Big govt. is usually measured by tax take to gdp. Under labor average 21.1 and the howard libs 23.4
PETER COSTELLO: What Wayne Swan won't say in his 2013 budget speech
- Thread starter oracle
- Start date
Big govt. is usually measured by tax take to gdp. Under labor average 21.1 and the howard libs 23.4
Big business is going to be charged a levy that goes to general revenue and the existing paternity leave scheme that is presently funded by taxpayers will be scrapped.
I reckon that's a savings to the taxpayer.
On childcare... if family income is low childcare is cheap, if good then you pay more.
Childcare costs are rising but that is because of Labor, although part of the reason it's expensive for someone with 4 kids is because it's FOUR kids they need to pay for!
Most people who plan to work don't plan on having 4 children under 5 if child care is going to be too expensive - they space them out so they aren't all in childcare together, or they have less children.
Last edited:
Any way you can justify it to yourself, I suppose.
Little govt means less govt interference in people's lives, not 'spending programs from surpluses'.
If Labor introduced a health insurance rebate and a 50% childcare rebate, all of you rusted on conservatives would have been squealing like little piggies.
Hey hey hey. We don't allow fancy things like 'statistics' around here. We only allow old school generalisations and rusted on Liberal Party rhetoric.
This might be the best post of all time.
The taxpayer goes form paying $557 a week for 18 weeks, to paying a max $1442 a week for 26 weeks, and this is a saving to the taxpayer?
And I'm sure those big companies paying extra in tax will pass on any of those costs to the end consumer. Because as we learnt with the carbon tax, any 'Great Big New Tax' ((c) Tony Abbott) is ultimately passed on to the end consumers. Tony has said so.
But, as Aaron and Francesco pointed out, the Liberal Party is aboult less government, so I'm sure this 'tax and spend' policy must be an abberation.
The plan is to impose a levy for a limited time. When the levy is phased out the cost is to be born by all taxpayers anyway.
It may be a maximum but the average amount paid out based on the average womems wage at childbearing age is nowhere near that - heard some figures being thrown about on the ABC and it was well inder the average wage.
Business might be paying but in combination with confidence in government the scenario in how business handle this would probably be quite different.
Personally I'm anti any middle class welfare including paying families to have one parent stay at home collecting FTB year in year out.
I was just stating some facts.
That would be a hard one to sort out ,,first start with all the former union people within Labor,they don't care "if" immigration falls,or interest rates rise or the Aussie $$$$ goes below 90 cents,then look at the rest within Labor and the way they think,but everyone knows one simple item none of them will withstand the onslaught later on this year no matter who is cooking the books..
But even if it's at the minimum wage, it's still almost 50% more than the current policy, because the Abbott policy is for 26 weeks, compared to 18 weeks currently.
That's a big assumption. Business aren't happy to be paying for this, and they have made their feelings quite clear.
Facts that ignored how much extra this policy will cost the taxpayer.
When I mentioned 'facts' it was more in response to another poster who had many of his/her facts wrong regarding childcare, paid paternity leave, discrimination laws, etc.
In regards to this scheme, I don't deny it is more costly but the extra burden will be bore by business, who WILL at the same time breath a sigh of relief because they will expect the bottom line to improve when the Libs get back in.
No one should downplay what damage this government has done to business confidence and what role that plays on the economy.
In regards to this scheme, I don't deny it is more costly but the extra burden will be bore by business, who WILL at the same time breath a sigh of relief because they will expect the bottom line to improve when the Libs get back in.
No one should downplay what damage this government has done to business confidence and what role that plays on the economy.
Lover of the Russian Queen.
I read an interesting letter on a news site today written by a mum returning to work. I thought my daughter and husband with two in partial care and help from us were paying a lot but wow childcare can be really expensive for some.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/why-mothers-dont-work-full-time-82000-in-childcare-20130521-2jxw0.html#ixzz2TtYDTK1p
"I live in Tony Abbott's electorate and it took two years before I was offered a spot in a childcare centre in my local area. I had to use family day care because I did not want to wait two years before returning to work. The childcare rebate did not apply to that arrangement.
Now I am facing returning to work after baby No. 3. Childcare at the centre we are in costs between $130-$145 each day for each child, depending on their age. Assuming my new baby gets offered a place (a wild assumption), it will cost $420 a day for my three kids. Even taking into account the childcare rebate, I would be out of pocket $82,500 a year if I went back to work full time (50 weeks x five days x $420 less the $7,500 childcare rebate for three children). That's $82,500 I would have to earn after tax just to make returning to full-time work financially viable. Of course, there are other costs on top of that, such as transport to and from work.
The reality is I will go back part-time because it is more cost effective (and finding five days care for three kids is nigh on impossible). But not everyone has that option.
Go somewhere else you say? Happy to, but where? It took two years to get into the centre we use now: availability is limited, and the cost is phenomenal.
Six-months paid maternity leave is certainly helpful for new mums but the real issue is getting them back to work after that.
2 CCC's that are walking distance from me charge from $74 to $85 per day (the dearer end is for babies in one of SA biggest CCC chains - both inc. meals -for toddlers- and nappies in the price).
These are the amounts high income earners who don't qualify for the CC Benefit pay. If you don't earn much you can pay as little as a few dollars a day - why people on welfare can afford to use approved childcare.
Those figures don't include the 30% rebate either, which is not income dependent and covers Family Day Care - I assume the family day care mentioned in the article was some sort of 'non approved' care.
Not sure what we're arguing here but at least post actual figures rather than someones exaggerated, bad scenario comments from the SMH.
Think about it... if people couldn't afford childcare why is it there are so many places being utalised by all the different demographic groups and why are new centers popping up all the time?
Edit: just got some figures on FDC and charges range from roughly $55 - $75 per 9 hour day - they charge by the hour as opposed to a centre that charges by the day.
These are the amounts high income earners who don't qualify for the CC Benefit pay. If you don't earn much you can pay as little as a few dollars a day - why people on welfare can afford to use approved childcare.
Those figures don't include the 30% rebate either, which is not income dependent and covers Family Day Care - I assume the family day care mentioned in the article was some sort of 'non approved' care.
Not sure what we're arguing here but at least post actual figures rather than someones exaggerated, bad scenario comments from the SMH.
Think about it... if people couldn't afford childcare why is it there are so many places being utalised by all the different demographic groups and why are new centers popping up all the time?
Edit: just got some figures on FDC and charges range from roughly $55 - $75 per 9 hour day - they charge by the hour as opposed to a centre that charges by the day.
Last edited:
