In 2002, Tony Abbott’s hostility to paid parental leave reached a crescendo, when he declared to the press: “Compulsory paid maternity leave? Over this Government’s dead body, frankly.”
Writing for The Australian in October 2008, he claimed that paid parental leave – like abortion – was part of a “radical women’s agenda” championed by extreme feminists in the Labor movement. He spoke out about his opposition to the scheme based on the ways it reduced stay at home mothers to second class citizens, lambasting then Prime Minister Rudd’s commitment to women workers as an example of “Political Correctness”; extreme lip-service to the feminists in Labor ranks.
In 2009 the Productivity Commission released its report into Paid Parental Leave stating that:
“Payment at a flat rate would mean that the labour supply effects would be greatest for lower income, less skilled women — precisely those who are most responsive to wage subsidies and who are least likely to have privately negotiated paid parental leave. Full replacement wages for highly educated, well paid women would be very costly for taxpayers and, given their high level of attachment to the labour force and a high level of private provision of paid parental leave, would have few incremental labour supply benefits.”
It went on to say:
“A paid parental leave scheme needs to give particular attention to lower income families:
• The beneficial employment effects of a leave scheme are most likely to be experienced by less well-educated and lower skilled females. Empirical evidence shows that higher effective wages do more to encourage these women to work than more educated, higher paid women.
• Poorer families have less recourse to savings and cannot necessarily support themselves on a low single income, hastening their return to work.
• Lower income families face the greatest barriers to work given the incentives of the welfare system.
Altogether these aspects of poorer families suggests that a statutory paid parental leave scheme must be sufficiently generous to encourage parents to be employed, and when employed, to take a sufficient leave of absence from work around the time of the birth of their babies.
Replacement wages — sometimes the basis for paid leave schemes overseas —would provide weak incentives for lower income families to work, depending on the nature of welfare payments available to those out of the labour force.
Simple provision of replacement wages or prorating of a fixed entitlement based on hours worked would not create the appropriate work incentives for the (probably) most responsive group of people.
The minimum wage typically exceeds the replacement wages of lower income parents (since many work less than full-time hours) and would have generally desirable labour market impacts:
• It would create good incentives to work for lower income females, since the payment is significantly more than the value of income support for women working in the unpaid sector.
• A payment equal to the adult minimum wage for 18 weeks would allow lower income families to extend their leave to an adequate length, yet would avoid skill losses associated with very long leave periods. (In any case, the skill losses for lower skill jobs are likely to be small.)
• Capping of benefits at roughly the minimum wage would limit the benefits paid to well-off families who often already have access to privately negotiated paid parental leave and have a strong capacity for self-financing leave.
• Unlike means-testing of welfare payments, capping is not likely to elicit undesirable labour supply responses by women earning above the capped amount. This is because they would still earn the capped amount provided they took leave (whereas in mean-tested systems, people start to lose benefits when their income exceeds a threshold).”
The Labor Party listened to this advice and introduced the scheme suggested by the Productivity Commission – 18 weeks of parental leave paid at the minimum wage.
In the lead up to the 2010 election, after attending a luncheon on International Women’s Day, Tony Abbott did the most amazing backflip, without consulting his party colleagues, and announced his “rolled gold” PPL scheme which would pay new mothers their regular wage for six months, up to a maximum of $75,000, to be funded by a 1.5 per cent levy on more than 3000 big companies.
In May 2013 he explained it is “all about” encouraging women of “calibre” to have children. In the scramble to hose down the justifiable backlash to this elitist comment, we were assured it was all about “workforce participation” for women even though the Productivity Commission Report had stated otherwise. It then morphed into some sort of “workplace entitlement” argument.
When asked if the policy should be reviewed, Malcolm Turnbull said “This is a key policy of Tony Abbott’s and it is something that we have as part of our policy and I don’t see any probability or likelihood that of that policy being shelved. Tony is very committed to it.”
Liberal backbencher Alex Hawke called it an “albatross” that must be “scrapped”. Writing for the Institute of Public Affairs he blasted it as an “unjustifiable impost on business” and said the policy should be reviewed. “An expansion of the PPL scheme is ill-suited to an economically Liberal agenda,” Mr Hawke wrote. “Most importantly for Australians, the policy does not pass the fair-go test.”
Big business joined critics of Mr Abbott’s signature paid parental leave scheme with the head of the Australian Industry Group, Innes Willox saying: “There are no positives, no upsides in this policy that we can see for business. It’s inequitable,” Mr Innes told ABC TV.
“Only the top 3000 or so companies would be paying and they’d be subsidising for everyone else. That doesn’t make sense on that level. The current system is operating well. It has very broad business and community support. We don’t see any reason to change.”
Even John Roskam of the economically dry Institute for Public Affairs said “There’s widespread concern that the Coalition is supporting a tax increase. And at this time, the Coalition should be talking about cutting taxes and cutting spending, not increasing taxes.”
Considering our supposed “budget emergency” and our “debt crisis”, and the cry for us all to help in the “heavy lifting” now that the “age of entitlement is over”, this hugely expensive and inequitable attempt to show us Tony “gets” women reeks of hypocrisy as do so many of his decisions.
Why not listen to the experts? It’s quality affordable childcare we need Tony – not handouts to rich women of calibre and grandstanding from hypocritical politicians!
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
So of course! Our PM Abbott is still living in the 18thcentury when the good old “Trickle Down Effect ” was an inovation! Pay the rich and some of the wealth just might trickle down to the poor– Only if they work and slave for it of course Marg M!
I think there are some key assumptions being made here that are less than accurate.
Firstly, the PPL is fully funded, by the imposition of the levy and by merging the current government funded model, in with those funded by the states and by government within the Public Service.
All the PPL does is ensure that ALL women have access to the exact same working entitlement that the public service have, not only the public service have by staffers for both major political parties have.
As for the argument it pays the rich, only 2% of women earn anything over $150,000 and the largest employer of women is the public service anyway.
So why are people arguing to keep a highly inequitable system that values women in the public sector and those that work for the political parties over everyone else?
