# Paid Parental Leave (PPL)



## drsmith (19 August 2013)

The Coalition has finally released the detail of its generous PPL scheme including the start up date of July 1 2015.

http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The Coalition’s Policy for Paid Parental Leave.pdf

The costing detail (or more accurately, lack of it) is on page 9. As expected it will be funded by a 1.5% levy on corporate profits for businesses earning over $5m. This levy also coincides with a 1.5% cut to the corporate tax rate to 28.5%. The baby bonus will be axed (ABC radio) and double dipping with existing employer and Labor's scheme will also be removed.



> The Coalition has confirmed that commonwealth employees' existing provisions would be abolished, potentially saving millions by stopping federal and state public servants from "double dipping" on maternity leave, to offset the cost of its scheme.
> 
> At the moment, public servants can access an average of 14 weeks, and in some cases up to 18 weeks, of paid maternity leave.
> 
> They can also receive payments under the Labor government's existing maternity leave scheme which entitles them to another 18 weeks' pay at the minimum wage, providing an extra $11,200.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-coalition-plan/story-fn9qr68y-1226699538231

One obvious group of losers initially at least will be shareholders that receive franked dividends. The franking rate will obviously reduce with the corporate rate, but corporate profit growth with the associated company tax cut will be largely offset by the new levy.


----------



## craft (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> The Coalition has finally released the detail of its generous PPL scheme including the start up date of July 1 2015.
> 
> http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The Coalition’s Policy for Paid Parental Leave.pdf
> 
> ...




A lot of the companies that will pay the levy will already have had substantial maternity schemes in place to retain their good staff.  So to some extent the levy will be offset by lower employment costs as the private maternity schemes are axed.  

Its seems really odd LNP policy for them to get involved with gov’t delivery of what used to be delivered privately at the top end. What happened to smaller government? Seems a weird way to different yourself on the more logical government agenda of minimum maternity leave safety net. 

Confused – but then again I don’t understand politician logic – ANY OF THEM.


----------



## sydboy007 (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

I look forward to seeing how they plan to afford the costs of this policy, along with the corporate tax cuts.

Lot so tax cuts, lots of new spending, so far not much to make me feel they can take on the rentier classes to cut back on spending that does little to help the economy.


----------



## ROE (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> I look forward to seeing how they plan to afford the costs of this policy, along with the corporate tax cuts.
> 
> Lot so tax cuts, lots of new spending, so far not much to make me feel they can take on the rentier classes to cut back on spending that does little to help the economy.




Get rid of negative gearing, that 20bn ...that can fund a lot of stuff 
Why we give tax offset to people whose sole business is losing money


----------



## tech/a (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



ROE said:


> Get rid of negative gearing, that 20bn ...that can fund a lot of stuff
> Why we give tax offset to people whose sole business is losing money




Well that's all well and good.
But you wont be able to find a rental property for love nor money.
You won't see an investor for miles.
Those that can afford to positively gear will be in the position
Of naming their price due to shortage of stock.


----------



## banco (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

If Rudd had rolled out a scheme as expensive as this I can imagine the howls of outrage on ASF.


----------



## FxTrader (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



ROE said:


> Get rid of negative gearing, that 20bn ...that can fund a lot of stuff
> Why we give tax offset to people whose sole business is losing money




Totally abolishing tax offsets for negative gearing will just not happen and the cost last year was 13bn.   It should be limited but it's to hard politically now.  BTW, assets purchased to generate income (rental income or otherwise) are entitled to a tax deduction for interest expense including shares purchased using a margin loan facility.  If the intent of any investment scheme is to lose money to generate tax offsets it's illegal.

As for the paid parental leave scheme, it's simply ridiculous largess and creates a massive new entitlement at a time when such a scheme is least affordable.  Given Liberal rhetoric on wasteful spending this move can only be seen as just another indefensible vote buying policy.


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



FxTrader said:


> Totally abolishing tax offsets for negative gearing will just not happen and the cost last year was 13bn.   It should be limited but it's to hard politically now.  BTW, assets purchased to generate income (rental income or otherwise) are entitled to a tax deduction for interest expense including shares purchased using a margin loan facility.  If the intent of any investment scheme is to lose money to generate tax offsets it's illegal.



Another topic I know but to me it's the negative element from unrelated income (wages) that should be abolished. It will always be politically difficult but the greatest practical difficulty is how to phase it in to avoid the problems Paul Keating had in removing it in the 80's. The current low interest rates help in that regard and its removal should be accompanied by broader reforms to other property taxes such as state based land taxes and property transaction stamp duties.

I've heard very little positive commentary about TA's PPL scheme and the lack of costing detail in the Libs policy statement is not encouraging. It's just more middle class welfare in my view but in an economic context, I would like to see more detail.


----------



## Julia (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



banco said:


> If Rudd had rolled out a scheme as expensive as this I can imagine the howls of outrage on ASF.



If you'd been reading past comments on Mr Abbott's PPL, you would be aware that it has received complete condemnation across ASF members who have been motivated to discuss it.
I've not heard a single positive comment about it, either here or in the broader community.

To add to the scheme's unacceptability, there is this comment from "Business Spectator" today:


> Let me explain how the funding plan works. First there are a series of offsets where the new plan replaces the old schemes and cuts out double dipping. These are genuine savings.
> 
> Then Abbott and Hockey impose a 1.5 per cent levy on taxable company incomes of $5 million or more, which will affect about 3200 companies who represent the bulk of company tax raised.
> 
> ...




It was also not a good look that Joe Hockey, when asked for some detail today, was clearly unable to provide this.
Not being across your own policy at this stage is pretty bad.


----------



## banco (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Baby boomers well past child rearing age aren't big fans?  I'm shocked.


----------



## Julia (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



banco said:


> Baby boomers well past child rearing age aren't big fans?  I'm shocked.



What a silly comment.  Are you going to remark similarly about all the economists who have condemned the policy?  Of course not.  Objective assessment of a policy doesn't have to have anything to do with any personal effect or otherwise.

An aspect I've not heard raised is the women who are already stay at home mothers.  With the abolition of the baby bonus, even if these women have several children, it doesn't look as if they receive anything.


----------



## sptrawler (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



banco said:


> Baby boomers well past child rearing age aren't big fans?  I'm shocked.




So if Rudd rolled it out there would be outrage by ASF members.

However because ASF members are baby boomers, they don't care about it.

Yep pretty well sums up your take on the issue, thanks for the contribution.
Maybe you should put yourself up for pre selection, plenty of space for intellectuals like yourself, in Labor.


----------



## banco (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sptrawler said:


> So if Rudd rolled it out there would be outrage by ASF members.
> 
> However because ASF members are baby boomers, they don't care about it.
> 
> ...




I don't think it's that complicated.  If Rudd rolled it out the opposition would be a lot stronger on here and baby boomers are more likely to dislike the policy than the younger generations because they don't stand to personally benefit.


----------



## sptrawler (19 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



banco said:


> I don't think it's that complicated.  If Rudd rolled it out the opposition would be a lot stronger on here and baby boomers are more likely to dislike the policy than the younger generations because they don't stand to personally benefit.




Are you commenting on your parents? or baby boomers generaly?


----------



## sydboy007 (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



tech/a said:


> Well that's all well and good.
> But you wont be able to find a rental property for love nor money.
> You won't see an investor for miles.
> Those that can afford to positively gear will be in the position
> Of naming their price due to shortage of stock.




This chart shows that the property investors add little to nothing in terms of housing.  If the landords sell either they sell to another landord or they sell to a renter.  How will making changes to NG affect the level of rental accomodation?

I have no issue with NG on the formation of new assets, so long as it's quarantined against the income of that asset.

Since the halving of CGT IPs have had NG totalling around $65B in inflation adjusted terms.

I doubt any changes to NG will occur until we're well on our way to being as stuffed as the Greeks.  Every rentier out there has seen how effective media campaigns are in forcing the Government to back down on any changes.

Whn you're talking hundreds of millions, or billions, a $20 million ad campaign can have a great ROI.

This is a signature policy from Tony.  I hate to think what other grand ideas he will want to implement if he wins the election.


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

In the absence of sufficient costing detail from the Coalition, the media is left to try and work out the numbers themselves.



> The Australian understands the $5.5bn cost of the scheme will be covered by less than $2.5bn a year from the levy, roughly $2bn in savings from replacing Labor's current parental leave scheme and about $1bn in further savings.
> 
> The $1bn includes contributions from state governments as well as savings on family tax benefits and income tax revenue on the parental leave payments.




I suspect the state government contribution will revolve around the federal government recovering the cost of their present state public service schemes that the federal scheme is replacing. If that's the case, there would no net cost to state governments, but the negotiations could still be testy.

The problem with the above numbers is that there's still a $600m shortfall between the $5.5bn cost noted above and the Coalition's latest costing of $6.1bn in their formal announcement.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-libs-baby-bill/story-fn9qr68y-1226700207353


----------



## sptrawler (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> In the absence of sufficient costing detail from the Coalition, the media is left to try and work out the numbers themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I can't help but wonder if Abbott will dump it, saying that he is bowing to public pressure. This would then blow a hole in Labors argument and help Abbotts economic image.


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sptrawler said:


> I can't help but wonder if Abbott will dump it, saying that he is bowing to public pressure. This would then blow a hole in Labors argument and help Abbotts economic image.



He won't dump it, at least not this side of the election.

When in office and there's the usual discovery that the budget is in in a worse position than previously advised, that will be another matter. His direct action climate policies will hopefully also be dispensable in the same sense. It wouldn't surprise me if they keep the mining tax too.


----------



## MrBurns (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> He won't dump it, at least not this side of the election.
> 
> When in office and there's the usual discovery that the budget is in in a worse position than previously advised, that will be another matter. His direct action climate policies will hopefully also be dispensable in the same sense. It wouldn't surprise me if they keep the mining tax too.




After the election the gloves are off but right now the Libs have to play the game, it seems being truly honest isn't an option any more. The ends, however, justify the means,


----------



## McLovin (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

What a disgraceful bit of policy. I'm not sure how the Liberals can keep a straight face while they talk about being the party of business. All the key elements of policy formation are there; a thought bubble when Tony was in the bath, followed by a bit of Excel spreadsheet work to find out how it will be "funded", along with the usual compensation so no one is actually out of pocket. In this case it's a round robin tax hike with an equal tax cut. And all this in a supposed "budget emergency". 

Bah, I've been cycling through Spain and France for the last month, clearly I came back to soon. To quote Greenday, wake me up when September ends.

Oh and I agree on scrapping NG too. Anyone who makes an investment based on a tax writeoff isn't an "investor" (although I did pretty well with my little bet on MMS a few weeks ago). There's three countries in the world with NG, all three also have some of the most unaffordable housing in the world.


----------



## satanoperca (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



tech/a said:


> Well that's all well and good.
> But you wont be able to find a rental property for love nor money.
> You won't see an investor for miles.
> Those that can afford to positively gear will be in the position
> Of naming their price due to shortage of stock.




This is a little disappointing, thought you would know better.

NG does not add to the construction industry or new builds as clearly has been shown.

As for the rental argument, yes you will, people will need somewhere to rent and I am sure there will be investors will to offer them a home for a price.

What it really means is that prices would have to drop significantly for investors to be interested in a real yield and not one subsidized by the taxpayer.

As NG doesn't add to the rental stock to the degrees claimed, NG should only apply on new builds, which would immediately see an uptick in the construction sector, just what the RBA is looking for, would add to supply of rental properties, abet not in an area the gen Y would want but hey.

