2013 Election Year Party Policies- Liberal

[tigergollywog]

I'd like to know what Ita Buttrose's kids think. She's one of the highest profile women in Australia and she's always indicated family was her priority.

High powered career people can still provide kids with a better, balanced upbringing and lots of quality time compared to some stay at home parents.

Point 1. Theyde probably say "Ita who?" - its one of newtons laws that you cant work 18 hours a day, never turn your phone off AND be a present and engaged parent. I am agmrmmrmmrm, agrmrmtyyyyt, agreeihgygyg, AGREEING with Julie Bishop. Ark, I feel dirty now.

Point 2. Yes, and this highlights the diversity of people and their situations, especially when it comes to the most complex system in the universe IMO ... The human relationship, and I am a firm believer that you judge other humans relationships at your peril.

 

[tigergollywog]

I know mate...

The paid parental leave policy is far superior than the ALP one in many respects and it will be interesting to see if Gillard/ALP do a Kevin07 and start 'copycatting' to try and nullify it.

nice try Livs.

Again, Abbotts paid leave is nasty because it has no means test, thereby implying that little Maddison of Mossman is worth $150K, while little Kylie-Narelle of Broadmeadows is worth $18K.

So, unfortunately Livs, a policy that hands a big bag of public money to the extremely wealthy, is not superior in any respect, unless of course you are extremely wealthy, pregnant and greedy.

 

[Rosy]

and I am a firm believer that you judge other humans relationships at your peril.

I agree. That's why I am not a fan of Julie's comments. She's judging others on her own values and opinions. I'm sure plenty of high powered career people have balanced, loving and adjusted family relationships. It can be done. Who is Julie to judge otherwise. Her comments are way too generalised and gender specific.

 

[poppa x]

I agree. That's why I am not a fan of Julie's comments. She's judging others on her own values and opinions. I'm sure plenty of high powered career people have balanced, loving and adjusted family relationships. It can be done. Who is Julie to judge otherwise. Her comments are way too generalised and gender specific.

Politicians of both sexes from all party's make judgements on peoples values, opinions and needs all the time.
It's part of what we pay them to do.

 

[Tigers of Old]

From my perspective I think Julie nailed the issue. Her main mistake was to make it too gender specific.

 

[Liverpool]

nice try Livs.
Again, Abbotts paid leave is nasty because it has no means test, thereby implying that little Maddison of Mossman is worth $150K, while little Kylie-Narelle of Broadmeadows is worth $18K.
So, unfortunately Livs, a policy that hands a big bag of public money to the extremely wealthy, is not superior in any respect, unless of course you are extremely wealthy, pregnant and greedy.

And what is wrong with that?

If Maddison has earnt that right to be paid $150,000 per year and her mortgage and bills are reflective of this income, then surely that is a good thing that her and her family do not have to worry about financial pressure because she is going on paid parental leave?

Six months at the same salary you earn under the Libs is far more generous than 18 weeks at the minimum wage under the ALP and one less stress for mother and family.

It also allows the mother to stay at home with the baby for as long as possible without having to worry about scrounging around on a minimum wage until it gets too much and the mother is forced back to work to keep mortgage/bills paid.

Also the Libs policy pays superannuation whereas the ALP one does not.
Another point for the Libs over the token ALP policy.

Anyone who says the Libs policy isn't superior to the ALP one for the mother, the baby, the family, and the financial well-being of the family as well, is simply letting their own prejudices override a good policy ;D

 

[mld]

Anyone who says the Libs policy isn't superior to the ALP one for the mother, the baby, the family, and the financial well-being of the family as well, is simply letting their own prejudices override a good policy ;D

What nonsense Liverpool. Many people rightly think that welfare should be directed towards those who need it to live, not to those who need it to cover an inability to budget. It really is terrible policy.

 

[tigergollywog]

And what is wrong with that?



Six months at the same salary you earn under the Libs is far more generous than 18 weeks at the minimum wage under the ALP and one less stress for mother and family.

So the more 'generous', or the less-means-tested, the better the policy? Hell, Tony should give gina rhinehart and clive palmer a school kids bonus pegged to their income. A couple of hundred grand in january to Gina and Clive to buy the kids some Versace school shoes and a Prada school bag would be awesome policy using your logic.

The libs could possibly deliver the Guiness book of records Worlds Best Social Policy by sending a cheque for $1000,000 to everyone on the BRW top 100 rich list and call it a snout in the trough allowance. It would only cost $1b and labour could never top it for generousity

 

[Liverpool]

What nonsense Liverpool. Many people rightly think that welfare should be directed towards those who need it to live, not to those who need it to cover an inability to budget. It really is terrible policy.

So the more 'generous', or the less-means-tested, the better the policy? Hell, Tony should give gina rhinehart and clive palmer a school kids bonus pegged to their income. A couple of hundred grand in january to Gina and Clive to buy the kids some Versace school shoes and a Prada school bag would be awesome policy using your logic.

Who said anything about welfare?

A big proportion of the policy is paid for by businesses being taxed (instead of paying the ridiculous carbon tax ).


Forecast to cost $3.3 billion a year, the scheme will be funded by a 1.5 percentage point increase in company tax for the nation's largest 3200 firms as well as a $100 million top-up from the budget.
Mothers who took leave to look after their babies would receive their full wage for six months.
It would be capped at annual salaries of $150,000, meaning a maximum payout of $75,000 for six months.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/business-sounds-alarm-over-abbotts-parental-leave-plan-20120306-1uifh.html#ixzz2Ke6bdQ19


Anyways, neither of you have said what the issue is of mothers continuing to earn the same amount they earnt before they had their baby and therefore keeping a consistent household going.....compared to the mother (who could well be the main bread winner in the family) getting deducted from a good paying job and then slung onto minimum wage under the ALP policy....no comment?