So you also want to ignore what the Productivity Commission said rc?
How about what the PBO said?
According to the latest Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) costing of the paid parental leave scheme, the levy will cost investors $1.6 billion in the first year the scheme is fully operational, 2016-17.
The revenue raised from the levy that year is estimated to be $4.1 billion. If investors received franking credits, the revenue estimate would have fallen to $2.5 billion.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-27/chris-bowen-correct-parental-leave-scheme/4915222
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/fact-checker/is-joe-hockey-right-about-coalition-funding-for-paid-parental-leave-20130821-2saks.html
And do we have assurances from those businesses that will be levied that they won’t pass on that cost to consumers? NO!
Don’t try to tell me this is about making things fairer. Read what the PC said. Read what the experts say. Stop spouting partisan crap and hoping we will buy it.
Awe common Kaye don’t be such an assertive female. Give a bloke a go. I can call your accurate assumptions inaccurate when I like. Evidence is like a rubbery mat full of twists and turns, highs and lows. I like the lows cause they are conservative values. Give it a go Revo it is upwardly mobile welfare for the rich. Go to a homelessness shelter and find out the type of distress and trauma some people have to endure. Get your moral values in line before posting such inanities. Polemics will not account for good old logical and ethical thinking. And don’t give me that relativism tripe.
RC is the classic “espontáneo”. Bullfighting term for the jerks in the crowd who leap into the arena, make a few futile flourishes in the manner of a true Matador, then scurry quickly back to the terraces.
As Tony Windsor told us, he’d sell his arse to be P.M. What’s new here? If there’s a vote to be had in exchange, he’ll sell it. His arse, his reputation, his principles?, the country, anything in the country, you, me, whatever, anything everything. He’s just got to be at the top. Makes me cringe just to address him as P.M. Just vile.
<
@Kaye Lee
Halfway through this article I thought it would be a honey pot.
And low and behold look who has the second "Comment".
Looking more and more like Revo is your stalker.
And "Crash Skeptic etc" is John Lord's stalker.
Both appear to have blogs of no import, devoid of visitors and sinking into oblivion.
A couple of extremely sad cases deserving of pity more than sympathy.
RC
The public service entitlements have been negotiated over a long period by unions.
Let the well off join an organisation to negotiate on their behalf.
Oh, I forgot, Rupe, Gina the LNP are doing it for them.
Mr Weathervane again, not knowing what he is saying so long as 60% of the voters think he is right. Abbott is out to wreck this Country as he knows he is only in for 1 Term. Idiot.
Revo Citizen. Fully costed and approved ???? Are you for real or are you a woman of calibre ready to have a kid ? Nothing the Abbott Govt. has done to date is fully costed or approved, get your head out of the sand and once again have your bum pointing to the ground, as there are too many brats born to people that are as demanding as you.
Hi to you
THINK ABOUT THE END GAME OF THE LNP’s PAID PARENTAL LEAVE SCHEMEsend me
I don’t know whether the AIMN is interested, but I was wondering whether any of your investigative reporters or consultants/contributing economists have thought about something very fishy about the Paid Parental Scheme Leave, in that it’s almost certainly another attack on both the public sector and unions and enterprise agreements.
It seems to me that the much belabored Rudd/Gillard scheme made certain assumptions about whether the employer or the State would make the payments. If you think about it with a slightly conspiratorially hat on, you could make a case that the Abbott PPLS was also about harming union influenced workplaces and especially the public service and actually making it less attractive to be in secure and/or public sector employment.
Unions have done a lot to secure conditions for women and the APS has also tried quite hard to attain “preferred employer status”.
The LNP’s ‘big end of town’ approach is going to advantage people who are outside the Public Service and other unionized workplaces and is actually looking like socializing the parental leave package costs within their private sector contracts with employers.
It seems to me that the LNP’s PPLS is going to be massively open to rorting and another weapon against the public sector.
I’m sure you’ve all got friends that are smart enough to know this stuff, but if any of it needs clarification send me an email.
Is there any point in making a case that the Abbott PPLS is an attack on unions and is ultimately about stripping maternity/paternity leave conditions out of awards?
If I was a journalist I start asking some questions about what firms were involved in putting together the original brief and what was in that brief, plus any background documents around the original PPLS brief/research as I can’t imagine that the intent wouldn’t be clear even if the language was weasel words or otherwise mangled.
Craig Daniels
Concerned ex-public servant from SA
_____
Kir aye Lee posted: ” In 2002, Tony Abbott’s hostility to paid parental leave reached a crescendo, when he declared to the press: “Compulsory paid maternity leave? Over this Government’s dead body, frankly.” Writing for The Australian in October 2008, he claimed that pa”
According to the parliamentary Budget Office released well before the election a statement confirming the funding status of the proposed PPL. And they’re using the resources of Treasury and Finance, what are you basing your analysis on? Ranger…
Kay, so you’re saying that because the Productivity Commission favoured one over the other that is a good enough reason to deny a great many women in the workforce the same entitlements that those working for the government are given?
Old, so your argument is only union members get the benefits? Are you going to hand back and ask every non-union worker to hand back the 8 hour day? What nonsense.
Having everyone receive the same level of entitlement is by definition fair and equitable.
Well Revo if that is the case we should all receive the same entitlements as those wonderful politicians and those in the corporate sector. The world is not just or fair and it is incumbent upon us to at least nominally redistribute wealth so that those who live lives of hardship have a fair go. Poor numeracy or literacy skills; low IQ or mental health limitations should not prevent a person from receiving the benefits of a wealthy and egalitarian society. What a crock of unmitigated drivel. Everyone receiving the same level of entitlement runs both ways mate. Poor logic once again. Universal statements do not make things true or right in a universe of relativistic associations; uneven socioeconomic circumstances and constraints of heritability. That science and logic thing getting in the way again.
You can not compensate for unequal input, but you can apply an equal out-come. That is all PPL does, it gives every woman the same entitlement.
It would be nice if we all could manage to get what the politicians give themselves, however, there is nothing preventing you from becoming a politician in order to receive those benefits.
