The paid parental leave scheme for the Coalition is
"Working mothers to receive full wage for 26 weeks, capped at $150,000"

To me this is subsidizing the already rich If a person earns anywhere near $150,000 in 26 weeks they should be able to afford the baby without being subsidized by Australian citizens.

The scheme will cost $5.5 Billion dollars and is to be funded by a 1.5 per cent tax on Australia's 3,000 biggest businesses, GUESS where they will get the money the will up the price of whatever they sell or whatever service they provide YOU the Australian citizens end up paying.

Abbott also says he will give business a 1.5% tax cut, if that is the case this scheme is therefore paid by taxpayers.

I can understand doing it for some people on low wages but to pay someone with a salary anywhere near or over $300,000 dollars per year is crazy.

At least the ALP one
"18 weeks' paid parental leave paid at the minimum wage"
Is reasonably cost effective BUT not sure if is means tested if not the rich get subsidized again.

Yep, it would be a great scheme, if capped at $30,000.

This is one where Abbott has gone overboard.

Someone is lying
A reporter with Abbott said a women on over $150,000 would receive $75,000.
BUT
The ABC says quote "Working mothers to receive full wage for 26 weeks, capped at $150,000"

The ABC one is wrong. Rather than a lie I would say there wording was a bit loose.

Mr Abbott defended the policy - which cuts off at $75,000 for women earning $150,000 a year.

At least now it is not so bad, but still think it is a bit high to be getting subsidized.

A stupid policy.

Austerity for everyone (ho, ho)

The "budget emergency" calls for upper middle class mothers to showered in cash if they decide to have a baby.

Abbott released this policy in a Malvern cafe today, amidst the yummy mummys waiting with baited breath to hear the details of Tony's largesse.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/abbott-angles-for-baby-bump-in-polls-20130818-2s4i6.html

"Amelia Taylor, a fashion buyer from Toorak who wore a leopard skin trenchcoat, said her employer had to foot the cost of leave at full pay so she could stay at home with her five-month-old baby Thomas. Mr Abbott's plan, she said, would be “fantastic”, giving women independence and letting her “continue my lifestyle”."

Poirot - Meanwhile the employer has to hire someone else at more than likely a higher wage (as it would be pert time)to do the job guess what cost of goods and services go up.

Or use a temp agency MUCH higher cost.

I don't see small and medium size business liking this one.

Estimated cost $5.5 billion, that is before the blowout.

Phillip, I think yo will find that $150,000 is annual income cap, in other words, the max anyone can receive would be $75,000.

Having said that, personally, I am against paid parental leave unless taken without pay.

My preferred option is that working parents be allowed to draw on their super for parental leave.

Potential parents should be allowed to make additional low tax contributions to their supers used exclusively for the purpose of parental leave.

Option one is they draw on their super, without topping iy up, the cheapest option for them.

Option two, they can put extra away in their super for maternity savings and pay only the 15% tax.

These additional contributions can only be used for parental leave purposes and, in the event they don't have children, or don't take leave, then they will have a tax bill to pay at some point in time.

Third option is similar to the second, where a person/couple can draw on their super, here and now, then repay their super in the same manner.

This would cater for unexpected pregnancies, or lower income earners.

But either way, having children is a personal choice and I see no reason why anyone else should be made contribute to such a choice of others.

More middle class welfare, carrying on the noble tradition of Little Johnny Howard. I'm sure small business will be out there routing the system at the fist opportunity, the pregnant partner on the books at $150k p/a.

Tony Abbott expects the electorate to ignore the distributive effects of his policies. All taxes are part of business costs. All businesses, to succeed, pass on costs in their prices, particularly when all businesses are affected by the same taxes. Who will pay the costs of the upper crust mothers who take the $75,000 new baby bonus? The consumers who use the products and services of the companies that are taxed to pay for the scheme. Consumers will be the sacrificial bunnies. Those whose incomes are large enough that much of it is saved won't pay much compared to their income.

Not only pregnant partners of small business people will be employed at high salaries; so will daughters and daughters-in-law or the pregnant partner of a lesbian fashion shop proprietor. Penny Wong and her partner started too early!

