Tony Abbott’s great big new tax
|
Now Tony Abbott has his own great big new tax and it’s a belter. Slugging medium and large businesses to the tune of $2.7b a year dwarfs the cost of the CPRS on business. The CPRS actually hands money from taxpayers to businesses for its first five years, costing the Budget over $4b. Thereafter, it turns revenue-positive, but only reaches $740m in 2019-20. It’s not until the mid-2020s that the CPRS finally cancels out the early generosity to business and becomes a net tax. Over the same period, Abbott’s parental leave scheme would cost over $31b. It’s not just bigger, but bigger by several orders of magnitude. Don’t forget that the Government’s scheme is also funded by taxpayers; it’s just that Abbott has told a specific and vocal minority of taxpayers that they’ll have to pay extra for his version. Exactly who those companies are, though, isn’t clear: in his announcement, Abbott said it was businesses with a taxable income over $5m a year. Later it was companies that paid tax of over $5m a year. On average, each of the medium and large businesses hit by Abbott’s tax will have to around $800,000 to $900,000 in extra tax a year. Obviously, the larger the business, the greater the slug. If that doesn’t sound too much, it means about six workers in each business, across more than 3,000 businesses. There’s some policy rationale for this: business is a prime beneficiary of a parental leave policy, because it increases the participation rate by encouraging more women to remain in the workforce, reducing wage pressures and expanding the skills available to employers. But those benefits apply to all businesses, not just large businesses, who employ a relatively small proportion of the workforce. And taxpayers also benefit from the higher taxes obtained from a larger workforce. And then there are the direct beneficiaries, parents themselves. So one small group of taxpayers is in effect paying for a scheme that we all benefit from. What Abbott claims, of course, is that over time, the Coalition will reduce the 1.7% slug as the deficit moves into surplus. This shows that Abbott knows perfectly well the Coalition’s incessant complaints about unsustainable debt and deficits are nonsense. He is counting on the fact that company tax receipts will surge again on the back of the resources boom, driving the Budget back into surplus far faster than the Government has forecast. There’s another equity issue that the Government’s scheme also avoids: by keeping benefits to the minimum wage for all recipients, the Government avoids the problem of a regressive scheme like Abbott’s, which rewards higher income earners, who need little or not support from taxpayers, much more than low income earners. Apart from anything else, that meant the Government’s scheme was not sidetracked by a debate about equity and whether high-income earners should be supported by taxpayers. Abbott, like John Howard, doesn’t believe in means-testing transfer payments. His instinct would have been for the scheme to cover all income levels, but he doubtless saw the thorny politics of a scheme that paid a millionaire’s salary for six months and compromised. He didn’t compromise enough. High income earners need less taxpayer support than low income earners, but the Abbott scheme reverses that. |
|
|
|
77 Comments
I’ve always thought Parental Leave insurance was a product that needs to come about. Where is the private sector in regards to this?
I know that most Superannuation funds offer some form of income protection insurance. I think they should also offer Parental Leave insurance that people can pay extra for and receive cover that will pay 75% of their salary for a year or so. (People could pay the premiums for it themselves, or companies could subsidise it for their own employees as an extra perk). That way, the people that want it can get it, and those who have no wish to pay for it (or have passed the child bearing years) won’t have to.
In my opinion, this sort of stuff is to expensive for Governments to provide.
“Exactly who those companies are, though, isn’t clear: in his announcement, Abbott said it was businesses with a taxable income over $5m a year. Later it was companies that paid tax of over $5m a year.”
Can we get some clarification on this point? There is a massive difference between taxable income and the tax a business pays. I can’t imagine a business with taxable income over $5m is considered a big business.
Abbott’s latest brainwave is so transparently ill-conceived it should have been killed-off well before this point. But who on the opposition frontbench is going to do that? An empty windbag like Hockey or an economic illiterate like Joyce? Not bloody likely.
There is something vaguely Bob Santamariaish about this policy but, rarely, this one has got me sympathising with big business. Business is supposed to pay so that a parent on $150000 a year can take six months off on the same rate of pay, courtesy of the taxpayer/big business. That just stinks of unfairness.
In his desperate desire to outbid the government Abbott has only shown his ineptitude and a lack of grasp of political realities.
We were warned about Abbotts “problem”. It is now becoming evident it is serious. The man is totally unfit to lead a political party let alone a Government. What the hell were the Libs thinking of listening to Minchin Abetz and co setting him up as their puppet.
Better to slug the fat cat CEO’s of the big corporations with a 75% tax on their multi millions. Then they would be genuinely contributing something.
What about childless couples? I wouldn’t mind getting $150K to take study leave…
And I guess the same “poor” people getting $150K parental leave will also get family tax benefits and other benefits too.
A few more like this from Abbott, and we may see the absurdity of Big Business lobbying for re-election of a Labor govt. What a topsy turvy world we live in!
This might be another of the prophesied “Latho” moments (cuts to pollies super, hmm?) for Abbott, prompting an initial boost in the popularity stakes, followed by the inevitable tailspin.
Tsk Tsk.
Who would’ve thought equality came at such a price.
Hilarious to see the sisterhood get all het up and bothered about a lack of “Broads in the Boardroom”, yet an incentive to put and keep them there is dismissed summarily as being too expensive, discriminatory and unworkable.
Bernard, why don’t you ‘balance’ your argument by examining the effect a reduced corporate tax rate would have on compliance, workforce participation and general productivity?