Almost all of you comment Stephen is completely irrelevant to not only what I said but the topic in general.
If you wish to argue the merits of equity and equality in general then that can take place somewhere else as not to clog up proceedings here.
rc: “You can not compensate for unequal input…”
Oh like hell you can’t!!
It should have read “shouldn’t”.
Of-course, we can give every school kid straight A’s regardless of input…
So we set the agenda now Revo. I don’t remember you being elected the moderator. You hide behind policy but who are you. Clearly you cannot convince my self or my colleagues of your agenda. What are your motivations. Faceless attacks and closed minded policy wonk mechanics are not going to float on this sight. Your response tells me you are not detached from emotional drives however you want a cold headed intellectual debate regardless of an obvious bias that would be better regarded over at the Australian. Have you looked at the breadth of material and posts on this sight. Bit of poetry here bit of comedy bit of this and a bit of that. No we are not here to cater for your particular predilections and you will not tell me what I can or cannot discuss. In fact this behavior indicates a level of immaturity and dogmatic narrowness that demonstrates a type of rigidity antithetical to the goals and objectives of this site. This is the type of regressive and assertive know-it-all dogmatism is infecting the political narrative everywhere and is part of the problem not the solution. You know my experience of academic life is mutual respect, fun, intellectual rigor, friendship, companionship, competition and a broad church of competing ideas treated with due consideration. Get over it.
I helped raise 2 children without all these handouts on one below the average wage. I’m sick of all this PPL crap.Money would be better spent on Kid’s who are already here.
<
Revo is one who talks a talk but never walks the walk.
Just sits in his lonely place finding fault with everything and everyone who doesn't agree with his view of everything.
Never one to put himself in a position of facing those he accuses and never, ever doing anything about the political wrongs he perceives.
I certainly pity you "Revo".
Agenda? I have no agenda, nor am I faceless, I have never hidden who I am.
I merely made a suggestion out of courtesy to those who run this site that we not engage in philosophical debate regarding the ideological view-points of equity and equality, because they’re always long-winded and bore those not engaged in them (and often also bore those engaged in them).
I am also well aware of the ideological viewpoint this site promotes, and not once have I said that viewpoint should change. And I have certainly never asked anyone to change their ideological viewpoint or bias.
And I have not once stated that I am unbiased or don’t hold counter views to some of the people who post here. Nor have I ever had substantive issue with anything you have posted here.
As for know-it-all dogmatism, there is plenty of blame to go around.
But, I did provide (and can provide for any other issue discussed) relevant sources of information to back views I have expressed here. It is not that anyone can know everything, but one can certainly search for the relevant information they need to make a point.
“Just sits in his lonely place finding fault with everything and everyone who doesn’t agree with his view of everything.
Never one to put himself in a position of facing those he accuses and never, ever doing anything about the political wrongs he perceives.”
One could hardly argue that the exchanges between you and I have been overtly personal, in-fact I have never said anything remarkable about you, so I suspect you’re way off the mark there to begin with, John.
I am always available, if you miss me here, or can’t find my blog to leave a message, you can always catch me on twitter by using the @SeditionaryI handle, and if you don’t have Twitter I am more than willing to post my e-mail account information. I have never not faced anyone (who has asked a real question). And as for being pro-active, I am pro-active enough.
Are you still mad about being wrong on DFE, John?
<
"Revo"
Blah blah blah blah
You're just blah blah blah …. a person who recognises only what fits your small mind.
No need to make excuses for yourself.
Just live with the knowledge that you refuse to grow as a human being.
A closed shop from someone who hate unions, no wonder you are in love with the hypocrite Abbott.
I agree with revolutionarycitizen,any system should be fair and equitable ,only problem is some children are worth 75k and others significantly less.I had no idea women of “calibre” made better mums.Fair and equitable I think not.
<
II took one look at your blog and saw that it was the same as here.
So just like your mate Pickering I will not be back and I certainly wouldn't be recommending it or your Twitter to anyone.
So for you the loneliness continues.
So you’re still mad you got DFE wrong then, John?
Is that why you shy away from the topics, because you know I can back it up?
As for my loneliness, I think your musings say more about you than me.
Better luck next time though.
Glen, unfortunately for women, only 2% of them are ever going to get anything anywhere near the $75,000.
@craigdaniels
I tend to agree. The PPL is a smokescreen. It’s caught the Greens / ALP off guard because it is sort of similar to what they wanted, but the consequences of Abbott’s is essentially to remove women from the workplace & achieve the other outcomes you mention against the PS…
When I was Young
In days at school I watched Mr Magic
Blow clouds across the sky
Rustling leaves in cadence with the breeze
The ants in line wandering a glass room
Floating twigs in gutters of torrent imagination
Sitting in the rain going home to drown
In silent knowing that all is well for Mr No-time
You broke my dream to count out numbers
That left no mark upon my silent mind
You made me read things I could see for real
Holding in disdain the mystery you could not find
Afraid to admit you left Mr Magic behind
You steel my joy and wonder throwing them away
Beating down the walls of opaque mystery
My little mind could see further than afar
The endless nature of beauty held against
A tide of failure that stole dreams away
To islands of fear tortured by accomplishment
That had no rhyme or reason to define
The hidden play of beauty sublime
That seemed remote yet nestled in my mind
Mr No-time at all knew joy remains
As Mr Magic washed out in sun and rain
Playing with wind white contours of imagination
Holding out enchanted moments of surprise
Beating out the past with fascination
Shrouded in gentle love of not knowing
What has come has gone
Returning to magical beginnings before time
<
@Revo
Who knows if you were right or wrong.
I did what you do and never checked.
And that's what annoys me.
So that's it.
Goodbye forever.
<
@Patsy
I think Abbott and his gang have turned Australia into an asylum and its now up to the residents to either escape or mutiny.
I am getting ready to escape and fight from afar.
“Having everyone receive the same level of entitlement is by definition fair and equitable”
RC you have hit the nail on the head: this is what we have now, 18 weeks on the minimum wage so everyone receives the same level of benefit. By going one better, Tony Abbott has introduced massive inequity funded by government – ultimately the taxpayer pays whichever way you try to cut it.
The Liberals know and Tony knows that the existing scheme is equitable and to be enhanced is very much a matter for individual employers and for Unions to negotiate as a collective bargaining approach. Governments should never be involved in delivering social inequity.
Where does your argument stop delivering equity : should pensioners receive there pre-retirement pay from the government and an unemployed car worker receive the wage he or she was receiving before losing their job ?
Oh, and by the way, the age of ‘entitlement’ is over; didn’t you get the memo ?
After watching the dynamic with “Revo” unfold here over the last couple of articles commentaries I have to wonder why a conservative of any stripe would ever bother to post or debate anything at this place. The treatment and attitude he’s received is just ridiculous. He’s currently being accused of every intellectual and moral misdemeanor that is, in reality, being directed at him. Apparently a conservative cannot argue for their position with a measure of certitude without that automatically being expressive of some sort of mental defect, even all his interlocutors are doing the exact same thing. At no time has he “attacked” anyone but he has been attacked by all and sundry.
I mean, seriously guys – WTF??
In a previous “debate” Revo was making some entirely accurate observations about the “system”. They were, indeed, entirely accurate. Given how scary everyone is finding the Abbott Government (to the point of charcaterising it as fascistic) certain of his observations really ought to have peaked everyone’s interest and perhaps even garnered agreement. Instead everyone went out of their way to be contrary for the friggin’ sake of it.
Why can’t you just disagree with him and argue the merits without all the extraneous bullshit? Remember that ideology drives and informs our interpretation of facts. It’s possible for two people to take the same economic fact and make entirely different things out of it.
Some of you seem to have forgotten that as much as you feel your socio-economic ideology is the objectively right one – it isn’t; it is simply a value choice you (and I) have made. By all means advocate for it vigorously, but don’t fall into the trap of demeaning and chiding others for no other reason than they have made a different choice. Our worldview stands or falls on its merits and only on its merits.
I recall many different occasions when we’ve lamented that conservative visitors hardly ever make the effort to offer any kind of substance to support their case. Well, why would they if this is the treatment they’re going to get? If Revo’s offerings are, according to us, lacking in genuine substance it ought be the easiest thing in the world to counter them without descending into patronisation, condescension and silly attempts to cast aspersions on what we think is their “agenda”.
<
@Dan Rowden
You're welcome to both of them.
enjoy the endless merry go round.
KAYE…are you sure abbott did not escape from an asylum….and took some of the inmates with him???????
John,
You seriously think the constant agreement at this place by people of like mind doesn’t constitute an endless merry-go-round? I suppose it all depends on the tune being played.
Does anyone really think the Government’s PPL is going to survive the red pen of the Commission of Audit? Perhaps I’m being a tad conspiratorial about it but I suspect that as it’s achieved its political end the Commission has probably been quietly told to find a way to say we can’t afford it (along with all the other things we fully expect).
Dan Rowden…..no one here tells you how to comment. So please extend the courtesy and do the same. You may not agree with how others interact with each other on here, but you have no right to criticize, and doing so puts you in the same boat as the trolls we so despise here.
It seems you prefer to complain about comments than actually contributing to the actual issue at hand.
For my part at least, I find you a complete bore.
Dan,
The problem I have with rc is that he is NOT factually correct in many things he says. I have spent a lot of time showing him how his statements are incorrect (eg taxation in France, PPL being fully funded etc) complete with links to where I got the information.
If I am incorrect in things I have said then I want to know…I hate being wrong but concede that it can happen….but he rarely provides the source of his assertions or he focuses on one point which at times skews the argument.
For example, he believes the mining industry does not get subsidies quoting the “off road” argument about the fuel subsidies. This to me is a huge furphy. Why should such a successful business not have to pay the fuel tax that ordinary Australians pay? They are polluting our atmosphere and making billions from resources we own. I realise the fuel tax was imposed to help build roads so they use this as their excuse. My taxes are used for a lot of things that I will not personally benefit from. Why the mining companies should be any different I do not know.
There are also the grants given to mining companies for “drilling exploration”. Do we really need to give Gina and Twiggy grants to go find new places to make billions from as they rape our nation and pay as little for it as they can get away with?
I am up for the debate and I have asked many times that it be carried on respectfully. But let’s stick to facts with verifiable sources.
One thing I can’t get my head around…perhaps someone can explain it to me. We are going to cut company tax by 1.5% to all companies, then we are going to add a 1.5% levy to the top 3000 companies on profit above 5 million (I think). Won’t that actually lead to a FALL in revenue rather than raise extra money to pay for Tony’s PPL scheme? What of the investors who no longer receive franking credits? I just don’t get how raising less revenue can come up with over 5 billion a year.
Dan my thought is that they will push it through, as to any way water it down or drop it will be a massive slap in the face for Abbott, whose sole baby this is. There are many in the Liberal and National parties and their backers who aren’t happy with this Abbott brain fart and want it gone so will attempt to undermine it.
But Abbott does have a way out, and since he’s going back to the Howard era in just about every way, he has a well practiced Howard tactic as an escape.
Howard would also on occasion make grand and expensive policy announcements on mostly middle class welfare handouts, but sometimes on infrastructure like roads and one thing on education from vague memory. What Howard would then do when it came time to dole out the money he promises is put many onerous and convoluted conditions on getting that money, so much so a lot was never fully expended. One roads project, again from vague memory, was promised $4 billion but only half that was ever spent.
At one stage there were FOI requests to have the figures of Howard’s budgeted amounts compared to his government’s actual expended amounts, especially since Howard kept claiming the full promised amount in his propaganda. Costello closed the FOIs down as not in the public interest. I also believe there was a short campaign against this tactic by the Labor opposition at the time and it made some news cycles.
Abbott will most likely do the same as he was front and centre in using this tactic when in the Howard government. He will tout his PPL when it comes in and brag on how much he’s giving out to women, of course always selling up how successful it is. In the meantime only a part of the money rollout will be actually reaching new parents.
