So Hockey thinks that westerners have to great a sense of entitlement.

I won't disagree with him there....

He thinks welfare is to great in our society.

Yet he also -
Opposes means testing the health insurance rebate
Has a policy of subsidising nannies
Has a very generous maternity leave policy
Worked for a government that introduced the baby bonus



http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...418-1x7zs.html

I bet the fat fucker would oppose removing negative gearing and the skewed private school funding model .

What a fucking clown, and this guy will be the next treasurer....

This country is going to the dogs

Slightly unrelated-

Does anyone here have much knowledge of egalitarian theories of justice. If so, what do you think of a UBI for Australia?

I have read the following enlightening articles about Joe Numbers Man Hockey today

http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com.au/20...di-arabia.html

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...419-1x8lq.html

Fuck yeah, asian model here we come. Exponentially wider gap between rich and poor, yeah! Support and assistance for the lower classes? Nah, fuck it.

Being upper-middle class and white, so awesome! Hi 5 Joe!

What flagrant fucking false advertising. Fuck this thread.

So he says we have too much National Debt and compares us to the Norway and Sweden with their low National Debt, then goes on to complain about Australia becoming a welfare state?

Right after lauding the financial management of the worlds two largest welfare states?

This after Downer joined Huawei's board.

Fucking filthy pinko Liberal commies.

i agree with the sentiment of a smaller government. there is an attitude in australia that the government owes people a certain lifestyle.

middle class welfare can go. shit like baby bonus and subsidy x,y,z can probably go.
give us lower taxes and fuck off out of our lives as much as possible please.

the problem is hockey and abbott have been preaching and proposing more of this crap, and then turn around and say this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

I bet the fat fucker would oppose removing negative gearing and the skewed private school funding model .

negative gearing I agree with.

but private school funding I don't. if private school funding stopped the public system would be crippled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko

negative gearing I agree with.

but private school funding I don't. if private school funding stopped the public system would be crippled.

Logical fallacy - public schools aren;t funded at the federal level.

In case you missed Barnaby Joyce's perspective on welfare today.

Quote:

the original baby bonus, which was paid as a lump sum, was a ridiculous policy that caused immense damage. Sending $5000, in a lump sum, to a household experiencing problems, such as alcohol or drug addiction, was not a solution but a disaster.

Last week, I visited areas where these social problems are quite apparent by the green cans adorned with two initials on the front lawns of indigenous housing in one of our most remote areas. No doubt the same problems exists in the non-indigenous areas of some of our urban centres.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opin...418-1x7fh.html

The idea of abolishing welfare for the poor, as advanced in 2007 but not implemented before the change in government, is alive and well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

Logical fallacy - public schools aren;t funded at the federal level.

he said private schools.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

he said private schools.

I am aware of this.

Federal subsidy of some of the richest schools in the country has done nothing to increase their rates of scholarships to disadvantaged students nor to lower fees since they were introduced by the Howard government.

The best results still tend to be dominated by the public selective schools, so where is the net benefit exactly? How is giving money to Kings or Geelong Grammar stopping the crippling of the public school system?

If someone can show me the breakdown on a dollar for dollar basis that subsidy of private schools provides a greater net benefit to the public system than that same amount of money being spent in the public system, then I'll gladly say I'm wrong.

And now for some facts:
http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/201...ian-safety-net

If you can't be arsed reading:
- Australia's social expenditure as a proportion of GDP is one of the lowest out of all OECD countries
- it is also up there with the most efficient due to the prevalence of payments means testing
- As such, there isn't too much we can cut from social expenditure unless you want to start digging into health and pensions. Good luck selling that one

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

I am aware of this.

Federal subsidy of some of the richest schools in the country has done nothing to increase their rates of scholarships to disadvantaged students nor to lower fees since they were introduced by the Howard government.

The best results still tend to be dominated by the public selective schools, so where is the net benefit exactly? How is giving money to Kings or Geelong Grammar stopping the crippling of the public school system?

