Paid parental schemes question

[Ratts of Tobruk]

So you are in favour of public servants being stripped of the same conditions the tone wants for every breeding age woman?

I wouldn't 'strip' it from public servants who have already signed contracts including it, but for new contracts I wouldn't have it.

Also, why do you specify "every breeding age woman"? I assume babies by definition come from 'breeding age women', but are you saying the PPL isn't available for adopting/surrogate-IVF couples?

 

[Cap]

The idea that anyone could NOT adjust their lifestyle and budget because they've had a child is ridiculous. Even Wills and Kate will be adjusting.

And you say that these highly talented women take up "less productive roles" to have a child? Guess what's really not productive? Staying at home for 6 months and getting paid so much money for doing it that you don't have to work for 12-24 months.[/quotebut in the broader scheme it is more productive to get them back.

 

[GuruJane]

If you have 6 months of looking after a child and $75K with which to do it with, do you think you'd be more or less tempted to return to work after that 6 months, as compared to Labor's scheme?

Any woman earning 150K pa in a job would almost certainly return to work after PPL in order to keep her position on the promotion ladder, Ratts. Also so as not to lose continuity of super benefits.

btw - the number of women in the $150K salary bracket who would be having babies would be a very, very small % of the number of women who will benefit from this PPL.[/quote]

 

[Gough]

On News24, Nick Minchin has suggested this policy "won't pass the Senate".

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Any woman earning 150K pa in a job would almost certainly return to work after PPL in order to keep her position on the promotion ladder, Ratts. Also so as not to lose continuity of super benefits.

You didn't answer my question.

On News24, Nick Minchin has suggested this policy "won't pass the Senate".

I heard that on The World Today. I think it's their best tactic yet:
"Vote for us - don't worry, we think our policies are crap too!"

And no doubt the conservatives will be very happy when the Senate negotiates for it to be the same as the Greens policy - capped at incomes of $100,000 - thinking nothing of the fact they whinged like James Hird for 3 years when Gillard negotiated with the Greens for the fixed price on Carbon.

 

[pjcrows]

On News24, Nick Minchin has suggested this policy "won't pass the Senate".

No. He's hoping it won't pass the Senate.

 

[GuruJane]

You didn't answer my question.

Question: If you have 6 months of looking after a child and $75K with which to do it with, do you think you'd be more or less tempted to return to work after that 6 months, as compared to Labor's scheme?

Answer: Neither more nor less tempted, Ratts, because women holding down high powered jobs worth $150K pa would be motivated to return to work even if there wasn't a PPL at all.

]

 

[GuruJane]

Furthermore Ratts, most women earning 150K per year would already be in jobs where they get 6 months leave on full pay.

 

[DeanoT]

On News24, Nick Minchin has suggested this policy "won't pass the Senate".

Greens policy is the same as I understand it, but that the maximum compensation is 6 months @ 100K, rather than $150K. Maybe the Greens will force Tony down to $100K as a compromise, but unless Lib/Nat Senators cross the floor, it will pass.

 

[DeanoT]

Furthermore Ratts, most women earning 150K per year would already be in jobs where they get 6 months leave on full pay.

So whereas before private industry picked up the tab, now the taxpayer does?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

So whereas before private industry picked up the tab, now the taxpayer does?

Exactly, $5.5 billion to achieve:

Answer: Neither more nor less tempted

It's Howard-era middle and upper class welfare which Australia can't afford. And Hockey said he wanted to end the "age of entitlement".

 

[yibbida]

btw - the number of women in the $150K salary bracket who would be having babies would be a very, very small % of the number of women who will benefit from this PPL.

[/quote]

The coalition have said it will cost $5.5 Billion/year
The average number of babies born that will fall under the scheme is about 300k

Therefore the coalition have assumed on average they will be paying out $16,900 per baby.

Their numbers don't add up.

I would suggest additional money is in that $30 Billion blackhole.

 

[GuruJane]

Greens policy is the same as I understand it, but that the maximum compensation is 6 months @ 100K, rather than $150K. Maybe the Greens will force Tony down to $100K as a compromise, but unless Lib/Nat Senators cross the floor, it will pass.

Dear oh dear - for sure one can see Labor denying a Tony Abbott mandate for his PPL, giving him grounds for a double dissolution and a chance to spend months crucifying them over it when there are unions already wanting the 6 months/full pay to become Labor policy.

 

[GuruJane]

Exactly, $5.5 billion to achieve:

It's Howard-era middle and upper class welfare which Australia can't afford. And Hockey said he wanted to end the "age of entitlement".

It's a workplace entitlement but its political purpose is to lock the aspirational working-women class well and truly behind the Abbott led coalition going forward.

Eventually it may even be fully funded by a loading on payroll tax, which was an option canvassed in the productivity commission's report - which you ought to read in entirety if you wish to be mature and informed on the issue, Ratts.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The coalition have said it will cost $5.5 Billion/year
The average number of babies born that will fall under the scheme is about 300k

Therefore the coalition have assumed on average they will be paying out $16,900 per baby.

Their numbers don't add up.

I would suggest additional money is in that $30 Billion blackhole.

I thought it sounded surprisingly cheap too, if you can call $5.5 billion 'cheap'. I would LOVE to see their assumptions. But I don't think they will ever reveal them.

Eventually it may even be fully funded by a loading on payroll tax, which was an option canvassed in the productivity commission's report - which you ought to read in entirety if you wish to be mature and informed on the issue, Ratts.

Seeing as you haven't read it, I will take your recommendation with a pinch of salt. Keep trying to get that 'grown up govt' line working, Jane.

 

[DeanoT]

Dear oh dear - for sure one can see Labor denying a Tony Abbott mandate for his PPL, giving him grounds for a double dissolution and a chance to spend months crucifying them over it when there are unions already wanting the 6 months/full pay to become Labor policy.

How will labor block when the Greens have essentially the same policy as the Libs/Nats?

Surely Coalition + Greens Senators will be 39+ leaving ALP vote impotent?

 

[GuruJane]

Seeing as you haven't read it, I will take your recommendation with a pinch of salt. Keep trying to get that 'grown up govt' line working, Jane.

Of course I've read it. When it first came out and more recently. You seem to assume, in an immature and ungrownup fashion, that I would disapprove of the reports recommendation???

But on the contrary I was in favour of their recommendation because a Labor govt politically would not have been able to hit business to pay for a 6 months full pay entitlement.
Only a coalition govt could do that politically, which they have. And good on Abbott.

 

[GuruJane]

How will labor block when the Greens have essentially the same policy as the Libs/Nats?

Surely Coalition + Greens Senators will be 39+ leaving ALP vote impotent?

The issue is, whether they will amend not block.

If he wins a solid mandate can't see tony abbott being dictated to be senate so quickly. He's not the type. In the end, imo, Labor would have to cave in.

 

[blackcat]

It's a workplace entitlement but its political purpose is to lock the aspirational working-women class well and truly behind the Abbott led coalition going forward.

Eventually it may even be fully funded by a loading on payroll tax, which was an option canvassed in the productivity commission's report - which you ought to read in entirety if you wish to be mature and informed on the issue, Ratts.

sub 35yo working women on 150k per. i dare say, they are less aspiratrional, (working class), and more MLC middle upper middle class professionals.

 

[AM]

Classic example of pork barrelling. Schemes of this nature should be means tested.

 

[Visions]

The coalition have said it will cost $5.5 Billion/year
The average number of babies born that will fall under the scheme is about 300k

Therefore the coalition have assumed on average they will be paying out $16,900 per baby.

Their numbers don't add up.

I would suggest additional money is in that $30 Billion blackhole.

Isn't it a $70 million dollar blackhole?

 

[JRoo]

Isn't it a $70 million dollar blackhole?

The $30 billion figure is without including Abbott's PPL Gold.

 

[yibbida]

Isn't it a $70 million dollar blackhole?

Close....

 

[DarwinRoo]

Are gay couples who use a surrogate eligible for PPL?

 

[yibbida]

Are gay couples who use a surrogate eligible for PPL?

You are asking for detail on a coalition policy........