Paid parental schemes question

Remove this Banner Ad

Re-bumping this up, given that it is now starting to be discussed in the media a bit. Abbott flagged "negotiations" that would need to happen over the next few months. This is essentially code for "talking to the Greens". Which has now apparently started to happen: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-19/greens-begin-ppl-scheme-talks-with-federal-government/5167438

I'll call it now. I see the final outcome being a compromise PPL scheme passed by a Coalition/Greens majority after next July. Cap to be set at 120k in exchange for concessions on low income superannuation, the Newstart allowance and/or stronger means testing for PHI rebate.

Personally, I like the scheme. In fact, it's one of the Coalition election policies I do like. Leave schemes are not welfare, and as such, shouldn't be lumped together and compared.

Labor's policy treats PPL as a welfare scheme, essentially, and not a leave scheme (ala Sick Leave or Carer's Leave).

Obviously, a cap needs to be reached. The difference between the Coalition and Greens schemes are quite significant in terms of cost.

The Greens policy was costed by the PBO before the election, and found that if implemented on July 1, 2014, it would have a net cost to the Budget of $6.9 billion over the the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years.

The Coalition policy wasn't part of the official PBO costings (like all other Coalition policies), but some analysis done a few months back found they thought the cost would be around $14 billion, over the same three years. But I don't believe this includes the savings of around 2.5 billion that are part of the PBO costing of the Greens scheme.
http://www.afr.com/p/national/abbott_parental_leave_to_cost_bn_fdG47KuT9RVnWozbyIUU5M

So we'd be looking maybe at more like $10 billion over 3 years.

So the Greens scheme offers a fiscal advantage, and offers Abbott an avenue to getting his legacy legislation through Parliament.

Thoughts on this?

A nice article from Peter Martin on the subject: http://www.petermartin.com.au/2013/08/anyone-would-think-abbotts-parental.html
 
Lunchlady Doris said:
Sounds like it's all paid for by the big 300. Where does the 10 bil come in then?
Click to expand...

As in, that will be the savings measure that would need to be made. If it can be paid for by 1.5% rise, the AFR article I posted suggested it might not be enough. Whereas it would be enough (almost) for the Greens scheme. They also talk about a $1.9bn saving over forward estimates to cover the last bit.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gough said:
Quite ironic given his "captains pick, put the Greens last" at the election and his stern avowal never to negotiate with them.
Click to expand...

Ah but you see was it ever written down in writing?

This will be the second time the Greens have helped out Tone (if it does happen) since the election & would not surprise me if there would be a joint press conference to announce this deal to the nation.
 
noddy said:
Ah but you see was it ever written down in writing?

This will be the second time the Greens have helped out Tone (if it does happen) since the election & would not surprise me if there would be a joint press conference to announce this deal to the nation.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's one thing to puff your chest out and play the tough guy, realpolitik is another altogether. No wonder they plumped for the ALP last time around.
 
samFFC said:
Leave schemes are not welfare, and as such, shouldn't be lumped together and compared.
Click to expand...


If it's Government money rather than the employer paying it, then yes it is. What happened to people paying there own way? why not live on one wage? save some cash before hand? Otherwise usual centrelink benefits should do the job. Its a massive amount of money for very little benefit.
 
Meh, the populate or perish myth is silly. The problem in the future won't be not enough people to do work, it will be not enough jobs for too many people.
 
Not many times can one of the major parties claim to propose a policy that actually outspends the Greens but Abbott and the LNP have done so with their PPL Gold!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jewbacca said:
If it's Government money rather than the employer paying it, then yes it is. What happened to people paying there own way? why not live on one wage? save some cash before hand? Otherwise usual centrelink benefits should do the job. Its a massive amount of money for very little benefit.
Click to expand...

True, but the system as it stands is inadequate. Not sure that the cap at 150k is appropriate, as said in my above post a lot can be saved by only cutting it to 100k, let alone further.
 
Jewbacca said:
If it's Government money rather than the employer paying it, then yes it is. What happened to people paying there own way? why not live on one wage? save some cash before hand? Otherwise usual centrelink benefits should do the job. Its a massive amount of money for very little benefit.
Click to expand...

but that would require discipline
 
Lunchlady Doris said:
Sounds like it's all paid for by the big 300. Where does the 10 bil come in then?
Click to expand...
It's being paid for at least in part by restoring double taxation. That is shareholder franking credits are to go meaning both companies and shareholders will again be taxed. This from a government that is supposed to be against increasing personal taxation and one who is supposed to encourage people to be financially independent come retirement. HYPOCRITES OF THE FIRST ORDER. And for what? A profligate paid parental bonus scheme.
 
Jewbacca said:
If it's Government money rather than the employer paying it, then yes it is. What happened to people paying there own way? why not live on one wage? save some cash before hand? Otherwise usual centrelink benefits should do the job. Its a massive amount of money for very little benefit.
Click to expand...
Didn't the productivity Council detail that is was of huge benefit?
 
Catfish Alley said:
I'm surprised Australia doesn't have paid parental leave. Most developed countries have it for at least a year. Often it isn't paid by the government though. It's paid through Employee Insurance.
Click to expand...
Australia does have paid parental leave. Both private and public. The debate is over how generous it should be in volatile economic times with an ageing population and 'structural deficit'.
samFFC said:
True, but the system as it stands is inadequate. Not sure that the cap at 150k is appropriate, as said in my above post a lot can be saved by only cutting it to 100k, let alone further.
Click to expand...
Why is it inadequate? That PC report says breastfeeding for 6 months is recommended, so Labor's scheme could move to that. Altho, as stated, it is the document that recommends Labor's 18 weeks, so clearly they buy into what is screamingly obvious - the vast majority of parents plan for children above and beyond what leave payments they get. Having a child does not cost $75K or $50K or even $25K within 12 months, let alone 6 months. This seems unnecessary when people earning $100K+ would presumably be highly useful to their organisation and could negotiate for greater leave if needed.

If this is about allowing well-off families to continue to pay off huge mortgages (rather than Abbott wanting parents to stay at home longer; and/or wanting to cut the overall tax burden for high income earners because they don't want to reduce the escalating level of income inequality and/or agree with Thatcher's ideas on society being non-existent) then we are going to be inflating the property bubble in one of the largest ways possible. Couples altering their living arrangements to have families is standard practice - one of the main reasons people enter the market. To give these people huge sums of $ at this time will make housing affordability even worse.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
Australia does have paid parental leave. Both private and public. The debate is over how generous it should be in volatile economic times with an ageing population and 'structural deficit'.

Why is it inadequate? That PC report says breastfeeding for 6 months is recommended, so Labor's scheme could move to that. Altho, as stated, it is the document that recommends Labor's 18 weeks, so clearly they buy into what is screamingly obvious - the vast majority of parents plan for children above and beyond what leave payments they get. Having a child does not cost $75K or $50K or even $25K within 12 months, let alone 6 months. This seems unnecessary when people earning $100K+ would presumably be highly useful to their organisation and could negotiate for greater leave if needed.

If this is about allowing well-off families to continue to pay off huge mortgages (rather than Abbott wanting parents to stay at home longer; and/or wanting to cut the overall tax burden for high income earners because they don't want to reduce the escalating level of income inequality and/or agree with Thatcher's ideas on society being non-existent) then we are going to be inflating the property bubble in one of the largest ways possible. Couples altering their living arrangements to have families is standard practice - one of the main reasons people enter the market. To give these people huge sums of $ at this time will make housing affordability even worse.
Click to expand...

I agree with Labor's policy on this.

but Labor's policy doesn't address the opportunity cost of working women. The reason why it is important is too many "bums" are having kids and not enough working women are having kids. Personally, I don't care but that explains the quantum of $s on offer by the Libs.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
If this is about allowing well-off families to continue to pay off huge mortgages (rather than Abbott wanting parents to stay at home longer; and/or wanting to cut the overall tax burden for high income earners because they don't want to reduce the escalating level of income inequality and/or agree with Thatcher's ideas on society being non-existent) then we are going to be inflating the property bubble in one of the largest ways possible. Couples altering their living arrangements to have families is standard practice - one of the main reasons people enter the market. To give these people huge sums of $ at this time will make housing affordability even worse.
Click to expand...

This, this is what it is all about, and most other things we call middle-class welfare. People have borrowed right up to the maximum limit of what the banks will allow them. They can't take 6 months or a year off to have children unless they get some sort of income support.
 
Admiral Byng said:
This, this is what it is all about, and most other things we call middle-class welfare. People have borrowed right up to the maximum limit of what the banks will allow them. They can't take 6 months or a year off to have children unless they get some sort of income support.
Click to expand...
but why have they done that? are you suggesting that only "the mega rich" do this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top