If someone can show me the breakdown on a dollar for dollar basis that subsidy of private schools provides a greater net benefit to the public system than that same amount of money being spent in the public system, then I'll gladly say I'm wrong.

are you arguing against private funding altogether or about 10 of the richest private schools in the country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

are you arguing against private funding altogether or about 10 of the richest private schools in the country?

For argument's sake lets say all of them. Though maybe consider the Catholic system separately as I realise things work a bit differently there than in other private schools.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko

negative gearing I agree with.

but private school funding I don't. if private school funding stopped the public system would be crippled.

how so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portal

how so?

prob the same, but flawed, logic as the private vs public health care argument.

oh noes, private schools don't get govt funding anymore, the term fees went up from $10,000 to $11,000. what ever shall we do? take a 2 week overseas holiday instead of 4 weeks this year or send the kids to the public system and cripple it??

Like him or not (and I don’t). This is precisely what politicians should be doing. Leading policy debate on important and controversial issues. I can’t fault him on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

Like him or not (and I don’t). This is precisely what politicians should be doing. Leading policy debate on important and controversial issues. I can’t fault him on that.

No doubt.

I also agree with his point to an extent. Especially in regards to middle class welfare.

The criticism comes in because his party's policies don't practice what he preaches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

Like him or not (and I don’t). This is precisely what politicians should be doing. Leading policy debate on important and controversial issues. I can’t fault him on that.

Oh come on trist! How about leadership based on integrity? as evinced here they implement middle class welfare, oppose means tested welfare, and then he criticises welfare. i think the coalition is the exempler of the entitlement mindset

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Oh come on trist! How about leadership based on integrity? as evinced here they implement middle class welfare, oppose means tested welfare, and then he criticises welfare. i think the coalition is the exempler of the entitlement mindset

So what? Perhaps Hockey disagreed with those policies and had to toe the line at the time? You criticise politicians that try to micromanage the media cycle to make themselves a small target to protect their power. Hockey knew he would get attacked on this from Labor and Greens but also from elements in his own party, and laid down an ideological argument anyway. He did the same when Conroy was trying to bring in his NSDAP style internet filter and the Liberal Party didn’t have the courage to strongly publically oppose it. I just wish more competent politicians than Hockey had his political stones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by austraboy

Yet he also -
Has a very generous maternity leave policy



http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...418-1x7zs.html

If you think this is welfare, you haven't been paying enough attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

If you think this is welfare, you haven't been paying enough attention.

I don't see why rich women should be paid more for doing the same job (being a mother) as poor women

re: political stones, Trist, what about Turnbull's comments? (See the Turnbull thread)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston

I don't see why rich women should be paid more for doing the same job (being a mother) as poor women

re: political stones, Trist, what about Turnbull's comments? (See the Turnbull thread)

That’s a red herring. Paid maternity leave policy is about two things, primarily increasing workforce participation and secondly encouraging (working) women to have babies. Both are interelated and both are good short and long term public policy in the 21st century for advanced economies. Anyone that argues against it either wants women back in the kitchen full-time or doesn’t know what they are talking about.

I’m not commenting on Abbott’s scheme specifically, rather the concept of paid maternity leave more generally having nothing to do with welfare.

As for Turnbull, yeah I think most in the Liberal Party would quietly agree with him that the last few years of the Howard Government were a wasted opportunity, particularly for the creation of another sovereign wealth fund. Not sure why he brought it up though, but I like the honesty and courage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

I’m not commenting on Abbott’s scheme specifically

oh ok then.

I assumed the original post was commenting on Abbott's generous scheme specifically.



yes, there are obviously economic reasons for paid maternity leave and the general idea of it isn't really 'welfare'

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

That’s a red herring. Paid maternity leave policy is about two things, primarily increasing workforce participation and secondly encouraging (working) women to have babies. Both are interelated and both are good short and long term public policy in the 21st century for advanced economies. Anyone that argues against it either wants women back in the kitchen full-time or doesn’t know what they are talking about.

I’m not commenting on Abbott’s scheme specifically, rather the concept of paid maternity leave more generally having nothing to do with welfare.

As for Turnbull, yeah I think most in the Liberal Party would quietly agree with him that the last few years of the Howard Government were a wasted opportunity, particularly for the creation of another sovereign wealth fund. Not sure why he brought it up though, but I like the honesty and courage.

hang on hang on, wouldn't it be better,economically, if these working women in fact kept working and not have children?
Or are you arguing that working women produce children of better quality and utility than women who don't work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

So what? Perhaps Hockey disagreed with those policies and had to toe the line at the time? You criticise politicians that try to micromanage the media cycle to make themselves a small target to protect their power. Hockey knew he would get attacked on this from Labor and Greens but also from elements in his own party, and laid down an ideological argument anyway. He did the same when Conroy was trying to bring in his NSDAP style internet filter and the Liberal Party didn’t have the courage to strongly publically oppose it. I just wish more competent politicians than Hockey had his political stones.

His speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs was mostly aimed at Europe and America (just from skimming it), which is all well and good (and makes sense when European countries like France and Greece have been kidding themselves about things like retirement age and pensions etcetera for a long time now) but then Hockey went on Lateline and basically wouldn't say what entitlements the Coalition would cut in Australia: in fact he doubled down on supporting opposition to means-testing the Private Health rebate, which suggests to me that the Coalition is going to make no attempt at cutting back on the state's generosity to the middle to upper-middle (and higher) classes if they were to regain office.

He and the Coalition are a bunch of fucking hypocrites on this issue.

edit: Hockey Speech.

Lol Hockey, Abott and co are well aware they can spout any non-sensical crap they want and they'll still win the next election in a canter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

hang on hang on, wouldn't it be better, economically, if these working women in fact kept working and not have children?

No. Women either become childless career women (not good in the long term), or drop out of the workforce completely for many years (not good in the short or long term).

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

Or are you arguing that working women produce children of better quality and utility than women who don't work?

No. In case you haven’t realised, modern societies like Australia have fundamentally changed in the space of a generation. Where once most women didn’t work at all after they had their first child, most now do work either full or part-time. There is no reversing this. Public policy must therefore positively respond to this change, pity Australia has been 20 years behind the curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

hang on hang on, wouldn't it be better,economically, if these working women in fact kept working and not have children?

below replacement birthrates aren't good for the economy long-term is the main thrust of trist's point I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

Or are you arguing that working women produce children of better quality and utility than women who don't work?

I hate to say it, but these days that is probably largely true. Its probably not a great thing to have the birth rate concentrated at the lowest end of the socio-economic spectrum. /nazi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

His speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs was mostly aimed at Europe and America (just from skimming it), which is all well and good (and makes sense when European countries like France and Greece have been kidding themselves about things like retirement age and pensions etcetera for a long time now) but then Hockey went on Lateline and basically wouldn't say what entitlements the Coalition would cut in Australia: in fact he doubled down on supporting opposition to means-testing the Private Health rebate, which suggests to me that the Coalition is going to make no attempt at cutting back on the state's generosity to the middle to upper-middle (and higher) classes if they were to regain office.

He and the Coalition are a bunch of fucking hypocrites on this issue.

edit: Hockey Speech.

Yeah I know it was mainly aimed at Europe, but so what? He is making an ideological argument on a controversial issue (albeit rather poorly…but hey that’s Joe!). This is what politicians should freaking do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I hate to say it, but these days that is probably largely true. Its probably not a great thing to have the birth rate concentrated at the lowest end of the socio-economic spectrum. /nazi

Or the highest end of the socio-economic spectrum. Women’s workforce participation is lowest at the extremes, thus freeing them up to have far higher birth rates than the vast middle classes that work for a living.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

Yeah I know it was mainly aimed at Europe, but so what? He is making an ideological argument on a controversial issue (albeit rather poorly…but hey that’s Joe!). This is what politicians should freaking do.

