http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/08/18/tony-abbott-coalitions-paid-parental-leave-scheme?gclid=CLzfz-7ZmrkCFcdHpgodcFQA3A

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/paid-parental-leave-scheme

O, Fellow Hanging Judges of the OzPol Star Chamber and fellow Unelected Swill...

What are you views on the two different schemes.

I note that Uncle Kev (unless changed) adheres to Minimum Wage as the yardstick, whereas Uncle Tony's idea is full pay - and in that scheme is no cut-off point.

So - CEO on multi-millions gets paid to drop the bundle?

Also - what is the substantial situation for part-time workers?

Also (aw shucks, kicks sand at feet) what do you think about a raise in pension for parents who have raised their kids in the past without all this largesse?

Just a little kick there - I was on what would be around $200k per annum in 1992 at today's rate - took a year off for my kids.... I'd be happy to accept a small one-off payment - say - a couple of hundred thou - as a thank you for all the work generating the conditions that prevail now for all these well-heeled and pampered people.  :o

I'm sure plenty of old ladies and men paying rents  on a pension would be happy to receive a little acknowledgement for their work in the past that built this (currently staggering) great country.  Maybe a holiday or two... a little reward for good work.....  ;)

Remember when welfare was for those who needed it?

Governments wanting to get involved in running families   :D :D :D

who'd have thunk.  next thing a group of trendies in canberra will come up with a national curriculum (a socialist black armband view of history ) and ram that down the kiddies throats.
hell , canberra will probably even start day care centres and pay a rebate for that so kiddies can be groomed from birth.

no, wouldnt happen, aussies would reject this marxist gulag crap. :D :D

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 7:19am:

Remember when welfare was for those who needed it?

Middle and upper classed Liberal voters?

It seems those times are coming back.

I'm all for having some paid and unpaid maternity leave, because I think it is important that mothers have some time with babies before rushing back to work. In the past, that has usually been (in some jobs) 12 weeks-6 before the birth, 6 after.
But why those on high incomes should get much higher rates of govt funding is beyond me. They are the very ones who are most comfortable financially.
I'd like to see most govt grants scrapped completely, and if there is some sort of universal paid leave, make it a basic rate for a limited time and make it means tested.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 7:19am:

Remember when welfare was for those who needed it?

I do, actually.

That all ended in 1996 with Howard separating the dole & the pension, introducing the punitive WfD failure, and bribing the middle-class with wealthfare.

And, IMO, it's a major driver (if not the major driver) of the idiotic rush to vote for Abbott.

Oh, and I oppose paid maternity leave, but if we have to have it, Labor's option is by far the best.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 7:19am:

Remember when welfare was for those who needed it?

One could argue that PPL is actually a workplace right, rather than "welfare".

Having said that, I'm not sure I like either policies.

We already have a decent 12 month unpaid Parental Leave entitlement.  http://www.fairwork.gov.au/factsheets/FWO-Fact-sheet-Parental-leave-and-related-entitlements-and-the-NES.pdf

On top of that, many companies provide their own paid Parental Leave.  This is still my preference.

Phew - what a relief - nobody is here yet trying to smash the few light bulbs on this dark street of life... as happens a lot on forums...

Good answers - I also oppose PPL and think it is socialism gone mad - raise your own kids without being beholden to The Guv...and why on Earth those on meg-incomes should b e handed more is beyond me.

I'm frankly appalled at the current salaries of too many in essentially non-productive jobs - $120k to 150k sounds 'normal - and all you hear is how the worker on $60k is costing the damned country too much..

This to me seems like a mad lemming rush to oblivion, when 40% of Australian workers have no steady income and thus no relalfuture - why are we even discussing the fact that women's work sectors for example, tend to be less paid  (although overall for hours worked women there is no wage gap) or even considering offering large amounts to the already well-heeled?

Utter nonsense.  Heard last night on Q and A that 'feminised' workforces are lower valued (who forced them to work there?) - like the public service that the government is rushing to hand all these lovely goodies to, and is about 70% women under AA?  First in line for mega salaries and perks and then all this PPL... :D

I strongly oppose paid parental leave but grudgingly acknowledge it's there and will remain so despite who wins the election.

I admit to being an undecided voter at this point, but for me, it's a tick for Labor as I actually find the Liberal PPL proposal deeply offensive........strange word to use perhaps, but that's my view on the matter.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 9:08am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 7:19am: Remember when welfare was for those who needed it? One could argue that PPL is actually a workplace right, rather than "welfare". Having said that, I'm not sure I like either policies. We already have a decent 12 month unpaid Parental Leave entitlement.  http://www.fairwork.gov.au/factsheets/FWO-Fact-sheet-Parental-leave-and-related-entitlements-and-the-NES.pdf On top of that, many companies provide their own paid Parental Leave.  This is still my preference.

This PPL scheme is being funded (subsidised) by a levy on big business is it not?

High income tax payers subsidise the rest of the population with the Medicare levy and by progressive taxes generally so why shouldn't big business subsidise small businesses in much the same fashion for PPL? :-?

The aging population will already see an abundance of skilled individuals (high income tax payers) leaving the workforce AND importantly the tax system we don't want this compounded by 1. skilled females leaving the workforce to have babies and not returning 2. negative population growth extenuating the problem of the aging poulation - so it's an incentive to keep able bodied skilled individuals in the workforce thus off-setting the huge cost of having to retrain individuals as replacements and maintaining tax revenues.  The benefits outweigh the costs in simple terms.

I find it laughable that zero net tax payers and those on welfare whinge about such plans.....such as


Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 7:19am:

Remember when welfare was for those who needed it?

 

Alinta wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

I strongly oppose paid parental leave but grudgingly acknowledge it's there and will remain so despite who wins the election. I admit to being an undecided voter at this point, but for me, it's a tick for Labor as I actually find the Liberal PPL proposal deeply offensive........strange word to use perhaps, but that's my view on the matter.

