Paid parental schemes question

Remove this Banner Ad

Cap said:
but why have they done that? are you suggesting that only "the mega rich" do this?
Click to expand...

No, I'm suggesting everyone does this, or tries too. Everyone wants to get into property because we are very good in this country of turning any sort of boom conditions into higher house prices. If you can get into the market you don't need to do anything except live in the house and it will go up in value at a rate faster than any interest bearing investment, even if after 10 years the house is in worse condition than when you bought it. It does mean however, that people put off having children while they are in the early stages of their mortgage and need all their income to support it.

Politicians talk about cost of living pressures and fiddle around the edges with a few dollars here and there in gas and electricity prices. But the real driver of cost of living pressure is the cost of housing. To help people cope with that they keep giving more and more tax concessions, rebates, benefits and the like, rather than let the market correct itself if it has become unsustainable.

Even if it were a good thing for our long term structural competitiveness to see a fall in house prices generally, the pain felt by individuals who stand to lose would be politically damaging. Far easier just to blame the unions for everything.
 
I just laugh at the calls that it is a scheme for multi millionares.... earning $150k doesnt make you a multi millionare.
Click to expand...

No it ($150k income) doesn't make you a millionaire but it doesn't place them in the top 2% of salaried income earners in the country.
 
Looks like the noes have it:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...with-no-due-date-in-sight-20140802-zzsbl.html

The Greens were the only crossbenchers supporting Mr Abbott’s scheme but said there had been no negotiations since earlier this year when they demanded the government spelt out the details of how the scheme would work and insisted it be funded entirely by business.

“We’re just waiting to see if it’s still a policy they want to pursue,” Greens MP Adam Bandt said.
Click to expand...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Slax said:
And a good thing too.

I've always wondered if this wasn't false policy. He knew that he'd struggle to get it through the Senate from day 1, knowing the only option was to deal with the Greens in a manner he is not willing to do.
Click to expand...

But what will he do now to look like he cares about women?
 
Slax said:
And a good thing too.

I've always wondered if this wasn't false policy. He knew that he'd struggle to get it through the Senate from day 1, knowing the only option was to deal with the Greens in a manner he is not willing to do.
Click to expand...
In that case why we would he repeatly call it his "signature policy" and something he would never back down on? It is one thing he could legitimately claim to have a mandate on.

I think the truth is the Liberals knew that the economy was going fairly well (i.e. the opposite of the debt and deficit beat-up) and they thought they would time it right so that tax revenues would increase with them back in and confidence up, etc. Therefore they wouldn't have to cut as hard as they have done and they could afford to give their friends $50-75K each since they'd all paid oh so very much tax all of their oh so very long lives. Of course, the reason confidence dipped back down and everyone is uncertain again is due to their incompetence in forming policy both in Opposition and now in Govt, and their 'narrative' is that they haven't cut hard enough. Austerity is bad for an economy and so even with planning their cuts a long time in the future to try and avoid a negative effect on the economy, they clearly still aren't seeing the revenues coming back to mining boom levels.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
In that case why we would he repeatly call it his "signature policy" and something he would never back down on? It is one thing he could legitimately claim to have a mandate on.

I think the truth is the Liberals knew that the economy was going fairly well (i.e. the opposite of the debt and deficit beat-up) and they thought they would time it right so that tax revenues would increase with them back in and confidence up, etc. Therefore they wouldn't have to cut as hard as they have done and they could afford to give their friends $50-75K each since they'd all paid oh so very much tax all of their oh so very long lives. Of course, the reason confidence dipped back down and everyone is uncertain again is due to their incompetence in forming policy both in Opposition and now in Govt, and their 'narrative' is that they haven't cut hard enough. Austerity is bad for an economy and so even with planning their cuts a long time in the future to try and avoid a negative effect on the economy, they clearly still aren't seeing the revenues coming back to mining boom levels.
Click to expand...
The concept that Abbott has a mandate to me is absolute crap. He didn't win the election because of his policies, he won because people were sick of Gillard. If he really did have a mandate then they would've got an increase in the Senate instead they lost Senate seats.
 
Slax said:
The concept that Abbott has a mandate to me is absolute crap. He didn't win the election because of his policies, he won because people were sick of Gillard. If he really did have a mandate then they would've got an increase in the Senate instead they lost Senate seats.
Click to expand...
ROFL half his policies like carbon tax totally were part of (big) the reason for victory.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tayl0r said:
The motoring enthusiast party has a senate seat with 0.5% support, the sports party has 0.02% (less than 3,000 voted for this) support.
Each seat has equal vote power to the Liberal and Labor seats who got in the 30s% support each.
Click to expand...

Sports party don't have a seat.
Labor and lib seats, like all others, are from a quota of total votes +1 divide 7. Or around 14.3%.

And yes I agree with your broader point, there isn't an equal balance.
Same goes for the HoR where a party can win the majority with rarely a primary vote close to a majority.

And highlights the problem with above the line voting.
 
mottrain said:
ROFL half his policies like carbon tax totally were part of (big) the reason for victory.
Click to expand...
LOL, nobody supports his direct action policy, they didn't vote for that. That voted for empty rhetoric and saying no because it resonated at the time.

The Liberals in the last parliament were arseholes who got the media on side due to their opposition being a shambles. Their abuse of question time and parliament in general was a joke.Therefore they controlled the narrative in terms of the governments perception, and continually used three word slogans which resonated with people. The government of the day were very poor, and they got in on the back of that, very little for their actual policies.

And this is not a Labor vs Liberal thing for me, for me they aren't much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top