A Captain's call? Some bloody captain! Too much boxing at uni?

rehctub - I say your right I quoted the AGE wording in the original post it was a bit loosely worded.

I also posted what the policy was according to Abbott when I saw it.

No matter it is still a bit rich for someone on $150,000 per year to expect others to subsidize them.

Interesting that there appears to be considerable opposition to Tony's PPL around here where he usually enjoys absolute support.

Not only here, of course.....described in this article by the AFR's Political Editor, Laura Tingle, thus "....the PPL is a “piece of irresponsible, populist junk” and should be consigned to the “dustbin of history”."

Populist junk, it is.

Pork-barrelling at its most transparent and extravagant.

Dumb.....

http://thehoopla.com.au/tonys-zeal-paid-parental-leave/#sthash.crtnnM5e.a7M9sqh9.dpbs

"Mostly false...."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/coalition-way-off-the-mark-with-21000-betteroff-claim-20130818-2s535.html

"The Coalition's paid parental leave policy offers more than Labor's, particularly for higher earners. But the gains for a typical women are not as big as Abbott suggests.

A Politifact rating of ''mostly false'' applies where a statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

Politifact finds Mr Abbott's claim that "a mother on average earnings" will be $21,000 better off under his scheme mostly false."

"Retirees will pay for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme"?

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/19/economy/retirees-will-pay-paid-parental-leave-scheme?utm_source=exact

(Don't tell spindoc, but I came across the link on twitter)

I have to agree with you, Poirot. It is very poor policy. People who earn 150k$, don't need welfare.

I guess its got nothing to do with the fact that Tony has three daughters of child bearing age and would want grandchildren. Retirees and anyone with superannuation really , will be the ones paying for this largesse

Personally I don't believe that a mother or family should get one cent of my tax dollar. Having a child is a S.I.W 'self inflicted wound' and the responsibility of the individual or family...Not me.

Hiya Yabs :)

' I'm sure small business will be out there routing the system at the fist opportunity, the pregnant partner on the books at $150k p/a.'

Ask rehctub, I'm sure he'd say that's fair enough too, as the government is killing small business!, and small business people are doin' us all a favour. It's the least we can do to thank them.

But I was under the impression small business people paid themselves no real salary so there was no income tax. They'd have to up the salary at least a year before the birth I think, so that would see half of it disappear in tax.

They Libs simply will not be able to afford it. It will be the first thing to go. It's passed it's used by date now Julia is gone and her misogynist toting handbag hit squad are neutralized.

Houellie,

"They Libs simply will not be able to afford it. It will be the first thing to go....."

Too true - obviously a non-core policy.

I have yet to come across an Abbott/Lib supporter in favour of it.(and I've talked to quite a few)

Fancy cutting the universal schoolkids bonus - yet making it possible for a woman on big wages to receive a $75,000 cash baby bonus - especially when Abbott is talking up a "budget emergency".

Went down well with the yummy mummies in the cafe in Malvern. Medium traditional fruit cakes cost $50 there (and I'm not referring to Abbott when I say that)...you can see why they need the extra boost when stopping work to have a bub. (we all need our fruit cake:)

More possible problems with scheme.

Quote "
1)If the father is the baby's primary carer, he will receive the payment at the mother's salary.
2) The scheme also applies to same-sex couples.

Questions, potential problems.
1) What if the father is unemployed or just does not work? To give him potentially up to $75,000 is crazy.

2) He does not agree with same sex marriage but will pay for same sex couples to have a kid.

From my experience most fathers who care for children full time have lower salaries than their partners. Its the conduit for the gender role reversal.

'and I'm not referring to Abbott when I say that'
You read my mind. Your disclaimer was as sincere as Rudd's new found belief in positive.. hang on.

The argument (feminist) is that it's not welfare it's a workplace entitlement; From the party of workchoices and who says there is a budget emergency. But, significantly, also from a leader with three daughters, and who believes in the mother being a full time primary carer.