You need to see the policy in detail when it comes out and if there are very onerous and narrow conditions to receive the money with many layers of requirements, then you can be fairly certain that the full amount promised will not be disbursed over the fiscal cycle of the policy. Put on top of that the given secrecy this government will put on information and you have the making of the snow job that may occur and a clandestine get out for Abbott whilst still making him look good.
Another thing I don’t understand is what this scheme is designed to do. Is it to encourage “women of calibre” to breed? Is it to improve workforce participation – the PC says replacement wages will have little benefit in that regard. Is it to be considered a workplace entitlement, in which case why is the government involved? That is for employers and employees to negotiate. How does it fit in with “the government should only do for people what they cannot do for themselves”?
@ craig daniels: Very interesting article and one echoed recently in an interview, that there were more downsides to this “policy” in regard to what you assert than that initially meets the eye. “Rabbott-The-Huns” Liarbrils’ standard tactic is sleight-of-hand / pea and thimble and you are correct in asking for more cogent analysis as to its ramifications.
And…@kaye lee… “…John Roskam an economic dry” Dessicated, more likely. Also seems to blanch at being termed, “Right-Wing.”
Kay I came to the same conclusion, both null each other out, so in fact the end result is the tax payer will be funding the PPL, also it becomes clear this is a clear attack on unions, once this is approved all other enterprise bargaining is also null and void, what is there to stop Joe I can’t count Hockey coming into the next budget and saying it’s stopped because of lack of revenue. So what would be left to any PPL, nothing for anyone, the upper class workers can renegotiate their entitlements, but low and middle income earners are left out in the cold, at least for the next 2 1/2 years while unions are being hog tied by royal commissions, and workers are left with work choices mark 2
Kaye Lee,
Well, some “facts” are probably more contentious than others, but in those cases where he is demonstrably wrong you’ve pointed his errors out to him. That is as it should be. It can certainly be frustrating if it appears as though people are not willing to absorb facts offered to them, but a feeling of frustration is as far as it should go in my view.
Very generous 😉
I don’t see any problem with focusing on a particular point if the argument hasn’t been resolved.
I happen to agree with Revo on this point (to some extent at least). The diesel fuel rebate is perfectly reasonable given the reason for the excise in the first place. Are you in favour of taking it away from farmers too?
How can you ask that question when you already know the answer to it? The argument for the fuel rebate seems entirely sound to me. It doesn’t matter how profitable a company is, they should not have something imposed on them unjustly simply because they are profitable and because we don’t like them. We can tax them at the pointy end because there are sound arguments for that action.
That is really an argument for a Mining Tax which I think any reasonable person ought support. The tax burden imposed on not just mining companies but large corporations in general is something in desperate need of rectification, as is their unique ability to dodge the system (yes, Clive, that means you, dipshit). There’s little that is in more need of fixing than that shamozzle.
There’s an argument that says “yes we do”. Governments invest capital in such industries, despite their profitability, so as to attract them to their country. Governments are in a state of global competition regarding such industries. Incentives are simply a commercial necessity. I know the very notion of giving them anything sucks, but the situation is complex. I mean, here we all are demanding the Government give millions of dollars to a local company (SPC) that is owned by one of the most profitable parent companies the world has ever seen. Despite how much that seems to suck on the face of it, there are quite decent arguments as to why we should invest the money. I sometimes think in relation to the mining companies our views are skewed by our dislike for them and for those that own them. Let’s remember, too, that if it wasn’t for what mining companies do we would not be on the Internet arguing about what mining companies do.
Certainly we should aim for that standard.
Geoff,
Thanks, but if I need your help to make my point I’ll let you know.
I have every right to criticise. How dare you suggest otherwise. You apparently have not been paying attention to the content of some of the most recent and excellent pieces by John Lord and Kaye Lee. You apparently further don’t believe that any of you should be held to account for not meeting your own articulated standards. You apparently do not believe in such standards. That’s your prerogative.
And then, with breathtaking irony and hypocrisy, you proceeded to do that exact thing. I could care less how boring you find me; I’m not here to coddle and entertain your tribalistic ego.
<
@Dan Rowden
Now lets see you debate the 2 trolls.
Plenty to say about others here.
Waiting and watching.
Mobius,
Interesting take. Save money by modifications with onerous conditions. You may have something there. I’m still inclined to think that the political fallout of dumping it outright, with the benefit of the decision being made, ostensibly, by the Commission, will be less than what will eventuate in the long term – i.e. as the Government increasingly slashes benefits to lower income Australians, the seeming injustice of the PPL will become ever more stark.
I think longer term it has the capacity to be enormously damaging to the Government.
John,
2 things – I don’t debate trolls and I don’t reflexively and falsely label people trolls because they disagree with me.
Globally, the cost of government subsidies for fossil fuels increased from $311 billion in 2009 to $544 billion in 2012, the International Energy Agency estimates. Once lost tax revenues are included, this figure rises to around $2 trillion, equal to over 8% of government revenues, according to a recent IMF report.
Other research suggests that most of this spending leads to big “deadweight losses”, meaning lost economic efficiency as a result of government intervention. In the case of fuel subsidies for road transport, worth $110 billion globally in 2012, these losses reached $44 billion, reckons Lucas Davis at the University of California, Berkeley, in a new paper.
Yet it is not only that the economic cost of subsidies is at a new high. The case for cutting them this year is particularly strong. Countries with high fuel subsidies are more exposed to external shocks, as holding down prices causes their budget deficits to explode, making them vulnerable to rising global interest rates. Cutting subsidies now would help them prepare for when borrowing gets harder as quantitative easing ends. It would also leave more money for growth-boosting policies, such as infrastructure investment.
Inequality would be reduced, too. IMF research shows that only 7% of fuel subsidies in poor countries go to the bottom 20% of households; 43% end up in the pockets of the richest 20%. Petrol subsidies are particularly regressive (and polluting), as richer people are more likely to drive cars. Money saved could be spent on targeted cash-transfer schemes for the poor, as is done in Malaysia.
