Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Tony Abbott for PM

Jump to new
I believe that babies and children are good for Australia. We should be encouraging as Tony has, working parents to have more children.

The baby bonus by the previous Liberal government was a boon to parents, but unfortunately encouraged many alcoholic and drug affected people, and no-hoper dole bludgers to have more children, just to get the cash.

Tony Abbott's scheme would encourage mothers and fathers more likely to nourish and maintain their children to adolescence and beyond.

It is a great idea imho and the big companies should be lining up to pay for it, if they had any guts or thought for the welfare of future generations and their companies.

gg
 
nioka said:
For well over 50 years of voting I have only voted Labor once. That was the last election. I expected it to be a once off and it was designed to get rid of Howard and help in my small way.

However we ended up with a very active Labor member. The first one ever in this electorate. She has done more for this electorate than the past three or four Nationals ever did. So she will get my vote again. She is active, she gets around. You dont have much trouble talking to her as she attends most local markets on Sundays. Previously we only saw the local member if there was something official going on and certainly not on a Sunday.

Another factor that influences me is I would not vote for Abbott as I consider him a sleeze bag. His underhand treatment of Pauline Hanson is testament to that. I get goose bumps thinking about him and what he may do if he gets the reins of power.

Local member voting will have more influence next time around. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Perfect position for the people of any electorate marginal seat with new gov sitting member.

With you all the way about Abbott.
 
awg said:
didnt he pipe up and say fathers will get it as well?

seems excessivly generous to me, even if its only for mothers.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, it's a parental allowance, so not confined to mothers.

btw, I find it disconcerting we have two real bible-thumpers as leaders of each party
Click to expand...
Me too. I just don't believe that they can divorce their strong personal beliefs (e.g. Abbott's anti-abortion stance) from their policy initiatives.


chops_a_must said:
And Julia, what do you think would be the overall impact of that slight tax break, if you were allowed to salary sacrifice like that, if the baby bonus was scrapped altogether?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know. I don't have the skills or training to assess that.
On the face of it, you'd think it would be quite minimal. It would seem like a balanced solution.
 
This thread needs a hypothetical on Tony Abbott's new policy.

Business XYZ turns over $20M NPAT a year etc, etc..

For one employee to take 6 months leave costs on an average wage of X etc..

A mother or father returning to work after 6 months paid leave would contribute X amount
of productive capacity towards the employer etc...

It would be great to hear some ideas without sniping at anyone :badass:
 
Excuse me for being blunt but..

I hate to say it but when it comes to politics were pretty much stuck up sh*t creek without a paddle.

Between Kevin and abbott we dont really have much a choice.
 
adrunis_84 said:
Excuse me for being blunt but..

I hate to say it but when it comes to politics were pretty much stuck up sh*t creek without a paddle.

Between Kevin and abbott we dont really have much a choice.
Click to expand...

You have a point there adrunis but you always have to play with the hand you're dealt. That's life dude! ;)
 
My prediction is that Tony Abbott will become the next PM.

Putting politics aside when comparing Rudd & Abbott, we are all human at the end of the day and Abbott seems, in my opinion, to be more of a well rounded "man" than Rudd (from watching the 60 minutes show last week).

While you might think this statement is a little vague, just think of Barack Obama - what characteristics come to mind?
 
Why cant we quantify things?

I see some posters on ASF and they will compare one company against similar companies and then value it that way.
So when it comes to politics why can't we do the same?

ok differrent courses diffiirent horses

but why shouldn't we compare our policies against other countries???

Why don't we look at ourselves as a company then compare ourselves against other countries and ask _not what our NPAV or IRR is....

.but just look and see what adds up?

So when a politician comes up with some scheme , we are the ultimate shareholders in it, or if not us- our children ,so why are we not so cynical, or why don't we put them to such a rigorous test as we would a company

I wish:banghead:

At the end of the day just another ugly grab for media attention
 
Seems to me the only thing Abbott is going to do is demonstrate his skill in making "U" turns when it comes to policies. Six months paid maternity leave, I don't think so.
 
nulla nulla said:
Seems to me the only thing Abbott is going to do is demonstrate his skill in making "U" turns when it comes to policies. Six months paid maternity leave, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Abbott started off OK with the rejection of Rudd's ETS, but since then he has got few thing right. His maternity leave scheme is is just plain wrong.

To extend it to 12 months fully paid leave without consulting his power base is a very stupid move. It could only attract that part of the electorate that don't need it, and he already has them in his pocket.

As an election strategist Rudd runs rings around him. All Rudd's handouts have targetted "working families".

In question time yesterday Rudd made Abbott look like an amateur.
 
Calliope said:
I agree with you. Abbott started off OK with the rejection of Rudd's ETS, but since then he has got few thing right. His maternity leave scheme is is just plain wrong.

To extend it to 12 months fully paid leave without consulting his power base is a very stupid move. It could only attract that part of the electorate that don't need it, and he already has them in his pocket.

As an election strategist Rudd runs rings around him. All Rudd's handouts have targetted "working families".

In question time yesterday Rudd made Abbott look like an amateur.
Click to expand...