Why is it offensive?

Tony Abbott needs to show his funding hand

    Dennis Atkins
    The Courier-Mail
    August 26, 2013


TONY Abbott has one major item on his campaign "to do" list but he's showing no interest in getting around to it until a minute to midnight.      :(

The missing link in his otherwise "hit every button" policy launch on Sunday was a reference to how his plans are to be funded.

Even the three modest policies he announced - less than $400 million for dementia research, seniors' benefits and support for trainee tradies - had price tags but no source of funding.    

Labor knows this is a weakness and has been aiming its heavy campaign artillery at it, most effectively through paid advertising which is succinct, clear and doesn't fly off to film a cooking show.



Last week the "spotlight" ad won the air war with its "who's next" subtext and scary, Grim Reaper atmosphere.

This week it might be June Kanngeiser, a real-life pensioner from West Heidelberg in Melbourne who can't reconcile her $19,000-a-year government benefit with the promised six-month $75,000 handout promised to high-income earners taking full advantage of Abbott's paid parental leave shame.      :(

"You've got your priorities all wrong, Mr Abbott," says June in conclusion.      ;)         

It was on high rotation through the evening commercial news broadcasts which had glowing reports on Abbott's policy launch.      

Today's Newspoll might not match the gloomier numbers for Labor in the cross country marginal seat tracking which lands on the campaign chiefs' desks early each day, but there are signs Kevin Rudd's "cut, cut, cut" mantra is, if you'll pardon the phrase, cutting through.

It could be the Labor air war is giving substance to Rudd's message but something is happening, even if it might be concentrated in Labor heartland.

Abbott should be put under the greatest pressure of his political career to show his funding hand.

He wants to be standing before us as Prime Minister in just two weeks from today.

If, as he and treasury spokesman Joe Hockey keep saying, they've got nothing to hide, they should show us what they've got.    

They've released the $22 billion parental leave scheme (more money than we spend on child care) and say it is fully costed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, making it a no-brainer to roll out the details.

On Sunday, Abbott said in office he'd do everything he said he would and there would be no surprises and no excuses.

Today is a good day to put those sentiments into practice.    

it STINKS... no other word for it... I like the pensioner ad to be honest I know its from the other side.. but its true...

if someone on $150.000 needs help with having a child they shouldnt have one....


you do realize that an awful lot of these same people..not just those on $150.000 have investment properties..

I know by my daughters friends and yes even my own daughters have all this and more...

and the Public service have had paid maternity leave since forever.....they can have 6 months full pay 12 months half pay plus an extra 6 months no pay.. and still go back to the same job...

now the thought has struck me.. what about our politicians.. some do have babies whilst they are in office..

HAVE  THEY ALSO QUALIFIED FOR PAID MATERNITY??  LEAVE???? all this time..???

the whole thing STINKS.

The Thinking Mans Grappler

I am opposed to social engineering exercises as they generally fail by their own measures.

They have side effects less desirable than the problem they are meant to solve, much like a cane toad.

Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women, I don't support either party's policy on this.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women ...

And Tony Abbott is quite aware of that.

Paid parental leave ---- Abbott should dump that one, double quick

He really should

I won't vote for a party which expects me and my family to pay for some woman to fall pregnant then sit at home with the baby it was her decision to have

and I doubt anyone else is inclined to pay someone to have a child


He really needs to dump it

Thumbs up for Comrade Abbott's first step for cradle to grave welfare for everyone.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women ... And Tony Abbott is quite aware of that.

As is the ALP ?

You are full of pointless wet lettuce arguments.

Abbott is doing it as a political positioning exercise and to be honest it looks like it is working

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:01pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women ... And Tony Abbott is quite aware of that. As is the ALP ?

Indeed.

However, the ALP are doing it in the tradition of the welfare state.

Abbott is doing it in the tradition of conservative misogyny, wanting to keep women out of the workforce.  If you believe anything else, you are even more gullible than everyone says you are.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:01pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women ... And Tony Abbott is quite aware of that. As is the ALP ? You are full of pointless wet lettuce arguments. Abbott is doing it as a political positioning exercise and to be honest it looks like it is working

It's not working for me

Whoever led Abbott down that path had his demise at heart

A fair go appeals to Aussies in principle

Nothing fair go about forcing the community -- many of whom cannot afford to have children of their own -- to pay for someone else to reproduce or to force employers to fund someone else's groin-fruit and sit at home with it as if they've done something amazing

In any event, I would not have employed females of child-bearing age under this Abbott policy

Then again, twenty odd years ago, the Liberals were openly for getting females out of the work force in order to facilitate more jobs for men

So it's a risky strategy on Liberals' part.  Whilst it might appeal to the Entitlement generation, it won't appeal to most other sectors of the community

It's a vote-loser to far greater degree than a vote-catcher, imo

Swagman wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

... This PPL scheme is being funded (subsidised) by a levy on big business is it not? ...

Does the levy cover the full cost? Isn't there a limit on how long the levy will be collected?

Pay for them yourself


RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women,

No one under 50 with tits gets a look in when I'm hiring.
Simple.

PZ547 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:13pm:

In any event, I would not have employed females of child-bearing age under this Abbott policy.

And you're not alone.

Abbott would welcome your comment.


http://dietheartnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1950sfridge.jpg

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Pay for them yourself RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women, No one under 50 with tits gets a look in when I'm hiring. Simple.

Wow.  You'd better hope no-one's saving your post

or your imaginary hiring-capacity   ;D   will get you into expensive trouble

# wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:13pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 10:50am: ... This PPL scheme is being funded (subsidised) by a levy on big business is it not? ... Does the levy cover the full cost? Isn't there a limit on how long the levy will be collected?

We the taxpayer a scheduled to take over funding when the budget gets back to surplus.

In January that was by Sept 14
In March that was by Sept 16
In Early August that was by EOFY 16/17
Last week its was within 10 years

So no business will always pay it.

PZ547 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:20pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:18pm: Pay for them yourself RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women, No one under 50 with tits gets a look in when I'm hiring. Simple. Wow.  You'd better hope no-one's saving your post or your imaginary hiring-capacity   ;D   will get you into expensive trouble

Why?
You don't tell them that, you ask for them to send a resume by email, & cull from there.
Women if DOB supplied easy
Women no DOB supplied maybe phone interview, email few days later
Sorry position filled better luck next time.
Seriously if you know the system its easy to work within it to your advantage/requirements.

Until we get a law that requires 50% of all positions be filled by females I'll continue to hire who I want.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

PZ547 wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:13pm: In any event, I would not have employed females of child-bearing age under this Abbott policy. And you're not alone. Abbott would welcome your comment. http://dietheartnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1950sfridge.jpg

As I said above, the Libs were quite openly advocating for far less women in the work force more than twenty years ago

But it's a risky ploy at this stage of the game

The Lima Declaration commenced destroying Australian production and employment back in 1975, when an initial 30% of Aussie jobs and manufacturing were sent overseas

Since then, that 30% has to be close to 75%

Labor and Libs are cognisant of the fact robotics will shave the last few remaining jobs to near nothing.  Just public servants and the service industry

Yes, there are women who have no intention of reproducing and who are excellent employees.  They shouldn't be forced from the workplace by policies which terrify employers into rejecting female applicants/employees

Aussies aren't stupid.  Overwhelmingly, women head single-parent households.  Of course they'd like to stay at home to raise their children.  But the easy-divorce laws which also came into effect in the mid-70s mean many men tire of supporting a family and desert their wives to raise and support the children alone.  All part of the Zionist attack on the vital family-unit

There are women who have to work, even though they'd far rather not.  Abbott's policy does a favour for whom, exactly -- the entitlement-brigade who believe that going to bed and ending up pregnant is everyone else's responsibility ?

There are at least two reasons I won't vote Liberals (a) their disgusting betrayal, corruption and cowardice re: Schapelle Corby and (2) the paid parental leave policy

There are hundreds of reasons I won't be voting Labor

You views on paid parental leave..

It is a very good thing but giving women earning big wages $75,000 for 6 months is ridiculous.

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

I'm pretty much over this whole "mandate" thing, MYSELF As the LibNats seem pretty much a cert - this election - does that mean they have a "mandate" on EVERY election policy ? Including scrapping the low income families' "Schoolkids Bonus" scheme - to help fund the high income families' "Paid Parental Leave" scheme ? A lot of LibNat voters from the working class western suburbs may be surprised to HEAR about this "mandate"

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

Pay for them yourself RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women, No one under 50 with tits gets a look in when I'm hiring. Simple.

Actually they say at 36 a females fertility is down to 15%..... 40+ is a safe bet

Many career women get shocked at that stat, you leave Uni at 21 ish, it takes you about 5-10 years to establish your career ..... if they suddenly have a desire to have kids you way into the down hill decline.

Even at high 30's artificial can be problematic.

The other problem for younger women is they get over looked for promotion and any roles that are critical ....... adding state mandated maternity leave just gives employers another excuse.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:01pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women ... And Tony Abbott is quite aware of that.

Are you pointing to some hidden agenda here to remove women from the workforce and restore them to the sanctity of the kitchen, while sopping up all the unemployed young singles - men and women?

Good thinking!!  ;)

Darned internet doubling up...

____ wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:

Thumbs up for Comrade Abbott's first step for cradle to grave welfare for everyone.

But that's just it - it's not cradle to the grave, it's free money for the first 6 months. What happens after that?

If these benefits could be halved, the rest of the fund could go into decent child care - for the first 6 years.

Yeah - but what about the retro-pay for the pensioners who did it all for nothing?   At today's rates of course.... :o

PZ547 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

[quote author=greggerypeccary link=1377506830/22#22 date=1377569963][quote author=ZXLX796 link=1377506830/19#19 date=1377569626] As I said above, the Libs were quite openly advocating for far less women in the work force more than twenty years ago   But the easy-divorce laws which also came into effect in the mid-70s mean many men tire of supporting a family and desert their wives to raise and support the children alone.  All part of the Zionist attack on the vital family-unit

Pardon me - but did I hear you correctly?  Why then are about 80% of divorce applications at the behest of the woman, and that does not include the ones where the man accepts it as the least troublesome course. 

The man still has to pay for his now disintegrated family - so  how does anyone get the idea that men are champing at the bit to throw away their most loved ones and still pay through the nose for them while having no home and little future as a result?

Different issue - but let's have some reality here - the LIE that men are running way from their families is just that - a lie.

Nah then ... (**flings another Tasmanian Devil, suitably riled up, into the ring**)...

How about we pay SAHMs and SAHDs the average of what is being paid to all others - just to get rid of the discrimination that favours those already earning good money... you know - the welfare parents who are needing a good kick for a change to ensure the baby's well-being???....  :o

My view is yes and capped at $200,000 p/a salaries.

don't like it one bit and I don't know why the Libs had to make it so generous....

I think there's a strong case for PPL but hell, 75k  ?  :-/

Trust andre to have his hand out for an over the top paid parental leave, goes with his lower taxes and free child care for high income earners becausethey need more help than poor families because children cut into his golf time

Goes way too far.

Cut it down a bit and do more to make child care and other costs cheaper, kids live longer than 6 months.

You know a policy is absolutely shithouse when there is nearly total agreement against it on ozpolitic. Did anyone from the liberal party actually test the waters on this one?

As is often the case, this is far from simple!

Just to add to the complexity, I would suggest that the Baby Bonus should be viewed in concert with PPL.

In doing so, I would suggest doing away with the Baby Bonus completely, BUT retaining the PPL in a modest format only, perhaps something like the current arrangement.