You might be surprised at how well it could work and how enthusiastic businesses would be in their support for such a move.
What business wouldn’t want to pay less tax?
Senator Bob Brown thinks it is a wonderful idea; I heard him on the radio. That’s all Oz needs, a Coalition party getting the Greens first prefs. Now that is spooky.
Wow! The hypocrisy truly amazes me…. Running a scare campaign on the ETS as a “great big new tax” suffered by business and households when in reality the permit revenue stream does not go to general revenue and the every penny not used for administration goes to compensation, and then coming out with this?!? A $3bn p.a. tax on large business. SURELY the punters are going to see these ridiculous arguments for what they are. I mean how could you really take the “tax, debt and deficit” line seriously now???
While I’m strongly in favour of maternity/paternity leave, this ‘thought bubble’ of Abbott’s is just that - no thought or even consultation with his shadow cabinet let alone all coalition members - isn’t this the reason the ultra right turned on Turnbull? I suppose Abbott is lucky then! He’s desperate to win over the womens’ vote? Need more than this to win me over!
I recall prior to the 2004 Election when Abbott promised the amount of rebate to those in private health insurance funds, and after the election, guess what? He had to back track and say he didn’t realise that it would cost that much??? It had already been ‘set in concrete’ though, ‘rock solid’ blah blah blah! This has the same smell about it!
As for introducing new taxes - Costello lied about that too! None in his first term blah blah - he introduced about 35 new taxes and increased 27 pre-existing taxes and charges - 62 altogether? (SMH Sept. 2000?) Just like the lies Barnaby is spruiking about Labor’s debt - not one journalist has mentioned let alone challenged him on the huge increases by his former you beaut leader - Howard!
The smh page has this curious juxtaposition:
“Tony Abbott proves he really has people skills” Gerard Henderson
AND
“Tony Abbott seeks forgiveness from party room after failing to consult it about his paid parental leave plan.”
Maybe he just doesn’t have the right sort of people skills. The kind that stop people he is flaky and inept.
Mack the knife@
They already pay 49% on all their millions, which is plenty. If we start taxing CEO’s at a 50% higher rate than the rest of the western world, what sort of leadership would corporate Australia enjoy? How many jobs do you think economy wide chronically poor management would cost this country?
I saw Julie Bishop in question time citing the example of a young woman working as a chef earning $68,000 ayear! I don’t know what universe that’s in.
If Abbot were to win the next election how many nanoseconds would it take for him to abandon this latest pledge? He and his entire front bench is a joke.
I would however like the government to use this most rare opportunity to improve upon their own scheme given they could possibly expect support from both the opposition and the greens.
Ivor@
What’s worse from the party rooms perspective? Forcing through a market based mechanism for reducing emissions which your party took to the last election OR taxing big business at $3bn p.a. for a paid maternity scheme? First direct government intervention to facilitate CO2-e abatement and then a direct tax on large business to fund a social program; it seems Tony was a closet socialist after all. Who would have thought it!
@Oblizzard “it seems Tony was a closet socialist after all.”
Not really — if he was a socialist he would pay ALL women who take maternity leave the same amount — notably $150,000!
OBLIZZARD -
Posted Tuesday, 9 March 2010 at 4:36 pm)Of course you conveniently forget, that many CEOs incomes went up by 300% during Howard’s almost 12 yrs, while the lowest paid had to fight for a lousy $10 increase. How many did Howard support? Hardly any?
It’s a constant source of wonderment to me, how people like you blithely think those at the top of the chain have heaps of thousands per week to live on, but somehow the rest of us can feed ourselves etc on a pittance? The last 10 yrs has seen groceries increase by 40%, but I bet incomes have only increased by less than 10%? Those on or near the bottom are always the ones to suffer. You’d think there were special Supermarkets for us to purchase our essentials - this is Australia not Venezuela(they (on low incomes - like pensioners, unemployed? buy their essentials at a reduced cost)!
Posted Tuesday, 9 March 2010 at 4:47 pm - “it seems Tony was a closet socialist after all.”
No, like the US, they don’t mind socializing the losses, but demanding none or little interference with their profits?
Look at the nonsense in the US over a decent health care policy, while under Bush and Obama, well over a $Trillion in helping those who caused the GFC recover or prevent their demise- pity about the poor little bastards who are still homeless and/or unemployed?
(good christians all though?)
If men carried and gave birth to babies(and did most of the care giving) the world would be a very different place!!!!This topic would be past history! Done & dusted!
As a libertarian this makes me sick.
Abbott better be Bull-shitting the electorate to get votes, otherswise he will lose mine.
Rush Limbugh
Posted Tuesday, 9 March 2010 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
As a libertarian this makes me sick.
Why? Why would a libertarian be against this? What are you in favour of? Profits, profits, profits, and only the most lean wage/benefit for those who produce it?
OBLIZZARD - What do CEO’s produce? Zilch! Who makes the profits? The workers, with women making up the overwhelming numbers in the world, while they own only 1% of the assets! How is that fair?
“What do CEO’s produce? Zilch!”
Sorry Liz, that is just too economically illiterate to let it pass by. A good CEO can make a lot of difference to how effective and productive a business is. That doesn’t mean they deserve extraordinary salaries but to say they contribute nothing is very ignorant.
LIz45 maybe google a libertarians belief system instead of making some overarching anti-capitalist comment that has no relation to what i posted or what i believe.
