This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Paid Parental Leave (PPL)

Jump to new
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Paid parental leave

Direct Action and PPL are signature Abbott policies.
Click to expand...
Calliope said:
Yes both policies are stupid, unnecessary and wasteful of billions with negative cost/benefits...
Click to expand...

Apparently a complete conversion has taken place.
 
Re: Paid parental leave

Julia said:
Apparently a complete conversion has taken place.
Click to expand...

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Paid parental leave


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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

St Ambrose of Calliope.
 
Re: Paid parental leave


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.
 

Attachments

  • house price index.JPG
    34.4 KB · Views: 129
Re: Paid parental leave


+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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Re: Paid parental leave

+1.

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!
Click to expand...
+1.
 
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.
 
Re: Paid parental leave


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
 
Re: Paid parental leave


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.
 
Re: Paid parental leave


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.
 
Re: Paid parental leave


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Abbott's Nanny State
Replies
14
Views
5K
Logique
State tax reform
Replies
0
Views
4K
sydboy007
Coalition election policies
Replies
0
Views
3K
drsmith
B
Britain to Print £150 billion
Replies
9
Views
4K
noirua
R
The Financial Endgame
Replies
18
Views
9K
qldfrog
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...