Top StoriesMay’s sharp fall in jobless numbers added to the greenness of the ‘recovery’ (or less bad) thesis; overnight June’s unemployment figures were so awful that they could have stunted at least, the wavering shoots.
Eva Cox: How the Budget demonises rich women
|
The image of the undeserving rich is clearly female as typified by the government-driven, media-promoted, hysterical coverage of the two minor income tests to Family Tax Benefit B and the Baby Bonus. Despite both cuts being to well under 10% of recipients, they have been puffed and discussed as though the recipient were Cruella de Vil or a Vanderbilt wife. The part B payment still favours single-income families over dual-income families earning the same and should have been combined with part A, except for sole parents. So this was not a move to support paid working mothers, it was a cheap scam to gain kudos for being tough against payments to women which covered up the lack of toughness on mainly upper class male welfare such as super tax concessions. And now rumours are flying that maybe a future maternity leave scheme may be means tested, which would be grossly insulting to women in paid work as leave is an industrial condition and Army Reserve leave is not means tested, though government subsidised. Having a leave payment income tested will make it welfare again and not the basis for a wider set of policies on better conditions for work/family integration. It will confuse employers who offer real maternity leave as to how they would fit together. It would also be based on family income, so removing the principle of this being income for the person on leave. The Baby Bonus will be paid over six months post partum to those estimating less than $75,000 income for this period. It no longer will help the poor with the costs of having the baby because it will be paid in 13 equal instalments. So the costs of the cot and pram and maybe some other equipment will no longer be affordable in cash. The not quite $200 a week stretched over six months suggests a killjoy control of don’t-spend-this-on-anything-expensive. The SMH is already saying that the income test will be hard to police because it is a forward estimate and Centrelink will go lightly on those who make mistakes. It will only cover 16,000 (estimated) births out of 270,000 or more births. So it is symbolic rather than a major saving. As for the rest of the Budget, women don’t do well either. The Child Care Tax Rebate is bad policy as it creates incentives for ABC Learning and the like to raise fees. There is nothing to help sole parents caught in the welfare-to-work trap, except maybe an easing of the pressure to conform to ridiculous job-seeking demands. There is little there for the many single aged pensioners, mainly female, who have little or no extra income. There are tax cuts that may assist lower income earners but most of them also help high income earners. The extras bonus for carers is there, for this year, but the changes to the Baby Bonus suggest a lump sum is not likely to survive the next year. The noise about second earners benefiting from the tax cuts is only because they are low income earners. If they work more than about ten hours they are likely to lose eligibility for Family Tax part B, and depending on husband’s pay, the Baby Bonus as well. The promised extra child care places will be slow to come so the increased labour supply may be discouraged by the same policies that target them unfairly. |
|
|
13 Comments
Tabloid ‘discussion’ of issues will always use extravagant terminology and stereotyping. You wouldn’t expect anything else from that type of newspaper, TV and radio. However, that does not undermine the basic validity of the changes that have been made. While I agree that the superannuation concessions have gone too far, Eva Cox is ignoring the need for ‘class fairness’ as well as gender fairness simply because her own pet causes were not addressed in this Budget.
Mrs hater. Why use Cox to comment on Australian families? Her politics are about division so anything she writes is tainted. Crikey should have gone to the Australian Family Association to write a commentary rather than Cox. Ah well. I suppose even Crikey gets it wrong sometimes.
Eva, there is this little thing happening around the place. We women demanded equal rights. Now we have them we have equal responsibility/
What about canning all this 1970’s crap, we won that war and it is so old it has whiskers.
It might also shock but many single men are pensioners on disabiltiy and like we women on disability got nothing as usual.
This gender divide stuff is so damn tedious.
I didn’t think the budget was meant to give everyone a free ride or some little gifts. Self-funded retirees got a sfa. But I am not complaining.I thought it tried to address some over generous middle class vote buying madness by JWH. Or do you think that every thing to do with female biology has to be paid for by someone else? What about a prostate bonus for us mere males?
Every press report seems to mention “Family tax part B”. As a single self funded retiree, would someone please explain what the hell it is.
Chris, it is paid to the non-working (or little working) partner in a family. It is supposedly compensation for something or other. Often it is compensation for being wealthy enough not to have to work. Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t to me.
The person completely ignored by all the benefits is the single white male with a mortgage.
They pay maximum tax ,have no major deductions and have all the expenses.
Eva’s right! Society is nothing but a plot against women by men! Why didn’t I think of this before?
Re income testing - many parenting decisions are made on the basis of opportunity cost. Since the opportunity cost of stopping work to raise children is greater for those on higher incomes, there should be no income testing of the baby bonus, parental leave, or subsidised / rebates on childcare.
With falling fertility and an ageing population, the only economically sound policy is to support all families - regardless of income - to have children. The baby bonus is a start and has contributed to increased fertility in recent years, but paid parental leave, and better quality cheaper child care are the important next step. Offering all of these mean that families will have a range of choices on how to raise their children, and will ensure children are better off.
Great thinking Janet but I don’t think we should stop at the baby bonus. It obviously costs wealthy people more to give up their time to exercise so we should be providing them with free exercise equipment to compensate them for their sacrifice. Also, a wealthy person is obviously wasting much more valuable time than a poor person when they visit the supermarket so the government should subsididse a big discount off their grocery bills. In fact, if we were really being fair, we would give them their groceries for nothing. When you really start to think about it you can see that wealthy people are not being compensated for their valuable time in thousands of ways They are the most exploited people in the country and it is about time the government did something about it. I also sometimes think that when I write comments for Crikey I am not being adequately compensated for my time and that all the Crikey readers who are poorer than me should be sending me money for my more valuable time.
Tom, I was wondering about the yellow, black, brown and purple single white males with a mortgage. Wouuldn’t they be in the same boat too? Or is this a whinge that is exclusive to white guys?
Means testing the Baby Bonus and the Family Tax Benefit Part B should be commended. I pay enough tax, why should I subsidise people earning $150G plus? It’s nuts. Welfare should be paid to those in need, I would much rather the tax I pay go towards increasing the max rate of the pension rather than line the pockets of the rich. As much as Australians enjoys it’s jingoistic image of ‘the battler’, we have sadly adopted a welfare mindset. Who pays? We all do.
The maternity payment (not baby bonus) is extremely useful and i would regret the situation that pays it in very small increments. I have 14 month old twins, one with a congenital heart defect. i was in hospital for 5 weeks before the birth; 2 weeks after the birth, in hospital with my boys for 2 more weeks on top of that with bronchiolitis/heart surgery different times. i am lucky that i had paid maternity leave and my long service leave due. i have been working for 14 years to gather that amount. i took it on half pay in order to maximise my entitlements. most businesses can’t afford the situation that i was in. how else is a mother meant to do it even if a big income earner when they are a) recovering physically from a surgery b) breast feeding/expressing around the clock c) trying to keep their baby alive? my husband works hard and did evrything that a man can do, but the mother is the main caregiver for at least 12 months in a child’s life. this is serious.