Cheers


----------



## Julia (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sptrawler said:


> I can't help but wonder if Abbott will dump it, saying that he is bowing to public pressure. This would then blow a hole in Labors argument and help Abbotts economic image.



I agree with drsmith that this is unlikely during the campaign.  Abbott seems genuinely obsessed with this ridiculous, unfair policy.

It's also worrying that, apart from the policy itself, he is demonstrating such obstinacy even in the face of such widespread condemnation of it.   Shows pretty poor judgement on his part imo.


----------



## MrBurns (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Julia said:


> I agree with drsmith that this is unlikely during the campaign.  Abbott seems genuinely obsessed with this ridiculous, unfair policy.
> 
> It's also worrying that, apart from the policy itself, he is demonstrating such obstinacy even in the face of such widespread condemnation of it.   Shows pretty poor judgement on his part imo.




I don't think he has much choice Julia, if he relented now it would be backflip Labor spin from here on.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



MrBurns said:


> After the election the gloves are off but right now the Libs have to play the game, it seems being truly honest isn't an option any more. The ends, however, justify the means,




Honesty is a choice, not an option.

If Abbott chooses to be dishonest, so be it, but don't try to make out he somehow has been forced into it!

Have a read of _The Ethical Brain_ by Michael Gazzaniga.  It describes quite well the "rationlisations" our politicians go through to justify what they do.


----------



## satanoperca (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Firstly, I apologize if I am going over old ground.

But this is a ridiculous policy, just like the child care rebate and before someone tears my head off, I have a young child and are a single father, who has need child care and after school care.

If some sort of controls had of been put in place, like weighting house price increases in the inflation calculations and try to curb the massive RE price increases and debt binge over the last 20 years, none of these schemes would be required.

Property or should I say shelter has got so expensive you now need dad to work, mum to work and soon we will have the children working, tried outsourcing the dog as a drug sniffer but kept returning to my shed, all to support the RE industry and namely the banks.

Our pollies need to grow some balls.

Cheers


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> Honesty is a choice, not an option.



Labor's record in government leaves this as a bigger problem for them than it does for the Opposition.

That's why Labor's consistently behind in the polls.


----------



## sydboy007 (20 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> Labor's record in government leaves this as a bigger problem for them than it does for the Opposition.
> 
> That's why Labor's consistently behind in the polls.




To a degree I agree with you.  The ALP have only themselves to blame for where they are.

I just find it objectionable to say the ends justify the means as some members in this forum seem to believe.  That ends at up with the 'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it'

I'd just like to see the same yard stick applied to both parties, which doesn't seem to happen very often.

Direct Action and PPL are signature Abbott policies.  It amazes me that the ALP have taken a far more market approach to both issues.  At least with the current PPL scheme from labor companies that have their own more generous schemes still benefit from that.  Under Abbotts scheme that is no longer the case.

Even the Greens seem to be more market based with their way of handling climate change.  Admittedly they tend to go too extreme, but they do seem to believe it's best to set the goal and let the market achieve it.


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> To a degree I agree with you.  The ALP have only themselves to blame for where they are.
> 
> I just find it objectionable to say the ends justify the means as some members in this forum seem to believe.  That ends at up with the 'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it'
> 
> ...



With regards to ends justifying the means, the comparison is Labor destroying the town to save it's own club. For the electorate as a whole, it's going to be a question of rating one side relative to the other.

I won't comment directly on other members, but in a broad sense, acknowledgement of something does not necessarily equate to acceptance. 

While I don't agree with either of the Coalition's Direct Action or PPL leave policies, the characteristics of Labor's carbon tax policy in particular was not a product of sound economic management. If it was, the price itself would be far lower than it is now. It was an ends justifies the means outcome for Labor in terms of gaining office with the Greens and Independents.


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> Direct Action and PPL are signature Abbott policies.




Yes both policies are stupid, unnecessary and wasteful of billions with negative cost/benefits, especially Direct Action, now that the Global Warming industry is in continuing decline.





http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/the-day-the-global-warming-death-spiral-began/


----------



## sails (21 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> ...While I don't agree with either of the Coalition's Direct Action or PPL leave policies, the characteristics of Labor's carbon tax policy in particular was not a product of sound economic management. If it was, the price itself would be far lower than it is now. It was an ends justifies the means outcome for Labor in terms of gaining office with the Greens and Independents.





I don't agree with Direct Action and PPL either, but it's the choice between that or how many more hundreds of billions in debt under labor plus uncontrolled borders at massive cost while the people we are supposed to be helping keep missing out.  And an ETS that, by treasury's predictions, could go to $38 per tonne in a few short years.

I feel we have to put up with the least damaging policies offered by the coalition.  There are no other choices.  Voting for minor parties generally sees their preferences go to one or the other major two.

So it's a choice of more of the same for 6 years or a change with a couple of policies I don't like but better chance of improving the country.


----------



## Julia (21 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Agree with all the above, again it comes down to the least worst alternative which is pretty depressing.

Radio National this morning spent quite some time following up on Robert Gottleibson's observation yesterday about the loss of franking credits and therefore that shareholders will be helping to pay for the Coalition's PPL.
This will affect a lot of people, not just retirees.

Might be worth some emails to local federal candidates?


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sails said:


> I feel we have to put up with the least damaging policies offered by the coalition.  There are no other choices.  Voting for minor parties generally sees their preferences go to one or the other major two.
> 
> So it's a choice of more of the same for 6 years or a change with a couple of policies I don't like but better chance of improving the country.



That's essentially it. 

In relation to so-called carbon price, we need to go back to the drawing board with the starting point being the effective price from current subsidies for renewable energy such as solar. I hope the Libs direct action is an early victim of the budget reality.

------------------------------------------------------------------



drsmith said:


> One obvious group of losers initially at least will be shareholders that receive franked dividends. The franking rate will obviously reduce with the corporate rate, but corporate profit growth with the associated company tax cut will be largely offset by the new levy.




The above issue with the PPL scheme corporate levy has now hit the mainstream media.



> SHAREHOLDERS will take a $1.6 billion annual hit from Tony Abbott's parental leave scheme by losing tax breaks on their dividends, sparking furious calls last night for the Opposition Leader to reveal the details of his plan.
> 
> Escalating the fight over the controversial policy, experts urged the Coalition to release the policy costings it has withheld for the past four days to clarify how companies would pay a 1.5 per cent levy to fund the scheme.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-plan-introduced/story-fn9qr68y-1226700927225


----------



## Logique (21 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

PPL - so there are to be different classes of babies then.

Some babies are worth 6 mths @ $150k pa, while others are only worth 6 mths @ $600 per week, and still others must sit in detention centres for months, or years @ $zero.

The class system is alive and well if you are a baby.

Not a good look for conservative party leader with three daughters of marriageable age.


----------



## burglar (21 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Logique said:


> PPL - so there are to be different classes of babies then.
> 
> Some babies are worth 6 mths @ $150k pa, while others are only worth 6 mths @ $600 per week, and still others must sit in detention centres for months, or years @ $zero.
> 
> ...





Hi Logique,

The three daughters (of marriageable age) probably pressganged him into it!


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



burglar said:


> The three daughters (of marriageable age) probably pressganged him into it!




Perhaps he (TA) is trying to avoid the dowry.


----------



## banco (21 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Logique said:


> PPL - so there are to be different classes of babies then.
> 
> Some babies are worth 6 mths @ $150k pa, while others are only worth 6 mths @ $600 per week, and still others must sit in detention centres for months, or years @ $zero.
> 
> ...




Surely shoring up the class system is one the duties of a conservative party leader?


----------



## Julia (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Already the rorts of Tony Abbott's PPL are being worked out.  A caller to RN's "Life Matters" program, a small business owner, said he thought it was a great opportunity for him and his wife.

His wife presently takes no part in the business.  She stays at home, doing something entirely unrelated.
The caller said they would 'put her on the books' at $150,000 p.a. for a while before they wanted to start a family, she would duly conceive, and whacko, they get the full parental leave payment at the highest rate.
There was at no stage any notion of her actually doing even an hour's work in the business


----------



## tech/a (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Julia said:


> Already the rorts of Tony Abbott's PPL are being worked out.  A caller to RN's "Life Matters" program, a small business owner, said he thought it was a great opportunity for him and his wife.
> 
> His wife presently takes no part in the business.  She stays at home, doing something entirely unrelated.
> The caller said they would 'put her on the books' at $150,000 p.a. for a while before they wanted to start a family, she would duly conceive, and whacko, they get the full parental leave payment at the highest rate.
> There was at no stage any notion of her actually doing even an hour's work in the business




Easy way around that is an average of taxed earnings over the last 3 yrs.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Julia said:


> Already the rorts of Tony Abbott's PPL are being worked out.  A caller to RN's "Life Matters" program, a small business owner, said he thought it was a great opportunity for him and his wife.
> 
> His wife presently takes no part in the business.  She stays at home, doing something entirely unrelated.
> The caller said they would 'put her on the books' at $150,000 p.a. for a while before they wanted to start a family, she would duly conceive, and whacko, they get the full parental leave payment at the highest rate.
> There was at no stage any notion of her actually doing even an hour's work in the business



I would have thought he would have been doing that as a means of income splitting.


----------



## Ves (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> I would have thought he would have been doing that as a means of income splitting.



He probably is.  It just shows up on her ITR as a dividend or a trust distribution, rather than a salary.   All he is doing is manipulating the taxable earnings to gain access the PPL scheme.  The net tax effect across all entities and individuals would be the same,   but she could still potentially get the PPL benefit.

Our tax system is broken - those who earn a salary / wage and don't run a business probably have no idea what goes on, but the amount of legal tax reduction schemes open to those with business structures would be alarming to them if they did.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Ves said:


> Our tax system is broken - those who earn a salary / wage and don't run a business probably have no idea what goes on, but the amount of legal tax reduction schemes open to those with business structures would be alarming to them if they did.



He might also have a trust structure within the family and be diverting taxable income to other family members.


----------



## Ves (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> He might also have a trust structure within the family and be diverting taxable income to other family members.



Who also don't work in the business.


----------



## sydboy007 (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

I'm wondering when the first state Govt is going to renegotiate PPL with the unions should Abbott move into the Lodge.

Since Abbott expects the States to handover any money they currently payout on their schemes, seems ripe for them to shift the full cost onto the federal Govt.

I'm sure the unions wont mind helping to cause a cost blowout with little downside to themselves.


----------



## McLovin (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Ves said:


> Our tax system is broken - those who earn a salary / wage and don't run a business probably have no idea what goes on, but the amount of legal tax reduction schemes open to those with business structures would be alarming to them if they did.




Yes, I agree. Our company tax rate is too high, but the ease with which income which is really just derived from the labour output of an individual can be corporatised or split across families is an area that is ripe for reform.

I mean realistically, should a plumber, builder, accountant, lawyer be able to distribute his taxable income through a trust to his wife and retired parents?


----------



## Ves (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



McLovin said:


> I mean realistically, should a plumber, builder, accountant, lawyer be able to distribute his taxable income through a trust to his wife and retired parents?



Surely, it would not be too hard to make the personal services income (PSI) rules a lot stricter?


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> I'm wondering when the first state Govt is going to renegotiate PPL with the unions should Abbott move into the Lodge.
> 
> Since Abbott expects the States to handover any money they currently payout on their schemes, seems ripe for them to shift the full cost onto the federal Govt.
> 
> I'm sure the unions wont mind helping to cause a cost blowout with little downside to themselves.