The Economic imperative that was once the centre piece of most government/s planning was to increase Economic Growth, with Population increase & having more babies, being thought of as the easiest way of achieving those goals.

However, with Energy Supply likely to fall substantially over the decades ahead & prices rising, plus substantial Declines in Food & Fresh water Supply, we have to change our thinking on these issues, NOW!

Whilst families may still want children, although many will restrict the numbers or not have them at all, it must now remain in the province of those families to make their own decisions and to largely cater for their decision/s on child rearing, themselves.      

That said, there still remains an imperative to retain as many female workers in the workforce as possible.

Therefore, some PPL will still be required, to try to get as many female workers thru the initial Baby phase, whilst keeping the family unit finances afloat, but also to incentivize them back into the workforce, as quickly as possible.


These and many other issues, should form part of a whole of government review, which should happen as soon as possible, irrespective of who wins this election! 

Verge wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Trust andre to have his hand out for an over the top paid parental leave, goes with his lower taxes and free child care for high income earners becausethey need more help than poor families because children cut into his golf time

Never mentioned a thing about my golf time and as it happens my eldest girl comes along and caddies on Saturdays!!!

However do we do it harder than you?
Yeah we damn do verge and you know it.
How many families members around us and how many around you??

Yeah I'm sure it makes no difference eh....

You don't deserve a handout when you desert your family for more money.

Moving locations to better provide for families when jobs are scarce is an admirable thing.

In the depressions guys used to ride 3 hours for jobs.

You go where the work is to provide.

Piss of hicks, you don't need to go thousands upon thousands of kms away. It's about you being a whore and you place a higher value on cash than family.

You think you are a better person than everyone here because you make $300k a year.

I know I'm a better person because my father gets to see his grand daughters two to three times a week and I know that gives him more joy in life than any jet setting holiday you will ever take.

Do those that are on $150,000, the top 10 per cent of income earners, not have enough to provide?.      :(

I don't think, I know.

wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:

Do those that are on $150,000, the top 10 per cent of income earners, not have enough to provide?.      :(

Mate in Melbourne we had

Mortgage of $4,200 per month
Two cars costing $500 per month to run
Utilities of $750 per quarter all up
Groceries etc of $800 per month
Phone bills of $200 per month


The net income after tax of ones earner was only $11,000 per month.

Doesn't leave very much when flights to England cost $10,000 for us all.

There isn't much left.

Bout the only thing I agree with you crook on. We do

Well Andrei.  May god help you, if you ever become unemployed.     :)      

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 6:44pm:

My view is yes and capped at $200,000 p/a salaries.

In OTHER words ...


"The LibNat plan is very generous - but I'd trade it ALL, for a little MORE"

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:15pm:

wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 8:10pm: Do those that are on $150,000, the top 10 per cent of income earners, not have enough to provide?.      :( Mate in Melbourne we had Mortgage of $4,200 per month Two cars costing $500 per month to run Utilities of $750 per quarter all up Groceries etc of $800 per month Phone bills of $200 per month The net income after tax of ones earner was only $11,000 per month. Doesn't leave very much when flights to England cost $10,000 for us all. There isn't much left.

That is nearly $3000 a week, and that is just for one persons income. That is more than a lot of people get in a month. How can anyone not live on a net income of about 130,000 to the point that they need assistance?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:15pm:

wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 8:10pm: Do those that are on $150,000, the top 10 per cent of income earners, not have enough to provide?.      :( Mate in Melbourne we had Mortgage of $4,200 per month Two cars costing $500 per month to run Utilities of $750 per quarter all up Groceries etc of $800 per month Phone bills of $200 per month The net income after tax of ones earner was only $11,000 per month. Doesn't leave very much when flights to England cost $10,000 for us all. There isn't much left.

Have you considered soup vans - a few nights a week - during the "tough times" ?

wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:

Do those that are on $150,000, the top 10 per cent of income earners, not have enough to provide?.      :(

The higher your income - the higher your expenses. Those on good incomes have higher mortgages, more expensive cars and like eating out at nice restaurants. No tuna on toast for them. Their clothes are better quality, therefore cost more and they have to pay for a private school for their children. A wealthy person's lifestyle is expensive to maintain therefore the PPL needs to provide for the Rolls Royce of baby products.

Mantra is principally right.

I earn more than I ever have.

But my house has twice as many rooms as 10 years ago, my cars are new and expenses are just higher.

$4k per month was our mortgage in Melbourne and that's having laid down over half a mill deposit.

You cannot look at income and not look at outgoings.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:15pm:

The net income after tax of ones earner was only $11,000 per month. Doesn't leave very much when flights to England cost $10,000 for us all. There isn't much left.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/tiniest_violin.gif

Maybe it could be time, for some people to cut down on some of the outgoings.  That way the well off wouldn't, or should I say shouldn't, expect paid parental leave.  Like some of the very well off seem to.      :(

mantra

My experience with really wealthy people is quite the opposite, they dress conservatively, often don't know much about their cars, often they are not trying to impress anyone.

When My wife's Aunt passed away they actually asked us if we want a ford laser it was a mid 80's model worth maybe $1000 bucks if that, looked odd next to the house worth around the 5 Million mark.

Some of what you said I notice around the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney were impression seems more important.

Where I live you see more eccentric types, one guy I know dresses like Elvis, drives a Kombi and talks with a real Ocker accent.

I doubt the people your referring to would be employees so your theory is misguided as usual.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:58pm:

Mantra is principally right. I earn more than I ever have. But my house has twice as many rooms as 10 years ago, my cars are new and expenses are just higher. $4k per month was our mortgage in Melbourne and that's having laid down over half a mill deposit. You cannot look at income and not look at outgoings.

