The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Abbotts paid parental scheme, fact or fiction?

Abbotts paid parental scheme, fact or fiction?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. All
Banjo, "Not surprized but still disgusted as with the baby bonus"

The baby bonus did increase 'fertility' population which was its aim. Not saying I would support it. It did not sit well with the big swinging *bleeps* of Oz feminism, because it did not fit with their elite middle class careerism.

On the other hand, feminist 'initiatives' (inverted commas because it is all imported from northern Europe) to improve the participation of women in work and in the economy (as they see it) rarely deliver even on the very vague aims/benefits used to justify them. A few feminists blew the gaff by reluctantly admitting that Abbott's PPL was the wet dream of Oz feminists. How DARE Abbott steal a march on them!

There are very few people around who care, but policy should be evidence-based and results obtained should be measured against goals, which should be specific and measurable. That said, it is very difficult to take issue with Abbott's PPL when a whole raft of so-called women friendly conditions have been introduced in the public services and more broadly over the years without any independent examination of whether they even attain the rather fuzzy aims expressed for them in the first place.

The federal public service has had to cull practically every low level production job that could serve as an entry point for ordinary women (or men). That is to pay for the conditions that advantaged the feminist elite, the educated middle class women for whom 'management' jobs are the minimum, and preferably a senior executive leadership status role pronto, one that does not require content knowledge and experience, and can allow them to use their networking, communication and liaison skills.

It isn't only Tony Abbott who has been corralled into adopting policies of feminist group think. Maybe there needs to be some thought as to how Australia can participate economically in its part of the world, and whether it should continue to blindly adopt the feminist social policies being imported from Northern Europe. It is ideology not evidence, practicality and good sense, that drives such policies.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 21 March 2014 2:44:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,
So I will be paying (taxpayer) and at quote "Recipients will receive full pay from the government for six months" unquote.

This means that a middle management female (or male for that matter) paying themselves (in there own business) $100,000 a year is going to get 3 times the annual married pensioner rate for an SIW (self inflicted wound)in half the time it takes a pensioner to get his years pension.

And worst of all for a non productive purpose.

It seems like a classic case of social/sexual discrimination to me.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Friday, 21 March 2014 3:25:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
chrisgaff1000,

Maybe you might like to figure in as well the direct and indirect costs including administrative overheads of the victim industry of which 'women', more exactly maintaining the lifestyles of the feminist elite of educated, middle class women, is merely one part.

Since the days of Gough Whitlam too. It is a gravy train that never slows because new 'needs' are always found.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 21 March 2014 4:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
....And worst of all for a non productive purpose

Chris, how can bringing a child in to the world, here in Oz a least be considered a non productive purpose.

They have to be fed, then schooled, then hopefully work, all of which takes money, which means spending of that money, which means jobs.

The long term aim is for them to themselves be employed, which then produces taxes (hopefully) which can then be used to fund the next generation.

Please understand that I am opposed to any PPL scheme, but I do think if money is available for anything, it would be better spent to make child care FOR WORKNG PARENTS more affordable, because a present there's a fine line between working again, or not being worth it for the costs involved in child care etc. Sadly though, only if the parent works.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 21 March 2014 5:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rehctub,

I would like to give you a great big hug.
You Sir, are a positive force on this forum.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 March 2014 7:46:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,

Never, ever, flash your taxpayer teats. LOL
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 22 March 2014 12:47:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy