Paid Parental Leave Scheme

[thushan]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=164063273785609&set=a.147845998740670.1073741828.147842982074305&type=1&theater

Just as some background.

Although I think this woman's reason for supporting the Libs' model is quite misguided, I was wondering what kind of legitimate points this kind of scheme does have. Some I have in mind, just points I am tossing around, are -

- Those who work "harder" and therefore earn more money should be entitled to higher parental leave, effectively meaning they are not paying tax on others' children, which itself is a choice (I can think of some serious rebuttal to this though, including the idea of "those who need it most should get the money" and "those who do not have children are paying money to those who do, and does that suggest that not having children should somehow be punished?")

- People should live within their means. If their financial situation precludes them from having children, perhaps they shouldn't, instead of them expecting other people (taxpayers) to give their money to 'fund' their 'choice'. (Issue with this point, however, is that children are probably a right, rather than a privilege/luxury)

I'll admit, trying my best to think about both sides of the story is making my head hurt. Going too far to the right would make one a horrible monster, whereas going TOO far to the left would make it unfair on the people who work extremely hard for their money (TOO far, this is - hypothetically something like...giving $2000 per week to people whose annual incomes are < $50,000 and nothing to those >$50,000). I'll also admit that I've only very recently become interested in politics, and so I could have some of my facts and ideas wrong and I am happy to be corrected.

A debate on this would be good.

[WonderBunny]

I support paid parental leave, I just don't support the Libs plan. It seems a bit weird to waste scarce public money by giving extra money to people who don't need it. Why should the rich get more money than other people, surely they need less? Yeah, I know, they worked hard, blah blah blah, but there isn't that much spare money sitting around, it should go where it will provide the most benefit.

Also, welfare benefits based on previous income are part of what sent Greece bankrupt. They're financially irresponsible.

[thushan]

It seems a bit weird to waste scarce public money by giving extra money to people who don't need it. Why should the rich get more money than other people, surely they need less? Yeah, I know, they worked hard, blah blah blah, but there isn't that much spare money sitting around, it should go where it will provide the most benefit.

That's a very fair point. Hmm. If the Libs use the "work hard" argument as justification, perhaps they shouldn't be having a paid parental leave scheme at all and use that money on other sectors - say healthcare? (That said, the paid parental leave scheme may assist with upstream factors relating to health that may assist with lowering healthcare costs long term in terms of tertiary prevention. Hmm.)

[Russ]

(Issue with this point, however, is that children are probably a right, rather than a privilege/luxury)

I think you're going to need to convince me of this

[slothpomba]

Before i get into what i think, the political quiz posted in the main election thread gave a nice summary of the views out there:

Should parental leave payments increase based on the mother's wage?

• Yes
• No
• No, all mothers should get paid the same amount
• No, but increase the equal pay amount and duration of leave
• No, there should be no paid parental leave
• Yes, and fund the increased payouts from taxes on high income businesses

Here is a very good comparison in dot points as well.

My argument is probably based on the way we handle other welfare payments (which this essentially is) and pragmatism. To the best of my knowledge, no other welfare payment scales with previous income. If you were a manager previously making $120,000, centrelink wont pay you that if you become unemployed nor will it cause any scaling. The reasons this occurs are probably the same one that applied to paid parental leave.

For one, it has the potential to wind up ridiculously expensive and unsustainable. Secondly, i firmly believe in the welfare state and i think we do have a duty to support people to a decent standard of living when they are unable to support themselves. Childbirth is a stressful and hard time, i personally believe we should allow people to take some time off and while they can't work, we should support them to a decent level. That's it though, a decent level, not $150,000 salary.

I'm really trying not to have black and white thinking here (i think most people dont anyway). I realise the rich are likely to spend more than the poor, that expenditure suddenly won't disappear once they have a child. I don't think we, as a society, should bankroll people living the high life out of tax money. The rich are more likely to have savings (indeed, the slack income to save) to cover any shortfall anyway. Some may argue this may discourage wealthy mothers from having children or somehow unfairly penalise the rich.  As much as i have statist leanings, i don't think it should be really up to the state to encourage people to have children. For a large portion of the population, having a child is a choice and people realise the consequences. Everyone should receive the same basic (but decently high) payment and those who are wealthy, as their means provide, can supplement themselves with savings, if they so choose to have a child.

Finally, Abbott's method of financing it makes no sense to me. As the ABC link surmises:

Scheme to be funded by a 1.5 per cent tax on Australia's 3,000 biggest businesses

It seems like an odd and inefficient way to fund it, especially for a party thats supposedly pro big business and low tax. I dont know why 3,000 big companies should have to bankroll paid parental leave for every parent in Australia. It should come out of general taxation revenue.

[Professor Polonsky]

The State shouldn't to be encouraging people to have children. To the contrary - I think that our current fertility rate is definitely high enough. On the other hand though, it should be possible for them to do so if they choose - even if it means a hit to their income. The idea behind a PPL should be to ensure parents enjoy a decent quality of life, should they decide to have children.

I don't mind the revenue-collecting mechanism for Abbott's PPL. The question for me becomes though, if you choose to take a hit at big business to collect $5.5 billion annually, wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere? Budgeting is, of course, a matter of priorities. So while I have nothing against Abbott's plan as such (capping it at $150,000 is a bit high for my liking - something closer to $75,000 or even the Greens' $100,000 sounds better), I don't think that's money well spent. A more modest plan, whilst spending the rest of the added revenue on something more valuable. (Say, education which the Libs want to privatise? Healthcare?)

[ninwa]

It seems like an odd and inefficient way to fund it, especially for a party thats supposedly pro big business and low tax. I dont know why 3,000 big companies should have to bankroll paid parental leave for every parent in Australia. It should come out of general taxation revenue.

That's hilarious because they just recently announced a 1.5% reduction in the company tax rate if they get elected (and made a huge deal out of it - "we support business" blahblahblah)

[Professor Polonsky]

Well, actually, that's something I'd support. Our corporation tax being flat is no good for anyone but those big businesses. It needs to be tiered.

Of course, they also said when announcing the 1.5% cut that it will actually increase revenues by some magic voodoo... Which makes one wonder, would raising it decrease revenues?