RUSH - no, you tell me your perspective! I don’t read minds, and my crystal ball is at the cleaners. I’m sure it’s not meant to be personal and private, otherwise, why go public? Defeats the purpose of a blog doesn’t it?
IVOR - Maybe so, but without the workers, the work wouldn’t get done! If the CEO is away for a week, possibly no change; if workers away for a week, no production! I don’t think that’s a difficult concept - certainly doesn’t warrant huge discrepancies in incomes, or slave labour, like Nike for example! How can they justify charging a $100+ for a tiny pair of joggers, while the person who made them receives $1 or so? They obviously don’t need to eat? Some unique characteristic of the poor????
MPM - “What business wouldn’t want to pay less tax?”
One that thought they had a responsibility to the workers, their families and the country’s future. Or, they could go along with the Kerry Packer saying, ‘that everyone should pay the least amount of tax as possible’ while he used his many persuits to bring about misery - like gambling etc? I’d like to know just how many tax avoidance schemes he or his minders used?
Adopt the ‘Jack system’? I’m alright, stuff you Jack!
Is this the same Abbott that said paid maternity leave would only happen, ‘over my dead body’? Opportunism has raised its ugly head! The polls summon some quick fix con for the women voters? What a pathetic excuse for a human being!
Liz the fact you didnt know what a Libertarian feels on the issue is bad enough,
Its not the job of the government to “help” you have kids.
Child birth is not a right its a responsibility.
While this seems like some great utopian ideal were women can take time of work and get paid for it, the fact remains for every legitimate working mother that takes the 6 months of and then returns to work, there will be many women who will get pregnant and cannot afford the child after that 6 month period.
An unintended consequence for this programme and a continuation of the welfare cycle.
You should not have kids if you cant afford them, this government intervention means a distortion in thje social fabric.
Again child birth is your responsibility. If you cant afford kids you shouldnt have them.
RUSH - “While this seems like some great utopian ideal were women can take time of work and get paid for it, the fact remains for every legitimate working mother that takes the 6 months of and then returns to work, there will be many women who will get pregnant and cannot afford the child after that 6 month period”
And you know this because?What causes this to happen? Experiences?? How exactly? What do you mean by “cannot afford the child after that 6 month period”? She’d be back at work then? Your point is?
I know that in broad terms, libertarians believe in the choices etc of the individual - the problem with just that view, is that you shouldn’t then use the contributions of the rest of us - that’s called dependancy? Not in your scheme of things at all?
The fact is, that we’re not a group of individuals who should live, love and care independent of any responsiblity to others - that’s not the sort of country I want to live in, and I’m sure you don’t either - I’d like to think that this country is not like that, so your view is from the perspective of a cohesive and caring, ‘fair go’ concept of community.
Women are not asking the country to take responsiblity for giving birth(although we need many women to NOT be pregnant when we are, so they can care for the delivery?) what is only fair, is that those who have the children physically, shouldn’t be disadvantaged, when men also have children, but it doesn’t have any ‘physical’ restraints on them. If we live in a fair and equal society, then we should take that into account. If you don’t think we should, say so, it would be more honest!
The other important fact is, 20, 30 etc yrs ago, people only had to work many years less in order to have a home - these days it takes more yrs to reach this - it really requires 2 incomes to attain this goal. I don’t know the exact stats, but I heard them very recently.
Your argument is flawed, as you know damned well, that if even half the women who were teachers or nurses decided to have a child at the same time, the society as we know it would not function - those highly trained women would be out of the system - the country couldn’t function? Your argument doesn’t even take this scenario into account. Take out the other areas that predominantly employ women - hospitality, some aspects of the IT industry, and heaps more.
Only Australia and the US don’t have a paid maternity leave program - even Bangladesh has one. This country can afford it, it’s just a question of priorities. Look at the article on the front page of today’s Sydney Morning Herald - $48 BILLION of waste and extravagance by those in the Defence industry? Limousines, leather furniture, paintings etc - what does that have to do with defending the country? The cost of paid maternity/paternity leave would be much less than that per yr??
If we’re going to have the number of people to pay taxes in future in order to pay for your needs as a sick or aged person, then women need to have babies - that’s just a reality. Any argument to the contrary is just plain nonsense. You might be able to afford to employ someone full time if, by some horrible happening, you developed a form of dementia, but I can’t, nor can my neighbour or friend? If not, what do you think would happen? What about your neighbour or parent?
If people only want to look after themselves, go on an island and stay there, but don’t come back and use the facilities paid for and operated by the ‘co-operative’ or your co citizens? No hospital or doctor’s services, as your ideology doesn’t permit any dependance on others, nor should you expect it - at any age, regardless! If you do, then my assertion stands, ‘the Jack system’ in operation! Stuff you Jack, I’m OK?
“Maybe so, but without the workers, the work wouldn’t get done!”
The CEO is a worker, albeit much more powerful and highly paid than most. His or her absence from the business is likely to have a deleterious effect on production, and the business generally, much sooner the the absence of any other worker.
And I fail to see how the pay of Nike workers has any relevance in this discussion at all.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Very smart stuff from BK on this subject in this edition and welcomed.
The Rhodes Scholar, what’s his name, ohhh yeah Mr Tony Abbott, don’t underestimate him.
Rhodes Scholars aren’t stupid one minute and enlightened the next even when they beg-pardon for being late learners.
As a ‘psychopathologist’ I can read this boy’s signals well beyond the liar, conniver tricks he plays.