You needn't worry Syd. If Abbott wind the election, the PPL will quietly go on the back burner. If Rudd wins, the PNG "solution" will wither away. 

It's easier that way than breaking promises *before* the election.


----------



## sydboy007 (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Calliope said:


> You needn't worry Syd. If Abbott wind the election, the PPL will quietly go on the back burner. If Rudd wins, the PNG "solution" will wither away.
> 
> It's easier that way than breaking promises *before* the election.




Maybe.  His  pigheadedness makes me fear he will find it too hard to back down.

But then that seems to kill off the Abbott is a value leaders rhetoric ASF members like to polish the Abbott halo with.

Seems you believe he's no more honest than any other politician that wants their butt on the treasury benches.  Are you with Mr Burns on the ends justifies the means?


----------



## Julia (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



McLovin said:


> Yes, I agree. Our company tax rate is too high, but the ease with which income which is really just derived from the labour output of an individual can be corporatised or split across families is an area that is ripe for reform.
> 
> I mean realistically, should a plumber, builder, accountant, lawyer be able to distribute his taxable income through a trust to his wife and retired parents?



No.   Neither should anyone be able to make up a  job that doesn't exist and charge the taxpayer and business for it for their own personal benefit.
If it's legally acceptable, then it's absolutely not, imo, morally acceptable.

But perhaps no surprise in a country which holds up an outlaw as a national hero.


----------



## sydboy007 (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Ves said:


> Surely, it would not be too hard to make the personal services income (PSI) rules a lot stricter?




Considering the MSM howls of death and despair over the changes to the car FBT, I dare say any tax changes post election will be nigh on impossible.  Abbott has put a bulls-eye on himself for all rent seekers to use all tactics to kill off any form of meaningful tax reform.  He'Combine that with him being against means testing of Govt benefits and I have no idea where he expects to save the money.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> But then that seems to kill off the Abbott is a value leaders rhetoric ASF members like to polish the Abbott halo with.



That makeup artist yesterday must have baulked at Kev's request to polish his a***.


----------



## Calliope (23 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> Seems you believe he's no more honest than any other politician that wants their butt on the treasury benches.




As I have said before "of two evils choose the lesser". I would have preferred to see Rudd turfed out by a Coalition led by Turnbull or Hockey, but I guess we will have to take what we get.



> Are you with Mr Burns on the ends justifies the means?




Sometimes. Radical surgery is often necessary to excise a malignant cancer.


----------



## johenmo (23 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Julia said:


> But perhaps no surprise in a country which holds up an outlaw as a national hero.




And we bowl better underarm...


----------



## waza1960 (28 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

IMO The PPS is worth it just to show that Abbott sticks to his guns and doesn't change policy because of the polls
  The costs are exaggerated and the policy will probably be dropped or scaled back when the extent of Labors'
  debt is exposed after the election


----------



## Logique (28 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Electoral gold, no question on that. Labor must be seething - outdone on their own turf, and a fair bit of hypocrisy exposed.

But the Coalition will raid imputation credits on shares to help pay for it.


----------



## Calliope (28 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Logique said:


> Electoral gold, no question on that. Labor must be seething - outdone on their own turf, and a fair bit of hypocrisy exposed.
> 
> But the Coalition will raid imputation credits on shares to help pay for it.




Labor's negative ad says it all. A bitter old woman well past the breeding age complaining that the money should go to people like her...the politics of envy. Most of the opposition is just sour grapes.

I have been won over to this policy. It makes sense to encourage more high calibre women to have more high calibre children. If it reduces my dividends slightly...so be it.



> But he highlighted the benefits for well educated women in top executive roles under his proposed payments.
> 
> Mr Abbott today said these women were "in the prime of life and they should be able not just to have kids, but to have careers".
> 
> ...


----------



## Logique (28 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

The Coalition are saying this morning they'll release costings to prove the Coalition scheme is overall cheaper than Labor's. So that makes me feel better about it.


----------



## drsmith (28 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Logique said:


> The Coalition are saying this morning they'll release costings to prove the Coalition scheme is overall cheaper than Labor's. So that makes me feel better about it.



The Coalition has already leaked the costings,



> The paid parental leave costings to be released by Mr Hockey today will show the gross cost of the scheme in the first two years will be $9.8bn. But this is reduced to $6.1bn by abolishing the existing scheme offering new mothers 18 weeks at the minimum wage, which Labor legislated in 2010.
> 
> The PBO calculates that a further $1.2bn will be saved by replacing the existing generous commonwealth and state PPL schemes. Another $1.6bn will be saved from reduced payments of family and other benefits and the income tax collected on PPL payments. The levy of 1.5 per cent on company taxable income above $5 million will raise $4.4bn in the first two years. The levy is not eligible for franking credits and cannot be claimed by business as a tax deduction. The Coalition sought to neutralise the business backlash against the levy by offering a matching 1.5 per cent company tax. This will cost more than $5bn in the first two years.




The costings over two years can be summarised as follows,

Gross cost: $9.8bn.
Net cost: $6.1bn (after abolishing Labor's existing scheme).

Savings:

$1.2bn from existing state and federal public sector schemes.
$1.6bn in tax transfer savings (increased income tax and reduced entitlement to other benefits).
$4.4bn from the 1.5% corporate levy on companies earning over $5m.

These savings amount to $7.2bn resulting in a net benefit to the budget of $1.1bn. 

The corporate tax cut though is costed at greater than $5bn over two years. After taking that into account, the net cost of the PPL scheme and corporate tax cut combined is over $3.9bn. 

What's not clear though in the article is whether the >$5bn cost of the 1.5% corporate tax cut is gross (before imputation credit flow through to shareholders) or net. If it's the former, the final cost to the budget will be less.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...by-boosts-budget/story-fn9qr68y-1226705344273


----------



## sydboy007 (28 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> Savings:
> 
> $1.2bn from existing state and federal public sector schemes.
> $1.6bn in tax transfer savings (increased income tax and reduced entitlement to other benefits).
> $4.4bn from the 1.5% corporate levy on companies earning over $5m.




I do wonder if any state Govt will do a deal with the unions to remove PPL from their benefits.  I dare say a proposal along the lines of shifting the cost to Canberra in exchange for no job losses for a few years would be seen as a win win by both side.

I also wonder if they've budgeted for an increase in the birth rate as that seems to be one of the arguments for this policy.  Certainly there could be some pull forward in peoples plans to have a child.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Richard T. Green is the only economist I’ve seen actually properly frame the debate in terms of moral motivations, and the potential success of policies in addressing the moral arguments.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/08/09/paid-parental-leave-motivations-and-policy/

1    The Rights Motivation - Having a baby is a universal right and if people cannot afford to take the time off work that is necessary to have a baby, the state should enable them to do so. 

2    The Pro-Natalist Motivation - We need more babies.

3    The  Equality Motivation - The time taken off will inevitably fall partially on women (since she has to give birth) and then almost always the period of extreme infancy through the choices of the parents (conditioned by culture and economics). It is unfair that a mother cannot earn money by selling her labour in this period whilst a father can, so the state should compensate her for the unfairness of biology and cultural norms.

While I don't agree with any of these as a reason to use tax payer funds, I can see 1 & 3 being the ones most widely accepted under the ideals of equality


----------



## waza1960 (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Thanks for that Syd .Yes I think 1 & 3 are fair .
      2 is  ridiculous.


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> While I don't agree with any of these as a reason to use tax payer funds, I can see 1 & 3 being the ones most widely accepted under the ideals of equality




Of course you don't. On another thread you said; 
"Yet I would say the majority of same sex "marriages" would have no interest in children. I certainly don't." 
On the subject of PPL your worry is that a small part of your taxes would go to support a cause which is anathema to you and your mates.

Your taxes on this issue would be insignificant when compared with the $200,000 cost of welcoming and supporting *each* illegal immigrant to Australia... a subject on which you are strangely silent. Your preferences are as skewed as your politics...illegals before babies apparently.

I would like to make a disclaimer; I am pro-family and I am pro-motherhood, but I suppose that is part and parcel of being a conservative.


----------



## Julia (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



> Direct Action and PPL are signature Abbott policies.





Calliope said:


> Yes both policies are stupid, unnecessary and wasteful of billions with negative cost/benefits...






Calliope said:


> Of course you don't. On another thread you said;
> "Yet I would say the majority of same sex "marriages" would have no interest in children. I certainly don't."
> On the subject of PPL your worry is that a small part of your taxes would go to support a cause which is anathema to you and your mates.
> 
> ...



Apparently a complete conversion has taken place.


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Julia said:


> Apparently a complete conversion has taken place.




Not a complete conversion. I am still opposed to Direct Action.

 I saw the light on PPL when I saw that the opposition was mainly from class envy, bitterness, and sour grapes as epitomised by this nasty woman in the commercial. I can't think of a better use for my taxes than to assist in making pregnancy leave  easier for high achieving women to have children who may follow in their footsteps.

It is certainly a better use of taxes than encouraging young girls to become pregnant to collect the baby bonus and both mother and child to be welfare dependent


----------



## DocK (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Calliope said:


> Labor's negative ad says it all. A bitter old woman well past the breeding age complaining that the money should go to people like her...the politics of envy. Most of the opposition is just sour grapes.
> 
> I have been won over to this policy. It makes sense to encourage more high calibre women to have more high calibre children. If it reduces my dividends slightly...so be it.




I'm slightly bemused to find I agree with Calliope on this one    I too have been won over.  My thinking changed most when I stopped viewing PPL as a welfare payment and viewed it more in terms of a workplace entitlement.  One of the benefits of bringing in a PPL and doing away with the baby bonus is that it removes the incentives for silly teenagers to deliberately fall pregnant in order to get the baby bonus.  Another plus is that those who will receive it will continue to pay tax on it, and have super contributions deducted from it (I'm presuming the payments will be treated much as annual leave/long service leave etc).   For all the hoohaa about women on $150,000 being paid $75,000 to have a baby - let's get real about exactly how many women this will apply to.  In reality the vast majority of recipients will be middle to lower income earners who face much tougher barriers to motherhood than prior generations have, including mine.  Times change, societies evolve, housing affordability is not what it used to be and Australia needs a growing population.  To my mind, the % of women in top executive roles is woefully small, and any measures that make our workplaces more "equal" are worth exploring.  The minor loss of franking credits is a small price to pay for the potential benefits to business, the economy and our society in retaining the skills and expertise of professional women imo.  Also, do we really want to encourage or discourage young couples from providing future taxpayers?  It's all very well to say having a baby is a choice and if you can't afford it you shouldn't expect taxpayers or retirees to fund it - but if our national birthrate drops much more we'll be very dependant on immigration alone to fund the pensions, health care and infrastructure required by the current naysayers.

However - I also agree with the sentiment voiced by a panellist on Q&A this week who considered that the funds may be put to better use in the child care arena.  One of the greatest barriers to women returning to the workplace after childbirth is the lack of appropriate childcare.  School finishes at 3 - 3.30pm and the vast majority of drop-offs and pick-ups are done by Mum.  Many families contain a parent who has sacrificed a career, or at least given up hope of advancement,  rather than have the kids in the before and after school care facilities that are now available.  I wonder how many mothers who collect PPL and return to work initially, will still find it too difficult to maintain their roles once the kids start school if our current child care options aren't improved?


----------



## McLovin (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



			
				DocK said:
			
		

> To my mind, the % of women in top executive roles is woefully small, and any measures that make our workplaces more "equal" are worth exploring.




If that's the desired outcome, which I agree is a worthy goal, then why not make the payments means tested to household income? You would agree there is a lot of waste (or misallocated resources) in just handing out money regardless of someone's financial situation.

