Social Security in Australia
 

Because we're looking at moving, my ex might take the kids during the week for the remainder of this year so they don't have to change schools and give up their sports teams which they're just settling into. I've been looking at what sort of benefits he'd be entitled to if he stops working during the week (he works nights) and just works over the weekend.

According to what I can see, he'll get just over $1200/fortnight or $600/week which is made up of a few different payments.

I was surprised at the amount. I knew single parents here did ok, but it's a lot better now than it was a few years ago. A lot of single income families don't even earn that much per week, and they miss out on the benefits such as almost free pharmaceuticals and other various items.

I know I'm a proponent for social services, and I don't think legitimate single parents should suffer, but I think it really explains why some people, women in particular, like having several children and living off the system.

Hmmm, thats a fair amount of money.

One of our ex mechanics, quit, because with his kids and his partners kids from a previous marriage (5 in total), they would earn more money on their Centrelink payments with more benefits (rent assistance, healthcare card, 100% childcare) than his qualified service technician wage.

I'm very curious about the people who do that math, and then decide to continue working. If you take away the incentive of income, supporting your family, sustaining a reasonable lifestyle, why would ANYONE continue to work?

It's not that generous Ali when you are taxed for those benefits, just make sure you put 100 dollars aside a week in case the tax bill comes. I'm sure it's not all spendies, but hope I'm wrong. Some women love having children around them and when their children leave they go into the job market and some women continue to foster children when they do. It's like a job you get paid for, if you love kids you love your job.

How is his *reasonable lifestyle* effected when he will receive more money on Social Security than his *trade*?

It's non taxable.

It's not me who'll be getting the benefits either, and if he's still doing some work, he wont get as much, but I just thought the figure for if you don't work was pretty high. I think you can earn about $100/week before it starts being affected, so that's $700/week to live off. Not bad really.

Sounds like an abuse of the social system to me.

Well it's not an abuse if it's freely available. all you have to do is go down to centrelink (social security) and fill in a few forms then I have to sign them too saying he's taking the kids during the week, and bob's your uncle! You get your first cheque (deposit to your bank account) the next week (or the same day if you're in a desperate situation).

This sounds a bit to pre-planned is all I am saying. Sure if you are in a dire situation that is what it is for. How does it differ from here in the US where some welfare mother says if I just popout another kid I can get more money and I still don't have to get off my fat azz and work. The Goberment will just keep giving me money.

That's exactly my point - this kind of social security takes away that incentive to work. I'm not surprised that people abuse that kind of system, I'm shocked that anyone doesn't!

What's your point Ali?

Right, well some people do abuse the system, but not all. Yeah some parents do think that's a good way to go, and it works till they can't have kids anymore and the last kid becomes and adult.

My understanding of the social security system here is that as a nation, we believe that children shouldn't have to suffer just because their parents don't have a job or they got divorced or whatever. That's a very broad statement of course. Yes parents could make better choices or try harder to make their relationships work etc, but sometimes it doesn't matter what you do, it wont work. That's what social security (centrelink) is for.

In the case I'm presenting to you, we have a situation where it's ideal for the kids to finish out the year at the school they're currently at. Mainly for Aden who is in his last year of primary school and is sports captain etc. So, they might live with their father during the week and come to me from Friday afternoon through to monday morning. I don't want the kids to 'miss out' on anything because they're staying with their father who is currently a security guard and works nights, so if this is to happen, he'll have to drastically change his lifestyle. We've discussed it, and he's very excited to have the chance to have the kids with him virtually full time for the first time since we separated about 8 years ago, but we (Daryl and I) can't afford to maintain two households, and Kal can't afford to not work, and he's not qualified for anything much besides muscle work. Also, I have very strong family values and believe it's important for kids to have a parent there for them. So, in this instance, for a short period, Kal may decide to take up the option of accessing some of the centrelink payments he'd be eligible for.

So, after contributing to our social services systems throughout my life through taxes, as has Kal for the period of time he's been in australia (15 yrs), as does Daryl, I don't have a problem with Kal 'redrawing' some of that for the next 6 months or so in order to provide a stable situation for the boys while they finish out this year of school.

I don't know about Social Security...it sounds as though "abuse" would be defined differently there than how many might define it, here. It sounds like there are different rules about it.

I do, however, think your position on the importance of your childrens' father's role is commendable. Maybe it is that our system seems to have a way of pitting divorced and separated parents against each other.

That she's surprised at the amount of money her ex will be getting for not working and looking after their children during the week?

Yeah, that was my original point thanks Ducks.