He didn’t seek party approval for this announcement because he knew this new trick was way beyond the grasp of absolutely all of his colleagues even if one or other of them also had a Rhodes Scholarship secretly hidden with their budgie in the nylon smuggler.
This is the double wedge.
Bigger socialism by a mile because ‘I love women and children’ (except poor ones) without a tax, that any poor voter could be conned to love and adore and wet themselves in anticipation of those bloody companies paying but they won’t and when they refuse (with their political power their refusal will be something else) and the Rhodes Scholar won’t have broken his promise.
That’ll be after the election of course.
One has to be a fool to analyse any statement, policy or discussion of Mr Tony Abbott’s (that world famous budgie stroker) without suspecting it to be a trick of some very clever kind.
He has said so himself in the Rhodes Scholarship language which of course none of you understand but also in ‘psychopathological’ terms so to brush up on this skill for most of you there’s nothing but to watch and learn from TV programs like ‘The Mentalist’.
Oblizzard,
“What’s worse from the party rooms perspective? Forcing through a market based mechanism for reducing emissions which your party took to the last election OR taxing big business at $3bn p.a. for a paid maternity scheme? First direct government intervention to facilitate CO2-e abatement and then a direct tax on large business to fund a social program…” I agree. The ‘big new tax’ argument against CPRS is blown out of the water now, which is an unexpected bonus.
Rush Limbugh & Liz45,
I agree with the general principle that ‘you should not have kids if you can’t afford them’. However, I also agree that ‘what is only fair, is that those who have the children physically, shouldn’t be disadvantaged, when men also have children, but it doesn’t have any ‘physical’ restraints on them.’ A compromise would be to reduce the ongoing family payments and replace them with a larger amount of paid maternity leave.
Harvey,
The Abbott proposal does seem like a policy that will never be implemented, that’s true.
@MPM
“Bernard, why don’t you ‘balance’ your argument by examining the effect a reduced corporate tax rate would have on compliance, workforce participation and general productivity?”
What did you last slave die of? ‘Balance’ utilising a speculative (imaginery) reduced corporate tax rate?
Bernard, can you redo the figures, and include 100 lamingtons into the parental leave scheme per person per week, taking into account inflationary factors of lamington materials and world dessicated coconut Supplier shortages.
MPM, ever thought of doing your own analysis…. *yawn*
Tony Abbott “all cowboy and no hat”?
IVOR - “And I fail to see how the pay of Nike workers has any relevance in this discussion at all.”
You don’t? What the hell are you discussing this for? You raised about CEO’s etc? I’m speakaing about those who do the real toiling but get paid a pittance by comparison. How many Nike workers go and play golf, or have lunch at a posh restruant etc? The argument is about ideology, of which yours and mine are polls apart.
You haven’t addressed the issue of who and what you use in this society. I raised 3 sons; many a week there was $2 left a few days before pay day, sometimes 10 cents. They grew up, were educated and are productive human beings, with ‘people helping’ jobs, have kids of their own etc. These kids will look after you in your old age, as my kids generation will probably care for me - eventually - I hope not, but?
With your attitude, the ‘jack system’ you don’t mind my labours contributing to your welfare or your children’s or parents, but you don’t think you should contribute to what doesn’t affect you! That’s called arrogance and a damned cheek at best, or supreme selfishness or having remarkable gall! Or, obscene!
Even though I’m on a pension, I’m still a tax payer via GST, petrol etc. I’m contributing to the country and I have no problem with my taxes contributing to paid maternity/paternity leave. It’s just as well, that we’re not all as damned selfish as you!
In less than 10 yrs, the number of teachers in NSW schools will be drastically reduced. If others didn’t have children, in spite of making sacrifices, or by your standards, couldn’t “afford to have a child” this country would be in a worse position than it is now. Are we training enough of other peoples’ kids as teachers, in order to educate your kids or your neighbours? If not, what do you suggest we do? Import some?
I don’t think you’ve thought out this whole scenario, otherwise you may decide, that paid maternity leave is really another form of investment - in our country’s future!
Regardless of what CEO’s do, they certainly do not deserve the obscene incomes they now receive. This was pointed out in the US in recent times, and now the greedy well paid bastards who caused the trauma(GFC)(which is affecting the poor and low and middle income people)in the first place; who accepted the monies gained by the lower income people, are now screaming because the govt wants to prevent their extremes in future, while many whose taxes helped them out, are now homeless and unemployed!
Socialize the losses, privatise the profits? Yeah, that sounds fair?????
Tell me what is moral about that?
I guess that’s why they call him the mad monk.
Aside from the above arguments it appears Abbott is too quixotic, contorted and convoluted to be trusted.
I’m unconvinced he trusts himself.
And there would be members of the opposition who, in the wake of the surprise maternity policy announcement, are gazing, perplexed, into their sherries this evening.
Liz, you made a dumb statement about CEO’s contributing nothing and I corrected you. All your subsequent wild tangents are irrelevant and full of odd and unjustifiable assumptions about what you imagine I do and think.
You also seem to think you are the salt of the earth. Whether or not you are is totally irrelevant to any discussion here.
Tony Abbott’s latest idea wasn’t even sanctioned by the party room. The man is unravelling and displaying wild swings of mood. He doesn’t seem to be able to decide whether he should come across as an elderly ‘He-man’; a strident, Jesuit educated Catholic; a nineteen-forties politician; the man to guide women as to how to behave; or a caring loving father.
