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."