Losers And Winners – Tony’s parental leave and our cost of living

Posted: August 20, 2013 in Dummy Spits, Politics, The Battle For Western Sydney

On Sunday I was pleased to be in Parramatta amongst the crowd cheering on Kevin Rudd after he announced his $122 Million to upgrade Westmead Hospital.

While I was doing that Tony Abbott was in Victoria looking for babies to kiss to give his controversial parental leave scheme another plug. Given the Liberal Party’s lack of anything new to talk about, they chose to talk about their only policy which seems to be fully funded, albeit by taxing big business so they can pass it on to us.

For those who have been critical of both Party’s for being too similar, Sunday was a great day to show the real differences between the two parties.

Kevin Rudd was out giving money to a public hospital in Western Sydney.

Tony Abbott was announcing a tax hike for companies like Coles and Woolworths which we will end up paying for so that rich women can have time off to have babies and get paid from the extra we will all no doubt pay for bread, milk, and groceries.

Quite a stark difference indeed.

If you are a woman who earns less than $75,000 a year may I be so bold as to suggest you share this post online, re-tweet it, or at least tell your friends and colleagues about it? I would be absolutely livid if I was being told I was worth less than someone else, or my child was worth less than someone elses.

Babies - Some are worth more than others according to Tony Abbott

Babies – Some are worth more than others according to Tony Abbott

It seems if you are a nurse, a shop assistant, a cleaner, a clerk, a receptionist, a tele-worker, a manufacturing worker, the majority of teachers and a vast number of other jobs then you are not quite as equal in Tony Abbotts eyes as some women.

Tony Abbott thinks that women who earn over $150,000 a year should be able to have a baby and stay at home and earn more than you do for busting your chops working every day.

Abbott wants to pay these women to sit on their leather sofa’s watching the soapies on their big screen TV’s with their feet up, content in the knowledge that they are still earning a $75,000 a year salary for six months. While they are doing that, Abbott is happy for you to be mopping a floor, cleaning a bed pan, being yelled at over the phone or in your face, or just mopping the sweat from your brow.

You’ve probably heard the talk about class warfare, this is Abbott drawing up the battlelines (pardon the pun).

However I should give credit where credit is due, this is one of the rare policies that the Coalition have explained the funding method for, although Joe “numbers man” Hockey appears to struggle with it. They tell us they are telling us they will scrap the Labor Party’s paid parental leave scheme (the nation’s first) and tax big business, the top 3,000 companies.

Apparently when big polluters were going to pay for their carbon emissions the flow on from smelting, mining, and power companies was going to cripple the nation and send prices on everything soaring. This is what Abbott told us when a Carbon Price was introduced.

Remember the carbon rallies and the whole “Axe The Tax” campaign? It still seems ironic to me that the Liberal Party would run with their slogan “Axe The Tax”, as when the Liberals introduced the GST they were actually the Party who put the “Tax On The Axe”.

Raising the cost of living in a town near you... and everywhere else

Raising the cost of living in a town near you… and everywhere else

However Tony Abbott’s plan sees companies like Coles and Woolworths tax bill soar by 5% and yet he seems to think these companies won’t pass it down to consumers.

Clearly Tony Abbott is delusional or he thinks we are all idiots.

I have listed some of these before, but below is a list of just some of the companies that will get slugged and how much they will be looking to make up from us. The chart below shows the extra tax that would be paid by these companies under a Coalition government based on 2012 reported financial figures from these companies.

Company Profit 2012 Extra Tax To Pay Under Coalition
Commonwealth Bank $7,100,000,000 $106.5 Million
Westpac $5,900,000,000 $88.5 Million
Woolworths $1,816,700,000 $27.25Million
Wesfarmers (Coles, Bunnings) $2,126,000,000 $31.89Million
Telstra $3,400,000,000 $51 Million
Caltex $57,000,000 $855,000
Origin Energy $980,000,000 $14.7 Million
Westfield Retail 1,720,000,000 $25.8 Million
AGL 114,900,000 $1.724 Million
Coca Cola Amatil 459,900,000 $6.899 Million
Qantas 95,000,000 $1.425 Million
Myer $139,300,000 $2.09 Million

These costs will undoubtedly be passed on down to consumers, as well as the millions the other 2.988 companies will be forced to pay.

Many of these will see a triple “Abbott Tax” triple dipping, many of our grocery manufacturers and producers will be taxed the extra, the supermarket chains taxed the extra, and also the shopping centre owners taxed the extra also. Add to that all their power suppliers and logistics companies will also be slugged.

All this so that rich people can get paid to sit at home after having a child.

I'm sure Abbotts $75K would have helped out Miranda if she'd only waited to have her child

I’m sure Abbotts $75K would have helped out Miranda if she’d only waited to have her child

Meanwhile those on a low-income will be forced to rely on family and friends for childminding so they can go back to work after having a child in order to earn minimum wage and be able to pay the rent and put food on the table.

It seems there are winners and losers in this Tony Abbott “signature policy”, the rich are the winners and everyone else are the losers.

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt usually, and would normally say that those who choose to vote for Tony Abbott this September are just misinformed.

However to pinch a line from the anti drink driving advertisements, if you are on less than $150,000pa and vote for Tony Abbott or the Coalition then you’re a bloody idiot.

If you are happy to see rich women sitting at home and collecting a bigger pay pack than you get for working your butt off, then ignore this.

Alternatively if you don’t want to see the cost of living skyrocket, and think that you are worth just as much as anybody else, then spread this information around far and wide.

It may be the biggest favour you do yourself this year, or today at least.

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

  1. joy cooper says:

    Great post Wixxy. It is rather ironic that the very people who object the most to “The Welfare State” will be the major beneficiaries of this ludicrous middle class welfare.

    During Howard’s era middle class welfare was issued from Medicare offices so the recipients would not suffer the ignominy of having to attend Centrelink to organise their “welfare”. Now most Medicare offices are housed at Centrelink so that camouflage has gone. Wonder where this PPL will be issued from??

    Also, hypocritically, the very workers, nurses, teachers, police, etc that the Coalition claimed would be worst affected by the removal of the ability to rort the FBT by asking for usage logs to be kept for 12 weeks over 5 years, are the same ones who will benefit the least from this top heavy PPL scheme.

    One thing I am certain of is that, as someone on a fixed income, this extravagant PPL will be making our ability to even eat properly more difficult, something the carbon price never did.

  2. Matt says:

    I have concerns for how we will pay for this and the irony of charging big business yet fear mongering the cost of living increase imposed by a ‘carbon tax’ is not lost on me but I do support a paternity ‘pay’ in line with a woman’s annual income as apposed paternity ‘welfare’. $150,000 a year is capped too high but it is not equitable to provide an equal handout as opposed to a continuation of an individual’s earning capacity. This is not minimum wage battlers vs. fat cats on their “leather sofa’s watching the soapies on their big screen TV’s with their feet up”. If we want a paid parental scheme we will all need to pay more in tax or as a flow on to consumers.

  3. miranda says:

    I agree with everything you’ve said about this fascist agenda of the LNPs in regards to the policy itself but man, you could’ve made the same point without half a dozen times referring to women (irrespective of their wealth status) ‘sitting at home’ when they are at home caring for children.
    I’m a stay-at-home Mum and, while I know this sounds cliched and will probably open me up to a torrent of abuse, you work really fucking hard when you’re at home day in day out looking after young children. It’s this kind of patronising shit that really devalues what women do, contributes to the bloody ridiculous Mummy wars and makes women like myself constantly second guess themselves and sometimes feel outright ashamed to admit that I’m not ‘working’ full-time at the moment.
    It’s also really important to recognise in any discussion about paid parental schemes or other ‘family friendly’ industrial relations that it’s not really about the rights of parents to certain entitlements it’s about the rights of their children and the family unit as a whole. When I received the baby bonus (I had my first child before Labour’s Paid Parental Scheme was actioned) it wasn’t about supplementing me to have time off- it was about ensuring my child had the availability of quality care with a guardian or carer. That’s why when the jerks on the other side of the fence who don’t even support paid parental schemes argue as to ‘Why they should pay for a woman (or man) to not work and stay at home…. blah blah blah’ they are missing the point entirely. Whether they agree with it or not they are actually ‘paying’ for children, in particular tiny newborn babies, to be at home with a parent, not the other way ’round.

    • wixxy says:

      I know, I thought about that after I wrote it, I’m aware of how much hard work being a parent is.

      I didn’t intend to take away from that I was more trying to point out the economic differences.

      Most parents I know of work extremely hard, but the point I made about big screen TV’s and sofas was made as that’s where most parents I know feed their babies and change nappies.

      No offense intended, apologies for any I have unintentionally given.