I'm not particularly wealthy (though Bourgeoisie of course), I 'earn' a decent crust, but I didn't need the baby bonus. Actually I did for the first as we went private health (I know, how naive, what a rip!), and spent the second one, proudly, on a TV. I decided to reinforce the stereotype.

People at my level of comfort just don't need the money, and I have a mortgage in Sydney, but no 4WD, and no private school I must admit.

The theory is that parents should be able to have children with absolutely no impact on their lifestyle. I disagree vehemently, people have sacrificed material lifestyle for children for years. It's actually an important part of the adjustment process.

Modern Necessities:

4-5 bedroom 3 bathroom, Two story house with Movie room and alfresco dining area and tripple garage, or at the very least a 3 bed terrace in a trendy suburb ( 'village') within walking distance of the CBD.

2 4WDs

Foxtel, hair weekly hair and nail appointments

Private Schools.

This is the lifestyle that apparently should not be interrupted by the inconvenience of child birth. I remember fondly the newspaper articles bemoaning the couples 'struggling' on family income $150k in Sydney when the means test for private health was discussed.

It must be said of course, of all workers, earning approx 100k, women under 50 years old probably make up about 2%.

It always seems unfair when you look at extreme examples, but quite often the money required to means test benefits costs more than the saving. Well that's often the excuse and I can believe it.

Which is why I am in favour of scrapping a lot of the welfare and just taxing people less. Perhaps that would put too many public servants out of a job. It would make it hard to target marginal electorates too I suppose.

Can we all agree that nobody should be paid from public-purse for their expensive hobby?

What then makes baby-making different than, say, yachting?

Or private schooling?

Dear Houellebecq,

<<Or private schooling?>>

Yes, for some people private schooling is a hobby, but on the other hand it is also an act of self-defence. So long as school is compulsory, private schooling (or home schooling) is necessary in order to save one's child from the indoctrination/brain-washing of the public-school system.

Once school is no longer compulsory, then I tend to agree with you.

There should be a rider to any paid parental leave scheme payments that if the kids turn out to be 'wrong-uns' the government can demand a refund.

Yuyutsu
I didn't think school was compulsory. My local headmaster tells me that they did away with truant officers a few years ago when they discovered that aborigine kids didn't like school and it was embarrassing to arrest them and put them before the courts as delinquents.

Dear Chris,

This news about schools no longer being compulsory is like Manna from heaven!

I didn't have the privilege myself when young: the only reason I went to school, suffered all that bullying there and learned nothing (since I already knew it all), is that I was told that otherwise my mother and my father will be taken to jail.

Now it only remains to be checked whether this news is true.
Cutting on truant officers for aborigine kids is a step forward, but is there evidence of going the whole way, all over Australia and all ethnic groups?

A reference, please, could make my day!

Yuyutsu'
Get it from the horses mouth. Ask your local headmaster, if you can get to him/her that is.
About the bully bit. I think its blown out of proportion. A kid gets a smack in the mouth because someone doesn't like them in their space and that kid is pronounced a bully.
We were taught by our parents (Irish) always fight back and if you can't beat them with your fists then hit them with a iron bar, anything but belt the living daylights out of them. They never come back for more and no one bullies you any more.
Now you will say what if the kid can't fight and I say that's because they are cowards and don't deserve a space in the society.
Imagine if our fathers were all cowards, The Japanese would have walked over us. Cowardice hides behind public sympathy.

Dear Chris,

I will make the necessary enquiries.

Your Spartan values are not appreciated.

Yuyutsu
I don't know where you live but try living where I do in Cairns where there is uncontrollable violence towards older white people from younger (very) black people, where police are outnumbered and outgunned, where no one in their right mind, unless you are a tourist, walks the streets at night, where locking your doors at night is no guarantee of security from home invaders after your car keys, if you did you might realise why you have to stand up to bullies and return their measure.

Houellebecq, you honestly have no idea how small business works, do you.

Firstly, most SB people draw a salary, as the first $18,000 is tax free to all directors.

They then make their salary as high as possible, up to a max of about $102,000, as this is the cut off point fir the last tax bracket under 30c in the dollar (the current company tax rate), it's called tax planning.