Personally, I think choosing to start a family requires a bit of planning and a couple even on modest incomes should be able to save for that period where a new mother may not work. What really gets me is the entitlement mentality that almost seems to be saying having children is such a burden, society should foot the bill.



			
				DocK said:
			
		

> However - I also agree with the sentiment voiced by a panellist on Q&A this week who considered that the funds may be put to better use in the child care arena.




That's not a bad idea. The cost of long daycare is a bigger impediment on women returning to the workplace than a 6 month period after birth.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> Apparently a complete conversion has taken place.




St Ambrose of Calliope.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Calliope said:


> Of course you don't. On another thread you said;
> "Yet I would say the majority of same sex "marriages" would have no interest in children. I certainly don't."
> On the subject of PPL your worry is that a small part of your taxes would go to support a cause which is anathema to you and your mates.
> 
> ...




Calliope

I'd dare say I'm very much pro family and do remember the days when a parent was able to stay at home by choice.  My mum did cleaning work, but was there to help me and my brother off to school in the morning, and was usually there when we got home.  No rushing around to get driven to school either.  We used to ride our bikes the 1.5km to the primary school.  I see that a much preferable way of life to the hectic rush to throw the kids off at school then burn rubber to get to work, only to try and get it working in reverse once school is finished.

Possibly a better way to achieve this would be to get housing back to the levels where a reasonable single wage could allow 1 partner to choose to stay at home, or both partners to work part time, so as to be there for the kids.

It does seem ridiculous that as a country we see the relentless rise of house prices as a good thing, somehow forgetting it's a basic need.  It's shelter, and maybe that's a term we need to use more than housing.  Affordable shelter should be more of a right than PPL, but then you're a _boomer _and have benefited quite nicely by the pricing of FHBs out from the market eh.

PPL is going to cost quite a few billions.  I'd argue that money could be used in many ways to actively benefit society by getting shelter back to a level where a true middle single income is able to support it.  The family first housing policy certainly is on the right track.  They've taken some of the measures used in Texas that has helped to keep that state with some of the most affordable shelter in the USA, while having some of the highest population growth in the country AND some of the fastest income growth as well.

The below chart shows just how expensive the basic need of shelter has become.  It took 4 decades to double in price -1950-90, but the real kicker is that rocket ship trajectory from around 2000.  I wonder what policy changed at that time that could have caused a basic right / need to rise in cost by some 40% in just a few years?

He's the view of one of your boomer buddies, Harry Triguboff:

“Our buyers don’t come in, not because prices are dear, but because we decided that property values should not go up. And no body wants to spend money on an investment which doesn’t go up. So we must decide if we want local people to buy, then prices must keep on going up…

The Government should never be worried about how to push prices down. All they do is just raise the interest rate… So there’s no problem…”.

There I was thinking home ownership should be primarily about shelter.  Now I understand.  The _boomers _say it's an asset and must forever increase in value.  Nice to know.

ps I'm pro parenthood.  Speaking from the experience of my childhood, though we were poor, my parents were around most of the time, certainly I got to spend a lot more time with my Dad than most of the kids I went to school with.  I learned a lot from him about the basics of life.  Since I like maths he'd give me the family finances as "homework" and from a young age I quickly learned the value of money and that you pay for the things you really need before thinking about the new star wars action figure you really really want.  Don't let ideology blind you Calliope.  My boomer references above are mainly to show how silly it is to try and group a large number of people together and present them as a single mentality.  Most of us are quite diverse in our ways of thinking.


----------



## pixel (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



McLovin said:


> If that's the desired outcome, which I agree is a worthy goal, then why not make the payments means tested to household income? You would agree there is a lot of waste (or misallocated resources) in just handing out money regardless of someone's financial situation.




+1 Definitely!



> Personally, I think choosing to start a family requires a bit of planning and a couple even on modest incomes should be able to save for that period where a new mother may not work.




Make choices in life depending on your personal circumstances. But don't expect others to pay for it!



> What really gets me is the entitlement mentality that almost seems to be saying having children is such a burden, society should foot the bill.




That's my main bugbear: The assumption "I'm entitled to receive ..." 
*Society* (the Taxpayer) *does NOT owe you a living!*


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> Affordable shelter should be more of a right than PPL, but then you're a boomer and have benefited quite nicely by the pricing of FHBs out from the market eh.




Eh??  A typical snide comment. Actually I am a parent of boomers. My wife and I couldn't afford to buy a house for our family until I was 35, and we could only afford it then through a War Service Homes entitlement. This allowed us to obtain a very ordinary house on a reasonable deposit, which took years to save, and at a low fixed interest.

I have benefited quite nicely, but not through real estate...just through dedication to work. I am a self-funded retiree.


----------



## Julia (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



McLovin said:


> If that's the desired outcome, which I agree is a worthy goal, then why not make the payments means tested to household income? You would agree there is a lot of waste (or misallocated resources) in just handing out money regardless of someone's financial situation.
> 
> Personally, I think choosing to start a family requires a bit of planning and a couple even on modest incomes should be able to save for that period where a new mother may not work. What really gets me is the entitlement mentality that almost seems to be saying having children is such a burden, society should foot the bill.



+1.



sydboy007 said:


> PPL is going to cost quite a few billions.  I'd argue that money could be used in many ways to actively benefit society by getting shelter back to a level where a true middle single income is able to support it.  The family first housing policy certainly is on the right track.  They've taken some of the measures used in Texas that has helped to keep that state with some of the most affordable shelter in the USA, while having some of the highest population growth in the country AND some of the fastest income growth as well.



Agree.  Makes sense to me also.



pixel said:


> Make choices in life depending on your personal circumstances. But don't expect others to pay for it!
> 
> That's my main bugbear: The assumption "I'm entitled to receive ..."
> *Society* (the Taxpayer) *does NOT owe you a living!*



+1.


----------



## Calliope (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

I disagree with the mean-spirited sentiments shown above. But obviously you are not for turning. However, Abbott is home and hosed and so is his PPL policy.  I suggest you follow your natural inclinations to deny *all mothers *access to the same level of PPL salary maintenance as public servants, and in protest vote for Rudd, who shares your envy of successful women...even though he is married to one.


----------



## medicowallet (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Calliope said:


> I disagree with the mean-spirited sentiments shown above. But obviously you are not for turning. However, Abbott is home and hosed and so is his PPL policy.  I suggest you follow your natural inclinations to deny *all mothers *access to the same level of PPL salary maintenance as public servants, and in protest vote for Rudd, who shares your envy of successful women...even though he is married to one.




I am actually warming to this, however I see one major flaw.

The problem with this country is workforce participation rates.

I am sure that a generous PPL will help women go out of work and then return, as opposed to going out of work, never to return again.  BIG POSITIVE

However, for 6 months, ALL working women on 150k or less will NOT work, as opposed to now where they may be back in a few months.  BIG NEGATIVE

This could be terrible for participation for women of child bearing age.

I can also see employers NOT employing women, as finding temporary staffing for 6 whole months is just crazy (and as a person whose business employed over 20 women of child bearing age at a time, although this would never concern me, I could see some of my competitors changing employment practices)

This is a very interesting development, but perhaps the status quo is more manageable?

MW


----------



## sails (29 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Calliope said:


> I disagree with the mean-spirited sentiments shown above. But obviously you are not for turning. However, Abbott is home and hosed and so is his PPL policy.  I suggest you follow your natural inclinations to deny *all mothers *access to the same level of PPL salary maintenance as public servants, and in protest vote for Rudd, who shares your envy of successful women...even though he is married to one.




Ths is the interesting thing that women working in the public service already get something similar to PPL - and that is paid out of the public purse.  Where are the complaints at the unfairness that those in the PS get this paid out of taxpayer funds?  

It seems the PPL makes it fairer.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Calliope said:


> I disagree with the mean-spirited sentiments shown above. But obviously you are not for turning. However, Abbott is home and hosed and so is his PPL policy.  I suggest you follow your natural inclinations to deny *all mothers *access to the same level of PPL salary maintenance as public servants, and in protest vote for Rudd, who shares your envy of successful women...even though he is married to one.




The PPL that is avalable to public servants has been negotiated between the Employer and Employees.  It's no different to the private enterprises that have done similar schemes, which would be a draw card for talented women.

We seem to have moved to being a society where there is no sacrifice to achieve some of the goals in life.  Having children is a big decision, personally, financially, socially.  I think society already provides a great deal of support - and rightly so - to families.

I just don't understand why people think it's sensible to spread welfare to those in the top half of the income ladder.  I'd be willing to bet that the money for Abotts PPL could generate many times the economic return if it was used to help those at the bottom of the income ladder.  tax revenue is a scarce resource.  Best we get the greatest economic return we can.


----------



## McLovin (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sails said:


> Ths is the interesting thing that women working in the public service already get something similar to PPL - and that is paid out of the public purse.  Where are the complaints at the unfairness that those in the PS get this paid out of taxpayer funds?




My issue is with the nature of the payment not the source. If an employee has negotiated a leave scheme with their employer, whether public or private, then good for them. I don't want the government or employers to be compelled to, above a minimum safety net.


----------



## Tink (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Good on you Calliope for seeing the light and turning this discussion around, I agree with you. 
Public service and some private businesses have had similar for years. This makes it fair across the board as sails has said.

Agree DocK, it is the way you view it, as a work entitlement rather than a welfare payment.


----------



## Logique (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

I think if a private sector employee is talented enough, and productive enough, they have the credentials to negotiate a parental leave deal with their employer. It's called the free market. 

That's where I think it should rest. 

It's true that public sector unions have negotiated universal schemes, and while I think there's a need to revisit this policy, it is often part of a low to average salary package, and in a background workplace environment of declining staff numbers, and year on year productivity increases.

I can tell you, when young women are looking to start a family, they circle around government jobs, like sharks around a shipwrecked sailor. That is their right, but I'm not sure it's the best outcome for productivity. Some don't reappear after maternity leave finishes.


----------



## Calliope (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> I just don't understand why people think it's sensible to spread welfare to those in the top half of the income ladder.




You are right, if you call it welfare. I am inclined to see it as an investment in our future. The Labor government has made huge welfare payments to Holden. They prefer to call it an investment in our future.


----------



## DocK (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

It's easy to lose sight of the fact that there are thousands of small businesses that simply couldn't afford to pay 6 month's leave to an absent employee, no matter how talented they were, nor how much they wanted to retain their services in the future.  It's easy to say if you're valuable enough you'll be able to negotiate your own deal, but this is often most unlikely in the real world.  I'll admit to having "small business bias", but I'm in favour of anything that helps to even the playing field between big business and small.  As has been stated, a lot of the very large businesses already run a similar scheme, so their bottom line shouldn't really be much affected if a 1.5% tax cut is nullified by a 1.5% levy, and they still get to retain their talented employees.  Those in the public service will no longer be able to double dip and will have their leave funded partly by big business and the scrapping of schemes like the baby bonus, rather than have their leave wholly funded by the taxpayer as it currently stands - surely this is a good thing?  The PPL scheme might go some way to a more even spread of talent across public and private sectors, large business and small.  It doesn't seem right to me that a public servant can be paid leave from the public purse, but an admin assistant at a small or medium business misses out.  Most of the employers who currently have a parental leave scheme would be based in the cities wouldn't they?  Maybe an even PPL across the board will go some way to helping regional areas keep their young people?

