Paid Parental Leave (PPL)

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
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]

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.

Paid Parental Leave (PPL)

McLovin

Calliope

DocK

Julia

In Memoriam

DocK

McLovin

Julia

In Memoriam

Logique

Investor

Calliope

stewiejp

Julia

In Memoriam

Calliope

Calliope

Tink

stewiejp

sails

DocK

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

sails

McLovin

Similar threads

Paid Parental Leave (PPL)

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

Investor

In Memoriam

Everyone wants money

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency