Abbott’s first mistake

PeeJay says:

05:37pm | 09/03/10

How about a loose canon?

Douglas says:

10:07pm | 09/03/10

I believe Abbott is unhinged. God help Australia if he gets anywhere near the Lodge.

persephone says:

08:35am | 10/03/10

And given that the big four banks will pay this levy, doesn’t that also put pressure on interest rates?

LemonandLime says:

10:20am | 10/03/10

Douglass your not the only one who feels that way, my cab driver asked me what I thought of Abbott . I said very cautiously oh um yeah. He told me he thought Abbott was evil. He said that man will bring Australia down. I must admit I agree with him about the bringing Aus down bit . He went on to tell me he spoken to many in his cab daily and Abbott is not well liked(.at least in my area.)
If this is the conversation going on across Australia, I think Mr Abbott will find it harder than he thinks

Douglas says:

12:18pm | 10/03/10

LemonandLime,

I can see only one ‘positive’ if Abbott by some awful chance becomes PM. (And it’s a positive outweighed by many, many negatives.)

It’s that he would do such damage to the Liberal brand that they would be unelectable for a generation afterward.

The negatives are all the damage he would do to Australia along the way…

susie says:

02:50pm | 11/03/10

LemonandLime - you have your own private cab driver? You’re lucky to find one that speaks English, let alone speaks to you. PS - all he wanted was a tip.

rohan says:

10:13pm | 12/03/10

@susie, what they all say fairdinkum, maccas etc?

You are right, very hard to find english spoken in this country

Seano says:

08:50pm | 09/03/10

Or the way he’s offended:

Women voters
Gay voters
Casual/partime workers
People who don’t want to see their pollies in their budgie smugglers…

Seano says:

08:54pm | 09/03/10

PS. Did I mention the Shadow Cabinet?

Ryan says:

01:38am | 10/03/10

@Seano: another disgusting grub that likes to poke fun at what our surf lifesavers wear, let me guess, you think its funny what our firies wear also?

Seano says:

08:14am | 10/03/10

@Ryan: I didn’t realise Tony was also a surf lifesaver now, I should imagine super hero wont be too far away.

The comment had nothing to do with surf life savers (well until your moronic attack) and everything to do with pollies desperately seeking photo opportunities.

Andrew says:

09:48am | 10/03/10

Not too clever. TA was photographed in his speedos as a member of the surf club taking part in the sunday morning training swim (note speedos are complusory).
BTW he is also a volunteer member of the fire service.
What community service do you do?

Ryan says:

01:12pm | 10/03/10

@Seano: if you do not know the context of which the photos of Tony in his speedo and the follow on filthy attacks by the media calling him the mad monk because of the SLSC cap and speedos that he wears when volunteering at the beach to SAVE LIVES.
Before sucking up all the media BS and tarring yourself with the same filthy direct attacks on Surf Lifesaving they have been relentlessly perusing recently only because one of our members happens to be a politician, perhaps take a look at what you are attacking first.
Furthermore you feel you have the hide to accuse me of a “moronic attack” when it is you that launched into an attack on the attire of Surf Lifesaving in a cheap attempt to attack Tony Abbott without a care for the people you are insulting, I would say the “moronic attack” is a label you should have used for your own original attack. Hang your head in shame!

Seano says:

05:35pm | 10/03/10

Oh please.

I made no such attack on surf life saving. My grandfather was a surf life saver and I have always had a high respect for them and what they do.

Your attacks are moronic simply because you put words and attitudes into my mouth that I neither said nor intended.

I had a go at a pollie who is more interested in posing and posturing than policy. Abbott has taken every possible opportuntity for a photo op particularly one that positions him as an “action man”. What a hero. But then he wasn’t exactly saying to the press, “Hey this is what I do in my private life, how about you guys find some real news”.

But don’t let what I actually said get in the way, rant on.

Ryan says:

11:42pm | 10/03/10

@Seano: Oh I am sorry, what part of “People who don’t want to see their pollies in their budgie smugglers… ” did I misconstrue? Those “budgie smuggler” photos you were alluding to, were they not the only images we have seen where the speedo is accompanied by the Surf Lifesaving cap? What words did I put into your mouth prey tell? What exactly was the intention of your statement then? It was an attack on the attire he was wearing was it not? Was the attire the same attire of the Surf Lifesavers?
A big person would have apologised for offending the Surf Lifesavers and carried on with his dignity, then again a spine, some class and a bit of humility is rare these days.

Seano says:

07:37pm | 11/03/10

“Oh I am sorry, what ... did I misconstrue?”

You’ve continued to DELIBERATELY misconstrue my having a go at a posturing pollie with an attack on surf life savers after I have repeatedly told you that no such attack was made nor intended.