As for maternity leave, I think it's about time people start to stand on their own two feet and stop expecting to be gifted money.

Personally, I hate modern labor, but I also hate this brain fart of a policy the libs have come up with.

I was swinging towards Bob, but not anymore, so it's back to the drawing board.

Well, 30% tax used to cut in a lot earlier. Of course rehctub I am happy for the scammy business man who hates employees to explain how he avoids tax.

I thought the idea was for the business to make no profit and pay no tax, and reinvest in the business and use all the company assets for private use so you don't even need a salary. Have depreciating company cars, free rent/loans and all sorts of stuff in the company name which the owner uses for private use only.

....Well, 30% tax used to cut in a lot earlier. Of course rehctub I am happy for the scammy business man who hates employees to explain how he avoids tax.

Yes, 30% used to cut in earlier, however, this is no fault of the business man.

As for your scammy business man comment, il let that one go through to the keeper, because if that's the best you can come up with, it's yet further proof of how wrong you are.

As for reinvesting in the business, guess what, tax is paid on the reinvestment dollars before it gets reinvested.

Now as a business owner, you don't need to draw a salary, as you can take what's known as drawings, then, come tax time, you pay the tax owed as per a PAYG employee.

Free rent loans you say, sorry, but you're wrong again.

Any loans taken from the company go into what's known as a loan account and, loan accounts need to be monitored.

At the end of the day, business owners must be entitled to some perks, because after all,unlike most employees,
they often go off to work with the risk off loosing their home, but, rather than appreciate their efforts, the likes of you and your tall poppy mates on the one had gladly accept the jobs provided, while on the other back stab to person who provides that job.

Talk about want to have your cake and eat it at the same time.

As I say, you are out of your depth, but if you want to learn, may I suggest you ask the question, without the accusation and insults, as I would be more than happy to assist, where I can.

Well, it's nice to see you're still doin' us all a favour rehctub.

I for one am always happy to work the expected unpaid overtime for the owner to afford his next Mercedes.

'At the end of the day, business owners must be entitled to some perks, because after all,unlike most employees,
they often go off to work with the risk off loosing their home'

Hahhaa. You're joking now. The worker can be laid off at the whim of the business owner, cant pay the mortgage and lose his home. He has to pay his creditors, not like the business owner.

See, you want your employees to be eternally grateful, like servants, but you show no gratitude to their efforts in making you a motza. It's give and take, but somehow you're doin' them all a favour.

'gladly accept the jobs provided, while on the other back stab to person who provides that job.'

How is that different to you? You resent paying them a decent wage, yet somehow you expect them to be eternally grateful.

BTW: The free bit I was asking about is that if you get the business to pay the home loan, then you live there rent free. This is a way of hiding the salary. Similarly for other 'business' assets like phones, computers, cars, 'entertainment expenses'.

I don't understand your bit about reinvestment. If you buy lots things like the above 'for the company', wouldn't it just mean your company doesn't make as big a profit, so no tax on what would have been profit?

I do believe this program is actually designed by Abbott to save the car industry. Yes, Moms new Range Rover is back on the shopping list, where else will Penelope and Tristam fit little Ezekiel's bubs capsule. On a bus!

Dear Chris,

<<I don't know where you live but try living where I do in Cairns where there is uncontrollable violence towards older white people>>

What have my current living conditions as an adult to do with my childhood in a different country?

There is no defence for bullying, regardless of age, regardless of location.

Can you even grasp that different people have different personalities and different duties and that it is just how it should be?

Hitting back is suitable for a particular class in society. That class of people who are called to do so, who have such responses naturally in their blood, become soldiers, policemen and leaders - it's not for everyone and would be very wrong to expect people to perform someone else's duty instead of their own.

As a child, as young as I can remember myself, I was always repulsed and disgusted by the idea of hitting back. When I was hit as a child, I would naturally come to my Mom and ask for a kiss - and that solved the problem.

I am so thankful to my parents and proud of them for never making such demands on me, for never trying to corrupt me in that way against my nature. Eventually at the end of year 1, my parents moved me to another school, for my protection.

The fact that you have a particular calling does not allow you to expect all others to have that same calling.

