Comments on: Eva Cox: How the Budget demonises rich women

By: Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Tom Woods

Tom Woods — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: janet meyers

janet meyers — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: goy

goy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: Damien

Damien — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Eva’s right! Society is nothing but a plot against women by men! Why didn’t I think of this before?

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: FemaNazi

FemaNazi — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: carolyn

carolyn — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.