“Those “budgie smuggler” photos you were alluding to, were they not the only images we have seen where the speedo is accompanied by the Surf Lifesaving cap? “

Completely untrue. There have been numerous images of Abbott in the press sans SL cap but with budgie smugglers in place. Oh look here’s one genius: http://tinyurl.com/yhkabtb all of about 2 seconds searching to find that one.

“What exactly was the intention of your statement then? It was an attack on the attire he was wearing was it not?”

To have a go at a posturing pollie. As I have repeatedly demonstrated.
Do I also have to appologise to swimmers because you CHOOSE to be offended by my bugdie smugglers comment? Genuis, I had a go at Abbott for posing on a quad bike last week? Do I have also apologise to motorbike riders, cyclists and farmers now?

“A big person would have apologised for offending the Surf Lifesavers and carried on with his dignity, then again a spine, some class and a bit of humility is rare these days. “

It does take a big person to apologise, but only a fool would apologise when they are not wrong.

As I’ve demonstrated absolutely that you are wrong, that the connection between my comment about Abbott and an attack on surf lifesaving is one you’ve CHOOSEN to create, I should be receiving an apology any time now.

I wont hold my breath.

Ryan says:

01:20pm | 12/03/10

@Seano: You cannot have a go at what a person is wearing when just about every picture ever taken of Abbott in this attire was taken while he was representing Surf Lifesaving. So if he was wearing a firemans outfit while representing firies and you decided to make fun of what he was wearing that it was an attack on the pollie and not the attire that fireies wear.. Yeah right, pull the other one!
IF your attack was nothing more than an infantile attack that was put down without thought of the offense you create against Surf Lifesavers then I understand, still, there is an apology required to the Surf Lifesavers for ridiculing their attire. In posting that apology you receive my apology for my assumption that your intended ridicule implies Surf Lifesaving.
You would also be well advised that if you decide that this infantile attack is something you wish to do in the future, that you explain fully that you do not mean to cause offense to Surf Lifesaving and explain your reasons why “budgie smugglers” aren’t offensive on Surf Lifesavers but are on a politician that is participating in Surf Lifesaving, I know I still look forward to that explanation.

Seano says:

07:13pm | 12/03/10

Budgie smugglers are not the sole preserve of the surf life savers.

I have disproven your connection between surf life saving and my comment about ABBOTT’s budgie smugglers; therefore offence is one you’ve created in your own mind.

I gave you an opportunity to be a “big person” and hardly surprising considering the virulence and stupidity of your attacks you didn’t rise to the occasion. And as you sir a fool you wont be receiving an apology from me any time soon.

Nor will you seem me commenting again on this thread. Rant on.

Ryan says:

02:02pm | 13/03/10

@Seano: I believe I was being a big person, I believe I illustrated the FACT that the attack on the attire of the pollie in question was being directed at a pollie who has been photographed in this attire while representing Surf Lifesaving. I also gave you the opportunity to be man enough to admit that your attack on the attire was misguided and / or should have come with an explanation on how “budgie smugglers” are offensive on a pollie taking part in surf lifesaving and yet not offensive on any other Surf Lifesaver. I was man enough to offer an apology for taking you the wrong way if you cared to explain that which I have pointed out. Kay Sera, I guess you care only about scoring nothing more than infantile and quite frankly, pathetic, snide remarks on the leader of the opposition without a care for who it offends. Perhaps you should grow up and stick to attacking the oppostion with substance rather than lowering yourself to the standards of Kerri-Anne Kennely.

Rob r Charteris says:

07:01pm | 09/03/10

The simple fact is, why should taxpayers pay a mother nearly 4x the amount of a mother that chooses to be a stay at home over the same period. Why should the taxpayer fund a woman to like of $75,000.00 this is a redistribution of wealth to the rich from big business, and something Abbott has previously accused Kev 2010 of. Having a child should be a personal choice based on the knowledge you can afford to rear the child. Not a hand out to the rich.

Rob r Charteris says:

07:03pm | 09/03/10

The simple fact is, why should taxpayers pay a mother nearly 4x the amount of a mother that chooses to be a stay at home over the same period. Why should the taxpayer fund a woman to like of $75,000.00 this is a redistribution of wealth to the rich from big business, and something Abbott has previously accused Kev 2010 of. Having a child should be a personal choice based on the knowledge you can afford to rear the child. Not a hand out to the rich.

Andrew says:

09:51am | 10/03/10

do you honestly believe a person who earns $150K/yr is rich?

persephone says:

10:46am | 10/03/10

Andrew

well, they’re not poor.

It’s well above the average income, even for families.

John A Neve says:

11:05am | 10/03/10

Andrew,

Asks is “a person who earns $150K/yr rich?”

In this town the average wage is $37,000, so many people would say Yes.

On another of your posts Andrew you ask “What community sevice do you do?”

Tell us what has that got to do with this or any other argument?

I note you have still not responed to my question yesterday !! Too hard?

Andrew says:

12:39pm | 10/03/10

John & Persephone,
My point is that a person on $150k per year is not rich. Certainly they are better off than a person on $37k per year but what you need to understand is they pay significantly more tax than a person on $37k/yr and are in effect subsidising all of the welfare benefits of zero to low income earners.
The $150k/yr person probably went to university and had a hecs debt when they finished then worked long hours to put themselves in a position of being a high income earner. They don’t clock in at 9 and out at 5.
To be frank, the rich, in my view are people who have investable assets outside of their family home of $3m+. Those people, through the use of trusts and tax minimisation schemes pay little if any tax.
I for one worked three jobs to pay my way through 5 years of undergraduate and post grad university. I then worked 12 hours a day 6 days a week for 7 years. After that I risked my own capital to start a business which I took no salary from for 2 years and built from a two man operation on day one to employ 60 people (and I paid well above award rates). Last year I sold the business and over the past 5 years have paid over $3m in tax. Now I have some time on my hands and can afford the finer things because I educated myself, risked capital and worked hard. I find it amazing that Labor afficianados don’t give credit to the people who earn the right to earn more money.
If you don’t want to push yourself, fine don’t, but don’t complain about earning less or worse whinge about those who earn more to the extent that you claim an entitlement to their earnings above your own meagre contribution.
The problem I have with your comments is that I believe it wouldn’t matter what the Liberal party came out with you would immediately attack it because of your political beliefs. Frankly that is as bad as Christian, Muslim etc fundamentalism.
In relation to the community service matter I was merely making the point the you are castigating TA for wearing the uniform required by the community service organisation he is a member of.
Re the question yesterday, please let me know what it was and if I have time I will respond.
Finally, back to the rich $150K/yr income earner. I think the divisive populist constant criticism of these people is very dangerous. Ask yourself this, what would happen if those people suddenly said, I’m sick of being targeted, I’m sick of paying more than my fair share, I am not going to make the effort anymore, I’m not going to take risks with my assets to employee other people etc. Where do you think we’d be then? Some sort of utopian socialist paradise or up the proverbial creek without a paddle?
We need to embrace these people, to encourage others to acheive as they have so we can generate more income to pay for the social schemes we all want but can’t afford.
P.S. If the average wage in your town is $37K/yr I’ll let you in on a secret, but don’t tell anyone ok. They’re hiring truck drivers in Karrutha (men and women) 6 days on 4 days off at $120K/yr.

John A Neve says:

02:05pm | 10/03/10

Andrew,

Te fact that you had to work your way through uni, is which governments fault?

The fact that we have an unfair taxation system is the fault of all governments.  Why Oh why don’t we have a Financial Debits Tax?

The fact that most families need two incomes to keep up with current trends, is more the fault of right wing governments, then Labor.

Try telling me this is not true Andrew.

persephone says:

02:04pm | 10/03/10

Er, Andrew, John A Neve is not pro Labor.

And I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that if Labor came out with a scheme like this, you wouldn’t attack it just because it was Labor’s.

I would remind you that we’re discussing Abbott’s proposal to put an extra burden on the very people you’re saying shouldn’t have extra burdens put upon them.

As for your little ‘come the revolution, the middle class and the wealthy will rise up against their lower class oppressors’—- good luck with that one.

John A Neve says:

02:10pm | 10/03/10

Andrew,

I missed out on the last part of your post, sorry.  But sad to say, while the average wage in this town is $37,000, unlike years ago, most people just won’t move. This is not a political thing, it’s a society mindset. Based on what I have read about the 1930’s people tramped the country side for work. Not any more peole want the work to come to them, yet another reason why these handouts aren’t good for society.

persephone says:

02:47pm | 10/03/10

Andrew

you really do seem to think that all people care about is money.

It is quite possible to raise a family (especially in a country town) and live quite well on less than 40k a year.

If the people in John’s town are happy with their lives and enjoy living where they’re living, why should they move to make more money?

Andrew says:

02:58pm | 10/03/10

Persephone,
You just don’t get it. Worse, you don’t want to get it.
The “burden” as you put it is not being placed on “the rich” who earn high incomes but on businesses that generate income of more than $5m per year.
And your defence of stating I would oppose all labor policy as a matter of principle so you should therefore oppose all libel policies on the same basis is ridiculous as is your come the revolution line.
I guess what they say is true: Only a fool argues with an idiot.
Nuff said.

Andrew says:

03:07pm | 10/03/10

John,
I don’t hold any government at fault for having to work my way through uni. In fact I think it was incredibly good preparation for professional life. My point is that if you opt out of making the effort don’t then attack me for my success.
Secondly, I agree that all governments are to blame for our current tax regime. I would love to see what the Henry tax review has to say.
Finally, I have no issue paying taxes, it certainly assuages my social conscience, in fact I would pay more if i thought it wouldn’t be lost in an ever expanding public service.
What I like about this policy is that it encourages people who should have children to have children and the money goes directly to the intended person not to create a massive bureaucracy unlike the intended ETS and Federal Health plan.

persephone says:

10:51am | 11/03/10

Andrew

and how is this going to happen, without a bureaucracy involved?

Will intending mothers just ring up BHP?

And I point out again: both Abbott’s ‘Divert Attention from Climate Change’ and ‘Two Word Solution for Australia’s Health Problems’ create bureaucracies.

And sorry, I’d like people to have children who are good parents, not just rich ones.

Andrew says:

11:57am | 11/03/10

We already have a department that handles social security benefits. I’m sure your familar with it.

persephone says:

02:01pm | 11/03/10

As are most parents, Andrew, but just go on slurring large sections of Australian society, that’s OK.

You can’t impose more work on an existing workforce without that workforce getting larger. I’m sure when you expanded your company and employed more workers (and good on you for doing so) you did so because you could no longer do the extra work yourself.

Strangely enough it’s the same for government departments.

Andrew says:

02:46pm | 11/03/10

I’m not suggesting the department won’t have to employ more people but c’mon you really think you’d have to employ a lot?? You don’t have to crerate a whole new department.
By the way not slurring anybody, just thought you might be familiar with it because as you said yesterday your life experience has revolved around low income disadvanttaged areas. Sheesh, talk about a chip on your shoulder.

Forde Montgomery says:

05:24pm | 09/03/10

You may call it a levy all you like, but its just a tax that we will all end up paying for.  Here is a better idea, parents save up money before having a baby and fund any time off themselves.  If my business ever gets to +5mill I’d be upping my prices by 1.7% straight away.  Welcome to the real world.

Brad says:

06:08pm | 09/03/10

Agreed Forde,

It’s just typical of society of today to expect something for nothing. All this will do is put doubt in the minds of large business thinking of entering the country.

If you can’t afford a child than don’t have one. Who really believes that it’s CBA, NAB, IBM or Holden’s job to fund your maternity leave. Cause that’s basically what people are saying.

Crooked says:

07:30pm | 09/03/10

Also agreed, Forde and Brad, I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking this.

I just want to know why we are so keen to butter up all women to pop out more kids. With the baby bonus and all that stuff. If you can’t afford the damn kid, don’t have it. I realise accidents happen, but there are options for that too, if you’re so desperately under-prepared that you need to rely on govt handouts and stuff.

John A Neve says:

07:44pm | 09/03/10

Red Barron,

A levy on businesses is just a tax on the people by default, they just pass the costs on. How stupid can one man be?

Bottom line Red barron is YOU will pay.

persephone says:

09:13pm | 09/03/10

“Levies’ of this nature should have some kind of rhyme or reason to them.

They should either encourage/deter certain kinds of behaviour - so the Medicare surcharge encourages high income earners to take out private health insurance, and alcohol and tobacco taxes deter people from harmful behaviours - or they should be a ‘fee for service’ (so various industries are levied to provide funds for research).

Arbitrarily taxing a certain section of society for something which is a benefit to society as a whole makes no sense at all.

If you want employers to fund maternity leave, then all employers should be levied, not just some.

Alternatively, you could use a carrot/stick approach, where employers who did not employ large numbers of women were levied to support those who do.

Or, of course, you could just take it out of general revenue, meaning that all taxpayers shared the burden.

Ron L says:

09:38pm | 09/03/10

Levy, tax, call it what you like, but if business incurs additional expense, in the form of a “great big new tax”, then it will pass it on and why shouldn’t it?.....After all, business should not be expected to cover the cost of a community responsibility…..So in the end it will be paid for by us, no differently to Rudd’s, albeit less expensive, scheme…..

Ben says:

10:26am | 10/03/10

Does everyone here realise that most big businesses (NAB, CBA & BHP are examples) already have paid parental leave schemes in place?  Granted it is usually only for 12 weeks (though for BHP, 18 weeks).  Still, an imposition of a 1.7% levy is not going to affect these businesses too much, considering that under this scheme leave payments, superannuation and workers comp liabilities will be eliminated or reduced.

persephone says:

10:53am | 11/03/10

Ben - superannuation maybe, but the others?

And figures out today show that there is very little difference between the amount paid by big business under this scheme and the ETS -and with the ETS, businesses can reduce their costs by adopting ‘greener’ practices.

Ben G says:

06:28pm | 09/03/10

Why do you assume that it’s my job to pay for your doe-eyed little tax breaks?
You’re having them, you plan for and pay for them.

Crooked says:

07:42pm | 09/03/10

What is?

I dunno, something that’s not a personal choice? Health care?

If a woman can’t support herself (by savings, non-work earnings, partner’s earnings) she should damn well make the CHOICE not to have that child at that time. End of story.

The Drover says:

10:01pm | 09/03/10

Ben G., because they will be paying for you in your doterage, or havent any of you intellectual giants worked that out yet. Demographics is destiny, if we dont have children we are dead as a nation, encourage it.

John A Neve says:

07:25am | 10/03/10

Ned,

Can I reverse your question and ask, why do you feel society should pay to support anothers choice?

For generations people have brought up their own children, what has suddenly changed?

Norma says:

06:08pm | 09/03/10

He is reported to have done the apology bit. I await the policy reversal which must happen if he is to regain my trust.
This could result in a win-win. It would show women he cares about them (contrary to opinions out there) because he tried, and would show he is a team player. Then the “I promise never to do that again”. Could work a treat.
Then, I think he (make that the team) shoud support the Rudd scheme, and improve it. Promise to move it to businesses over a certain size paying for it, partially, then completely over a predetermined time frame, so the tax payer is eventually only left funding it for the very small businesses.

iansand says:

08:53am | 10/03/10

Or it highlights, unnecessarily, something about the Liberal Party that may be an electoral liability.

persephone says:

09:14pm | 09/03/10

Brendan

his original intention (expressed in his speech) seems to have been just to put it out there. However, events ran away with him (or his ego did) and it has now been approved as official policy by the party room - though by all accounts they were not happy about it.

Certainly there was no doubt in Parliament today that the Opposition regard it as done and dusted, with several speeches in support of the proposal from people like Joe Hockey.

The Dove says:

06:39pm | 09/03/10

WOW!!!  How did you slip through the net? Perhaps we should limit the ferals up the road further… ban them from health care,university places,public forums,voting,breathing etc…
Bitter little pill aren’t ya.

Ben says:

08:46pm | 09/03/10

Congrats,an excelent summation of this issue. Welfare recipients breed welfare recipients, it’s not a pleasent pill for many to swallow, but a bitter fact, being politicaly correct wont make it go away.
So, in a country with rapidly increasing aged healthcare costs, and with a large portion of the working population (Baby Boomers) retiring in the next 10 years, we have two choices, both of which will be funded, in different ways, by the avarage Australian.
1) Support Kevin’s plan and encourage the next generation of welfare recipients, compounding the problems we are already facing.
2)Support tony’s plan and encourage the next generation of heavy lifting taxpayers.

persephone says:

09:18pm | 09/03/10

If they’re out the door at 6 am and back at 6 pm, when are they going to have time for kids?

They need more than six months of care, you know.

Another sprog who gets whacked straight into childcare and only sees their over tired parents on weekends.

And that kind of parent knows in their heart that they’re cheating their kids, and over compensates by fulfilling their every little material whim, resulting in one of those spoilt brats who think they’re God’s gift.

At least the 7 down the road have people to talk to.

Let's Breed Quality Australian's says:

09:43pm | 09/03/10

persephone:

Don’t worry mate, The 7 down the road will have people to talk to in jail too

Stephen says:

09:54pm | 09/03/10

Well said.  Welfare breeds welfare!  Go to any small town and you will find three generations of welfare recipients living under the same roof.

Bart Cummings wouldn’t use a lazy old mule to breed a race horse, he uses the best stock he can find.  Unfortunately the Federal Government has encouraged the bottom feeders to breed while discouraging the people who have excelled in life. 

Personnaly, my wife and I never received handouts and we managed our finances to ensure we could provide for our children. However, if somebody is going to receive a handout I would prefer to see it go to a hard worker, and not a bludger who will feed the money into pokies and drugs and let their snotty nosed offspring run wild.

Andrew says:

10:02am | 10/03/10

Persephone, go live next door to the welfare dependants and see if your attitude changes.
Another chardonnay socialist.
I hope didums politically correct mantra hasn’t been offended by reality.
We are so lucky we have people like you to tell us how to think.

Liz says:

10:16am | 10/03/10

It’s fantastic that these people work hard and have an investment property.

And they may make excellent parents.

But I object to them receiving welfare. If they can afford an investment property they can affort to look after their own kids! If they can’t, then don’t have them.

Tony Abbott’s great big new tax will end up hitting all of us. Do you really think that if you tax Westfield, for example, they won’t pass on the costs to the small businesses who have shops in their shopping centres and in turn those businesses won’t jack up their prices?

It’s fantasy land to think anything else. Big business has to deliver profit for shareholders. If you whack a tax on them, they’ll pass it on to us.

Andrew says:

10:49am | 10/03/10

Obviously you haven’t understood this post. What the writer is saying is the hard working, forward thinking, financially responsible couple ought to be encouraged to have children not the welfare dependants down the road.
As for passing on the levy have you not researched the plan. the company tax rate is to be LOWERED.
I bet if Rudd had come out with this policy every labor lap dog on this site would be praising it and saying, “yeah its about time that evil big business paid for working families”. Now their just unhappy TA stole their thunder.
I bet labors policy would have a $100k cut off and ensure the minimum payment would be say $500 to encourage losers to have more sprogs to clutter up our jails in another 18 years.
Labor - beaten to the punch again.

persephone says:

10:55am | 10/03/10

Andrew

I grew up in a town which had one of the highest welfare dependency rates in the country.

I now live in a town which has one of the highest (second, I think) number of public housing dwellings in the whole of Australia.

I work in a town (different to where I live) which has one of the highest rates of single families and one of the lowest family income levels in Australia.

Don’t drink chardonnay, although they make a nice drop in these parts.

Another Earl Grey tea sipping conservative who has never ventured out of the confines of the ‘right’ suburbs.

And I’d guess a Sydneysider, since you don’t think you could make ends meet on a measly $150k.

Ben says:

11:07am | 10/03/10

Oh no, Westfield lessees are going to pass on the additional 1.7% cost of rents to their small business lessees!  Think about it in dollar terms please.  If the average rent for a small business renting these premises is $50,000 per annum, that equals an increase of only $850 per year.  Now in the great majority of cases, that shop would be retail, usually clothing.  How many items do you think they would sell each year?  Spread that $850 cost over all those items, and what kind of increase are you really looking at to buy that new shirt?

Andrew says:

12:56pm | 10/03/10

Persephone, Given your background you should be well aware of the welfare merry go round that Labor constantly tries to promote.
As for Earl Grey, sorry never had a cup of tea in my life.
Have left the comfortable confines of Sydney’s North Shore a few times in my life, including a 5 year stint in rural Australia. Don’t live in Sydney now but wouldn’t want to try to get by on $150K in that state which has been run into the ground by State Labor.
Look, I don’t think Labor or Rudd or Swan or Gillard etc are evil but I really have an issue with people who refuse to see anyone else’s point of view.
Finally, you keeping rabbiting on about Abbott flip flopping. I really hope all politicains have the ability to change their mind if they realise they have been wrong in the past. I think it shows character and intelligence. You won’t see Rudd do it with his ETS or any of his other failed policies. He will just make another announcement on the run and sweep his failures under the carpet unless he gets caught out like with the insulation scheme.

Let's Breed Quality Australian's says:

02:55pm | 10/03/10

Thank goodness some people have a commonsense. Andrew & Ben in particular.

Liz this is going to happen so for god’s sake get it right, the couple next door would never ask for a handout yet the ferals line up every Thursday.

If we’re going to give it away let’s give it to the people who have actually put in for society.

As for you persephone I’m afraid you are a perfect example of my point. You grew up in a tough area and now you live in a tough area, if there were less kids to the unfortunate we would NOT have to pay for their housing commissions!

As for the Earl Grey I would rather my Chivas Regal in my Royal Doulton tumbler thankyou.

persephone says:

05:25pm | 10/03/10

Tough neighbourhood?

No one here locks house doors or car doors. There is no theft.

Everyone looks out for each other. I can get someone to look after my kids within 5 minutes if I need to.

It’s one of the best communities I’ve lived in (and I’ve lived in some very posh areas) and my city friends (from the posher suburbs in Melbourne) are pea green with envy.

Poor does not necessarily mean dishonest, or violent, or anything other than poor.

Andrew says:

07:00pm | 10/03/10

Pers, WOW! No theft, no crime, “posh” people” pea green with envy. Utopia! What is the name of this commune? And the fact it has only just become this way since Rudd was elected in 2007 is amazing. It must have been absolute hell though under 11 years of Liberal government, right??
But seriously if you live in rural Australia it is not uncommon, particular in small towns, for people to leave there doors unlocked etc. I lived in such a town. Crime was minimal. Educational was terrible, youth unemployment and drug use was high. You could find a babysitter easily because hardly any woman had a job. Welfare dependance was not only rampant it was celebrated. The baby bonus was embrace as a windfall to stick in the pokies or buy grog.
Pregnant mothers smoked and drank and one in every 2 children went on to finish year 12 and 1 in every 20 of them went to university.
Rural Australia has its own problems.
Maybe those are the issues the words tough neighbourhood are directed at.
Oh and by the way, if you think criminal activity is not contected to welfare dependancy or low income go and check out our jails one day.

Let's Breed Quality Australian's says:

09:23pm | 10/03/10

persephone -

Are you writing from heaven??? If so please say hello to Sir Robert for me.

As for this Utopia you speak of, I can tell you where all the criminals are. In a suburb that actually has something worth stealing.

persephone says:

11:05am | 11/03/10

I did say the incomes aren’t high, but I don’t hear much bitching about it.

And you’re right, Andrew, small rural town. Brilliant. Still knows what it means to be a community.

Wrong about education. The local school is so small that it can cater for my kids’ individual needs - they arranged the whole of the Year 11 & 12 timetable around the need to provide more challenging subjects for my eldest; my youngest works in the same class as his peers, but on more advanced work than they’re doing.

I could move them both to another, bigger school with a better overall academic record, but so far there’s no need to.

And where they are, they’re learning - unlike Andrew - that just because a kid comes from a disadvantaged home and struggles with school, doesn’t mean that they’re worthless as a human being.

Rates pretty well on MySchool too, considering the number of disadvantaged kids in the community.

Life’s cheap here - the MEDIAN house price is something like $150k, which means mortgages are on average less than $250 a week. Needless to say, the rate of home ownership is very high, so people feel secure and - whilst their incomes aren’t high - have a reasonable level of disposable income.

And the scenery’s spectacular, the water tastes great, there’s a huge range of sporting and other activiities and the people are friendly and welcoming.

We have a lot of people who come here on holidays and stay forever, and lots who - like me - came here for a short period to live and are still here.

I’ve got a very limited income (casual work, and it’s the down season)  but I don’t owe any money to anyone, own my own house and land, grow my own fruit and vegies and have all the social life I want.

Don’t know why anybody’s silly enough to live in the city, let alone a suburb.

Andrew says:

11:56am | 11/03/10

Look Pers, I think that’s great, seriously, but that is an exception that proves the rule. Low income Australia does not generally live like you do. Kudos to you. No debt, great scenery etc but no party created that for you and the kids in Blacktown, Campbelltown, Mt Druitt etc will continue to stay on the welfare roundabout.
I don’t mind you insulting me, it demonstrates desperation and an inability to correctly make your point.
You keep saying I think this person or group of people are worthless. I celebrate people who pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make a positive contribution to this society, whether that contribution is financial, social or as in most cases both.
I know you want to pigeonhole me. Maybe it’ll help you sleep better at night.

persephone says:

02:04pm | 11/03/10

Well, letting them be born is a great start. Not judging them by their parents is even better.

Andrew says:

02:46pm | 11/03/10

1. No one is stopping anyone having kids,
2. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree ... which is basically what i’ve been saying for 2 days now.

Andrew says:

10:13am | 10/03/10

He already said he was going to lower the company tax rate (something all federal governments have been considering doing now for some years).
You’ve clearly got an overactive imagination and a mindset that won’t allow a non labor thought to penetrate.
You seemed very concerned to put TA down but seriously why don’t we consider the non-performance of the Rudd government.
You can try and distract from the labor non-performance with pathetic monickers like “the mad monk” and “will reintroduce workchoices” etc but at the end of the day one thing is very clear, Labor is scared of Abbott and they are desperately trying to undermine him. One other thing is very clear, he is gathering massive amounts of public support and the next election will be close.
You know you have a government on the run when they spend all of their time attacking the opposition rather than trying to govern.

persephone says:

11:00am | 10/03/10

Evidence for your statement, please, Andrew?

Have tried to find a reference to Abbott lowering company tax rates and can’t.

Is this Liberal party policy or just an Abbott thought bubble?

From yesterday:

TONY ABBOTT: Certainly over time, once we have repaid Labor’s debt, once we have been able to give people personal tax cuts then I would like to hope that we could start reducing other taxes. That would mean that this increase, thanks to the levy, is a temporary increase.

Certainly sounds like he’s admitting to this being a tax rise…and that lowering personal taxes will happen before he lowers company taxes.

Peter says:

08:40am | 10/03/10

Yeah, right up there with Krudd’s “I’m a fiscal conservative”.

Crooked says:

07:53pm | 09/03/10

Fit, toned leader? It’s not an athletic competition, momentum. And I think “self serving” is a pretty tough criticism to throw at the ALP when the specific reason Abbot has done his classic backflip manouver on this issue is because his daughters are now getting to be old enough to take advantage of paid mat leave.

Douglas says:

10:19pm | 09/03/10

momentum,

Haven’t you got some WorkChoices you should be getting back to?

Better get to it; you can be sacked without reason or warning if Abbott gets in.

Ebony says:

11:24am | 10/03/10

Fit and Toned is not a term I feel we need to use with the leader of our country. I honestly thought Joe Hoking who is neither fit or toned would make a better leader. But hes disappointed me with the obvious fervor he’s launched into this debacle on maternity leave. By his own words, he knew of this policy before Abbott released it so that tell me hes not a good finance minister either

Ben says:

09:12pm | 09/03/10

Those babies will be paying taxes to fund public transport (when your too old to drive), hospitals, aged care facilities, and pension aged welfare throughout your retirement. Its simple really.  Did I miss something?

Alex says:

10:18pm | 09/03/10

Ben or they may be on welfare and we may have to continue to pay for them for the rest of their lives

Andrew Goff says:

11:28pm | 09/03/10

Hey Ben…

What you have just described is also known as a Ponzi scheme. How about we take responsibility now for putting aside enough money to support ourselves in our retirement rather than placing the burden on our children?

You are missing something: the idea that sponging off your children in old age is wrong.

Chase Stevens says:

10:16pm | 09/03/10

Well said Amy.

While your at it Tony remove the right for women and people who don’t earn enough to vote. Enough with this social engineering, time to return to the natural order of things. Women aren’t smart enough to vote.

Peter says:

08:45am | 10/03/10

Keeping skilled women in the workforce, while allowing them the fiscal freedom to have kids, is a good step toward wealth creation.

Andrew says:

10:42am | 10/03/10

If you think the first 6 months of a childs life is a holiday then you’ve never had a kid

Ben says:

11:40am | 10/03/10

Firstly, as of January 1, 2011, anyone receiving paid parental leave will not be eligible for the baby bonus.  This means that you cannot get both the bonus and parental payments.

Secondly, it is called “parental” leave.  That is, it applies to men and women.  You had better be careful not to employ men that want to stay at home.  You had also better hope that those menopausal women do not want to adopt, as they too are eligible.

Thirdly, a single female taking a holiday in the first six months of having a new baby?  Of everything you just said, that is the dumbest.  Let’s hope that you never become eligible for any kind of parental leave.  That would be a complete travesty for the gene pool.

And who is really going to run to Centrelink if their pre-baby income was even $50,000 per annum, let alone $150,000?

FlashLite says:

10:29am | 10/03/10

And no wonder A stream of babies is issuing forth. With the baby bonus and access so easily available to IVF, That stream has turned into a flood. Mothers getting double and triple the baby bonus ( having twins and triplets) that we as taxpayers pay for

Andrew says:

10:59am | 10/03/10

Well said.
Unfortunately most of the people who post here are blind followers of political parties and won’t entertain a good idea from a pary they hate.
Well done to you and your company.

Ben says:

11:43am | 10/03/10

At last, some common sense.  Most big businesses already have these schemes in place, as it helps retain quality staff members.  All this policy is doing is shifting the responsibility of making the leave payments from the company across to the government.

It also promotes fairness across the economy, as those employed within small business can now also access some paid parental leave, in line with those employed with larger companies.

persephone says:

11:45am | 10/03/10

Says Andrew, whose every post sounds like it comes from a blind follower of the Liberal party….

How mistaken one can be.

H of SA says:

11:49am | 10/03/10

Nice one Dave, I’m guessing you don’t have too much trouble retaining staff and getting some good work out of them…..as you sound like the kind of boss I would want to give over and above for.

Andrew says:

01:00pm | 10/03/10

Persephone, really positive comment. Its people like you who get people like me interested in joining the political debate. So much so I just requested a membership pack from the Liberal party. Here’s the link in case you ever wake up to yourself: http://www.liberal.org.au/contact/jointheparty.php

persephone says:

02:12pm | 10/03/10

Andrew

You’re remarkable. You make a negative comment, I counter it with another negative, and I’m the negative person here.

Join the Libs, you’ll feel very much at home.

Andrew says:

11:03am | 10/03/10

I would be willing to bet not a single firm will move overseas as a result of this levy, particularly given it will be offset by a lowering of the corporate tax rate, or didn’t you know that.

persephone says:

11:44am | 10/03/10

Andrew

you keep saying this, but there is no evidence for it.

Abbott has admitted that he is raising corporate taxes by imposing this tax and that he will lower personal tax rates before he will lower company tax rates.

Mind you, that was yesterday morning….

Nick says:

11:54am | 10/03/10

‘Paid to raise their own kids….’ Who are you kidding!! We have had a welfare state in this country since the war. Every generation has received huge payments from governments to bring up children - family allowances, family benefits, school dental services, child medical services, taxation discounts, youth allowances, student grants, free milk, baby bonuses, free education services, day care services….. etc etc. That’s what a civilised country does for its citizens. The reality of today is that most families need two incomes to survive - not so a generation ago - whatever class you come from. We need to encourage women to work and to have babies. Abbott’s plan is certainly worth consideration, it’s the best scheme of its sort I have seen so far.

John A Neve says:

12:36pm | 10/03/10

Nick,

Says “Every generation has received huge payments from governments
to bring up children”. Perhaps Nick you could start by defining “huge”?

Ar you really suggesting that because people cannot live within their means governments should keep increasing the handouts?

Why do we need to “encourage women to work and have babies”, don’t they have minds of their own?

Based on your post Nick, I see you as a product of the social security system.

John A Neve says:

01:26pm | 10/03/10

Nick,

Says “Every generation has received huge payments from governments to bring up children”.  You could start Nick by telling us how you define “huge”?

Maybe then you could tell us why those who cannot live within their means should be supported by society?

It would appear from your post Nick, that in fact you are a product of the social security system.

Andrew says:

01:35pm | 10/03/10

Vote for a party platform not a person.

John A Neve says:

01:46pm | 10/03/10

Andrew,

But “party platforms” keep changing.

You have not answered my questions Andrew !! Are you just hot air?

Andrew says:

07:22pm | 10/03/10

I can’t find the question, unless the question is “are you just hot air?” in which case I would reply, No.