Outgoings are controlled by you. If you need government help to get by because your outgoings are too high, then cut back on your spending. If you can't afford a 2 million dollar house, but a 1.5m. If you can't afford the payments on a BMW, buy a Ford. You don't have to spend so much, you simply choose to.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:15pm:

wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 8:10pm: Do those that are on $150,000, the top 10 per cent of income earners, not have enough to provide?.      :( Mate in Melbourne we had Mortgage of $4,200 per month Two cars costing $500 per month to run Utilities of $750 per quarter all up Groceries etc of $800 per month Phone bills of $200 per month The net income after tax of ones earner was only $11,000 per month. Doesn't leave very much when flights to England cost $10,000 for us all. There isn't much left.

buy a smaller house, use one car, throw away your mobile.

why should he do without Quantum ? ... he needs the 10 bedroom house, let the smacking pensioners do without the lazy sods ... obviously they didn't work as hard as he does ...







(sarcasm)

wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Well Andrei.  May god help you, if you ever become unemployed.     :)

Be all the pensioner you can be!

a.  take every hit the dumb clowns running the economy can give you for fifty years

b. Take every hit in every goddamned social revolution imposed on us over fifty years

c. Do every hard yard in life and end up treated like a leftover in your own country

d.  retire on a pittance and watch every entitlement princess get everything you never had free of charge

So - er - how does the pensioner lady on $19,000 get by?   About three months mortgages for Andrei's mate... couldn't run the cars at all... no trip to London to see the Queen...

Gotta love the value system by which we live......

Reminds:-  40% of the Australian workforce - not including pensioners and unemployed - have unstable incomes and thus no solid future..... :D

Did Abbott mention his scheme will cost mum and dad investors $1.6 B ??? I bet he missed that bit ...I didn't see it on any Murdoch sites either ... although to be fair, I only skimmed through some of them quickly

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-27/chris-bowen-correct-parental-leave-scheme/4915222

John Smith wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 9:45pm:

why should he do without Quantum ? ... he needs the 10 bedroom house, let the smacking pensioners do without the lazy sods ... obviously they didn't work as hard as he does ... (sarcasm)

Scary isn't it? This forum continues to amaze me. If it is not poor people like warrigal who refuses to work and expects the government to look after him, it is a well off person like Hicks who thinks the government should reward him for his success. What the hell happened to working for a wage and then living within it?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 9:53pm:

wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 8:21pm: Well Andrei.  May god help you, if you ever become unemployed.     :)       Be all the pensioner you can be! a.  take every hit the dumb clowns running the economy can give you for fifty years b. Take every hit in every goddamned social revolution imposed on us over fifty years c. Do every hard yard in life and end up treated like a leftover in your own country d.  retire on a pittance and watch every entitlement princess get everything you never had free of charge So - er - how does the pensioner lady on $19,000 get by?   About three months mortgages for Andrei's mate... couldn't run the cars at all... no trip to London to see the Queen... Gotta love the value system by which we live...... Reminds:-  40% of the Australian workforce - not including pensioners and unemployed - have unstable incomes and thus no solid future..... :D

The funny thing is, most of them probably live happier and more rewarding lives then someone who can't get by on 3 smacking thousand dollars a week.

mantra wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 8:10pm: Do those that are on $150,000, the top 10 per cent of income earners, not have enough to provide?.      :( The higher your income - the higher your expenses. Those on good incomes have higher mortgages, more expensive cars and like eating out at nice restaurants. No tuna on toast for them. Their clothes are better quality, therefore cost more and they have to pay for a private school for their children. A wealthy person's lifestyle is expensive to maintain therefore the PPL needs to provide for the Rolls Royce of baby products.

The top THREE PERCENT, i think

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:12pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:01pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women ... And Tony Abbott is quite aware of that. As is the ALP ? Indeed. However, the ALP are doing it in the tradition of the welfare state. Abbott is doing it in the tradition of conservative misogyny, wanting to keep women out of the workforce.  If you believe anything else, you are even more gullible than everyone says you are.

That's right, Gregerypeccary. Only Labor and the Greens give people money in good faith. The conservatives are evil in whatever they do. Only we progressives are smart enough to see this.

Nice Troll Andrei

Quantum

This issue has been going on for decades in SW Sydney where they have an intergenerational welfare dependency problem where parents seem to teach their offspring how to rort the system. Its also a high area for teenage pregnancy ...... no care or deliberate, given the education levels on such and easy availability of contraceptives there is no excuse for such.

This disease seems to be spreading as you can see from many of the posters here that many more now has a air of self entitlement about them.

I remember a documentary where they had a family on welfare making around 60k on a current affairs show and they compared it to another family where the mother and father were working earning the same.

The arrogance of the welfare recipients was obnoxious, when they talked to the working parents the mother said she was actually aware she could do the same but felt setting a good example to her kids was more important.

My mother refers to it as the protestant working class upbringing, going on welfare was just never an option.

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 6:27am:

That's right, Gregerypeccary. Only Labor and the Greens give people money in good faith. The conservatives are evil in whatever they do.

You're learning, Misty.

You're learning.

The Thinking Mans Grappler

Both my parents has passed away and they did not live off the state and had a fair bit left to passed on.

My wife' mother is still around and is a self funded retiree that is sitting in a big house worth over a million and is a very cashed up. She doesn't feel the need to hit up the government for more. She is also very frugal to the point where we have to tell her to spend her money .... go out and enjoy it.

Given we have compulsory super, many retiring now will get very little to nothing from the government other than desperate grabs on their retirement savings which to me should be free of all taxes.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 7:19am:

Remember when welfare was for those who needed it?

well we do need it, make it available to all and not just the wealthy or working people.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:40am:

Quantum This issue has been going on for decades in SW Sydney where they have an intergenerational welfare dependency problem where parents seem to teach their offspring how to rort the system. Its also a high area for teenage pregnancy ...... no care or deliberate, given the education levels on such and easy availability of contraceptives there is no excuse for such. This disease seems to be spreading as you can see from many of the posters here that many more now has a air of self entitlement about them. I remember a documentary where they had a family on welfare making around 60k on a current affairs show and they compared it to another family where the mother and father were working earning the same. The arrogance of the welfare recipients was obnoxious, when they talked to the working parents the mother said she was actually aware she could do the same but felt setting a good example to her kids was more important. My mother refers to it as the protestant working class upbringing, going on welfare was just never an option.

oh do name names then fred

if you don't like people on welfare make the jobs available to them.

no welfare dependant family would be on 60k

they should pay stupid useless people to NOT have babies.