And as for investment….
The total stock of foreign investment in Australia stood at over $2.1 trillion as at December 2012. Portfolio investment made up 57% of total foreign investment in Australia, while direct investment contributed 25%.
Over the five years to 2012, the stock of total foreign investment in Australia has grown by 29%, with foreign direct investment expanding by 38%, and in the last 10 years, Australia’s stock of foreign direct investment has more than doubled. Growth in Australia’s stock of foreign direct investment in 2012 remained solid despite ongoing global economic uncertainty.
Geoff of Epping,
The term “troll” is thrown around rather too easily for the comfort of vigorous open debate.This site would be useless to me if it descended into licensed personal insult and effective exclusion of anyone just for having a different opinion, or perspective. I have seen this destructive populism in action on IA; and the attribution “troll” was rightly criticised by Kaye here in her response to a poorly-worded reaction by a columnist to a twerpish reply to him.
.
<
@Dan Rowden
Thanks for your argumentative reply.
Save it for the 2 trolls.
You're going to need it.
Kaye Lee,
Seems to me only one paragraph of that is relevant to what we’re arguing, and, all the fancy language taken out it amounts to: “If we cut fuel subsidies the Government will have more money”. If we taxed everyone more we’d have more money too. It doesn’t make it ethical.
I’m all for taxing at the pointy end of the process. I can’t ethically justify dumping the fuel rebate in my mind. There are plenty of ways to make companies pay for the things they’re actually doing – pollution etc.
The sad fact is with regard to taxation, we pretty much stuffed it. Rudd blinked and Gillard got the legislation wrong. I’m afraid given the Government we now have we’ll have to live with that failure. At least for a little while.
John,
I’m not entirely sure who troll 2 is. Enlighten me, please. I wouldn’t want to give it to the wrong person. 🙂
Re “fascistic”
I haven’t had the time to examine all articles and all posts, but I used the term “fascistic” in reference to the ‘debate’ prodded by poster Crash Sceptic. I don’t know if anyone else has, over this fellow Rev Cit.
I suggested that Crash might be taken more seriously if he could provide something, anything, of a criticism of Abbott. I observed that the abuse of more progressive opinion by Abbottistas never seemed to add any reservation or criticism of Abbott’s regime. I contrasted that to a willingness to defend Gillard against the usual gross and indiscriminate insult, provided yet again by Crash. I wrote that my defence of her against such attack did not mean I supported her uncritically. I have several important areas of criticism of her policies and the conduct of her Government.
I called fascistic the belligerent support of Abbott, consisting of condemnation of everything and anything Labor and/or even nominally progressive, and a total compliance with every action and nuance of Abbott’s regime.
I stand by that. The feral attacks by Abbottistas has no time or capacity for reservations or qualifications. They are at war. And I believe they accurately represent the mentality and inclinations to which Abbott and his repressive hoons appeal most – and encourage.
If Crash had been able to supply some criticism of Abbott there may have ensued an actual discussion, rather than various styles of warding off of a hostile and abusive presence.
I have not bothered to read much of Rev Cit. Earlier I only saw from him/her an endless stream of arrant assertions; an inability to reason and involve contextualised facts. This might be disability; but it did read like unwarranted pride; emphasised by inevitable insult. I cannot see the value in trying to engage discussion with an egotistical sneerer fantasising over his/her intellectual superiority. I have no tolerance for such muck – and see precisely zero benefit to me in enduring yet another twerp.
Scanning Rev’s recent posts, the behaviour does seem to have improved markedly. But I have no interest in Rev’s opinion given his/her earlier conduct. Rev remains a waste of my time, to be avoided. However for those who wish to persist in exchanges with this poster, it might be better if they note this improvement and give credit for it. But credit also to Kaye and others who have persisted as politely as possible, and are probably the reason for the improvement in Rev’s conduct.
I dislike labels of any kind and I dislike name-calling. I remember last year visiting Tony Abbott’s facebook page to find it full of photos of him having a coffee with his daughters, going to the races with his daughters, going for a run with his daughters. I made one comment “Nice photos but where is the policy discussion”. I was immediately labelled a troll and banned from the page. Same thing happened on the Liberal Party page.
If our aim is to educate people (including ourselves) then we must listen to opposing arguments and be willing (and hopefully able) to discuss their merits or refute their validity. We want to win votes, not alienate people.
Dan,
You are perhaps missing the point I am trying to make. Fossil fuel subsidies of EVERY description should be wound back so we can change behaviour. It is being done elsewhere. The article I quoted shows what some countries are doing and gives what I considered sound economic justification without even looking at the environmental aspect. I am sorry you found it irrelevant and full of fancy language. It was actually very relevant in my mind.
Could I also suggest that the ongoing tiff between some of you men appears very much like childish chest-poking to me. Could we all move on please? All of you make very astute contributions until you start on this silliness.
<
@Dan Rowden
(1) "Crashing Bore" ……………. John Lord's stalker.
(2) "Revo" …………. Kaye Lee's stalker.
For me that's the end of the conversation in relation to the 2 trolls mentioned above.
They are your "property", and anyone else who wants them, Dan and you are welcome to them.
I get enough *hit (see that Dan ?) from the MSM & Abbott I don't have to swallow it here.
Bon appetit.
ps Dan …. why don't you tone down the language in your replies …. if I want to look at "Comment" that resembles Pickerings why wouldn't I go to the source.
Kaye Lee,
I thought we were discussing fuel rebates to mining companies quite specifically. I’m not sure we can look at all forms of fuel subsidy through the same analytic lens, especially when some of them don’t apply to Australia. I don’t see it as a “one argument fits all” scenario necessarily. I also think the universal use of the term “subsidy” is misleading and skews the whole argument. There may well be sound arguments for winding back certain forms of subsidies, but I wonder of there’s any one argument that can be applied to all scenarios.
When you say “change behaviour” are you suggesting that if we wind back the fuel rebate for miners and farmers that the’ll begin to find a way to mine and farm without so much usage of fuel?