I can certainly see why some begrudge those on higher incomes receiving what they perceive to be a welfare payment, and question why it should not be means tested.  This is where I think you need to distinguish the difference between a workplace entitlement and a welfare payment.  To my understanding the PPL is meant to operate just like any other salary-based leave entitlement, and will encourage women to strive for positions at executive level.  To means test it would simply be yet another disincentive to those that are willing or able to put in the hard yards to be worth that higher salary.  

To address the notion that young people see having children as a burden, and expect society to help pay it - I think this is over-egging the pudding, so to speak.  It's true that many of us have managed to raise a family without the benefit of a PPL scheme, or have chosen not to have children, or have not yet been faced with the many decisions/household budget juggling that comes when you're at the stage of life when having babies becomes a viable option.  I doubt that many new parents see their children as a burden, just as I doubt that many expect  society to pay for them, but it's undeniable that society as a whole is quite different to what it was in decades past and our society as a whole will be better off if women can remain productive members of the community and some of the barriers to parenthood are eased.  Personally, I'd love to live long enough to see what, if any, difference a larger % of women in executive boardrooms might make.  I can clearly remember Peter Costello urging Australians to "have one for Mum, one for Dad, and one for your country".  Our economy needs a growing population if it is to thrive.  The present Gen X will need future taxpayers to fund healthcare, disability schemes, infrastructure and maybe even their age pensions if they still exist.  Even self-funded retirees benefit from the public services funded by the taxpayer - is it such a bad thing if as a society we make it easier to have children, rather than harder?  

I, and many of my female friends, have given up careers or the likelihood of promotion in order to raise our kids.  For most of us the decision was made voluntarily and most often was prompted by a disinclination to have our kids in before-school care, after-school care, vacation-care etc.  Some of my acquaintances have become the main breadwinner while their husbands have reduced work hours, some have continuing "negotiations" about whose career takes prominence, some struggle with guilt over the hours their kids are in care, and a very few are fortunate enough to have parents happy to be regular carers.  To my knowledge none of us see our children as burdens, but we'd all probably have loved to have had some easier options.  I still think the main issue for working mothers, or those who would like to remain in the workforce, is that of satisfactory childcare.  Many of you will see this as wanting to "have your cake and eat it too" - but isn't this what an evolving society should aim for?  Why begrudge future generations what wasn't an option for you and be mean-spirited when you could take the view that our society is progressing in a positive way?  I guess it's just another issue where most people's views will be influenced by their own personal experience, and what the bottom line is for their hip pocket right now.  Fair enough.  Personally I'm happy to forego a few franking credits for the benefit of my future possible daughters-in-law (should I ever have any), and for the possible satisfaction of seeing more women in positions of power in our country - I do however realise that is a very personal position and one that won't necessarily be popular with many on this forum.


----------



## waza1960 (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

A great post +1 for me


----------



## psailagroup (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Interesting topic!!! I really hope liberal win for the sake of change but from my opinion Australia will always be in the red and not in the black.

As years go bye Australia will borrow and borrow more... Simply as that!!!

Why?
People want results now and people do not understand that it will take decades to wipe out the current debt.


----------



## McLovin (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



DocK said:


> As has been stated, a lot of the very large businesses already run a similar scheme, so their bottom line shouldn't really be much affected if a 1.5% tax cut is nullified by a 1.5% levy, and they still get to retain their talented employees.  Those in the public service will no longer be able to double dip and will have their leave funded partly by big business and the scrapping of schemes like the baby bonus, rather than have their leave wholly funded by the taxpayer as it currently stands - surely this is a good thing?




"Big business" is a taxpayer just like the rest of us, so they are paying for it now and will continue to pay for it. The company tax rate in Australia is already high by OECD standards. From what I've seen, this is the most generous PPL in the world outside of Scandinavia, perhaps if we are going to slide closer to cradle to grave cash welfare payments we need a tax system that can deal with that. Of course, if you try to increase individual tax rates to pay for the welfare payments that people feel entitled to you'll get the usual cost of living pressure arguments and how "people are doing it tough", easier to just make "big business" pay for it. That's the perverse nature of these entitlement programs, they're always worthwhile as long as someone else is paying for them.



			
				DocK said:
			
		

> I can certainly see why some begrudge those on higher incomes receiving what they perceive to be a welfare payment, and question why it should not be means tested.  This is where I think you need to distinguish the difference between a workplace entitlement and a welfare payment.




So where do the entitlements stop? In France, they give you a government subsidised nanny. Should we consider that to be workplace entitlements as well? How about making employers pay for their employee's children's daycare? (FWIW, I think addressing the cost of daycare is a far better way of getting women back to work than paying them not to work)

PS: Not trying to sound agressive DocK, while I disagreed, I enjoyed your post.


----------



## Calliope (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Tink said:


> Good on you Calliope for seeing the light and turning this discussion around, I agree with you.
> Public service and some private businesses have had similar for years. This makes it fair across the board as sails has said.
> 
> Agree DocK, it is the way you view it, as a work entitlement rather than a welfare payment.




Thanks Tink for your support when I was being assailed for my support of old fashioned family values. They are now passÃ© among the Cafe latte set.

Originally Posted by DocK 



> Why begrudge future generations what wasn't an option for you and be mean-spirited when you could take the view that our society is progressing in a positive way? I guess it's just another issue where most people's views will be influenced by their own personal experience, and what the bottom line is for their hip pocket right now. Fair enough. Personally I'm happy to forego a few franking credits for the benefit of my future possible daughters-in-law (should I ever have any), and for the possible satisfaction of seeing more women in positions of power in our country - I do however realise that is a very personal position and one that won't necessarily be popular with many on this forum.



 I think this puts it in a nutshell. Thank Doc for an intelligent and well reasoned post. I have two grand daughters-in-law who have high powered and influential jobs in private companies. To my regret having children seems to be at the bottom of their agenda.


----------



## DocK (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



McLovin said:


> "Big business" is a taxpayer just like the rest of us, so they are paying for it now and will continue to pay for it. The company tax rate in Australia is already high by OECD standards. From what I've seen, this is the most generous PPL in the world outside of Scandinavia, perhaps if we are going to slide closer to cradle to grave cash welfare payments we need a tax system that can deal with that. Of course, if you try to increase individual tax rates to pay for the welfare payments that people feel entitled to you'll get the usual cost of living pressure arguments and how "people are doing it tough", easier to just make "big business" pay for it. That's the perverse nature of these entitlement programs, they're always worthwhile as long as someone else is paying for them.




Of course they're more worthwhile if someone else is paying for them   I'm a little confused by your comments above though - are you saying big business shouldn't pay a levy, or that you think the PPL should be totally funded by tax increases across the board?  Big business shouldn't be any worse off, and although they won't get to keep the 1.5% company tax rate deduction, if you're making in excess of 5 million in profit you probably ought to be giving a bit back to the society that feeds you imo.  I'd also be in favour of a lesser levy on businesses making a slightly lesser profit on a sliding scale scenario.  Again, I'm probably biased towards small business, but if mine were making 1mill taxable profit, I'd be happy to take a 1.5% tax cut and pay a levy of say .5% towards a PPL that would help me retain the staff I'd invested years of training in.  I find myself a little bemused that the same Labor party that has been blathering on about "working families" endlessly for the past few years are now against a policy that would help those same "battlers".  What with Rudd's PNG solution to stopping the boats, and Abbott's proposed PPL scheme - it's almost as if the left are trying to out-right the right, and the right are trying to out-left the left.  



McLovin said:


> So where do the entitlements stop? In France, they give you a government subsidised nanny. Should we consider that to be workplace entitlements as well? How about making employers pay for their employee's children's daycare? (FWIW, I think addressing the cost of daycare is a far better way of getting women back to work than paying them not to work)
> 
> PS: Not trying to sound agressive DocK, while I disagreed, I enjoyed your post.




Wow!  Wouldn't a govt subsidised nanny be the ideal solution - but even I agree that this seems total overkill.  I don't know much about France's tax system, other than knowing that Depardieu threw a fit about having to pay a rich tax of over 75%, so I daresay their system doesn't bear much similarity to ours.  We do agree that the cost and availability of daycare is a more important issue however.  More work-based centres would be a great thing - it would make life so much easier for working parents if their child could be cared for in the same building they worked in, and more home-based family daycare carers would be welcomed by the younger mothers I speak to.  Part of the difficulty faced by parents is the sheer distance and travel time involved in drop-offs and pick-ups, and the inflexibility of the operating hours for shift-workers etc.


----------



## Julia (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sydboy007 said:


> The PPL that is avalable to public servants has been negotiated between the Employer and Employees.  It's no different to the private enterprises that have done similar schemes, which would be a draw card for talented women.






McLovin said:


> My issue is with the nature of the payment not the source. If an employee has negotiated a leave scheme with their employer, whether public or private, then good for them. I don't want the government or employers to be compelled to, above a minimum safety net.






Logique said:


> I think if a private sector employee is talented enough, and productive enough, they have the credentials to negotiate a parental leave deal with their employer. It's called the free market.
> 
> That's where I think it should rest.




Agree.  If you have the skills and experience to negotiate a good salary, you're also going to be able to negotiate other benefits as part of a package.

DocK, understandably you're going to be for Mr Abbott's PPL.  Fair enough.  It's a win-win for you:  a tax cut plus a generous PPL.


----------



## DocK (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Julia said:


> Agree.  If you have the skills and experience to negotiate a good salary, you're also going to be able to negotiate other benefits as part of a package.
> 
> DocK, understandably you're going to be for Mr Abbott's PPL.  Fair enough.  It's a win-win for you:  a tax cut plus a generous PPL.




I'll agree that the tax cut will be welcome, I've freely stated that I'm biased towards small business.  I don't see where the other win comes in though?  I'm certainly not going to be having another baby!  

I wouldn't be pleased if my comments on this forum were to somehow be construed as purely self-serving due to the cut in the company tax rate that will benefit me - and I do hope this isn't what you're implying. In this economy we're lucky to run a small profit, so the saving will unfortunately be minimal.  I'd prefer to keep the discussion to the general, rather than the personal, if possible.

Public servants may have paid parental leave as part of their salary package, but at present they are able to double dip and be paid via the taxpayer funded scheme as well - this doesn't seem fair to me.

I disagree with your comment re those with skills and talent being able to negotiate their own benefits as part of a package.  There would be very few fortunate enough to be in this position.   The ability for individual employees to negotiate their own packages has become more and more difficult in recent years.  I'd love to see a nurse, or a teacher for instance, negotiate their own paid parental leave no matter how talented or skilled they were.  Likewise for those many many women employed by small business - their employers simply could not afford to pay them while also having to pay a temporary replacement - it simply isn't realistic.   What about the shop assistants, the hairdressers, the child care workers etc etc - are only the few highly successful women deserving of paid leave?  I'd prefer to see a scheme that was fair across the board.


----------



## McLovin (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



DocK said:


> Of course they're more worthwhile if someone else is paying for them   I'm a little confused by your comments above though - are you saying big business shouldn't pay a levy, or that you think the PPL should be totally funded by tax increases across the board?  Big business shouldn't be any worse off, and although they won't get to keep the 1.5% company tax rate deduction, if you're making in excess of 5 million in profit you probably ought to be giving a bit back to the society that feeds you imo.




Firstly, our company tax rate is high by world standards, so I'm saying that businesses, large and small are already paying their fair share. The Productivity Commission report into PPL found there would be no benefit to productivity, so arguments that business will reap the benefits are hollow. 

Secondly, I disagree that this is a workplace entitlement, but if it was, then it should be employers paying for it not the government. 