And pay better people MORE than their salary to have kids.

Quantum wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 9:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 9:45pm: why should he do without Quantum ? ... he needs the 10 bedroom house, let the smacking pensioners do without the lazy sods ... obviously they didn't work as hard as he does ... (sarcasm) Scary isn't it? This forum continues to amaze me. If it is not poor people like warrigal who refuses to work and expects the government to look after him, it is a well off person like Hicks who thinks the government should reward him for his success. What the hell happened to working for a wage and then living within it?

there is a big difference ignorant between a person not wanting to work and one not being let work by a system that fails them.

if you expect people to work provide jobs ignorant.

Quantum wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 9:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 9:45pm: why should he do without Quantum ? ... he needs the 10 bedroom house, let the smacking pensioners do without the lazy sods ... obviously they didn't work as hard as he does ... (sarcasm) Scary isn't it? This forum continues to amaze me. If it is not poor people like warrigal who refuses to work and expects the government to look after him, it is a well off person like Hicks who thinks the government should reward him for his success. What the hell happened to working for a wage and then living within it?

there is different between a person not wanting to work and a person not let work quantum.

someone like adrei prevents people from working.

Quantum wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:02pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 9:53pm: wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 8:21pm: Well Andrei.  May god help you, if you ever become unemployed.     :)       Be all the pensioner you can be! a.  take every hit the dumb clowns running the economy can give you for fifty years b. Take every hit in every goddamned social revolution imposed on us over fifty years c. Do every hard yard in life and end up treated like a leftover in your own country d.  retire on a pittance and watch every entitlement princess get everything you never had free of charge So - er - how does the pensioner lady on $19,000 get by?   About three months mortgages for Andrei's mate... couldn't run the cars at all... no trip to London to see the Queen... Gotta love the value system by which we live...... Reminds:-  40% of the Australian workforce - not including pensioners and unemployed - have unstable incomes and thus no solid future..... :D The funny thing is, most of them probably live happier and more rewarding lives then someone who can't get by on 3 smacking thousand dollars a week.

and who the hell can live well on $1000 a week.

certainly not our mothers with babies.

find a fair alternative.

I have no probelm with paid maternity leave, but are there not many other instances that need the billions this will cost? Like
Dental treatment
Homelessness
Infrastructure

It's a smacking feel good policy put out by the women basher to make him more appealing to women, and as Nick Minchin said last week, it will never happen, never get through the senate... So it's all bullsh it.

warrigal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 10:44am:

and who the hell can live well on $1000 a week.

Who the hell couldn't live on $52,000 a year?

You can rent a fairly decent unit in most suburbs of Sydney for about 20,000 a year ($25,000 will get you a real nice one). After $20,000 for a unit, does it really cost $32,000 a year for clothes, electricity, petrol, etc? Yes you will not be able to get a $1,000,000 mortgage and drive a Mercedes, but $52,000 a year is a lot of money, even if you have a kid to pay for.

Have people lost all sense of the value of money and what is needed to live a comfortable life?

Quantum wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 11:00am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 10:44am: and who the hell can live well on $1000 a week. Who the hell couldn't live on $52,000 a year? You can rent a fairly decent unit in most suburbs of Sydney for about 20,000 a year ($25,000 will get you a real nice one). After $20,000 for a unit, does it really cost $32,000 a year for clothes, electricity, petrol, etc? Yes you will not be able to get a $1,000,000 mortgage and drive a Mercedes, but $52,000 a year is a lot of money, even if you have a kid to pay for. Have people lost all sense of the value of money and what is needed to live a comfortable life?

If you earn 52 grand a year you don't get a thousand a week, we have this thing called income tax that takes around thirty percent of that.
As for renting a unit in Sydney for 400 bucks a week ,good luck, some dump in the western burbs if you're lucky.
bugger Sydney, if you want to survive on a low income move to the bush.

Quantum wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 11:00am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 10:44am: and who the hell can live well on $1000 a week. Who the hell couldn't live on $52,000 a year? You can rent a fairly decent unit in most suburbs of Sydney for about 20,000 a year ($25,000 will get you a real nice one). After $20,000 for a unit, does it really cost $32,000 a year for clothes, electricity, petrol, etc? Yes you will not be able to get a $1,000,000 mortgage and drive a Mercedes, but $52,000 a year is a lot of money, even if you have a kid to pay for. Have people lost all sense of the value of money and what is needed to live a comfortable life?

If there's a SPONSOR out there - I'm READY to take "the CHALLENGE" !

skippy. wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:00am: warrigal wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 10:44am: and who the hell can live well on $1000 a week. Who the hell couldn't live on $52,000 a year? You can rent a fairly decent unit in most suburbs of Sydney for about 20,000 a year ($25,000 will get you a real nice one). After $20,000 for a unit, does it really cost $32,000 a year for clothes, electricity, petrol, etc? Yes you will not be able to get a $1,000,000 mortgage and drive a Mercedes, but $52,000 a year is a lot of money, even if you have a kid to pay for. Have people lost all sense of the value of money and what is needed to live a comfortable life? If you earn 52 grand a year you don't get a thousand a week, we have this thing called income tax that takes around thirty percent of that.

If you read the context of the conversation we weren't talking gross we were talking net. It is a thousand a week after tax.


Quote:

As for renting a unit in Sydney for 400 bucks a week ,good luck, some dump in the western burbs if you're lucky. bugger Sydney, if you want to survive on a low income move to the bush.

