otb,

Always entertained by your inability to debate without insulting your opponent.

So you're in favour of giving people who need it the least - a bigger share of the pie.

Okay.

Wouldn't it be more "equitable" to have a flat rate if we're going down the PPL path?

Of course, it wouldn't line the pockets of the wealthy to quite the extent that Abbott's largesse intends to.

"So apart from your class war and jealousy you have no argument."

My argument, deary, is that I know an extravagant pork-barrel when I see one.

Poitot,

LOL, you are such a tease, Old Fruit. But your sexist cranky pants are showing, or is it hems today?

Look, if you want to be accepted as a Lady (with a Child!) you cannot be so sarcastic and belittling about the achievements of women who have been successful enough to make it to the lower echelons of management or as moderately paid professionals.

Honestly, for comparison, do you realise that many tradies and semi-skilled workers scorch past $150,000 PA? You need to keep up. You have not been near employment for a very long time. My plumber wouldn't get out of bed for what you seem to think is the exorbitantly high income of the well off.

But then again, you probably don't get to move in circles where employed men are to be found, or they would set you right.

So no, it is not unreasonable to pay women the usual going rate for yhe leave they take, whether it be for recreation, special purposes, LSL or whatever. In fact it would as I have said earlier be unfair and discriminatory to pay them less. The labourer is worth HER pay, so to speak.

What you demand would be a revision to the sad times before Equal Pay, no less. However I have covered that ground earlier, here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5974&page=7
[26 August 2013 9:26:55 AM]

So yes, you do come across as narky and jealous of successful women who earn their status and keep. You probably resent their children as well. Tough luck, Dearie.

Sorry for the misspell, that should be "Poirot".

otb,

"So yes, you do come across as narky and jealous of successful women who earn their status and keep. You probably resent their children as well. Tough luck, Dearie."

Successful women who earn their status and their keep shouldn't be allowed to dip into the welfare bin to support their "lifestyles" when they decide to breed....and they certainly shouldn't expect any more than a universally applied flat rate.

This is what happens when "welfare" is extended to the middle and upper-middle classes as election pork-barrels. Eventually it becomes a conduit to funnel taxpayer's money directly into the pockets of the already wealthy.

Dearie.....

Poirot,

It is significant Old Fruit that you see parental leave as welfare and pork barreling and you would deny women employees their usual rate of pay for the leave.

You agree with the Big Four banks, who claim they will have to pass on costs despite their usual record profits.

Many of us can remember when equal pay was seen as welfare and crippling for business, but of course (sic). Maternity leave was a similar fight.

You obviously don't even realise that other workers (eg APS) have bargained pay increases for parental leave provisions. That would indicate to others reading this how uninformed and prejudiced you are when you scoff at the provision as 'welfare' and seek to shrink pay where it is approved.

Where parental leave is contemplated, it is grossly unfair and discriminatory not to pay it at the woman worker's normal rate of pay. That is Fifties stuff, Old Fruit. Why don't you limit their holiday pay too? Doing your broken record of "It's welfare" proves you are a complete fraud where women's (and parents') employment is concerned.

otb,

I'm not in favour of padding the wallets of the already wealthy because they decide to have a baby....so what?

...................

Here's your style of debate on the issue of PPL.

".....you are a complete fraud where women's (and parents') employment is concerned...."

".....this how uninformed and prejudiced you are ..."

"LOL, you are such a tease, Old Fruit. But your sexist cranky pants are showing, or is it hems today?"

"you cannot be so sarcastic and belittling about the achievements of women...."

"But then again, you probably don't get to move in circles where employed men are to be found, or they would set you right."

".... you do come across as narky and jealous of successful women who earn their status and keep. You probably resent their children as well. Tough luck, Dearie."

"No it is not, but what a sly way you propose to undermine equal pay. Disgusting politics."

"It is astounding how sexist you are while always pretending to be the opposite. Or do you only despise women who are successful?"

"So apart from your class war and jealousy you have no argument."

"No wonder you never got ahead and are bitter. You're fired! LOL"

................

And that's from a total of only four posts.

The only "fraud" around here is you, who pretends to debate the issue while gushing forth with insult and invective.

Back to your usual habit of homing in and firing off your grotty assumptions and imputations (usually "and notably" to women on this forum). Strange, don't you think, how Mr "I stand up for women's issues" is the one who likes to sink the boot into them when it pleases him to do so. You've tried it on with Lexi, Pelican and Suse as well.

You're an interesting case.(keep firing, buddy, and I'll keep sending them back:)