Yuyutsu,
People must do as they are told when they are told to do so by a higher authority especially if that authority has a proverbial gun at their head.
You can't have the havenots telling the havegots what to do.
You can't have the weak telling the strong to 'drop off'
The whole fundamental basis of animal existence will bring about self destruction.
The pecking order, some call it the status quo, whatever it must be maintained.
Once upon a time a man picked up a stone and threw it at his enemy, bingo he had immediate ascendancy and control until the enemy picked up a stick at used it as a spear. Now we fire rockets at each other or use our Glocks to scare the crap out of our enemies. If your on the wrong end of the stick you do as your told or suffer the consequences.
Now Yuyutsu if it is your desire to suffer the be my guest but I can assure you I won't be kissing anybodies arse unless they are stronger than me.Its dog eat dog out there mate and I intend to remain the top dog for as long as I can.

Dear Chris,

<<Now Yuyutsu if it is your desire to suffer the be my guest>>

No one wants to suffer, but at times one prefers to endure lesser suffering in order to avoid greater suffering.

The greater suffering in my case would be to become like those thugs myself. That would damage me more than physical blows.

....I don't understand your bit about reinvestment. If you buy lots things like the above 'for the company', wouldn't it just mean your company doesn't make as big a profit, so no tax on what would have been profit?

When business income gets banked, it's recorded, then, when it's spent, it's also recorded and, if spent on an asset, say $50,000, then that $50,000 is taxed, because it was profits, then the asett is subjected to depreciation which attracts tax write offs, anywhere from 4% to $100% in one year, depending on the a sett.

E.g, most computer stuff can be written off in a year or two, whereas a new kitchen in the office may take ten years to write off.

As for your wise cracks about my time as an employer, you might as well piss into a fan as try to get a rise out of me, as insults to me are water off a ducks back.

Always happy to answer your question though, if I can.

We have all known that our betters, the bureaucrats in state & commonwealth public services, have had exceptional conditions ever since that idiot Ghogh. However I did not realise we already have these maternity leave conditions for them.

That leave only one of two things to do. Strip the public servants of such conditions, or extend it to all sectors.

To be fair, we have to grant it to the stay at home mums as well as the bludgers in government employ.

What do you reckon, middle of the payment range for stay at home mums, or should they get top line, as they are equally value to any bureaucrat?

Hasbeen, "To be fair, we have to grant it to the stay at home mums"

The femocrats in the Office of Women with Status would never agree to that.

'Equity' is for the annointed few, the middle class feminist elite of Emily's List.

You really wonder why women don't wake to the simple reality that in their support of the feminism touted by the educated middle class elite -who are well ensconced in their comfortable sinecures in the public bureaucracies and academia- they are being treated as useful idiots to win even better benefits for the members of the feminist network.

It will be a long cold day in Hell before any of these feminists think about the key issues that affect the very large number of women who have families or are carers. Issues such as better transport, more family friendly city design and so on.

Of course those matters are minor concerns to the egocentric, materialistic members of Emily's List. Any wonder why ex-PM Julia Whatshername who has just bought a $1.8 million bungalow was never fussed with helping pensioners, most of whom are women. Let them eat cake, eh Julia?

otb,

Don't blame Tony's loony idea of providing upper-class mums with welfare on Julia.

It's Tony's personal pork-barrel (and signature policy!)

Cutting payments to the poor to give more money to the rich?
Back to the good old days.

Considering claims that we are in a time of "economic crisis" and that "we must end the welfare hand-out mentaility" this policy is doubly ridiculous.

The policy was a desperate attempt to soften Abbott's perceived anti-women image at the time and remains deeply unpopular within his own party and by the Nationals.

Former Finance Minister Minchin suggests that it's likely that it will be blocked or heavily amended in the Senate so it may not be a serious policy after all - but is a handy way to get some extra votes.

wobbles - Quote "we must end the welfare hand-out mentality"

Probably better the Government got onto all the freeloaders and cheats that the system supports, only problem is they would probably just hire hundreds more public servants and we would never get rid of them or they would go on compo.