Paid parental schemes question

Remove this Banner Ad

Pessimistic

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
There already is paid parental leave. Some companies do it and theres the state scheme

The question is - at what income does Abbotts parental scheme pay more than the current one ?

How much will it cost and wheres the money coming from ? its a tax oops company levy, but is it on turnover or profit ?
 
It's a shocking scheme that needs to be dropped asap (Abbott's one).

Has there been any investigation into income splitting for families ?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

"Govt is minimum wage ($606 pw) for 18 weeks - about $11K. Doesn't not include super.

Abbott's does include super, I believe.

Assume the levy is just tacked onto whatever they have to pay in company tax.

Pottsie moans and groans but trog Libs don't realise Abbott is placing their ghastly party to be the natural destination for the modern aspiring career woman. Not a bad constituency.
 
GuruJane said:
"Govt is minimum wage ($606 pw) for 18 weeks - about $11K. Doesn't not include super.

Abbott's does include super, I believe.

Assume the levy is just tacked onto whatever they have to pay in company tax.

Pottsie moans and groans but trog Libs don't realise Abbott is placing their ghastly party to be the natural destination for the modern aspiring career woman. Not a bad constituency.
Click to expand...
Abbots one goes for 6 months, the silly thing about it is women on say 75k plus nearly all would get 3 to 6 months paid anyway and wouldnt access the govt payment. Abotts policy is much better for workin families, moving forward, where the women ears less than 75k. But when you are rusted on to the ALP logic is rarely used
 
I am extremely curious to know how large company number 3000 is. I know the top 100-200 or so are billion dollar companies, but am extremely interested to find out how large in turnover the smallest of these so called large companies is to gauge what effect the 1.5% tax would have.

Also how are they calculating the top 3000? If you were thereabouts the cut-off point as a business you would be trying your best to exclude yourself from having to pay the tax.
 
Old_Man_James said:
I am extremely curious to know how large company number 3000 is. I know the top 100-200 or so are billion dollar companies, but am extremely interested to find out how large in turnover the smallest of these so called large companies is to gauge what effect the 1.5% tax would have.

Also how are they calculating the top 3000? If you were thereabouts the cut-off point as a business you would be trying your best to exclude yourself from having to pay the tax.
Click to expand...

If ALP was proposing this abbott himself would be visiting and grandstanding with every single one of those marginal companies. its a party of protest (for now)

On topic, the policy would appeal to females earning over about 30k who'd like to have more than 4 months off and are planning a family.

It might work out cheaper in the long run if people are encouraged to have families earlier in their career whan they usually earn less. but thats an attitudinal thing
 
Qsaint said:
Abbots one goes for 6 months, the silly thing about it is women on say 75k plus nearly all would get 3 to 6 months paid anyway and wouldnt access the govt payment. Abotts policy is much better for workin families, moving forward, where the women ears less than 75k. But when you are rusted on to the ALP logic is rarely used
Click to expand...

There's hardly any women earning 150K upper limit let alone having children at that stage.
More on 75K but probably only getting 3-4 months.
Abbott is going to sew up aspirational women for the Libs, a very fast growing constituency.

Another knock on effect is that women might start having their children at a younger age.
 
Pessimistic said:
If ALP was proposing this abbott himself would be visiting and grandstanding with every single one of those marginal companies. its a party of protest (for now)
Click to expand...

Well of course he would. His ghastly party wouldn't let him do otherwise. But as it is, he's got them snookered.

On topic, the policy would appeal to females earning over about 30k who'd like to have more than 4 months off and are planning a family.

It might work out cheaper in the long run if people are encouraged to have families earlier in their career whan they usually earn less. but thats an attitudinal thing
Click to expand...

I would say almost certainly, particularly over the long term. The psychological effect on women/couples will be quite marked, imo.
 
I can't believe what a free run Abbott is getting with this shitfull policy. This is the definition of class warfare.

Currently everyone gets the same amount as a welfare entitlement - 18 weeks at the minimum wage.

Abbott's scheme is to pay people for 6 months, but at the wage level they were previously earning. So for a lawyer who was earning $150,000 a year she gets $75,000 over 6 months, and a bank teller on $35,000 a year will get $17,500. Essentially they are doing the same task for society - staying home to look after their child to ensure it gets the best start in life, and then return to the workforce. Yet the lawyer gets more than twice the bank teller's normal annual salary, in just half a year.

Why is one baby worth $75,000 to society and the other $17,500? The explanation so far seems to be that the lawyer will produce a better class or calibre or quality of baby than what the bank teller can do. Which is a load of elitist, snobbish class-warfare bullshit.

