Abbott's divisiveness

[mantra]

Abbott has been spruiking his 26 week paid maternity leave policy - the higher the income, the higher the payments. A woman earning $150,000 receives $75,000 paid maternity leave whilst a woman on $30,000 receives $15,000. This scheme will cost taxpayers conservatively $3 billion a year.

His own party seems to be in conflict over this scheme, but it's a reminder to us that no matter how hopeless Labor is - the old class system is ready for revival if the Coalition wins the next Federal election, which in all probability it will. A levy will be imposed on businesses which means those companies employing low income staff will be subsidising the high income earners also.

The maternity leave will take precedence over insurance for the disabled.

A KEY election promise by Tony Abbott for a generous paid parental leave scheme was attacked by his own MPs yesterday, angry that a similar funding commitment has not been made for insurance for the disabled.

As the dust continued to settle on Labor's bitter leadership battle, Mr Abbott faced dissent in the Coalition party room from MPs concerned he was offering a $3 billion a year scheme the economy couldn't afford while the disabled would be made to wait.

Mr Abbott last month said he supported disability insurance but would only commit to the more than $6 billion a year scheme if the budget was showing a strong surplus.

Victorian Liberal MP Russell Broadbent spoke out against the parental leave scheme, which would be funded by a levy on business.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... 6284468345

[Jovial Monk]

He is “welded” to this bit of middleclass welfare, apparently.

so now the Libs have a $76Bn black hole.

[Neferti]

Abbott has been spruiking his 26 week paid maternity leave policy - the higher the income, the higher the payments. A woman earning $150,000 receives $75,000 paid maternity leave whilst a woman on $30,000 receives $15,000. This scheme will cost taxpayers conservatively $3 billion a year.

His own party seems to be in conflict over this scheme, but it's a reminder to us that no matter how hopeless Labor is - the old class system is ready for revival if the Coalition wins the next Federal election, which in all probability it will. A levy will be imposed on businesses which means those companies employing low income staff will be subsidising the high income earners also.

The maternity leave will take precedence over insurance for the disabled.

A KEY election promise by Tony Abbott for a generous paid parental leave scheme was attacked by his own MPs yesterday, angry that a similar funding commitment has not been made for insurance for the disabled.

As the dust continued to settle on Labor's bitter leadership battle, Mr Abbott faced dissent in the Coalition party room from MPs concerned he was offering a $3 billion a year scheme the economy couldn't afford while the disabled would be made to wait.

Mr Abbott last month said he supported disability insurance but would only commit to the more than $6 billion a year scheme if the budget was showing a strong surplus.

Victorian Liberal MP Russell Broadbent spoke out against the parental leave scheme, which would be funded by a levy on business.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... 6284468345

I must say that I totally disagree with paid maternity leave .... regardless of how much it could be! If couples want to produce kids they should plan for it and do what everyone else who has had kids has done in the past .... re-arranged their lifestyle to suit having kids and if they can't do that, not have kids at all! This propensity of The Government (whichever version) handing out money to people so they can continue living the lifestyle that they, the people, have decided to live because the couple want to produce is bloody annoying for us taxpayers. What are we breeding here? People who earn up to at least $150,000 pa expecting Government handouts as a matter of course?

I never did "approve" of Howard/Costello handing out money to women because they had a child. This should be stopped, immediately .... but guess that it won't be as Swan would be too scared to do that!

[IQS.RLOW]

If you want to see divisive, just head on over to Crikey and watch the lefties tearing each other to bits, including Keane who has to write justification pieces on why he is reporting that the govt is shit and the luvvies get their knickers in a twist

It's comical

[boxy]

You don't win votes with cripples...

[IQS.RLOW]

^^^^ that should be compulsory viewing for the caucus

[Outlaw Yogi]

Interesting how Labor try to portray themselves as good economic managers by sucking upto big business, namely mining companies via the unions dependent on such industry, and Liberal are trying to appease (pretend) battlers with unaffordable welfare.
It's like the two have swapped agendas in order to appeal to their opponents supporters.

I agree with Neferti's comments regarding the Howard/Costello baby bonus, which my junkie sister claimed and I used to liken to the Hitler/Scholtz-Klink breeding payment scheme in Nazi Germany. IMO the last thing an over populated world needs is financial incentives to breed more brats.

20 to 30 years ago CSIRO came out with a claim that Australia can only sustainably support 12 million people [from memory population was 14 million at the time]. Which means without cheap crude oil based fertilizers we would have no food exports, and without mining royalties to subsidise our cost of living our standard of living would be abysmal. Ironically the mining boom is now causing a rental housing crisis.

So this obsession with population growth via breeding and immigration, will in the not too distant future induce a scenario very much like China's 1 child policy, with tax incentives for celibacy and penalties for breeding. Mark my words.

[Mattus]

The government wants you to breed, because the economy is based on increasing consumer demand, and that requires more consumers. Therefore both parties wish to incentivize breeding.

Abbott has realised that a baby bonus only seems to incentivize junkies and dole bludgers to breed. He would prefer more successful people were out breeding, hence the salary adjusted maternity payments. But this is doomed to failure too.

If the government wants us to breed, then foster the conditions of nesting. Give us peace, prosperity, and job security. No govvie hand out is going to make up for a lack of these in getting successful people enthusiastic about starting a family.

[Jovial Monk]

More fucking middleclass welfare. Righties are addicted to it!

[mantra]

20 to 30 years ago CSIRO came out with a claim that Australia can only sustainably support 12 million people [from memory population was 14 million at the time]. Which means without cheap crude oil based fertilizers we would have no food exports, and without mining royalties to subsidise our cost of living our standard of living would be abysmal. Ironically the mining boom is now causing a rental housing crisis.

The mining boom also contributes to a large proportion of our foreign debt through their purchase of machinery etc. When they go bust or pack up and leave - this debt gets written off on their books, but not ours.

Australia's population was manageable at 12 to 15 million people. Jobs were plentiful and although we had less money - our quality of life was so much better. Now we're aiming for 50 million and are almost halfway there. Our standard of living has dropped considerably especially in regard to services and infrastructure which aren't coping with the increasing population.

So this obsession with population growth via breeding and immigration, will in the not too distant future induce a scenario very much like China's 1 child policy, with tax incentives for celibacy and penalties for breeding. Mark my words.

Unless there are plans being made by a higher power to use the excess population as cannon fodder for a potential WWIII.