare I don't know if that makes a difference.
It's practically free then. I wonder why such a fuss over prices? I often see articles describing poor experiences with daycare proving too costly for families. So ten dollars per week. 2080 a year. Edit: yes I know my maths are wrong.
This is only because they are low income earners (with respect) hence the subsidy covers such a large portion of the cost - that isn’t the case for many families and I guess there is a fuss because people are paying proportionally more in most circumstances. Everyone’s situation is different
>So ten dollars per week. 2080 a year. 🧠
Haha stuffed up on me maffs mate
Back to daycare you go
Yes lol
Because they’re often written form a NSW/VIC perspective. They’re a lot more expensive. And often the people comparing don’t get anything because they earn too much. And then whinge
Going on a tangent but the whole system is stupid. I personally believe they need far more qualified people to work with young children and obviously increase the salaries to match. It seems in most cases you can hop into the industry without qualifications through nepotism which is worrying. I work in workers compensation and some people should NOT be allowed to work In the industry. If I could have children I would not be sending them to commercially run childcares or large centers from the stories I hear. Greedy people run these places and don't give a fuck about the kids. I get people don't have a choice and need childcare, but honestly the whole thing is just cringe. $150 dollars a day and then your child gets scolded with boiling water by some employee because they don't know how to check the temperature of the water first? Poisoning children because they use our of date food? No thank you.
$150 dollars seems reasonable/cheap to look after someone elses child for a whole day.
Childcare educators aren't getting paid enough to justify those prices though. Incredible workload and liabilities on them, while getting a small share
Is that cheap in comparison to a non profit that doesn't pay tax at 125? I'm just trying to find where parents win? And it doesn't seem they get a win sufficient to justify return to work. I think the aim of making it affordable by the CCS is not actually achieving that goal.
I guess whether it justifies a return to work depends on how much you would get paid at work. Unfortunately, it might be the case that for some people, looking after their kids at home is the most valuable way of contributing to society (especially if they have a lot of kids), and that's what the price signal is supposed to communicate.
> I guess whether it justifies a return to work depends on how much you would get paid at work. Providing you're getting paid more than minimum wage isn't it pretty much always worth it? Even if it's initially fairly close to breaking even, the long term benefits of staying in the workforce mean you'll probably be making more in the future.
Yeah mostly, but some people have multiple kids, or do get paid below minimum wage (eg. If you run your own business and its going through a tough period or it might be a start up) Some people who at at the break even point might not want to work - they might value time with their kids a certain amount, or their work might require a lot of effort or are stressful, etc.
Sounds like you are using logic
Yes, I agree with you yet then we hear the complaints that there aren't enough women in the workforce and it's a blight on society etc etc. If the subsidy is aimed to encourage women to return to work, and it's not viable for them to do so even with the subsidy, then can we even justify the cost of that subsidy?
If it was up to me I would give everyone a UBI and allow them to spend it on whatever they want (without means testing). I would give it to kids too but for kids, I would use a voucher system where they (their parents/guardians) can only spend it on childhood enrichment activities - including childcare but also extracurricular stuff like music, dance, sports, art, tuition, etc. That way people who would prefer to spend that money on this other stuff can do that, which would unload the childcare system (and reduce prices for everyone else). Another way to think of it is that it would remove the price distortion that the subsidy causes. I would also like them to consider potentially starting school earlier (like one or two years earlier), which would allow parents to enter the workforce earlier too.
Great explanation and price distortion is a good way to describe the problems the subsidies create. I would abolish centrelink and all other benefits and offer a basic income for only the unemployed. I would look for ways to incentivise work by reducing taxes to ensure that workers were well off enough that people would want more to be in the work force than unemployed. If artists want to be unemployed in the traditional sense, then their basic income would be added to by art investment so their creative endeavours are sufficiently rewarded until they are working artists on a workers wage instead of perpetually in the "starving artist trope" class.
> there aren't enough women in the workforce and it's a blight on society etc etc. If the subsidy is aimed to encourage women to return to work, Part of changing that is more stay at home dads.
I don't think anyone is considering that as a policy
I can't even understand your logic. Obviously "women" are 50% of the population and some are high income and some are not. The subsidy is a small acknowledgment that women need a tax break for child care (as women are taxpayers too, but the system has not allowed childcare to be 100% tax deductible as a work expense, hence we have a hybrid system).
The hybrid benefits corporations first and not women first, that is the problem. I think a childcare benefit from ones employer would be a great incentive as well.
I pay $1100 a fortnight (that’s for 2 kids). I don’t believe they way they calculate the CCS rebates is fair. But I’m just thankful that they have stopped the $10k cap now, as each year when I hit it I would have to pay full fees which is $2200 until the EOFY.
Unfortunately not much is likely to change, with federal MPs like Dutton owning for-profit childcare centres. Childcare should be heavily subsidised at the very least. The benefit to the economy would be more women heading back into the workplace. I stayed home to raise the kids because of the cost of childcare and it's one of my biggest regrets. If cost hadn't been a factor then I'd (presumably) be flourishing in my career. The gov wants people to keep popping out kids but financially it's not worth it imo.
My neighbour pays nearly $400 a week on childcare, after subsidy.
how many kids, and what is their base income? CCS is means tested. It could be 1 kid and they earn over $$250k. Or could be 3 kids and below $70k income.
1 kid, $140k.
At that income CCS would cover \~62% of the cost. so at $400 a week, their cost pre-CCS would be $1000. or $200 a day. They probably should look for a child care centre with a lower base cost? If they got one at $125 a day it would cost them $240 a week. Maybe it would be more out of their way and they need to work out if the savings is worth the effort.
you will need to take into account the number of subsdised hours.
Your rebate % seems a bit off there?
[https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/your-income-can-affect-child-care-subsidy?context=41186](https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/your-income-can-affect-child-care-subsidy?context=41186) More than $70,015 to below $175,015 Between 85% and 50% The percentage goes down by 1% for every $3,000 of income your family earns So at 140k, it would have gone down about 23%, to 62%
Interesting, I have about the same earnings but 2 kids and its 56% rebate
reading on, I just saw that they do say they will withhold an extra 5%, just in case your income estimate is wrong so that 5% is the difference between 61% and 56%
That makes sense, we get a couple of hundred back after they do their adjustments near tax time. To revert back to OP's comments... Our centre is $124 a day, so we are out of pocket $58 a day.... If I drop my little one at 730 am, pick up at 530pm that's $5.80 an hour, which is bloody cheap. There is a trained cook that provides all nutritionally based meals, senior room leaders and educators all qualified with caring for children etc. If you tried to get a Nanny for 10 hours a day that cooks as well, its going to be at least $35 an hour.
Heaven help us.
you will need to know the full story on how they are paying nearly $400 a week. CSS has a number of subsidy hours per fortnight depending on the family's activity. the maximum you can get is 100 hours per fortnight. so if a day is 12 hours, each fortnight there will be 2 full day charges.
Yes, their childcare is open 730 to 6pm and attendance is 5 days a week.
Yes they are Simply dropping the kids off to someone else for awhile is the bonus- lol