Tony Abbott does have policies and I think we should discuss them :)

[donnashuggy]

Paid parental leave is a great idea but isn't it going to cost tax payers a fortune and favour the highly paid workers?

That is how I read it.

[donnashuggy]

paid parental leave is a terrible idea

I disagree, it is a great idea. But it should be to help those on low incomes most. Those on high incomes don't need it as much.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I disagree, it is a great idea. But it should be to help those on low incomes most. Those on high incomes don't need it as much.

I don't think it should go to lower income earners over high. High income earners are sacrificing higher income to have a child, often have greater expenses due to a lifestyle commensurate with their higher income and can be expected to have paid more into the tax system.

Actually I don't think anyone should get it. 

[***super_nova***]

I disagree, it is a great idea. But it should be to help those on low incomes most. Those on high incomes don't need it as much.

But we already have a paid parental  leave, it is the same for everybody who is employed, which is fair; it helps new parents better than a baby bonus and is paid by the government, so there is no impact on employers, especially small business.  To pay people on high income 6 months at almost their normal rate is just ridiculous; especially as people on high income would more likely  be able to save some money and go for a while with less income.  People on low incomes have not such a luxury.  

[donnashuggy]

Lower income workers are sacrificing more. There is a large percentage of women who are already on low incomes, it is more difficult for them I believe.

[***super_nova***]

I don't think it should go to lower income earners over high. High income earners are sacrificing higher income to have a child, often have greater expenses due to a lifestyle commensurate with their higher income and can be expected to have paid more into the tax system.

Oh, please, are you saying that people on high income need more than people on low income?   Nappies and baby formula costs the same whether you earn $30K or $200K per year.   Just as everybody, regardless of income gets the same child endowment, they should get the same level of benefit for their parental leave.  If some people feel that their baby has to have most expensive cot or buggy, they can save up for it before the baby is born.  If that is too much sacrifice, maybe they should think twice about having a baby.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Actually I was saying why should low income earners get it over high if it has to be given at all. It was in reply to a comment saying that low income earners need it more than high, an argument you have already covered in the rest of your reply. If it is meant to replace lost income why would one group of income earners be more entitled than the other? 

When my children were young, child endowment was income adjusted. I don't know if it still is. 

[***super_nova***]

... and the TA scheme is paid for by the employer not government.

In any case the one thing that is very unfair is that mothers who were not able to work a certain number of hours before the baby is born miss out altogether.  That means that somebody who has had a difficult pregnancy and was forced to quit work early, and is more likely to be in financial difficulties, does not get anything under either scheme.  Nor do women who are at home with their first child when they get pregnant again.  Or do they get some other help?

[lakeland27]

the TA scheme being paid by employers might have the effect of more women of 'child rearing' age being passed over for the job in question.

[donnashuggy]

It is more than replacing income, it is to increase productivity and keep more women in the workforce, at least that is how I understand it.

It's not a 'real solution' if the costs outweigh the benefits.

[donnashuggy]

Maybe we can move onto another policy 🙂

There are more Lakeland......promise!