It's a little concerning the direction both parties seem to be taking. But now maternity leave is on the agenda, it will be a choice between Rudd’s or Abbotts. I have an issue currently with the liberals opposing everything in the senate as well just for the sake of it.
 
Julia said:
As I understand it, it's a parental allowance, so not confined to mothers.


Me too. I just don't believe that they can divorce their strong personal beliefs (e.g. Abbott's anti-abortion stance) from their policy initiatives.
Click to expand...

If it is available to fathers as well, then the big businesses will flip out on this particular iniative, and bring such lobbying and donation pressure to kill it imo (too costly)

I caught Q&A the other night..Senator Fielding is apparently a "earth created 4000yr ago creationist" , Rudd carries a Bible and quotes it, and even Julie Bishop was making me feel ill with her religious overtures.

Apart from that, it was amusing seeing them attempting to debate the obviously superior intellect of Professor Richard Dawkins ( even though I found his book so shrill and boring, I could'nt finish it.)

Abbott reminds me of Turnbull with his bull at the gate manner, if he keeps annoucing things without consulting his partyroom, he will run into trouble, I reckon he would have many internal enemies
 
I was just reading in the West Australian about Abbott's parental leave plan and it had an employer saying how this would be a disincentive to employ women of child bearing age.

Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of the plan, it seems to me that because there is a disconnect between who is employing the women and who is paying the parental leave, the disincentive is muted.

As far as I understand it, the leave is funded by a tax or levy on all businesses with taxable income in excess of $5m. So if you are such a business, you will be paying into the fund whether you employ women of child bearing age or not. Since you do not directly fund parental leave for your own female employees (or their husband's), you will not see the employing of a new female employee as becoming a direct cost to you should she fall pregnant.

On the other hand many companies today have some form of parental leave plan which directly effects those companies as they fund their own employees who avail of the plan. This is a disincentive that will be lifted from those companies.
 
Calliope said:
I agree with you. Abbott started off OK with the rejection of Rudd's ETS, but since then he has got few thing right. His maternity leave scheme is is just plain wrong.

To extend it to 12 months fully paid leave without consulting his power base is a very stupid move. It could only attract that part of the electorate that don't need it, and he already has them in his pocket.
Click to expand...
Has he suggested extending it to 12 months now? I've only heard the 6 months.


moXJO said:
It's a little concerning the direction both parties seem to be taking. But now maternity leave is on the agenda, it will be a choice between Rudd’s or Abbotts. I have an issue currently with the liberals opposing everything in the senate as well just for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
I agree about opposition for the sake of it. e.g. I think they should have passed the means testing of private health cover. It's a logical and reasonable thing to do, and frees up funds which can be better used elsewhere.

With the way both leaders are behaving at present, it looks like being an election with more of what happened last time with each side outbidding each other in an attempt to bribe the electorate. Hardly conducive to addressing the reduction of the deficit.

awg said:
Abbott reminds me of Turnbull with his bull at the gate manner, if he keeps annoucing things without consulting his partyroom, he will run into trouble, I reckon he would have many internal enemies
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's ironic that he was elected leader essentially as a protest against Malcolm Turnbull's unilateral behaviour, and now he is doing the same thing. If the Libs once again descend into a squabbling rabble, they can forget about even being competitive.
Pretty depressing looking at both parties imo.
 
Liberals won’t block labor’s parental leave policy and that will be the end of
it. My hunch is that Tony Abbott will let his policy slide after labor’s
gets through.

Most people once in power will follow their core ideology, and Abbott
doesn't believe in parental leave.

At the moment he is playing politics and I think there’s method to
his madness to try and offset Labor’s policy (make it look worse than
liberal policy), get a few brownie points with the female vote, and then
he'll continue on with his attack-dog politics, which is what he should
be doing.

Abbott should be focusing on policies that target Tax and
spending reduction, whilst attacking Labor's policies on TAX and spending.
 
bellenuit said:
I was just reading in the West Australian about Abbott's parental leave plan and it had an employer saying how this would be a disincentive to employ women of child bearing age.

Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of the plan, it seems to me that because there is a disconnect between who is employing the women and who is paying the parental leave, the disincentive is muted.

As far as I understand it, the leave is funded by a tax or levy on all businesses with taxable income in excess of $5m. So if you are such a business, you will be paying into the fund whether you employ women of child bearing age or not. Since you do not directly fund parental leave for your own female employees (or their husband's), you will not see the employing of a new female employee as becoming a direct cost to you should she fall pregnant.

On the other hand many companies today have some form of parental leave plan which directly effects those companies as they fund their own employees who avail of the plan. This is a disincentive that will be lifted from those companies.
Click to expand...

Its about the complete loss of productivity for a minimum of 26 weeks that concerns employers. This would be a major deterrent for a small business to employ a female of child bearing age. Most country's with paid maternity leave offer 12-16 weeks, its absurd for Abbott to offer 26 weeks.
So if your an employer with the choice between a young female in a healthy relationship or a young male, assuming similar qualifications and experience who would you employ?
I do believe we need paid maternity leave to close the gap on the private vs public sector but Abbott's proposal is a joke.
 
Top