Specialising in the human experience of Living with prostate cancer – warts and all

Federal politics – a real alternative is emerging

with 2 comments

Abbott juggles taxes to find cash for parents – ABC News

The opposition has trumped the governments proposal for paid maternity leave by offering six months real salary for mothers of new born babies – paid for by big business – rather than twelve weeks pay at the minimum wage level – paid for by the taxpayer.

In the article above, Tony Abbott proposes that businesses who make more than $5 million – after tax – be levied 1.7% to pay for the program.  That is not an unfair burden on profitable businesses.

Surely it is fairer than raising the average worker’s tax as the government proposes.

Parental leave scheme a ‘con trick’ – ACTU

I find it interesting that the unions are siding with big business in their opposition to the Abbott proposal.  It seems their allegiance to the Labor Party is greater than their allegiance to their constituency – the workers.

Joe Hockey argues Abbott’s paid parental leave plan will help business | The Australian

All the screams are coming from big business.  What about small business?  This has to be a bonus for them to be able to get back valuable workers without any cost to them.


Written by Greg Naylor

9 March 2010 at 11:43 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. 1.Why should one business – and a business which, given the record of the ‘big’ ones, is very likely to already be providing parental leave to its employees – be asked to pay for the leave of other businesses, some of whom will be its direct competitors?

    2. It doesn’t take the burden off the average taxpayer. Firstly, the businesses who are required to pay the levy will pass the costs on to consumers. Secondly, the payment scheme is ‘temporary’ and will eventually devolve onto the normal taxpayer anyway.

    3. The government’s scheme provides for 18 weeks, not 12. It was deliberately worked out so that the employee involved makes some contribution – they can make it up to 26 weeks with annual and other leave fairly easily if they need to – rather than totally relying on the taxpayer to fund it.

    It also allows business to keep ‘opting in’ to parental leave – businesses which want to attract/retain quality staff can offer them parental leave at full salary, and the government will at least partly subsidise this.

    4. Parents on high incomes have more capacity to save for leave. They are also more likely to be ‘valued’ employees and able to negotiate with their employers for at least some parental leave.

    Thus the target audience for any scheme should be those employed by small businesses, who can’t do this.

    The government scheme allows these businesses to top up the government payment if they want to retain their higher paid staff. If their staff are already on low wages (and remember, it is cheaper to stay at home than go to work) then the government payment won’t represent that great a drop in salary.

    Key difference: one scheme is affordable in the long term, the other isn’t.

    Which also means one is far more likely to be delivered than the other.

    Zuvele Leschen

    21 March 2010 at 9:01 pm

  2. My name is Piter Jankovich. oOnly want to tell, that your blog is really cool
    And want to ask you: is this blog your hobby?
    P.S. Sorry for my bad english


    30 March 2010 at 12:30 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: