Firstly, I must correct GrahamY, as I think you will find it referrs to compnies 'with a taxable income' above 5 million per year. Not, 5 million in tax liabillities. Huge difference.

Now this is simply a 'no brainer' and TA would be better served simply allowing the Rudd government to continue 'sefl destructing' rather than give them a 'life line' as he has here. That's of cause if you are one of those who are hoping for a change of government.

So this means one earning 5 mill will have to find another $85,000 per year, out of thin air and that is simply not going to happen.

People/companies earning that sought of coin don't employ staff because the love them, they do it becaise they have to as staff are a bi-product of the success of a business.

Remember, these same companies also have to deal with 'pay roll tax' which to them is another 'no brainer' as it penalises one for being succesful.

Policies like these simply force large employers to seek alternatives, often resulting in 'out sourcing' rather than 'creating jobs' for locals.

Best you leave well enough alone TA, as Krudd and his crusaders are doing a mighty fine job of loosing ground, as they ruin pretty much everything they touch and, your supporters don't need you throwing this kind of life line to them.

Seems Abbott failed to discuss it with his colleagues, and the ABC readers don't like it and think it is a bribe: http://bit.ly/blzFEt.

Apart from that I've come up with some other strategic reasons why it was a bad idea. It takes the spotlight off Kevin Rudd's health policy and the remains of the home insulation scandal and puts it back on Abbott as the PM in waiting.

He made the announcement at an International Women's Day function, so it also looks like it was driven by the perceived need to come up with something for an externally determined date. Also a big mistake.

Oh, and it contradicts his promise of no new taxes at the same time as letting Nicola Roxon off the hook for her suggestion taxes might rise under the Rudd health scheme.

But it could be the making of Abbott. If he gets a big enough clip he'll be a bit more gun shy next time around.

Sorry Rehctub, you're right, it is apparently the profit figure, not the tax figure. Surprising that so few companies make that sort of profit. If I was a company on the cusp I'd be maybe converting some of my shares into converting prefs or something where the payment to shareholders gets out as a tax deductible payment rather than an after tax one. Or just increase my gearing a little, increase my borrowing costs and give them their return via capital growth caused by the additional leverage.

There's a maxim in company accounting that goes something along the lines of "Cashflow is fact and profit is fiction." And another "What would you like your profit to be?"

My first reaction is to say 'hear,hear'!

GrahamY says:



"[the proposed paid parental leave scheme] is
so ludicrously generous even the government
might be able to lampoon it."



Ya reckon, Graham? Well, at least we know Tatiana has read the link you posted, because she refers to the little 'sleeper' that may provide the basis for an immediate rort that would blow the opposition's costings right out of the water for this scheme. It is interesting to see this in the News report of the announcement:

"Every woman who is in the workforce before
the birth of her child should have the option
of six months' parental leave OR OF A SIMILAR
OPTION FOR HER PARTNER".

And also this:

"Rolling in the Baby Bonus, [the proposed levy] would be
enough to fund 26 weeks of paid parental leave at an
annual income up to $150,000 for every woman who is
in the workforce prior to having a baby."

I would suspect there would be many more men, already the partners of women of childbearing age, who would be on salaries in the vicinity of $150,000 per annum in the work force, than partnered women on such salary.

So, woman of child bearing age gets job, any job. Pay rate does not matter, say only $20,000 pa.

Woman gets pregnant. Her claimed partner, earning $150,000 pa. immediately applies for paid parental leave to which he would be entitled, to commence x months hence from application.

As soon as leave (worth $75,000) for claimed partner is confirmed approved, woman is free to leave job, either well before baby is due, or relatively shortly before delivery.

Scheme immediately starts to suffer a cost blow-out, and thats in circumstances where all the jobs, and the partnerships, involved are genuine. Heaven knows what the extent of the rip-off of taxpayers would be if, say, the migration racket industry joined forces with women otherwise identifiable to such racketeers as likely future claimants of supporting mother's benefit to fake parental leave claim situations on a wholesale basis.

The Australian Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott has come to realise the importance of societies principle productive drivers, have on the economy and society in general. Its a pity the lemming like who wanted to be driven over the cliff encompassing the ETS, don't see, the most important benefits to the human families ability to drive productive choice.

Abbott is clutching at straws at this stage. This scheme would never work, but he knows he won't be voted in on election day any way.

Believe me, even this generous maternity leave payment will not be enough to sway many female voters to vote for a man who is so obviously following a very old-fashioned, outdated, religious-based way of looking at both life and politics.

Having said that, I wish someone had proposed this scheme when I was coming up to childbearing years. I wouldn't have said no!