      • Gorey says:

        While I agree with the spirit of your post, I have to agree with Miranda by saying that you appear to dismiss the hard work mothers do. At least you could have suggested that the very rich could still afford to pay their house staff and nannies, or something. It’s also pitting the poor against the rich a bit, kind of using class warfare to attack class warfare, which is either ironic if you did it deliberately, or self-defeating if you didn’t. Again, I see your point, and I agree with it, just not necessarily the tone. If there’s going to be paid parental leave for women, it should be means-tested and equal.

  4. miranda says:

    Cheers for your response man, much appreciated. And yeah, I can eat humble pie too- I did read the article sitting on my couch in front of my telly breastfeeding the baby haha.

  5. cordannao says:

    Reblogged this on beingcoralie and commented:
    The devil is in the detail.

  6. In addition, the Coalition’s PPL scheme can be rorted very easily. New parents in family businesses can put the couple’s income entirely into the mother’s name for the months prior to the birth, so she can claim a much higher PPL than she would otherwise be entitled to. The higher PPL will be much greater than the increased tax paid through not splitting the two incomes (and claiming two tax-free thresholds). Exactly HOW is the Coalition going to stop this rorting? Add the costs of administration (investigating the true income of the mother) to the actual money paid to mothers (the PPL is supposed to be paid at the mother’s salary, even if the father cares for the baby). In contrast, ALL parental leave under the Government’s current scheme is paid at the minimum wage – even that can be rorted by placing family members on the payroll so that they qualify.

  7. How about the letter in today’s SMH which states that this policy seems to be aimed at the Abbott daughters more than anybody else I can only agree

  8. gina says:

    Thank you so much for this post, voicing my thoughts exactly. This scheme is appalling, especially coming for the LNP. And here I am, speaking as a woman planning on having children in the not-so-distant future, and will be likely be earning well into triple digits when I do. I have enough time and money on my hands to be able to sit down and budget for a child, or three. I certainly do not need any taxpayers money. How can it be that I would get more money in 6 months for what is essentially MYSELF for being at home, when other working families earn less than this amount in one year, before tax? It’s like winning the lottery! How will I face my friends, who work part-time, and so will never get this sort of help? How will they view me? I hate to think. I would hope we put any ‘spare cash’ into early childhood care or education. God knows it was through education that I could be where I am today, and NOT through hand-outs my mother never received because she worked on the family-run farm.

    Cool blog btw 🙂

  9. sue says:

    This policy will really annoy the +40 age group that usually vote Liberal not because it is too expensive but they will miss out while also losing the school kids bonus. Oh dear & these Howard battlers have become so addicted to a certain level of welfare.

  10. Kel says:

    I’m not the smartest person around but it seems to me that if you levy someone 1.5% and then give them a rebate of 1.5%, you actually raise SFA. Like Direct Action it appears to me that the good old Aussie Taxpayer is going to foot the whole bill.

  11. looking at your list of top earners and the contributions it occurs to me that one way we could all benefit (we all can’t pop out a kid!!) is that these companies lower their profit margins by reducing the cost of their goods and services….

  12. clarittee says:

    This gold plated scheme is only still there because the abbott can’t back out of it, without losing face. It has divided his own side all the while ( but kept quiet). Femininists isolate the benefit from the cost aspect and the other priorities like child care which are more deserving and practical, and say “It’s good for me. Public servants get it, I’ll give it a tick
    It IS upper middle class welfare from a taxpayer base, and is also primarily a matter between the employer /employee, but the fact is , WOMEN become mothers, so anything like this is going to raise the cost of employing them, so a profit motivated organisation would try to avoid employing them, clearly a bad result.
    Tony’s EMERGENCY call Doesn’t fit well with this excessive( for the moment) scheme. He tried to buy the female vote with it but only likes helping the ” HIGHER QUALITY” gene pool. Kissing NUNS on the lips may create and extra “POOL” for the future.? SCARY.. This GUY is AWKWARD relating to women, isn’t he?

  13. clarittee says:

    Minchin today gave it away because it won’t get through the SENATE. There’s probably enough dissention in the ranks to make it a problem in the lower house too. Action Man Doesn’t worry about such things. He’s got a left ear and a right ear and a sloganear.. he doesn’t talk of projects He projects. What a strange awkward man is our Phoney. Kissing Nuns on the mouth. Hope they don’t report him to Pell.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s