Thirdly, if we have decided to go down a course of expanding government benefits, then why hit job creators (business) with the bill? Jack up individual tax rates and lower thresholds and then try and sell it. 

Fourthly, if you can voluntarily have a child and recieve your full salary courtesy of the taxpayer, then why is sickness allowance (the government payment not the employment entitlement), means tested and maxes out at around $550/fortnight? If the former is really a workplace entitlement, then surely the latter is as well. Which of course brings it back to my question of where do you draw the line?



> I find myself a little bemused that the same Labor party that has been blathering on about "working families" endlessly for the past few years are now against a policy that would help those same "battlers".  What with Rudd's PNG solution to stopping the boats, and Abbott's proposed PPL scheme - it's almost as if the left are trying to out-right the right, and the right are trying to out-left the left.




Agree. Both sides are pathetic. I've long suspected the only time Tony Abbott is Liberal is when he's handing out other people's money.

Surely being the Thatcherite that he is he knows that these things work well until you run out of other people's money.





DocK said:


> We do agree that the cost and availability of daycare is a more important issue however.  More work-based centres would be a great thing - it would make life so much easier for working parents if their child could be cared for in the same building they worked in, and more home-based family daycare carers would be welcomed by the younger mothers I speak to.  Part of the difficulty faced by parents is the sheer distance and travel time involved in drop-offs and pick-ups, and the inflexibility of the operating hours for shift-workers etc.




Exactly. This is something that will actually get women back to work. I daresay the cost of childcare is a bigger deterrent to re-entering the workforce than taking the first 6 months off.


----------



## Julia (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



DocK said:


> I'll agree that the tax cut will be welcome, I've freely stated that I'm biased towards small business.  I don't see where the other win comes in though?  I'm certainly not going to be having another baby!



It's surely a plus for you that your valued employees, if you have any of child bearing age, will have access to a generous PPL .

If I were running a business, I'm pretty sure I'd be happy to get even a minimal saving on tax, especially if profits are not great.

You naturally, as you say yourself, have a bias toward benefits for small business.  Perfectly reasonable and probably long overdue.  I have not criticised that in any way.


----------



## Logique (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Very clear-headed thinking from you McLovin.



McLovin said:


> Big business" is a taxpayer just like the rest of us, so they are paying for it now and will continue to pay for it. The company tax rate in Australia is already high by OECD standards. From what I've seen, this is the most generous PPL in the world outside of Scandinavia....So where do the entitlements stop?...




And by the way detractors, I've seen at first-hand the social end-result of 'Mummy and Daddy both work'. Children raised in childcare and after-school care. 

Whole satellite suburbs full of them. Be afraid, be very afraid. They're much less accountable, and even more entitled than their parents.


----------



## Calliope (30 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Poor old Richo has one shining moment. Perhaps labor plant, Ian should have asked why the fork-lift driver should contribute to the hundreds of millions paid out as welfare to the union feather-bedded General Motors Holden and Ford. 



> Still the debate has given me one shining moment. No one in the government has summed up the difference between the parties or indeed the reason people like me joined the Labor Party almost 47 years ago, better than Ian, a small-business owner who asked the best question of this campaign.
> 
> "I just think that a forklift driver from Mt Druitt should not be paying his taxes so a pretty little lady lawyer from the north shore on 150 grand can have a kid". Amen! It is all about priorities.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...he-gillard-years/story-fnfenwor-1226706957323

Under the Coalition;


> About 12,000 public service jobs would go and more than $6.5bn of corporate welfare would be withdrawn from carmakers and energy producers.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...nment-with-spine/story-e6frg71x-1226706074382


----------



## stewiejp (31 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



DocK said:


> Public servants may have paid parental leave as part of their salary package, but at present they are able to double dip and be paid via the taxpayer funded scheme as well - this doesn't seem fair to me.




As a public servant (Victoria), I can tell you we can't double dip at the moment. Guys get 2 weeks off, and girls get 18 weeks. Can be taken at half pay. 
Rumours going around at work (admittedly started by unions who push the ALP, and seem to think their membere, me, can't think for themselves and decide for themselves who to vote for) are that public servants will be *exempt* from Abbott's PPL, and may even lose the current agreement. Personally I don't believe them.


----------



## Julia (31 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



stewiejp said:


> As a public servant (Victoria), I can tell you we can't double dip at the moment. Guys get 2 weeks off, and girls get 18 weeks.



Thanks for sorting that out, stewie.


----------



## Calliope (31 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



stewiejp said:


> As a public servant (Victoria), I can tell you we can't double dip at the moment. Guys get 2 weeks off, and girls get 18 weeks. Can be taken at half pay.
> Rumours going around at work (admittedly started by unions who push the ALP, and seem to think their membere, me, can't think for themselves and decide for themselves who to vote for) are that public servants will be *exempt* from Abbott's PPL, and may even lose the current agreement. Personally I don't believe them.




This throws a little light on the double dipping question;



> AN Abbott government would save millions by stopping federal and state public servants from double dipping on maternity leave to offset the cost of its scheme, which would pay up to $75,000 for six months.
> 
> The policy, to be unveiled next week, would abolish paid parental leave schemes in the commonwealth public service costing up to $100 million.
> 
> The Coalition favours excluding from its PPL scheme state public servants, who enjoy generous schemes, in a further offset to the cost of its $5 billion scheme.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ternity-loophole/story-fn9qr68y-1226693039541


----------



## Calliope (31 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Dear o dear!  Am i on the wrong track? It the Greens are for it, it must be a bit sus.



> THE Greens will support Tony Abbott's controversial paid parental leave policy with a few tweaks, signalling the Liberal leader's signature social reform can be delivered if he wins the federal election.
> 
> But they would rather send the country to another election than agree to unwind any part of the carbon tax package.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sp...tal-leave-policy/story-fnho52jj-1226707868082


----------



## Tink (31 August 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

It is very generous Calliope, thats why I can understand both sides of this debate.
I do think Abbott is trying to make it fair across the board.


----------



## stewiejp (1 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Can't read the Australian article, as it requires a login, but here's a cut and paste from another article (smh). . Looks like the "Double Dipping" is what* could *happen if both the public service current agreement, and the Lib's one goes through, not what we get now.

_ Federal public servants have been entitled since 1973 to generous parental leave schemes, ranging from 12 weeks to one year off on full wages.
Advertisement  
Unless the Government removes those rights, they will also receive 18 weeks' pay at the minimum wage rate of $543.78 a week under the universal scheme, in addition to their current payments.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/bure...ental-leave-20090613-c6pg.html#ixzz2dZilA6XV]_


----------



## sails (1 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



stewiejp said:


> Can't read the Australian article, as it requires a login, but here's a cut and paste from another article (smh). . Looks like the "Double Dipping" is what* could *happen if both the public service current agreement, and the Lib's one goes through, not what we get now.
> 
> _ Federal public servants have been entitled since 1973 to generous parental leave schemes, ranging from 12 weeks to one year off on full wages.
> Advertisement
> ...




As I understand it PS women are double dipping off the taxpayer now.  They get their very generous maternity leave PLUS the labor scheme.

I also understand that Abbott plans to  use the funds from the current PS maternity scheme to help pay for the national scheme making it fairer for women who are not employed by the PS. And I think he is requesting that the states contribute the amount they are already paying for maternity leave as they will no longer have that expense.

So, it seems that double dipping has been happening since labor brought in the national scheme but unlikely under the libs.


----------



## DocK (1 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sails said:


> As I understand it PS women are double dipping off the taxpayer now.  They get their very generous maternity leave PLUS the labor scheme.
> 
> I also understand that Abbott plans to  use the funds from the current PS maternity scheme to help pay for the national scheme making it fairer for women who are not employed by the PS. And I think he is requesting that the states contribute the amount they are already paying for maternity leave as they will no longer have that expense.
> 
> So, it seems that double dipping has been happening since labor brought in the national scheme but unlikely under the libs.




+1
This was my understanding also.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Having a kid? Here ... take 6 months off, full pay. If 6 months of non productive time is okay for a business then next time I don't feel like going to work, I'm off SICK.

Gives me the poo poos listening to how I am forced to support other peoples lifestyles.

p.s.  You're a human "resource" unless nowadays you wish to birth a child and for which you become more sacred and revert to a human again. Bleedin' heart society come hither.


----------



## sails (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Wysiwyg said:


> Having a kid? Here ... take 6 months off, full pay. If 6 months of non productive time is okay for a business then next time I don't feel like going to work, I'm off SICK.
> 
> Gives me the poo poos listening to how I am forced to support other peoples lifestyles.
> 
> p.s.  You're a human "resource" unless nowadays you wish to birth a child and for which you become more sacred and revert to a human again. Bleedin' heart society come hither.




Wysiwyg, and yet it seems labor have continued to allow public service women very generous PPL type leave for the six years they have been in office.  Some of these would be on very high pay.  This is paid by taxpayers already.

I was initially opposed to Abbott's PPL, but when I found out that those in the public service are being supported at their rate of pay (no matter how high) by the taxpayer, it does seem unfair that those not employed by the public service only get a basic amount and less time off.

At least Abbott's plan does make it fairer for all working women and not just the exclusive right of those in the public service to benefit from taxpayer dollars in this way.


----------



## McLovin (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Wysiwyg said:


> Having a kid? Here ... take 6 months off, full pay. If 6 months of non productive time is okay for a business then next time I don't feel like going to work, I'm off SICK.
> 
> Gives me the poo poos listening to how I am forced to support other peoples lifestyles.




It's even worse than that, have a look at how many women already have access to an employer PPL. 





Women on a lower wage are less likely to have access to an employer PPL, but the current government allowance would more or less match their wage. Women on a higher wage already have access to an employer PPL, but hey, let's make the taxpayer pay for it.


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Saw a show the other night where a refugee had to flee Syria...............................

with his 2 wives and 10 children.

He'd be on easy street here.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



McLovin said:


> Women on a lower wage are less likely to have access to an employer PPL, but the current government allowance would more or less match their wage. Women on a higher wage already have access to an employer PPL, but hey, let's make the taxpayer pay for it.



Well that is socially engineering a smarter society. If you assume high wage earners are smarter then this is certainly an incentive for the pretty lawyer down the road on $150k to be 'compensated' for her child birthing. Don't want those lower life forms breeding.


----------



## sails (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Wysiwyg said:


> Well that is socially engineering a smarter society. If you assume high wage earners are smarter then this is certainly an incentive for the pretty lawyer down the road on $150k to be 'compensated' for her child birthing. Don't want those lower life forms breeding.





I understood that chart is how it is now.  Abbott wants to make it available to ALL working women making it much fairer for those on lower incomes and for those not in the public service.


----------



## craft (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



McLovin said:


> It's even worse than that, have a look at how many women already have access to an employer PPL.
> 
> View attachment 54211
> 
> ...




This is what I don’t understand.

Why are the Libs of all the parties getting maternity leave entwined with the transfer system rather than letting the majority be provided as a private work entitlement?  Using the transfer system to put in place the safety net I understand – but this “big government” is frankly crazy and at odds with what I thought the Liberal party stood for.

The best I can fathom is that it is designed as welfare for Small to Medium business. They will now be competitive with larger businesses in retaining staff on maternity leave without having to foot the bill.


----------



## McLovin (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sails said:


> I understood that chart is how it is now.  Abbott wants to make it available to ALL working women making it much fairer for those on lower incomes and for those not in the public service.