“Governments invest capital in such industries, despite their profitability, so as to attract them to their country. Governments are in a state of global competition regarding such industries. Incentives are simply a commercial necessity”
There are only so many countries that actually have these resources. It’s not like you can pick up your bat and coal mine and move. Yes we are in competition with other countries that have similar resources but we have also been identified as a good place to invest because of our political stability (regardless of how unstable individual politicians may appear), and because of our skilled workforce and sturdy economy. Investors could take a risk on Mongolia not nationalising their industry or they can choose a place where they know their investment is safe.
Investment in this country has been growing despite our high wages and taxes such as the carbon and mining taxes. Some industries have suffered because of our high dollar which has been caused largely due to the resources boom. We are subsidising a very profitable industry which has caused enormous grief for other industries.
Fuel is an allowable business expense and would be deducted before any tax was paid so they are already saving on the cost by lower taxation. The workers pay 38c per litre excise, the mining companies pay 6c per litre.
You want to encourage foreign investment but ignore the fact that in the case of mining 83% of profits go offshore. I agree that it is damn obvious the mining tax should stay especially as they are moving into production phase where we would start to see some return. I disagree that we need to subsidise them to make investment worthwhile.
Personally I would like to see an end to fossil fuel mining but that ain’t gonna happen any time soon so let’s at least get some return for our patrimony. If mining becomes unprofitable all the better if you ask me. Let’s invest that money in renewable energy and sustainable practice and in an NBN that can make us competitive in the industries of the future.
There may be a case for subsidising farmers. I know less about that.
Well there you go I have just discovered a whole lot if interesting opinions and ideas that are informative and well thought through. There should be limits upon certain types of behavior mine included. But in the interest of debate there is a point at which the whole thing is bogged down by inflexibility and dogmatism. It is not anything goes in well ordered society and continual passive aggressive inflexibility turns what could be an interesting debate into stodge. I accept the right of a moderator to moderate their article and to not be at the beck and call of all who wish too dominate proceedings. Some only answer what they want to answer and in that respect foreshorten the depth of the discussion. It does no one good when discussions become frozen, stuck and impenetrable simply because some poster will not move on. You have all pointed out the fallacy of certain arguments and it seems to me that continual regurgitation of the same old inflexibility discourages others input and interest. Belligerence and naughtiness have there limitations and constraints upon behavior are sometimes necessary. Different limits for different people however there needs to be some reasonable consensus concerning behavior.
Meanwhile over on IA, their most popular columnist Bob Ellis proposes some magical synergy between Corby (parolee Schapelle) and Cosgrove (G.G. Pete) could bring down the Government.
No one there can call that bloke a tosser.
Brazen liars at war with inane fabulists. Facts subject to crossfire.
Kaye Lee,
Are we discussing mining in general or just coal mining? We might be talking across each other a little bit.
lol Dan,
I am on a bit of a rant I agree and have brought up many things that are on my mind in a rather haphazard fashion. I object to the obscene profits being made coupled with tax avoidance. I object to the lack of responsibility for the environmental consequences of mining. I object to the hypocrisy of being told we must tighten our belts whilst we do everything we can to increase the superprofits for foreign investors. If you can give some focus to my rant I will happily discuss specifics because at the moment I am just typing random thoughts in many directions.
Kaye Lee,
Thanks for that. I object to the things you mention as well. The reason I asked for clarification on the extent of our discussion is that if we confine it to coal mining my level of agreement with the points you make will increase enormously because we of course enter into the domain of fossil fuel dependence and renewable energy and so forth. It’s also true that if we confine ourselves to coal your point about the number of nations that compete for the ability to mine that resource becomes valid. Most of my remarks were applicable to mining in general. I’ll respond to your last post with just coal mining in mind. It will be fairly brief because in that context there’s only a small point or two on which I disagree.
As I’ve said, I can’t really fault the rationale of the rebate in and of itself, but I’d be interested to see the figures that justify the 6c. If, or should I say IF, they add up then I’m pretty content with that.
Scaling back of fuel subsidies in other contexts to change behaviour regarding our dependence on fossil fuels (incentives for movement from private to public transport for instance) makes total sense to me and I would certainly be an advocate of such. I think, however, it’s a slightly different argument.
Having looked back over your last post and given the “coal context” I really don’t have anything else I meaningfully differ on. Cheers.
Thanks Kaye and Dan you have certainly given me food for though.
Thought. Silly me.
Ok now THIS made me chuckle.
“Tony Abbott’s tour of drought-hit inland Australia got off to a sodden start when a heavy rain storm hit just as the Prime Minister began addressing a crowd of graziers in a sheep shed outside Bourke.”
God’s trickle down effect?
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/tony-abbotts-drought-tour-gets-off-to-a-wet-start-20140216-32tez.html#ixzz2tRVqWW8R
Abbot wants to encourage pregnancy to “Women of Callibre” by paying more tax payer funded dollars to rich mums than to poor mums.
Is it the child’s fault what their mother’s income is?
Will sex workers who legally earn more than $150K a year be eligible for $75K when they have a child? It’s textbook discrimination if they don’t.
I don’t mean to generalize but there are two ways woman can earn $150K;
1) By being ambitious and successful in their career/business/sport/ etc… or;
2) by entering the sex trade.
Common sense would suggest that those in the sex trade would be more likely to want to leave their work for 6 months at their rate of pay, compared to women who earn that much because they are successful in their career or in business etc. Why? Because the former are more likely only doing their job for the money. But the latter may have other reasons not to leave work (eg: career or business opportunities, inability to be simply “replaced”for 6 months etc). Plus the latter is more likely to have enough wealth built up from their own savings (and often their spouses’ income too) to fund their own break from work if that is what they decide to do.
n someone please detail Tony Rabbotts entitlements as the Prime Minister, I believe his salery is $490,000 plus entitlements. What do we pay him….. a bit more than a production line worker at SPC, a bit more than the President of the USA?
Im having a bit of trouble getting a dollar figure on it.
In the second half of 2012 (6 months), when Opposition leader, Tony claimed $529019.19 in expenses.