Shame Tony, shame.
 
Abbott is stuck between a rock and a hard place with this policy as the entire reason he introduced it was to be seen as more female friendly to get himself a boost in the polls but now he is comfortable ahead in the polls he cannot drop the scheme like he probably wants to as it would mean he too would also be branded a liar which is his entire platform in running against Gillard.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

http://theconversation.com/prominen...front-party-room-on-paid-parental-leave-13967


The opposition points out that women aged 18 to 49 who earn more than $100,000 represent only around 1.5% of all people with taxable incomes
Click to expand...


1.5% of 12.3 million taxpayers in Australia is about 185,000 people.

If only 10% of them have a baby and get at least $50k for 6 months it would cost at least $925,000,000 just to pay those 18,500 women.

How much will it cost to pay for those under $100k?

In 2010 there were 297,000 births in Australia.

Taking out the 10% of those above 100k from above, that leaves 278,500 potential paid parental leave recipients.

The average wage for Women in Australia is $61,760.
The participation rate in 2004 was 53%

Anyone think it is going to add up to what Abbott thinks it is going to cost?

How is he going to pay for it?

1.5% "LEVY" on business whose income is greater than $5 million.

Is the Parental Leave payment tax free?








 
wasn't Hockey out n about last week stating how much the Liberal party dislike levy's? yet they're all onboard with this levy, yet seem to have opposition to a slight rise in the medicare levy for the NDIS...
 
I think this policy reveals the hidden side of Abbott that scares the electorate. He announced his PPS before the last election without even consulting his colleagues. And he has the hypocrisy to lecture Labor on what is really a "great big new tax" on industry.

noddy said:
Gina wants to know if it is worth it if she goes back into producing.
Click to expand...

Given her last experience she would be more likely to push for retrospective abortion.;)
 
http://www.afr.com/p/national/abbott_parental_leave_to_cost_bn_fdG47KuT9RVnWozbyIUU5M

The Coalition’s paid parental leave scheme would cost more than $5 billion a year, says the Parliamentary Budget Office.
A PBO costing of the policy, seen by The Australian Financial Review, estimates the policy would cost $14 billion in its first three years if it began on July 1 next year. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has yet to set a start date, saying only that it would be in the first term of a Coalition government.
Another analysis, this one conducted by the Australia Institute, estimates the Coalition would have to increase the 30 per cent company tax rate by 3 percentage points – twice the 1.5 point increase the Coalition proposes – just to meet the original cost estimate of $3.4 billion a year. That is because 46 per cent of the extra company tax raised under the scheme as proposed would be lost in franking credits returned to shareholders.
Shadow assistant treasurer Mathias Cormann on Wednesday morning rejected The Australia Institute’s figures.
Asked on Tuesday whether the top 3200 companies to be hit with the tax increase would be entitled to a franking credit for that additional tax, Mr Abbott indicated they would, saying the normal tax system would continue.
The PBO analysis forecasts the policy will cost $3.6 billion in 2014-15, rising to $5.06 billion in 2015-16, and $5.3 billion in 2016-17. It models the policy on the details so far announced, which are a 1.5 point increase in company tax for companies with an annual taxable income of $5 million or more.
The scheme would pay a primary carer their full wage, capped at $150,000 a year, for six months, as well as superannuation contributions.
It assumes the extra company tax would be treated as an increase in the overall company tax rate and franking credits would apply.
Click to expand...

Black Hole Joe at it already!
 
Abbott would be a joke at any time, but given the current economic climate, it's completely indefensible and irresponsible.

With the weekly increase in the size of the deficit (Gillard told us $12B a fortnight ago, Wong told us $17B yesterday; how can they be so far out?) Abbott has the perfect opportunity to drop the scheme as being a luxury the country cannot afford.

Why he doesn't take that opportunity is hard to comprehend.
 
King Elvis said:
Abbott would be a joke at any time, but given the current economic climate, it's completely indefensible and irresponsible.

With the weekly increase in the size of the deficit (Gillard told us $12B a fortnight ago, Wong told us $17B yesterday; how can they be so far out?) Abbott has the perfect opportunity to drop the scheme as being a luxury the country cannot afford.

Why he doesn't take that opportunity is hard to comprehend.
Click to expand...

Because he has brilliant political instincts for long term as well as the short, Elvis - going forward this policy locks in the aspirational two-income family vote for a government he leads.

btw its all canvassed in Abbotts book Battlelines pp100-104, published in 2009 long before Abbott ever thought he might become Opp leader.
Perhaps you should get a copy and read up on future iniquities your leader might have in store.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top