He is a man who cares deeply for Aboriginals and now: drum roll: The great women-loving socialist who wants to slug the tax payer on a whim of the moment. No wonder the Liberals were somewhat rocked when they heard about it.
Let’s face it folks, the man is downright unstable. Something Australia would be better off without. All passion and no smarts.
I think we are reading too much into this. This is a stuff up rather than a policy.
Abbott is a policy vacuum. He spent the last week lost in the wilderness, and returned to discover he was addressing a meeting of women, on International Women’s Day.
Woops. He’s got a problem with women. What to do. When in doubt, buy votes. Crank up an old idea, phone Sloppy Joe and get him to track down some figures, and surprise, a new policy is announced.
The policy is naive, politically and socially. It is not fully costed and would end up (in the unlikely event of it ever becoming law in an Abbott Government) eating into the budget bottom line, like all of Howard’s middle class welfare.
But it is most worrying as an example of the Opposition’s Policy development. There is none.
We are at most 6 months away from an election, and this is just the second policy Abbott has announced. The first was a Magic Pudding Planet Saving Policy, by turning off lights and planting a tree. But only if you want to. If you think it might help. Not that there is a problem. Just in case.
The Coalition relies on Government Departments to generate ideas, and it flounders in Opposition. It relies on Governments to fail.
Abbott’s biggest mistake in this is to give Rudd, who was doing his best to fail, a lifeline.
Abbott is now the issue. With 3 strikes, Abbott is the flip-flop man of Federal politics:
1 “Climate change is crap” but this is how we’ll fix it.
2 “Compulsory Paid Parental leave over our dead bodies” now a Leaders call.
3 “No new taxes under the Colaition”. Here’s a new tax.
Who will be the next Opposition Leader?
Beachcomber,
Regrettably from my perspective, as someone who used to be a Liberal supporter, I think you’re right.
IVOR - I don’t have tickets on myself at all. I was using that as an example to those, you or ??about your selfish attitudes re being a community not a mix of individuals. If you can’t follow the examples or points I made, OK - I have nothing further to add.
It’s relevant re our taxes(via business or tax or?) to pay women or men to spend time with their new child to point out what I consider are selfish views of some. You probably access certain goods and services that I don’t, I don’t then say I shouldn’t have to contribute? That’s it!
I don’t think CEO’s are as vital to making money as those who do the manual labour. The ceo’s don’t usually do the brain storming, they employ others to do that while they give the final decision, attend the meetings etc. It’s not rocket science.
If people waited until they could afford to raise a child, I probably wouldn’t be here, and my first two kids anyway also wouldn’t be here. Not that I was rich with the third, just not struggling as much. If you can’t follow what I’m saying you live in another world - or speak a different language, and are probably male!
Venus and Mars??????????G’night!
“about your selfish attitudes re being a community not a mix of individuals”
This is just another example of you attributing views to others with no evidence of any kind. You are not really participating in any discussion at all but just shadow boxing with ‘bad people’ who exist only in your head.
Having said that, Labor is much better at spin and advertising than at policy implementation.
There was nobody more suprised than Abbott when he got the job of Opposition Leader. I was wondering how long it would take for The King of Slogans to be hoist on his own petrad. Whoever posted above that he’s “all cowboy and no hat” is on the money.
Tony Abbott is very relevant to Australia and its culture of everyone has to be a winner. He is the very product of a society that hates the underdog and the loser. The loser of course, anyone who differs from the average or Tony’s absolute ’ norm’.
Those that differ in sexual preferences or having children outside wedlock, the homos as well as the homeless. If he is the best the liberals can come up with, god help Australia. Mr Abbott prides himself with being a “Rhodes Scholar”, which in itself ought to be seen as proof of his irrelevance.
I wonder if he will extend his maternity/parental paid support to same sex couples like so many ‘normal’ countries.
Rhodes Scholar Awards were the essence of hordes of Oxford Boys misogynists and denied to women till 1977.
http://oosterman.wordpress.com/
Good question Gerard. Will Tony Abbott extend his maternity/parental paid support to same sex couples? That’s gold.
ha, thats a political landmine Gerard…
even Penny Wong tows’ a quasi homophobic view and she is a lesbian!
Bobby Hawke a Rhodes Scholar too….
Tomboy, you do know that education at all levels is heavily susidised and there are a range of income supports currently in place for students that far outstrip anything available to women who have babies?
“I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn’t minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra. ” - Kerry Bullmore Packer. So if KBM’s companies paid less than $5million in tax then no great big new tax for them.
Perhaps Stephen Mayne could start a list of seemingly big companies that paid less than $5 million tax last year and would consequently not be slugged with Tony’s GBNT.
So Abbott declares this morning, the Coalition will block the Govts maternity leave legislation in the Senate. He declared, the Oppositions plan is better. How a plan with no substance, no detail and is a Great Big New Tax, that will probably never see the light of day is better, may well be seen as yet another outburst from a man who appears to be losing his grip on reality.
If the Coalition is blocking the government’s legislation, they should make sure that they are genuine about their own plan. Otherwise, it will just be a stalling tactic, due to having no intention of doing anything about parental leave. If no action is the real aim, then they should admit it.
CGC - Notice that Kerry Packer used the term, “minimizing my tax”? Did a journalist ask him exactly what he meant or was he addressing a Senate Inquiry?