$400 a week will get you a fairly good unit in many southern and northern suburbs as well. Of course you won't get a unit right in the middle of the CBD for that money, but considering most people live in the North, South, and West of the city the point stands. $52,000 is more than enough for any one person to live on, even if they have a child.

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 6:27am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:12pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:01pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mandating Maternity leave provisions makes employers baulk at hiring women ... And Tony Abbott is quite aware of that. As is the ALP ? Indeed. However, the ALP are doing it in the tradition of the welfare state. Abbott is doing it in the tradition of conservative misogyny, wanting to keep women out of the workforce.  If you believe anything else, you are even more gullible than everyone says you are. Only Labor and the Greens give people money ( ... where it's REALLY needed) in good faith . The conservatives are evil in whatever they do.

Now THERE'S a "breakthrough" moment !

Quantum wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

skippy. wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:10am: Quantum wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:00am: warrigal wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 10:44am: and who the hell can live well on $1000 a week. Who the hell couldn't live on $52,000 a year? You can rent a fairly decent unit in most suburbs of Sydney for about 20,000 a year ($25,000 will get you a real nice one). After $20,000 for a unit, does it really cost $32,000 a year for clothes, electricity, petrol, etc? Yes you will not be able to get a $1,000,000 mortgage and drive a Mercedes, but $52,000 a year is a lot of money, even if you have a kid to pay for. Have people lost all sense of the value of money and what is needed to live a comfortable life? If you earn 52 grand a year you don't get a thousand a week, we have this thing called income tax that takes around thirty percent of that. If you read the context of the conversation we weren't talking gross we were talking net. It is a thousand a week after tax. Quote: As for renting a unit in Sydney for 400 bucks a week ,good luck, some dump in the western burbs if you're lucky. bugger Sydney, if you want to survive on a low income move to the bush. $400 a week will get you a fairly good unit in many southern and northern suburbs as well. Of course you won't get a unit right in the middle of the CBD for that money, but considering most people live in the North, South, and West of the city the point stands. $52,000 is more than enough for any one person to live on, even if they have a child.

Oops, sorry. 8-)

Quantum wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 11:00am:

warrigal wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 10:44am: and who the hell can live well on $1000 a week. Who the hell couldn't live on $52,000 a year? You can rent a fairly decent unit in most suburbs of Sydney for about 20,000 a year ($25,000 will get you a real nice one). After $20,000 for a unit, does it really cost $32,000 a year for clothes, electricity, petrol, etc? Yes you will not be able to get a $1,000,000 mortgage and drive a Mercedes, but $52,000 a year is a lot of money, even if you have a kid to pay for. Have people lost all sense of the value of money and what is needed to live a comfortable life?

the question quantum should be who gets $52000 a year.


I certainly don't if I did I wouldn't be homeless.


I really like this old woman ad about abbotts stupid maternity leave scheame, it not only shows the stupidity of it, but it also shows the failure of the rudd/ Gillard/ rudd governments to help people.

even with all the greedy handouts they gave to the greedy people out there.

Quantum wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

skippy. wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:10am: Quantum wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:00am: warrigal wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 10:44am: and who the hell can live well on $1000 a week. Who the hell couldn't live on $52,000 a year? You can rent a fairly decent unit in most suburbs of Sydney for about 20,000 a year ($25,000 will get you a real nice one). After $20,000 for a unit, does it really cost $32,000 a year for clothes, electricity, petrol, etc? Yes you will not be able to get a $1,000,000 mortgage and drive a Mercedes, but $52,000 a year is a lot of money, even if you have a kid to pay for. Have people lost all sense of the value of money and what is needed to live a comfortable life? If you earn 52 grand a year you don't get a thousand a week, we have this thing called income tax that takes around thirty percent of that. If you read the context of the conversation we weren't talking gross we were talking net. It is a thousand a week after tax. Quote: As for renting a unit in Sydney for 400 bucks a week ,good luck, some dump in the western burbs if you're lucky. bugger Sydney, if you want to survive on a low income move to the bush. $400 a week will get you a fairly good unit in many southern and northern suburbs as well. Of course you won't get a unit right in the middle of the CBD for that money, but considering most people live in the North, South, and West of the city the point stands. $52,000 is more than enough for any one person to live on, even if they have a child.

well if I had $1000 a week 9after tax as you say)maybe I then could afford $400 for accommodation and be able to afford to buy food. to survive.

I have nothing left now from my last payment.

.
Abbott needs to dump the paid parental leave

and once he's in, I hope he does

Don't have kids if you can't afford them

Don't expect me and mine to subsidise your or your kids

Spend a fraction of the paid parental leave to chase up men who desert their children and refuse to support them.  Jail them and make them work, the proceeds of the work to go directly into funding the children they put on the planet

In fact, my own scheme would require both men and women to lodge a minimum of $250,000 in a government administered trust fund before they would be licenced to produce ONE child

When they've topped up the trust fund, they might be licenced to produce another

In the event of divorce, the trust fund would be used, via govt. administration, to pay for the child's support.  NOT the mother's false nails and boob jobs -- no, the child's support.  And regular deposits would have to be made to the trust fund by both parents in order to continue supporting that child until the age of 18

Dump that stupid parental leave payment idea, Abbott.  Or I'll dump you

If you cannot afford kids, don't have them. To many people today want the govt. to pay for everything.

Tony Abbott has stolen a long time Greens policy on paid parental leave..
With all of his crazy policies and his election spending spree could Tony Abbott be closer to Gough Whitlam than John Howard?

adelcrow wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

Tony Abbott has stolen a long time Greens policy on paid parental leave..

I was wondering why it was such a stupid idea.

Where are you from warrigal?

Please think of Warrigal who wants to have $1000 a week without having to have a job and in Sydney of all places.

Go bush Warrigal. You might even like living in Queensland.  ;)

adelcrow wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

Tony Abbott has stolen a long time Greens policy on paid parental leave.. With all of his crazy policies and his election spending spree could Tony Abbott be closer to Gough Whitlam than John Howard?