 

[tigergollywog]

...no comment?

this bit

 

[mld]

Who said anything about welfare?

It is welfare. It is paid to people by goverment out of revenue raised by tax.

Anyways, neither of you have said what the issue is of mothers continuing to earn the same amount they earnt before they had their baby and therefore keeping a consistent household going.....compared to the mother (who could well be the main bread winner in the family) getting deducted from a good paying job and then slung onto minimum wage under the ALP policy....no comment?

I've said what my issue is countless of times. It is not the role of government to pay people money who do not need that money to live. It is up to people to take responsibility for their own lives and to budget for their own children. Govermnent should not be responsible for propping up people's home investment decisions; people should consider their own risk profile and invest accordingly.

Then again, I'm a bit of a rugged individualist when it comes to this sort of thing, I'm really against this sort of nanny-state policy.

 

[Tigers of Old]

So the more 'generous', or the less-means-tested, the better the policy? Hell, Tony should give gina rhinehart and clive palmer a school kids bonus pegged to their income. A couple of hundred grand in january to Gina and Clive to buy the kids some Versace school shoes and a Prada school bag would be awesome policy using your logic.

:cutelaugh

 

[Liverpool]

this bit

Most infomative post yet from you :hihi

It is welfare. It is paid to people by goverment out of revenue raised by tax.
I've said what my issue is countless of times. It is not the role of government to pay people money who do not need that money to live. It is up to people to take responsibility for their own lives and to budget for their own children. Govermnent should not be responsible for propping up people's home investment decisions; people should consider their own risk profile and invest accordingly.
Then again, I'm a bit of a rugged individualist when it comes to this sort of thing, I'm really against this sort of nanny-state policy.

That's fine and your opinion but the reality is that more western countries have gone down the paid parental leave route, whether you (and me) like it or not.

But if we are going to go down this route, then we may as well do it properly and not half-arsed.

 

[tigergollywog]

But if we are going to go down this route, then we may as well do it properly and not half-arsed.

There gonna be plenty of rich folk having a paid parental leave root if Tony gets the gig. Some of those funny Adelaide establishment types might try it a bit half-arsed too.

 

[happytige]

What happens to young mothers who have previously been employed on casual rates? This is practically the norm in the hospitality industry. These young people are expected to work incredibly hard to earn $20 per hour.

Will these mothers be paid anything if they have not been in permanent employment?

It is extraordinarily unfair that new mothers are paid at different rates, depending on their earning power, when their parental roles are identical.

.......What happens to those women who have been unemployed before the birth of their child??? Do they get anything?

 

[Liverpool]

There gonna be plenty of rich folk having a paid parental leave root if Tony gets the gig. Some of those funny Adelaide establishment types might try it a bit half-arsed too.

Well, it might inspire people to get out there and get a decent job so they can stay on the same rate

Why should "rich people" be continually punished for doing well in their lives?

All Tony's policy does is keep people in the same rate of pay so they are not losing anything.....so Madison and Kylie earn the same amount they would if they were still working.
Sounds fair to me.

Why should Madison be punished and drop a massive amount in her income and maybe lose her house because she is pregnant, yet Kylie stays on the same amount?

It seems a cop out for people who don't earn or don't even work and doesn't encourage people to do well in their lives....the rich, always propping up the rest of the "working family" hordes

 

[Soda]

It is welfare. It is paid to people by goverment out of revenue raised by tax.

I've said what my issue is countless of times. It is not the role of government to pay people money who do not need that money to live. It is up to people to take responsibility for their own lives and to budget for their own children. Govermnent should not be responsible for propping up people's home investment decisions; people should consider their own risk profile and invest accordingly.

Then again, I'm a bit of a rugged individualist when it comes to this sort of thing, I'm really against this sort of nanny-state policy.

I agree with this. In my line of work the amount of well-off clients who ask about what welfare payments they are entitled to is staggering. It never used to be this way. And these are often working couples who both earn $80K plus and are still seeking handouts. Or small business owners (some in cash industries) not satisfied that not only are they often avoiding tax but they want to maximise gov't payments also. It's quite depressing. Unfortunately the rise of middle-class welfare has created a generation of taxpayers expecting gov't handouts.

 

[mld]

Most infomative post yet from you :hihi

That's fine and your opinion but the reality is that more western countries have gone down the paid parental leave route, whether you (and me) like it or not.

But if we are going to go down this route, then we may as well do it properly and not half-arsed.

Not wanting something done half-arsed sounds like the perfect argument for keeping government well away from it.

 

[Willo]

It is welfare. It is paid to people by goverment out of revenue raised by tax.

I've said what my issue is countless of times. It is not the role of government to pay people money who do not need that money to live. It is up to people to take responsibility for their own lives and to budget for their own children. Govermnent should not be responsible for propping up people's home investment decisions; people should consider their own risk profile and invest accordingly.

Then again, I'm a bit of a rugged individualist when it comes to this sort of thing, I'm really against this sort of nanny-state policy.

I agree.
Imo all welfare should be means tested. Strictly.
But maybe the cost of employing more bureaucrats outweigh the actual cost/benefit.

 

[tigergollywog]

Well, it might inspire people to get out there and get a decent job so they can stay on the same rate

Why should "rich people" be continually punished for doing well in their lives?

All Tony's policy does is keep people in the same rate of pay so they are not losing anything.....so Madison and Kylie earn the same amount they would if they were still working.
Sounds fair to me.

Why should Madison be punished and drop a massive amount in her income and maybe lose her house because she is pregnant, yet Kylie stays on the same amount?

It seems a cop out for people who don't earn or don't even work and doesn't encourage people to do well in their lives....the rich, always propping up the rest of the "working family" hordes

ok