I know we have to start somewhere, but 14 weeks of PPL sounds so minimalist. Why not 6 months to each parent. After all, they are bringing new taxpayers into the world. It costs them at least as much as it does the state to raise a child to adulthood, to train and motivate them to productivity. The baby bonus alone is hardly worth getting into bed for, and those motivated by such symbolic gestures, are hardly hotbeds of economic activity. True blue aspirationals however, are seriously disadvantaged when forced into higher tax brackets just for thinking of having kids.

No I say; totally inadequate. Bring on a royalty system, where parents claim 5% (each) of their child’s gross capacity to earn for the rest of their lives. This could just be added to the prevailing tax scales and collected by existing bureaucracy without additional administrative costs. Let’s not forget any past child support collected by CSA for example; treat it similarly to HECS debt and have it pad back to the original contributor. Generation Z doesn’t yet know how privileged they are and how difficult it’s been for gen X, relentlessly squeezed by reckless boomers and narcissistic Yers. Or Y, because life is short and no one understands…

Natasha,

You're discriminatory. How can a bloke access maternity leave? And I expect uproar among many of those couples in a homosexual union.

A GOOD TEST of viability of 'paid maternity leave'....

Natasha can advise her superannuation fund to invest all her savings in a small company (20 employees 60% female) which now has to pay "paid maternity leave".... and she can swim or sink on the economic impact that such a thing has on her own super.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend how this issue must be made 'government or nothing' policy?.. well political bigotry and ideological bias might be the answer..or.. perhaps Natasha is just whining because she did not get 'paid' to fulfill her biological duty?
Or.. because she is a confused silly socialist who fails to recognize the harsh realities of competitive life.

Here is the economic 'sense' this makes.

COMPANY "X" now has to pay its female workers..'not to work' so.. not only are they paying her 'not' to work, they are also paying someone ELSE ..to work. Thus the direct labor cost of a manufactured product has doubled.

THE PRICE of their products now must be increased, because otherwise they cannot sustain the maternity leave cost.

THE COMPETITIVE EDGE...is now lost, people see other products are cheaper.. so they buy them instead of company "X"s

DOWNWARD SPIRAL. Now that sales of company 'X' have plummeted, they can no longer afford to employ the people who make their product, and the put off 30% of their workforce, because now they are making less.

THE END GAME.. is simple...they go bankrupt. Maternity leave payments cease, a job to come back to dissappears everyone is out of work, homes are lost. Can someone show me an 'upside' in all this?

This is as simple as A+B+C=D

If people CHOOSE to have children, they should structure their economics and plans accordingly..don't burden an employer with your biological aspirations.

Hello Boaz,

Unfinished debate 29/4 - 1/5:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1722&page=0#34063

Please return.

Cheers.

Natasha,

The Parliament does not follow the wishes of the people and probably never has since Federation. Both the Coalition and the right faction of the Labour are to the right of political Liberalism:

"Liberaliam my defined in Sporit and in a Body of Doctrine that which is dedicated to expression of personal freedom in every sphere of
life..." to ensure "eternally" secure the ideals of the rights of the individuak and "beyond the province of any political authority".

Herein, I suspect the, Democrats are the true Liberals [philosophically]. If the people want paid mums, that the way to go.

Yet, what party would allow:

- A Bill of Rights
- Citizen referenda [on issues like paid mumd]
- Ostracization [Removal] of the Paty leader by the People. I would like see Iema go now.

O.

More middle-class welfare.

A Howard legacy and in the hands of the left will become an expansive absolute. But things will likely stay the same, on a social level (traditional gender roles)... another Howard legacy. The difference now is that the left really are masterful manipulators of the public (sentiment) and this will more or less form the distinguishing feature of their governance.