I read an article in the last week or so, where big businesses have either paid insufficient tax or none - the Australian Tax Office is apparently going after them this yr. If this is the case, I hope they are penalised severely. Women on sole parent benefit who, through no criminal intent have not give their total earnings to centrelink are branded as crims and can either not receive any tax return or punished by the removal of benefits for up to 8 wks(the same for women who refuse to take a job, any job, regardless of child care or transport?) The difference in these 2 groups is billions, not millions! In many cases, the women have rung Centrelink or if possible, have gone into their Office - (difficult for many regional people) and assured that all is well!
Wait for someone from the Coalition to scream about this injustice!
The Coalition here is copying the Republicans in the US - block everything, regardless!
Will the electorate see through it?
An article that appeared in the Sun Herald, Nov.26th 2000? writes, “Treasurer Peter Costello has been caught out by fresh claims that he did not introduce any new taxes in his first term in office”…. The article goes on to state, that in fact Costello introduced35 Bills imposing “new taxes” and 27 more Bills increased “existing taxes”?
“This was Mr Costello’s biggest promise, not to introduce new taxes or increase existing taxes, and he has broken it over and over” Mr Crean said. The article goes on to state that “even the titles of some of the bills acknowledged that they were bringing in new taxes”.(Costello answered the question on October 30, 13 months after he was asked it. How’s that for showing lack of respect for the protocols of Parliament?)
Didn’t Abbott already state that there’d be no new taxes? Is this just an oooopppppsss! moment now? Why isn’t the media giving him a pasting? Why isn’t the media bringing up the huge debt Howard/Costello left us?
Net foreign debt when Howard elected in 1996, $180 Billion. In 2007, when Howard lost office, Australia “owed the world” $550 Billion.
In 1996, the total national debt was $700 Billion. By 2007, it had grown to $3.2 TRILLION! Who’s the most extravagant spenders in Office? The Libs haven’t been quizzed over this either!
While on the media, I have just heard Greg Sheridan, the Australians Foreign Affairs editor, while being interviewed on the ABC, state “all illegals who make it to Christmas Island, will never be sent back to their home countries. After spending a few months on the island they are then tranferred to the mainland where they are allowed to stay, permanently”. A straight out lie. Sheridan knows it but to state it as a fact and not be challenged by the interviewer is disgraceful, I will be emailing him to tell him so. The man knows no shame.
http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/02_Executive_Summary.asp
Of course we all know that Australians hate paying taxes as opposed to Sweden where the latest government was returned on the promise NOT to lower taxes.
You get what you pay for. As stated before, Australia, the US and Swasiland are the ONLY countries not to have introduced paid maternity/ parental leave. We are in good company.
I think little Tony needs to change his nappy now. I’ll have to go, cheers.
http://oosterman.wordpress.com/
Liz,
“Net foreign debt when Howard elected in 1996, $180 Billion. In 2007, when Howard lost office, Australia “owed the world” $550 Billion.
In 1996, the total national debt was $700 Billion. By 2007, it had grown to $3.2 TRILLION! Who’s the most extravagant spenders in Office? The Libs haven’t been quizzed over this either!”
This all sounds like private debt, rather than debt run up by the government.
Sorry to repeat myself but Tony Abbott is revealing himself as being subject to wild mood swings. Also if anyone noticed his eyes during the 7.30 report, they would have seen the confusion and almost angst written large.
This “Tony is crazy” spiel is thoroughly tedious. Tony is not crazy, or even mildly deranged. There are much better, but harder, ways of demolishing him politically than this silly schtick.
Venise,
Although Tony Abbott was a Minister in the Howard government, I think Malcolm Turnbull had more experience running large organisations and being a public figure. Abbott is probably out of his depth.
JILLIAN - This all sounds like private debt, rather than debt run up by the government. This letter was written in reference to Malcolm Turnbull’s ‘debt truck’, and Phil Teece make those comparisons.
“Net FOREIGN DEBT when Howard was elected in 1996, $180 Billion. In 2007, when Howard lost office, Australia “owed the world” $550 Billion.
Jillian, how would private debt of 22 million people(now, not then) run up debt TO THE REST OF THE WORLD of $550 BILLION? That’s ridiculous!(from $180 Billion to $550 Billion in 11 yrs - wish I had some of that bounty?? - whacko!)
What’s your explanation for the “total naitonal debt” going from $700 billion to $3.2 TRILLION at the end of 2007?
Anyway, in comparison to what Howard was ‘given’ in 1996 it increased markedly, why was that do you think? The person who wrote this letter to the SMH did not say that it was the peoples’ debt, and I’ve repeated it in a few forums now, and you’re the first one to question it let alone disagree.
Also, the Conservatives are also good at accusing Labor of having ‘big government’. (No journalist scrutinizes this either - lazy bastards?)
Ron Boswell, a National Party Senator when leading up to the 2007 Election, increased the people in his office alone by 9! He didn’t have a Ministry, nor was he a Parliamentary Secretary, it was to help him be re-elected. The figures were mentioned by the now Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner, while he was addressing The National Press Club prior to the 2007 Election- he pointed to the millions/billions spent by Howard - the huge increases in numbers of ‘extras’ employed during his almost 11 yrs. This included the fact, that Howard spent more on his own advertising than any other govt in the history of this country!
Trying hard to make excuses for that crowd? They didn’t care how much of our money they through around!
DAVID - Is that the same bloke who almost knocked Stephen Mayne off the stage while pissed as a fart at a function a few yrs ago? He’s a little grub! Another example of those at Murdoch cess pits who prostitute their profession. Nothing they do would surprise me!
