Comments on: Taxing at double time to pay for Abbott’s baby bonus

By: Meski

Meski — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:11:39 +0000

Rebecca, that’s what working casual means. You take a higher per hour rate than permanent, and don’t get annual leave, sick leave, and, this is the important bit, *maternity leave*. Don’t like it? Then work permanent, but *don’t* expect to be able to have your cake and eat it, eg have casual pay *and* leave entitlements.

By: klewso

klewso — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:50:49 +0000

3,000 companies x “$900,000 each”, comes from …….?
Just what are “all the details of Abbott’s scheme”, that some can not be agreed with?

By: Rebecca Albury

Rebecca Albury — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:17:52 +0000

You know, most of those worrying about ‘whose money’ have forgotten that we are talking about supporting parents, mostly mothers to take care of helpless little new babies. Perhaps it is worth remembering that many well paid women already have access to company or enterprise paid maternity leave for at least 12 weeks (not perfect, I agree), but that casual workers and low paid women have have no option except to leave the workplace for a period of time to care for themselves and their babies after giving birth.

I am bemused that a small recognition of the needs of women and babies has become an opportunity to talk tax. All this when an alternate financial panic is about whether there will be enough workers to support old and disabled people.

In my long experience, the price of bread and petrol just goes up anyway, I thought that was capitalism. etc.

By: Jonathan Maddox

Jonathan Maddox — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:36:33 +0000

FWIW I heartily support paid parental leave at a flat rate and without a means test.

And FWIW I think the tax is absurd in isolation and the tax system as a whole needs a massive overhaul, with the complete abolition of whole categories of taxes, deductions and “tax benefits”. I find Georgism rather appealing

By: Meski

Meski — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:33:21 +0000

@Rena: Not rabbits, but it must be regarded as an encouragement for increasing population in an overcrowded world. Merciless and stingy? I think Australian families are fairly well of already, compared to many countries.

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:29:45 +0000

Its called upper middle Class welfare which may explain why your so fond it,but don’t worry if you think the Company’s wont raise prices to cover it your in dreamland and we all pay.
Meanwhile some one on $150000 a year is poverty stricken and only going to get I believe $75000 to look after the baby,I bet you would be on here moaning like hell about unmarried mothers ect,dont you think some one on that kinda money would have worked out when they are goint to have kids and provided accordingly.
But the the Upper Middle Class are Howard and Abbotts bribe targets,its middle class welfare and when prices go up ABBOTTs big tax

By: Jonathan Maddox

Jonathan Maddox — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:25:35 +0000

Why on earth is the proposed tax associated with the proposed government-paid parental leave?

Like any benefit or subsidy, government-paid parental leave should be considered on its own merits, and funded out of general revenue.

And like any revenue measure, the proposed tax should be considered on its own merits, and contribute to general revenue.

Scott is right, that the tax proposal is small and that it is no reason to oppose the paid leave scheme. But by the same token, the parental leave scheme is no reason to support any particular tax!

By: Rena Zurawel

Rena Zurawel — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:01:37 +0000

I could not stop laughing while reading Glenn Dyer’s arguments taken out of false magician’s hat.
“Millions of Australians will lose from ….(Tony Abbott’s) exaggerated version of baby bonus’.
I love it! It is just that we do not know how many millions of working Australians would be affected by millions(?) of pregnancies of working Australian women. Is Glenn suggesting that all Aussie women would rush to get a job and get pregnant to stay home looking after their babies for six months?. Or spend the money on drugs?
It may come as a surprise to the author of this ‘elaborate’ that maternity leave is not a ‘baby bonus’. It helps, in so many countries, to get families through the very challenging post natal period. It takes about 6-9 months for an average woman to fully recover after having a new born baby. The social cost of stressed out families would have never occured to some ‘macho’ gentlemen in this country.. Why are we so merciless and stingy when it comes to Aussie born babies and their parents?
How come that countries much poorer than Australia can afford not only 1 year fully paid maternity leave but also state subsidised creches and kindies??
I do not mind having my taxes spent on Australian families and their kids. They are our families and our kids.
But I do mind my taxes being spent on overseas corporate ‘bonuses’ and CEO hefty (and totally unjustified) packages. They do not need to bother about maternity leave, anyway. I hate the idea of my taxes being spent on military extravaganza.
I may not agree with all the details of Tony Abbot’s scheme. But I do believe that we are mature enough to follow the civilised countries (for a change).
I still think that, as Australian taxpayers, we should be able to look after new born Australian babies. It would take off so much pressure from our health system and it would give young families space to breath.

MESKI
The idea that the paid maternity leave would encourage Aussie population to breed like rabbits is a bit far fetched.

And I still suspect that the maternity leave issue comes at the right time as one of those election tricks. Once the election is over we will have to forget the whole thing, altogether. Until the next election comes so we will disuss at length dental services, ‘baby bonuses’, health, education and the Murray river. And never do anything about any of them.

By: Meski

Meski — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:16:11 +0000

WTF are we encouraging an increase in population?

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:14:49 +0000

Of all the arguments against Abbott’s tax, this is the silliest. It’s going to affect peoples super? Some investors will lose money? Please. This is a very minor tax that is swamped by long term average GDP growth of 3% a year.
As to the doom and gloom predicted in the share market, not exactly true. Most valuations are based on EBITA (Earnings BEFORE interest, taxation and Amortisation). This isn’t going to be affected by a tax.
Also, the dividend decision is based on a whole multitude of factors, not just the amount of profits earned. Most large companies need to pay dividends as they experience limited growth in earnings and need to keep the shareholders happy. I don’t see this changing because of a small tax.
I’m not a fan of Abbotts scheme (as I mentioned in another thread, i think Parental Leave should be an insurance product), but this isn’t a reason to denounce it.

By: Michael Beggs

Michael Beggs — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:38:48 +0000

Not to defend Tony Abbott or anything, but on the principle of taxing profits: you completely elide the massive disparities in share ownership, through superannuation or otherwise. “So about 60% of all shares on the ASX are owned by Australians, one way or another…” Some Australians much more than others!

By: Mark Duffett

Mark Duffett — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:29:00 +0000

This is all true, but will the average swinging voter make the connection between Abbott’s scheme and reduced investment returns? If not, Abbott isn’t going to care too much.