Govt. wants to sponsor pregnancy

Mr. Fabulous

Mr. Fabulous

In a wildly stupid move, the Govt. is now proposing to spend taxpayers' money to sponsor a woman/couples' choice to have children... They are also proposing that employers pay super to women on maternity leave, which is going to have absolutely no effect whatsoever on employers' decisions to employ women *rolls eyes*.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...8-week-parent-leave-JX8SL?OpenDocument&src=i2

Mark

Edit: this legsilation also very clearly discriminates against men, as women will be eligible for 12 weeks' paid leave and men only get two. How is that fair, exactly?
 
Have we gotten to a stage now where it is anathema to question such stupidity? 'Oh look, this legislation favours women, I better not question it, because it's good for women and in 2008 you just do not question women, ever.'

What a crock. I still have my balls attached to my body, do you?

Mark
 
thrashoholic said:
Have we gotten to a stage now where it is anathema to question such stupidity? 'Oh look, this legislation favours women, I better not question it

Mark
Click to expand...

Perhaps something to do with the actual process of giving birth to a child which might translate into a longer recovery period for mothers than dad's.., hence a bit longer period of paid leave for mothers.

Is it really worth getting upset on to something that trivial... perhaps another way of looking at this would be that fathers now have 2 weeks paid maternity leave compared to nothing previously.. Glass is half full

Harris
 
When men are prgenat for 9 month...lets see what changes get bought in. Men struggle with a case of the flu.

Nothing more is being done with maternity leave than the stupid baby bonus, scrap the baby bonus and just do paid maternity leave...or just do baby bonus for the first baby and not the 2nd, 3rd, 4th.
 
i have 3 kids, and paid maternity leave is a good thing - with conditions.

ie, you are only on 50 - 75% income levels, no super and there should be a clause stating you MUST continue employment with the COMPANY that sponsors your maternity leave as soon as paid leave is up.

taxpayers funding babies is just stupid - and we already do with the Baby Bonus AND Immunisations Allowance AND Family Tax Benefit A and B.

if someone is worth their salt, a company should fork out for them - not legally, but morally. as a possible future employer, i know if i had a woman employee who was a solid worker, enjoyed her job and was wanting to come back to work after 6 months or so - then yes, i think i would "sponsor" her maternity leave with 50% pay.

this crap is designed for the drones in govt.
 
Whatever. Maternity leave is not the issue here. What is the issue is that:

The Government wants to spend taxpayers' money on peoples' choice to have children. My argument on the 12 weeks vs 2 weeks is that if they are going to do this, then they should be proposing 12 weeks for both parents. If you're gonna do something incredibly stupid like this, might as well go all the way.

I don't have an issue with maternity leave. What I do have an issue with is the Govt proposing to use taxpayer funds to sponsor peoples' choice to have children. If you want to have children, that's fine, good luck to you. But I don't see why I as a taxpayer should be paying for that choice.

This is just another example of a 'welfare, gimme gimme gimme, I'm owed a living by the Govt.' attitude. Ridiculous.

Mark
 
While we are on the subject of handouts, how about the handouts give to people who just don't want to work....

Why just pick on women....
 
Wasn't the whole issue with the baby bonus to stimulate the birth rate. Our economy will be cactus in 30 years unless it picks up.

Or I suppose we can just keep importing labour from overseas which will always have its own issues.
 
thrashoholic said:
But I don't see why I as a taxpayer should be paying for that choice.

This is just another example of a 'welfare, gimme gimme gimme, I'm owed a living by the Govt.' attitude. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Hiya,

It always amazes me, the ownership people take of 'their' tax dollars. TT / ACA are great for pushing that line.

My take on it is this; I paid $4.50 for a coffee this morning. I don't have any say with what happens with that cash once I've paid it. It's not mine anymore; it belongs to the cafe owner.

I've also got a rather nasty BAS coming up. Once that's paid, it's not my money either; it's the government's to do with as they see fit.

To be completely honest, I consider the 'my tax dollars' theory to be part of that 'gimme gimme gimme' attitude, too. You might not like what they spend it on, but, that really doesn't matter. It's not your money.

Cheers

James.
 
thrashoholic said:
I don't have an issue with maternity leave. What I do have an issue with is the Govt proposing to use taxpayer funds to sponsor peoples' choice to have children. If you want to have children, that's fine, good luck to you. But I don't see why I as a taxpayer should be paying for that choice.

This is just another example of a 'welfare, gimme gimme gimme, I'm owed a living by the Govt.' attitude. Ridiculous.

Mark
Click to expand...

i think it's more of a stimulus to increase the birthrate of natural born australian citizens than a handout.

*edit* just saw letiha's post - sorry shoulda kept reading before replying.
 
Hi James,

When I buy a coffee, that's my choice that I have made. I am exchanging currency for goods for my personal benefit. With my tax, I expect the Govt. to spend it for the benefit of the country as a whole. I personally don't see that as being unreasonable.

This proposal is going to cost at least $500 million a year. That's $500 million that isn't going to education or health or conservation or a thousand other things that benefit everybody. As I said before, if people want to have kids, then fine, I wish them all the best. If they want to take time off work, that's also fine. But don't take taxpayer funds that could be used for the benefit of the nation for your own personal choices.

Mark
 
thrashoholic said:
Hi James,

When I buy a coffee, that's my choice that I have made. I am exchanging currency for goods for my personal benefit. With my tax, I expect the Govt. to spend it for the benefit of the country as a whole. I personally don't see that as being unreasonable.

This proposal is going to cost at least $500 million a year. That's $500 million that isn't going to education or health or conservation or a thousand other things that benefit everybody. As I said before, if people want to have kids, then fine, I wish them all the best. If they want to take time off work, that's also fine. But don't take taxpayer funds that could be used for the benefit of the nation for your own personal choices.

Mark
Click to expand...


So thats roughly 55,000 women taking paid maternity leave per year. Have you worked out what the beenfit is of these women remaining in the workforce instead of taking time out and not coming back.

Or what the cost is to the economy of not having these women work. Would love to see those figures.
 
I do believe this was announced as a labour policy prior to the election. The only suprise is that they've actually gone through with something!
 
We already give to people in society under many different conditions, such as old age, unemployment and so on.

Increasing and replenishing our population are good things, not just economically but socially. It is a way for the government to encourage this.

Our maternity leave is fairly low compared to other countries. One role of the government is to care for its citizens. Having children is certainly one area where I think it is well justified.

I'd sooner have longer paid maternity leave than the money going to unemployed bludgers, or people who never bothered to set themselves up for retirement, or getting dumb a&^e druggies off drugs.

Incidentally, did you claim any negative gearing in your tax return? I can imagine you now grabbing your money with one hand, while holding a new mother at bay with the other.

I'm often amazed at how childless people continue to bring out the hard done by line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top