IVOR - Call it what you will, but he hardly comes across as a sane, rational, adult, mature and responsible human being, now does he? He’s at best, a meglomaniac. The only person he cares about is the person he sees in the mirror each morning!
Abbott’s brain is like a receptacle for marbles - wherever the marble pops into each morning is his ‘thought bubble’ for the day! No forethought, nor does he engage with others apparently? Didn’t Turnbull get the shove due to that sort of behaviour???
I have an almost 9 yr old grandson, who is more responsible and has a capacity to think with more maturity than Abbott!
“he hardly comes across as a sane, rational, adult, mature and responsible human being, now does he?”
Yes he does. It is childish and lazy to try to demean political opponents in this way.
More evidence of the Mad Monk living up to his name…….Parental leave plan better than ETS: Abbott March 10, 2010 - 11:24AM
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says his tax to fund paid parental leave is better than an emissions trading scheme because it delivers a “practical direct benefit”.
Despite describing the ETS as a “great big tax”, Mr Abbott plans to introduce a levy on big business to fund his scheme of six months parental leave on full pay.
I presume Ivor they are the utterances of a sane, rational, adult, mature, responsible human being? AND would be PM?
Yes, “they are the utterances of a sane, rational, adult, mature, responsible human being”.
All of your examples are part of his strategy to win the next election. It is almost certainly a seriously flawed strategy but it is, as I said, juvenile and lazy and just plain wrong to indulge in your kind of abuse. People who engage in this sort of stuff reveal only their intellectual incapacity and they certainly fail to persuade anyone.
@Ivor Lewis…..earlier in the blog you describe Abbott “…Maybe he just doesn’t have the right sort of people skills. The kind that stop people he is flaky and inept.”
I rest my case your honour.
Flaky and inept as a political leader is not the same as an insane, irrational etc human being. That should be so obvious but it isn’t if you are a lazy and intellectually incapable political partisan. There are obviously millions of people who would perform extremely poorly as an opposition leader but that, equally obviously, does not mean they are insane or irrational.
Case dismissed.
@lewis…methinks you too follow your leader up the path of hypocrisy, catchy is it not?
“Your leader” is juvenile and “hypocrisy” is intellectually incapable. You’re nothing more than a dishonest nuisance.
So Liz and Venise, do you remember a few short days ago how our close freinds MPM JamesK and the rest a) opposed any tax for any reason and b) laughed at the suggesteion that soemone other than the mother should bear the cost of bringing new children into the world. A week’s a long time….
Ivor Lewis - All I can say in response, is, you should get out more, or change your circle of friends. My 3 sons were active in school events when they were in High School; one was on the school debating team, another was involved in musical presentations, and another was involved in the school magazine -each one was Captain of the school. They were amazing re debate and questioning current affairs etc - they kept me on my toes I can tell you! They also were involved in the school’s favourite charity of each year. By comparison, Abbott is insular, self possessed, incapable of showing empathy(to asylum seekers or women with an unwanted pregnancy etc) and I’m sure, that there’s many young people out there who have more talent, perception, compassion and intellect, than he has displayed over many yrs, but particularly since he became leader of the opposition! He’ll jump on whatever he thinks might win a vote or votes? I question his sincerity also!
As I said, you need to broaden your circle of friends, acquaintances and mix with those people who have their feet on the ground, and their brain cells intact! I find his putdowns of women, highly offensive! Just another area of immaturity!
Liz, your genius for going off on an irrelevant tangent about me, your kids, their friends, whatever, remains undimmed. As none of them is likely to be opposition leader any time soon we will have no way of knowing how they would stand up to the rigours of that job but it is safe to say that you would be very lucky to find just one who may be capable of doing it in future.
I am obviously not a supporter of Abbott but it is just silly to so seriously underestimate the demands of the job.
Liz,
“Jillian, how would private debt of 22 million people(now, not then) run up debt TO THE REST OF THE WORLD of $550 BILLION? That’s ridiculous!(from $180 Billion to $550 Billion in 11 yrs - wish I had some of that bounty?? - whacko!)”
Private debt includes the debt of corporations as well as individuals. It would be mainly corporations.
“What’s your explanation for the “total national debt” going from $700 billion to $3.2 TRILLION at the end of 2007?”
There would be debt owed by Australians and debt owed to Australians. If the net foreign debt was $550 billion, and the total national debt was $3.2 trillion, then the difference would be debt owed to Australians, having a netting effect. So I would focus on the $550 billion.
“The person who wrote this letter to the SMH did not say that it was the peoples’ debt, and I’ve repeated it in a few forums now, and you’re the first one to question it let alone disagree.”
I noticed that I was the first to question it here on Crikey, even though there was a 2-hour interval between your original comment and my response. Strange. I put it down to being a left-ish forum, a place where I find myself playing the role of token right-winger.
The other forums are probably similar.
IVOR - Many people give examples of aspects of life to make a comparison to reinforce a point - if you can’t follow communication, what the hell are you doing here? Are you so inadequate or arrogant to only accept forms of communication that comply with your narrow terms of reference? You didn’t work in Howard’s office did you?
In summation, Abbott is a repulsive, arrogant, inadequate, narcissistic excuse for a man, that’s why in my estimation, he’s not up to the job? Oh yes, he’s a misogynist!