Except those on low incomes are already receiving an allowance that would be similar to their wage (~$660/week, iirc). That's why this thing fails at every level. Low paid women are already covered under the current system and high paid women, by and large, already have PPL in their employment contract. So the idea that this will keep bright young female executives in the workforce is a furphy, because it's already occuring. How does a low paid woman get back to work after having a child when the cost of childcare in the big cities running to over $100/day?



			
				craft said:
			
		

> The best I can fathom is that it is designed as welfare for Small to Medium business. They will now be competitive with larger businesses in retaining staff on maternity leave without having to foot the bill.




When you look through all the fluff about getting women back to work, this seems to be the only real reason for the system. Party of small government my backside.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sails said:


> I understood that chart is how it is now.  Abbott wants to make it available to ALL working women making it much fairer for those on lower incomes and for those not in the public service.



Yes Sails that is the aim.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

I don't know what I am doing wrong.

I can't claim leave to birth a child, nor claim for disability, nor claim for unemployment, nor claim for floods, nor claim for business failing, nor claim school kids bonus, nor claim family tax benefit and oh there is surely more I am missing out on. Yes, claiming asylum.

Oh I get it now. I'm paying for it.


----------



## pixel (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Wysiwyg said:


> I don't know what I am doing wrong.
> 
> I can't claim leave to birth a child, nor claim for disability, nor claim for unemployment, nor claim for floods, nor claim for business failing, nor claim school kids bonus, nor claim family tax benefit and oh there is surely more I am missing out on. Yes, claiming asylum.
> 
> Oh I get it now. I'm paying for it.




You know how you can fix that, don't you:
get screwed and take parental leave;
see a doctor and complain about pain in the neck;
tell some customers to go to a competitor, or tell the Boss where to go - and you'll be unemployed
...
and if all else fails, go and seek asylum in Syria, Pakistan, or Sudan


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



pixel said:


> You know how you can fix that, don't you:
> get screwed and take parental leave;
> see a doctor and complain about pain in the neck;
> tell some customers to go to a competitor, or tell the Boss where to go - and you'll be unemployed
> ...



Well how about these outrageous ideas?

Paid parental leave - plan for your family, ensure adequate funds are on hand, develop a sense of independence, spend the formative years with your child 

Disability - family support and local carers

Unemployment - be prepared to do any work you are mentally and physically capable of

Floods - be aware of nature, be aware of your location, sometimes it rains and blows a lot, be prepared, take out insurance, seek family help, others will help for the want of helping

Business failing - *business is supply and demand*, if there is no demand for what you have then don't do it, if you can't turn a profit then don't do it

School kids bonus - plan for your family, ensure adequate funds are on hand

Family tax benefit - plan for your family (at least 20 years and the stages along the way), ensure adequate funds are on hand

Asylum - develop skills,  improve english speech, sort out your own country issues, come in through the front door


----------



## pixel (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Wysiwyg said:


> Well how about these outrageous ideas?
> 
> Paid parental leave - plan for your family, ensure adequate funds are on hand, develop a sense of independence, spend the formative years with your child
> 
> ...




*Wysiwyg for PM!*

With that Policy, you'd definitely get my vote. Seriously!

PS: You'd need to run under a different name though. WYSIWYG would most likely be taken by most as confirmation of the status quo: They see something; they feel entitled to get it; they demand it; if it's not given to them, they take it.


----------



## Julia (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



craft said:


> This is what I don’t understand.
> 
> Why are the Libs of all the parties getting maternity leave entwined with the transfer system rather than letting the majority be provided as a private work entitlement?  Using the transfer system to put in place the safety net I understand – but this “big government” is frankly crazy and at odds with what I thought the Liberal party stood for.



That's my main objection to it also.  It's completely out of line with liberal philosophy.  I'd hoped that with the demise of the Labor government, the Nanny State would be diminished, the rampant entitlement mentality gradually eliminated, but instead, Tony Abbott is going completely in the other direction, providing benefits to people who can absolutely stand on their own feet or certainly should be able to.

A few months ago, Joe Hockey seemed to be taking a stand against the welfare entitlement mentality.  This seems to have dissolved in the face of the 'Leader's Pick'.

It won't affect me personally one way or the other, but I do not see why low paid people with money in Super should lose franking credits, or why any section of society should be subsidising well off families to have children.  Labor's scheme seems overall to be reasonably fair.

Further, I'd like to see the precious welfare dollar go where it's needed most.  Far too many Australians are living below the poverty line, epitomised by such shame as having their teeth rot because they can't afford to go to a dentist.  Let's have a dental scheme ahead of paying wealthy women to have the babies they would have anyway.



Wysiwyg said:


> Well how about these outrageous ideas?
> 
> Paid parental leave - plan for your family, ensure adequate funds are on hand, develop a sense of independence, spend the formative years with your child
> 
> ...



Great post.   I'd join pixel in voting for anyone who actually offered such a platform.


----------



## drsmith (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



McLovin said:


> It's even worse than that, have a look at how many women already have access to an employer PPL.
> 
> View attachment 54211
> 
> ...



That graphic is interesting in that as the big corporates drop their own PPL schemes in favour of the government's, it might compensate a significant portion of the 1.5% levy.


----------



## sails (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> That graphic is interesting in that as the big corporates drop their own PPL schemes in favour of the government's, it might compensate a significant portion of the 1.5% levy.




I was thinking the same thing - so it might not be a big impost on them either.


----------



## Julia (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sails said:


> I was thinking the same thing - so it might not be a big impost on them either.




None of it will ultimately be any impost on any of them in that they will simply pass any costs on.
Banks will up their fees, telecommunications companies will up their user charges etc etc.
As always, the consumer will pay.


----------



## McLovin (3 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> That graphic is interesting in that as the big corporates drop their own PPL schemes in favour of the government's, it might compensate a significant portion of the 1.5% levy.




Well it will depend on the industry. You can bet your bottom dollar that employers of choice will be helping poorer quality employers (this is one aspect that many companies are peeved about) and that certain industries will be subsidising the cost for other industries.

If you run a nursing home/hospital or retailing business you're going to be laughing. 



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> None of it will ultimately be any impost on any of them in that they will simply pass any costs on.
> Banks will up their fees, telecommunications companies will up their user charges etc etc.
> As always, the consumer will pay.




+1 

And don't forget, the levy doesn't cover the total cost. We're all paying for it. I got my tax bill today.


----------



## IFocus (4 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

Not sure why people are raking over the policy when it was never about good policy only about softening Abbotts image with women nothing more. 

If I remember correctly it was done pretty much on the run.

Depending on your political bias that could be a good thing or bad thing either way its all irrelevant now Abbotts going to get a landslide in which PPL has played pretty much a nothing role.

I suspect there will be almost certainly untended consequences down the road.


----------



## sails (4 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



IFocus said:


> Not sure why people are raking over the policy when it was never about good policy only about softening Abbotts image with women nothing more.
> 
> If I remember correctly it was done pretty much on the run.
> 
> ...





Roger Corbett, chairman of Fairfax and RBA board member, disagrees with you... (around the 5 min mark on the video)

Oh, and Corbett has no problem with the coalition putting out their costings by Thursday.  Says it makes perfect sense not to put out final costings until all the policies have been announced.  He says that still gives plenty of time before the election. (around the 3 min mark on the video)



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-04/fairfax-chairman-roger-corbett-attacks-kevin-rudd/4933128


----------



## Calliope (4 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sails said:


> Roger Corbett, chairman of Fairfax and RBA board member, disagrees with you... (around the 5 min mark on the video)
> 
> Oh, and Corbett has no problem with the coalition putting out their costings by Thursday.  Says it makes perfect sense not to put out final costings until all the policies have been announced.  He says that still gives plenty of time before the election. (around the 3 min mark on the video)




Much of the opposition is gender or envy based.



> Not to be deterred by the reality that 99 per cent of the scheme's recipients will not get even close to the maximum $75,000, what should be celebrated as a win for all working women has instead been characterised as affecting only "rich lawyers".
> 
> Note to the Ians of this world: not only are most female workers not lawyers, very few of them are rich. A fact that might have something to do with the gender pay gap stubbornly sitting at 17.5 per cent.
> 
> "It's important to note that ambivalence towards gender equality is actually a contributing factor to the pay gap," says Georgina Dent, acting editor of Women's Agenda. "Unfortunately the reality is Australian women take home 17.5 per cent less money every day for the work they do. It's not a hypothetical issue; it's a real dollar figure that impacts women's pay cheques every single week."



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...etty-little-lady/story-fni0cwl5-1226709254351


----------



## IFocus (4 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



sails said:


> Roger Corbett, chairman of Fairfax and RBA board member, disagrees with you... (around the 5 min mark on the video)
> 
> Oh, and Corbett has no problem with the coalition putting out their costings by Thursday.  Says it makes perfect sense not to put out final costings until all the policies have been announced.  He says that still gives plenty of time before the election. (around the 3 min mark on the video)
> 
> ...




Do you mean Corbett the paid up member of the Liberal party?

Shock horror on that opinion.

Shame a member of the RBA has weighted into a election campaign not a good look for the RBA's reputation by any measure.


----------



## McLovin (4 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



IFocus said:


> Do you mean Corbett the paid up member of the Liberal party?
> 
> Shock horror on that opinion.
> 
> Shame a member of the RBA has weighted into a election campaign not a good look for the RBA's reputation by any measure.




I didn't know Corbett was a Liberal party member, but I did think it was poor form for an RBA board member to be providing political opinion in the middle of an election campaign.


----------



## drsmith (4 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



Julia said:


> None of it will ultimately be any impost on any of them in that they will simply pass any costs on.
> Banks will up their fees, telecommunications companies will up their user charges etc etc.
> As always, the consumer will pay.



A significant portion of the cost will be passed to shareholders due to the levy not carrying imputation credits. This though will be mitigated to some extent by the increased profit and hence dividend paying capacity any savings from the big corporates scrapping their internal schemes.


----------



## IFocus (4 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



drsmith said:


> A significant portion of the cost will be passed to shareholders due to the levy not carrying imputation credits. This though will be mitigated to some extent by the increased profit and hence dividend paying capacity any savings from the big corporates scrapping their internal schemes.




Are you saying then its good policy?


----------



## Calliope (4 September 2013)

*Re: Paid parental leave*



IFocus said:


> Are you saying then its good policy?




If you're agin it, it must be good.


----------



## k.smith (3 May 2014)

*Re: Paid parental leave*

I see it's been a while that this thread has been active, but is seems rather topical again...

IMO the Paid Parental Leave scheme is a kick in the guts for the income-earners who support their "stay- at- home mums" family group. 

Surely this group deserves more recognition ?
In many circumstances they have made a deliberate decision to avoid returning to the workforce and placing their children in childcare because of their convictions of the benefits of the mother being at home 24/7, and are prepared to forego the financial benefits of a second wage because of their convictions.

If this PPL scheme goes ahead, these income earners  will be unfairly burdened in their taxes to support women who choose to place their children in childcare and return to the workforce. 

Wouldn't it make better sense to allow these families to split their income?

If that was made possible, wouldn't more women stay home with their families?
Has any government ever asked them? 

If more women were able to stay at home, wouldn't that pave the way for more jobs being available for the many youth that are on the dole lists? Do we want to tolerate a scenario where mum goes to work while her teenage kids are home on the dole?  

It seems to me that the discussions regarding the merits of returning women to the workforce are too much of a one way street.

good coverage from the Australian a few weeks ago.... 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-productive-too/story-fn562txd-1226834136139#

''...The logic of getting more mothers into the work force by outsourcing the care of their children is never questioned.
Unemployed mothers are simply presumed to be a great untapped labour force that should become productive by being employed at the service of the economy....''