He'll get rid of 12,000 shiny bums and since Federal Government does NOT pay teachers and nurses ... they won't get their knickers in a twist.

The western capitalistic pyramid scheme society depends on growth, once you drop below about 2.3 births per couple then basically you are buggered!, the pyramid scheme will collapse, in Europe they have dropped to well below that level and have imported lots of third world dregs to be the children they couldn't be buggered having, trouble is those ring ins have decided to just retire on welfare instead of working and generating taxes to pay for the retirees retirement.
So here we are faced with the same problem, everyones squealing about subsidizing birth rates yet if we don't keep propping up the pyramid scheme then there is going to be no front bottom around to work and pay taxes to all the retirees.
So shut up and pay up now you childless pricks otherwise you'll be getting no pension.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 10:32am:

they should pay stupid useless people to NOT have babies. And pay better people MORE than their salary to have kids.

if only hitler hadnt given this idea such a black history.

as a breeder of cattle and horses one most certainly gives the absolute best to the fittest, strongest , smartest, prettiest and most valuable.

the runts get sold to the doggers.

dont think the pollies could sell that policy but from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no doubt it is now survival (through breeding) of the weakest, the stupidest, the ugliest and the laziest. ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 10:32am: they should pay stupid useless people to NOT have babies. And pay better people MORE than their salary to have kids. if only hitler hadnt given this idea such a black history. as a breeder of cattle and horses one most certainly gives the absolute best to the fittest, strongest , smartest, prettiest and most valuable. the runts get sold to the doggers. dont think the pollies could sell that policy but from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no doubt it is now survival (through breeding) of the weakest, the stupidest, the ugliest and the laziest. ;) ;)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

POST   OF    THE   


DAY   WEEK   MONTH   YEAR !!!


[smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]



[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

The Thinking Mans Grappler Both my parents has passed away and they did not live off the state and had a fair bit left to passed on. My wife' mother is still around and is a self funded retiree that is sitting in a big house worth over a million and is a very cashed up. She doesn't feel the need to hit up the government for more. She is also very frugal to the point where we have to tell her to spend her money .... go out and enjoy it. Given we have compulsory super, many retiring now will get very little to nothing from the government other than desperate grabs on their retirement savings which to me should be free of all taxes.

Firstly - I totally agree on super should be free of taxes. I had super before it became mandatory and did some figures when PK brought it in - the costs and taxes were amazing and ran to about 68%.  A worthless investment at that rate.

Secondly - many of these whining victim mentality people - including my good self - have honourably drawn our superannuation to foot the bills we had from such things as economic downturns, unemployment while competing with 'socialist' ideas like affirmative action that equalises only the few 'chosen ones', injury never compensated, and easy divorces and so forth.  Your wife's parents and your parents seem to have avoided those traps in life - good for them.

'very cashed up' and doesn't feel the need to hit the welfare system - why are you discussing this? She's well cashed up and sitting in the big house..... why would she have a NEED to hit up the welfare system just to survive?

My issue is primarily that our society - with its idiotic 'socialist' policies, is shattering that society and creating the NEED for massive welfare - that is one of the costs of this sort of nonsense, as I predicted in 1982.

But who am I, a mere member of the voting public and veteran of countless difficult jobs and eighteen hour dayss leading to poverty, creator of a system used by your government the creation of which lead to my banishing to Coventry, to comment on the doings of our wonderful government(s) bent on reducing the majority under the despotism of penury for 'easy disposal' at whim by the same government since they have not the wherewithal to resist?

A popular bit of graffiti around in the 60's-70's -- in Glebe I think - was "Eat The Rich!"   :D

(flings yet another Tassie Devil, fur thoroughly stroked backwards, into the ring at centre stage.... looking for some bites and to get yez thinking)....

Nah - then - what about those radical Grappler Party policies of:-

a) Mandatory back pay for all those parents who did the raising in the past fee free - based on the average of what is actually paid out to the poor suffering mother of today who slaves 7 hours a day in a nice office etc?  Say a tidy sum of.. oooh at a guess.. $25-40k for each child?  Oh - between me ex an' me, that's be around $125-200k flat handout (lump sum please), and families with a dozen kids or more would get a good chance at life for a change... great equaliser this idea and compensates for past government failure to appreciate this style of socialist system where the funds are unlimited as long as you don't have to pay them back!  Why not just raise the pension rate for those who raised their kids off their own back to compensate for past loss of opportunity?  Lessee now - average of maybe $100k per person..... let's spread it around over, say, five years to make it worthwhile, balance payable in the event of demise along the way - an extra $20k a year... or would you prefer a lump sum, sir/madam?  I'm sure that would help (where's Andrei the Troll when you need him with his $300k income - jeez - as a Professor Emeritus I get nothing)....

b) Mandatory inclusion of the professional Stay At Home Mum or Dad, who, by staying at home, contributes to society via employment/unemployment level leveling, social conditioning of children and so forth, social stability - and is thus worthy of the same reward as a person who goes to work.  I mean - in the ultra-socialist sense it's all WORK, isn't it, and contributes to the socio-economic unit which is the base of society - The Family (not to be confused with the Manson Family).  Their mortgages etc don't disappear either - if they can even afford to have one!

Why should the SAHM/D be forced to do a Dworkin and sit and watch the fat cat's table without being able to partake of a single bite?

I mean - what welfare mum wouldn't value a solid kick of $25-40k for the bub's welfare***?  All fair and above board and definitely non-discriminatory, since all receive equally... right?

*** Or maybe just a return to their income levels pre-Julia..The Forgotten Redhead who you hardly hear of today.... as part of a compensatory package for not having the opportunity due to government policies, *gasps* unpaid child bearing etc - opportunity cost - to BE in paid employment these days... or maybe we could make it the PPL Package (average of payout) plus return of income.... just a thought...

::)