$213507.33 for travel expenses
$315511.86 for office expenses
As Opposition leader he usually claimed between 500 and 600 thousand expenses every 6 months. I shudder to think how much he is costing us as PM.
http://www.phonytonyabbott.com/blog/tony-abbott-and-his-extravagant-expenses
Thanks for your reply Kaye, I believe it also costs us around $1,000,000 per day when Parliament is sitting. There was a lot of days wasted over the last few years due to Tony’s school boy bulling, the country really suffered. Little Johny signed a one way free trade agreement with Thailand and Tony just signed one with Korea when the most obvious thing to do would have been to set the import duty on cars to 30% and export of unprocessed raw materials ( iron ore, live cattle etc) the same. Is he and Joe still on the 67% supper fund entitlement?
“The problem I have with rc is that he is NOT factually correct in many things he says. I have spent a lot of time showing him how his statements are incorrect (eg taxation in France, PPL being fully funded etc) complete with links to where I got the information.”
I linked the Forbes article relating to France’s reversal of its taxation policies. I also quoted the Parliamentary Budget Office when stating the PPL. I fail to see which other body I would need to quote, the PBO have never stated other-wise.
“For example, he believes the mining industry does not get subsidies quoting the “off road” argument about the fuel subsidies.”
I posted the Treasury article on the matter and gave the accurate history of the tax, again, I am at a loss as to who else I should listen to on the subject, surely the Department of Treasury and the Department of Finance give accurate information?
“There are also the grants given to mining companies for “drilling exploration””
Exploration expenses can be written-off as expenditure the same way any business writes-off expenditure to calculate profit. Are you suggesting we create parallel tax codes for business sectors?
As for minerals, all minerals are property of the crown, not the people, very big difference. We are subjects of the crown, not citizens equal to it.
“There are only so many countries that actually have these resources. It’s not like you can pick up your bat and coal mine and move. Yes we are in competition with other countries that have similar resources but we have also been identified as a good place to invest because of our political stability (regardless of how unstable individual politicians may appear), and because of our skilled workforce and sturdy economy. Investors could take a risk on Mongolia not nationalising their industry or they can choose a place where they know their investment is safe.”
Yes, the miners can take their bat and ball and leave, and the rate of mining investment in Australia has dropped off, whilst China and other places increase their investment in mines in Africa, they’re already leaving. There is more coal, iron and bauxite under Australia than it is possible to imagine, and yet many of our richest ore deposits will go unmined because it is now simply a lot cheaper to leave it there, and mine in Africa. As for nationalisation, that is exactly what the MRRT is, a back-ended tax placed on the profits companies earned after the initial investment was made in order to capture the financial gains made by someone else investment risk. It amounts to “oh look, you made a lot of money, now we want it” it is legislative robbery and I laugh every time I read about it, because the miners effectively took the government to the cleaners.
And a big thanks to Dan for being a great poster.
And never mind John, he is still mad that the Treasury article proved him wrong on the DFE Rebate.
And with all due respect to Kay, I did provide the relevant links to the points I made, they were accurate and demonstrably so.
“the rate of mining investment in Australia has dropped off”
From 1 year ago
“China now uses about half of the world’s production of iron ore, coking coal and thermal coal. Not surprisingly then, the growth of China has seen the price of Australia’s commodity exports rise to unprecedented levels. Accordingly, Australia’s terms of trade – the price of our exports relative to the price of our imports – started rising rapidly from the mid 2000s to an historic peak in late 2011 (Graph 1). This has led to a dramatic increase in investment in the resources sector in Australia. Even though the terms of trade have declined since then, they remain well above their level of a decade ago.”
“Exploration expenses can be written-off as expenditure ”
I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is us GIVING them the money to explore, not them spending it then claiming it as an expense. As I showed you we gave Gina and Twiggy GRANTS of over 100,000 last year and these grants have been over 9 million over the last few years.
I already explained why the off-road thing is a con. You just go in circles ignoring what you don’t want to hear. By all means claim it as an expense but why the hell they need to get it cheaper than their workers I don’t know.
I truly can’t be bothered with you any more rc. You make up stuff, you ignore the facts when shown them, you selectively take quotes out of context and ask the very question that the context explained. That’s right…you are an IPA boy. You have an agenda and it sure as hell has nothing to do with facts or the common good. Keep trying to sell it rc, but I think you will find the people here are far better informed than your usual audience.
“The PBO says that its estimate of the cost of the paid parental leave scheme is only of low to medium reliability because it is subject to assumptions including working women’s fertility rates, female labour force participation, the wages parents earn and how much leave parents take after the birth of their children.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pbo-admits-to-cost-doubts-20131026-2w8qp.html#ixzz2twRKkVrA
http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets-live/markets-live-investors-take-a-breather-20130307-2fmhu.html
See the graph denoting mining investment, it has already started to decline, meaning the capital inflow for mining has begun its decline, we will see an export increase as mines become productive. But, with a steady decline in inflow capital there will be fewer new mines.
I gave you the exact determination of the DFE Rebate as issued by Treasury, it is not a con, the tax is applied as per its design, and that is a fact, just repeating “it’s a con” over and over again won’t prove Treasury wrong.
As for the grants, those grants can and often will be determined as income, so we will get much of it back at the end result level. However, agreed, we shouldn’t give it to them, they don’t really need it.
But, I have posted accurate information backed by reputable sources, you may chose to do with it whatever you wish, but to accuse me of making something up is nonsense, and says more about your inability to view anything beyond what you agree with ideology than me.
I posted, from Treasury, Forbes, and the SMH quoting the RBA and NAB, so who should I believe, you, on your word?
Super food – 1-2 tubs (primal greens, primal reds).
So it has a less full bodied flavor than tamari and it has a larger alcohol content which isn’t
necessarily a problem but there’s less flavor to it and since it has wheat in it people with wheat allergies and people with gluten intolerance which is a big percentage
of the population cannot consume it. Not only are they good for you to
battle illness, they also aid in weight loss.