''....Few people see the mother who does her own childcare at home as an intrinsic part of society and the economy. This ignores a fundamental fact about the family. Childcare in the family is holisticwith the mother as the linchpin....''

''...Some of them receive Family Tax Benefit Part A and Part B. But all benefits that stay-at-home mothers receive are heavily means tested and they do not receive tax concessions. The opposite is true of women who are employed and put their children in care. They can receive Family Tax Benefit Part A and the non-means-tested childcare tax rebate of up to $7500 a child. In fact a couple could be earning anything - millions - and still receive the childcare tax rebate because it is not means tested....''

''....if one adds up all the subsidies paid for childcare - including the childcare benefit paid to low-income families, the childcare tax rebate, childcare services support, the jobs, education and training childcare fee assistance - they average at least $6041 compared with on average $3112 for Family Tax Benefit Part B, the only benefit directed solely at parental care....''

''.....Effectively large families, where the mother is not employed, subsidise smaller, richer families where both parents work....''

the entire article is imo a must read for those interested in this discussion.


----------



## Craton (4 July 2014)

<rant>
Paid Parental Leave (PPL) really sticks in my craw.

Disclaimer. My parents were immigrants and arrived in Oz mid 1950's and no, not ten pound poms. They literally arrived with a suitcase and a dream for a better life than the one they left behind in post war Italy.

Now PPL. My parents had no such luxury, me and the wife (dearly departed) certainly didn't receive it and yet, the parents and I managed to raise our families, paid the mortgage off and own our PPR. 

Of course we don't live in the big smoke where home prices are stupid silly. So is PPL primarily to benefit those that live in the high home cost coastal fringes so as to be able to service the mortgage? 

If so, and within the context of the latest budget, why in the hell can't the law makers legislate a moratorium for parents on their mortgage payments? Please don't tell me the banks will go broke if this was to occur.

From experience, raising the kids is a costly exercise and many times I've gone without so they could have. I reckon it's about time that the narcissist in us learn to look outside of our own little bubble and look to other ways of doing our share of the lifting.

Further, shouldn't the govt. look at allowing parents to make bigger gifts without penalties to their offspring? 10k over five years I believe is the limit and that's not changed for sometime AFAIK and I've not heard much about this in any budget plans.

Must be a better way but I'm no economist.

<rant />


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2014)

I think PPL payments should be the same regardless of salary; ie at the minimum wage. Family tax benefits should also be phased out , for children born after some date in the future. If you can't afford to have kids then don't, they are your responsibility, not mine.


----------



## noco (4 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think PPL payments should be the same regardless of salary; ie at the minimum wage. Family tax benefits should also be phased out , for children born after some date in the future. If you can't afford to have kids then don't, they are your responsibility, not mine.




Geez Rumpy, you and I are on the same wave link again......As you already know I have been opposed to this PPL  for some time and I have made no secret about it.

Oh Yes....I can recall the days of hardship and in those days you accepted it.......We sacrificed a lot for our kids whereby one did without the luxuries that are taken for granted today.

I cut my 32 perch block of land with a second scythe because I could not afford a 3 pound push mower.....carted hot water up to the bath from the Laundry copper because I could not afford a hot water system.....we slept on the floor for 9 months until I made a bed....I could go on and on but the moderator will most likely tell me my post is too long.

Yes I agree, why should the rest of the community pay for others to have kids and I have  strongly expressed my opinion to our local Federal MP.....I am also against the PPL for parliamentarians and  public servants....I do not know when or which government introduced it but it is another burden on the tax payer.....maybe an ASF member might know and be able to tell me.


You can count me in on any protest you would like to arrange.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 July 2014)

I disagree. I don't know why we want to follow the USA and Papua New Guinea.
The first year of the child is vital for producing citizens of the future that are well balanced.

http://theweek.com/article/index/26...-with-the-worst-maternity-leave-laws-on-earth


----------



## Craton (4 July 2014)

Hmmm...did a search for Paid Parental Leave (PPL) and variants but no results. Started new thread and my previous post end up here. No prob. all good, thanks Mods/Admins.

Good to see that I'm not the only one that thinks that it's the responsibility and monetary burden of the parent/s to raise their children.

AFAIK, we humans don't have natural selection but geez sometimes I wish we did. Too harsh? In some cases not by far IMHO but I digress. Recognition for raising children and the financial hardship impact certainly needs to be addressed. How is a question that I cannot answer but the PPL, which in my view discriminates against those that can work but can't find jobs, is not the way to tackle it.

Children are our future so it shouldn't be the burden of any one sector to fund such a scheme. Any proposed payment must be meet by all Australia. Perhaps in a sliding scale like our tax system or perhaps a means tested payment.

Dunno, I still reckon if you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em. We stopped at two because of this very fact even though we wanted up to five of the little tackers. Ha, no Baby Bonus around back then either!


----------



## Logique (4 July 2014)

PPL was never good policy, it was only ever a vehicle for radical lesbians to undermine the traditional family structure, and get IVF onto Medicare.

It's just that Labor's scheme was less unfair than the Coalition's proposed one.

Together with the doctor tax, the PPL will bring the Abbott government undone. It's social engineering by any other name. People see how unfair it is.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2014)

Logique said:


> PPL was never good policy, it was only ever a vehicle for radical lesbians to undermine the traditional family structure, and get IVF onto Medicare.




That's an interesting viewpoint, I never thought of it that way


Can you explain a bit further ?


----------



## Logique (4 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That's an interesting viewpoint, I never thought of it that way
> 
> Can you explain a bit further ?



SR this surely crossed your mind with the issue of same sex marriage? Policy agenda.


----------



## drsmith (7 July 2014)

Is a HECS-style loan as outlined below the answer ?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...arental-leave-scheme-20140706-3bgjc.html#poll


----------



## Craton (8 July 2014)

drsmith said:


> Is a HECS-style loan as outlined below the answer ?
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...arental-leave-scheme-20140706-3bgjc.html#poll




More lunacy. As if raising the tin lids isn't enough to cope with. Yeah, no worries, lets add some debt to the stress. Oh, and I can just see those not completing Yr12 being able to afford this one. 

Ah-ha! I see. Is this a way of weeding out the gene pool?


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 November 2016)

I do not want to pay for birthing and raising of other peoples children. Take these ideas of the workers supporting everyone else and shove 'em.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 November 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> I do not want to pay for birthing and raising of other peoples children. Take these ideas of the workers supporting everyone else and shove 'em.




Yes, and you can apply the same reasoning to Family Tax Benefits. It's costing us billions.


----------



## noco (20 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, and you can apply the same reasoning to Family Tax Benefits. It's costing us billions.




Not to mention of course how it is costing us billions to maintain the social welfare for the 50,000 illegals allowed in by Rudd and Gillard.....Well, 90% of that 50,000....Muslims men with 3 wives and 17 kids.....The same men who never work a day in their lives while in Australia.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 November 2016)

noco said:


> Not to mention of course how it is costing us billions to maintain the social welfare for the 50,000 illegals allowed in by Rudd and Gillard.....Well, 90% of that 50,000....Muslims men with 3 wives and 17 kids.....The same men who never work a day in their lives while in Australia.




Flaming...

:topic


----------



## noco (20 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, and you can apply the same reasoning to Family Tax Benefits. It's costing us billions.




Off topic.

:topic


----------



## Tisme (21 November 2016)

noco said:


> ...The same men who never work a day in their lives while in Australia.




Same could be said of the Irish migrant men I witnessed as a boy who refused to go to war for the empire and later sat on their Australian taxpayer built front verandahs, in state housing commission homes, drinking whisky, betting on the nags and slapping down their working wives, all the time their kids coming to school without food and dressed in rags. 

I don't have a lot of time for any genital based ethnocentrics that seem to share the need for gender clubs (e.g. Tatts, Melbourne Club, Mosques, etc) and gender servitude ... the members should be banned from Oz, with Penny Wong and Tanya at the front of queue.


----------



## Bill M (21 November 2016)

I know this might upset a few people but I do not support the PPL. My wife and I made a choice many years ago not to bring children into this world and we are happy about our decision. If someone wants to have kids then pay for them yourselves, why should we the tax payers have to pay for you to have a kid?


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 November 2016)

Bill M said:


> why should we the tax payers have to pay



How many people does an individual taxpayer have to provide for. Tribe mentality may have worked for small groups where everyone was contributing for survival but when the tribes swell to thousands/millions the common cause is vague and the tribe bludgers/rorters/fraudsters and take-the-easy-way-outa's proportionately swell. Add to that I don't have any interest in how many offspring Linda Loveall in W.A. has carelessly birthed.

I do believe and help when I want, the children who had no say in the physical or social nasty circumstances they are in. That is where the baby funds could go instead of money having to be raised via donations.


----------



## Logique (22 November 2016)

Bill M said:


> I know this might upset a few people but I do not support the PPL. My wife and I made a choice many years ago not to bring children into this world and we are happy about our decision. If someone wants to have kids then pay for them yourselves, why should we the tax payers have to pay for you to have a kid?



Sympathize and don't get me started :frown:. Meanwhile retirees and superannuants on fixed incomes - they're  copping it in the neck on taxation.


----------



## Junior (22 November 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> How many people does an individual taxpayer have to provide for. Tribe mentality may have worked for small groups where everyone was contributing for survival but when the tribes swell to thousands/millions the common cause is vague and the tribe bludgers/rorters/fraudsters and take-the-easy-way-outa's proportionately swell. Add to that I don't have any interest in how many offspring Linda Loveall in W.A. has carelessly birthed.
> 
> I do believe and help when I want, the children who had no say in the physical or social nasty circumstances they are in. That is where the baby funds could go instead of money having to be raised via donations.




It is beneficial to society if the mother (or father) can take time off work or work part time to raise their kid without being under financial hardship/stress.  There should be assistance but it should only be for the first two kids.  No one NEEDS more than two.

All very well to say don't have kids if you can't afford them, but the reality is many/most residents of Sydney/Melbourne for example, can't afford kids without some form of financial assistance until they are like 40 years old, by which time it's dangerous to try.  Rent/mortgage payments chew up a big %% of income through your child-bearing years.


----------



## Junior (22 November 2016)

Logique said:


> Sympathize and don't get me started :frown:. Meanwhile retirees and superannuants on fixed incomes - they're  copping it in the neck on taxation.




Retirees by and large cost way more than they contribute, taxation wise.  By this logic taxpayers shouldn't have to fund retirees - don't retire if you can't afford to pay for it yourself!


----------



## Logique (22 November 2016)

Junior said:


> Retirees by and large cost way more than they contribute, taxation wise.  By this logic taxpayers shouldn't have to fund retirees - don't retire if you can't afford to pay for it yourself!



Change that tense to 'have contributed'. Which makes your assumption false.


----------



## Junior (22 November 2016)

Logique said:


> Change that tense to 'have contributed'. Which makes your assumption false.




Likewise most of those who bear children will be taxpayers before, after and perhaps during the event.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 November 2016)

> *have received an individual adjusted taxable income of $150,000 or less in the financial year* either before the date of birth or adoption or the date you claim, whichever is earlier, and



Up to 150k is generous. Heck, why don't we raise that to a 1000k. It'costs much money to raise children.      

Generally, those that receive government assistance of any kind think it's a great idea and the ones that don't receive it wonder why they have to pay for others to receive it. Rob Paul, pay Mary.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 November 2016)

Junior said:


> There should be assistance but it should only be for the first two kids.  No one NEEDS more than two.



Yes that is good for the planet. Two in for two out.


----------

