Remember when welfare was for those who needed it?

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

Middle and upper classed Liberal voters?

It seems those times are coming back.

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



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.

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...

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


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:





 

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.    

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.