Paid Parental Leave (PPL)

Bill M said:

why should we the tax payers have to pay

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

Logique said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Junior said:

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

Click to expand...