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.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.
It's even worse than that, have a look at how many women already have access to an employer PPL.
View attachment 54211
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.
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 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.
Yes Sails that is the aim.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.
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.
Well how about these outrageous ideas?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
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
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.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.
Great post. I'd join pixel in voting for anyone who actually offered such a platform.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
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.It's even worse than that, have a look at how many women already have access to an employer PPL.
View attachment 54211
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...etty-little-lady/story-fni0cwl5-1226709254351Not 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."
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?