If you don’t support him, why are you defending him? Tell me what rational actions has he shown this week? Mr, ‘paid maternity leave over this govt’s dead body’? Now he wants us to take his latest political idea as evidence of him giving a s**t about “working families”? His tongue should turn black each time he refers to “working families” as the govt he was a member of did its best to destroy “working families” via WorstChoices? I didn’t hear him utter one sympathetic work in defence of the pressure he put women under - you know the ones? Those he now wants to be convinced that he’s women’s best friend! Oh please!
JILLIAN - I think you should provide some proof of your disagreeance with those quotes. How do you know they’re not related to the Howard govt only?
Liz, you clearly think that Crikey should be reserved for off-the-wall ranters such as yourself who have little interest in argument but seek only to vent their vehement and uninteresting opinions. I will state once again that I am no supporter of Abbott but to vilify him as insane and irrational is unfair and stupid.
IVOR - I disagree! Suit yourself, or as the young people say, “Whatever”?
I know it’s difficult for a mere mortal such as I, to have the audacity to think, that I’m entitled to a point of view, and give explanations as I see fit! Or use life experiences out of the limited and narrow field of your own! Pardon me! I defer to your superior knowledge and experiences sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Liz,
“How do you know they’re not related to the Howard govt only?”
See this article by Craig Emerson, who was definitely not a supporter of the Howard government.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/open-economy-our-best-hope/story-e6frg6zo-1225717095325
“Financed by overseas borrowings…, the housing boom helped lift Australia’s net foreign debt from less than $200 billion in 1996 to $550 billion in 2007….as long as debt was private, it didn’t matter how big it was…”
There is a lot of criticism by Craig Emerson, but he doesn’t say how he would have stopped the housing boom without causing a lot of pain, especially as the Reserve Bank is no longer controlled by the government.
Abbott bashing is a bit unfair. He has a scheme that is way better than Labor’s which will have support in the community, even by the Greens, but will never be implemented.
He can now vote down Labor’s scheme unless they adopt his (no chance). The result will be no parental leave, which is Liberal policy, and Labor who looks like the bad guy for not being as progressive as the Libs. Unfortunate for the parents, who will now probably consider voting Liberal. Very clever Tony.
JILLIAN - I will, thank you!
IVOR - Then Abbott is just plain evil then. HE knows exactly what he’s doing, doesn’t give a shit about ‘working families’ or anyone else outside his select group, which definitely doesn’t include women - at all, any! It’s apparently OK to force women with young kids(youngest only
to take any job or a punishment of poverty(no pension for 8 wks.) but don’t be so hard on him - booh hooh!Is this example not relevant IVOR? Not bloody much it isn’t!
DR PHIBES - Yes, that may work if the people are just plain bloody stupid or brain dead altogether? I hope they’re smarter than that and look at his past background - he can make a ‘quick after the election change ofheart’ in a matter of a few weeks - he did it in 2004 over the Medicare rebate.
‘Oooopss! I made a mistake, we can’t afford it now, sorry everyone!’ That was ‘set in concrete’ ‘water tight’ even a ‘read my lips’ promise!
I’d add LIAR to my description of him!
He didn’t consult Pell on the issue of school funding either did he?
Not much! He lied his head off! (I’ve still got that Lateline interview?)
Of course, having a compliant media will help, as they won’t scrutinize him on the detail - they haven’t so far! IF it was Labor, the Murdoch rags would have 2 inch high headlines - ‘Leader didn’t consult colleagues - Policy not costed! blah blah blah! or ‘Big Business plan anti-govt election strategy’? blah blah blah!
Does anyone want me to believe, that after the anti-women, anti-child, anti their working parents legislation he supported(helped draw up legislation) in almost 12 yrs, that he’s been given a flash of conscience leading up to a Federal Election! Oh please! (pink pigs will do their fly over shortly?)
JILLIAN - Except for a couple of small paragraphs, he was hardly throwing praise for the Howard govt’s economic policies, on the contrary…
“Encouraging home buyers into staggering debt to buy houses at inflated prices might have been a clever Coalition government political strategy, but it did nothing to lift national productivity.
As the housing bubble began to deflate, along came a replacement, the mining boom. Such was the deluge of money pouring into the Coalition government’s coffers from company profits and capital gains that Treasury began publishing theories to explain why it was repeatedly underestimating company tax receipts. Some of this revenue windfall was saved in the Future Fund and other funds, but most was spent, almost totally on consumption.
Yet again, the then government was squandering the opportunity to invest in productivity growth (as I argued back in 2006 at the Making the Boom Pay conference organised by The Australian newspaper and the Melbourne Institute).
Now that Australia’s housing and mining booms have deflated, what does the nation have to show for them? It’s a pitiable balance sheet. National infrastructure is run down and inadequate for a modern, advanced country. Australia has fallen further behind the pacesetters in educating our young people, especially the disadvantaged young. The spending side of the later Coalition budgets was unsustainably large; booming spending funded by booming revenue from the mining boom.
When the mining boom burst in 2008, the rest of the world stripped $210 billion off commonwealth taxation revenue. As a nation we have no choice but to adjust. The only issue is whether the burden of adjustment is fairly shared or whether it is borne mainly by people who lose their jobs.”
And it continues………….
Liz,
I agree Craig Emerson was very critical of the Howard government, but you would expect that, with him being Labor. I could probably go through the article and pull it apart, disagreeing with most of what he says. He does verify that the debt was private though. So there is no dispute about that.