I have no problem with him making the point, it certainly has some validity, but then he basically backtracked later on Lateline, negating everything he'd just spoken about. Which says to me that in an Australian context, an Abbott Government with Hockey as Treasurer, will do nothing substantial about entitlements (which must mean Middle Class welfare reform) and will stick to hitting those they can electorally get away with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

That’s a red herring. Paid maternity leave policy is about two things, primarily increasing workforce participation and secondly encouraging (working) women to have babies. Both are interelated and both are good short and long term public policy in the 21st century for advanced economies. Anyone that argues against it either wants women back in the kitchen full-time or doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the paid maternity leave based on your regular earnings ie: if you are an investment banker earning $200k and you drop out of the workforce to have a baby, you get a higher rate of paid maternity leave than a woman earning $50k??. If that is the case, then cheelwinston makes a very good point. Now that both women are doing exactly the same job (ie: raising a baby), why should one of them get more than the other? If you use the argument that rich women living a lavish lifestyle won't leave their highly paid job for peanuts, thus you have to dangle a bigger carrot in front of them to encourage them, then tough shit. They should either suck it up and get what everyone else does, or they can choose not to leave the workforce if they are that selfish they cannot give up their expensive lifestyle for 1 or 2 yrs.

Paid maternity leave is a good policy, but giving more money to more wealthy women IS middle/upper class welfare.

If that isn't the case then forget everything I just said, because then I agree with you 100%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

Or the highest end of the socio-economic spectrum. Women’s workforce participation is lowest at the extremes, thus freeing them up to have far higher birth rates than the vast middle classes that work for a living.

Well I don't think trophy wives popping out extra rugrats is a bad thing in itself (they have the means to provide for them at least) but I agree it's the lack of birthrate in the middle/working classes thats the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Paid maternity leave is a good policy, but giving more money to more wealthy women IS middle/upper class welfare.

If that isn't the case then forget everything I just said, because then I agree with you 100%.

Paid maternity leave at a capped level would seem to make the most sense. I agree that I don't really see the need to pay anyone above the going rate to have kids.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bracko

negative gearing I agree with.

but private school funding I don't. if private school funding stopped the public system would be crippled.

lulz.

Supporters of private schools will try to claim that according to the Productivity Commission public schools receive $14,380 per student, and private schools receive $7,427 per student saving the government $8.3 billion in 2009/10.

But that report was slammed as fudging facts as The Productivity Commission for some strange reason decided to not include capital grants in their calculations. Which type of school gets the vast majority of capital grants? Private schools.

---------------------------------

If we include capital grants we find that Public schools, on average, each received $438,106 (combined federal and state/territory funding), Catholic schools got $510,263 (116% funding per school) and Independent schools $567,514 (129% funding per school).

So knowing the amount of funding per school, how many students on average do the schools have?

71% of schools (6705) are public with 65% (and dropping each year) of the students (2,315,253). 18% are Catholic (1710) with 20% of students (701,000). 11% are Independent (1020) with about 15% of students (525,666).

So that's an average student per school of:

Public: 345
Catholic: 409 (118% of public school sizes with 116% of public school funding per school)
Independent: 515 (149% of public school sizes with 129% of public funding per school)

So on average private schools get slightly less government funding per student but its nowhere near on the scale the pro-private school mob claim.

Part of the disparity is because large numbers of public school students are switching to independent schools each year (and a smaller amount are switching to Catholic schools) and funding is trailing behind this trend. In 2001 public schools accounted for 69% of all students.

Sauce

-------------------

TLDR; Private schools don't save the tax payer much, certainly not the $8.3b pro-private school mob are claiming. Removing private schools wouldn't cripple the education system as you claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the paid maternity leave based on your regular earnings ie: if you are an investment banker earning $200k and you drop out of the workforce to have a baby, you get a higher rate of paid maternity leave than a woman earning $50k??. If that is the case, then cheelwinston makes a very good point. Now that both women are doing exactly the same job (ie: raising a baby), why should one of them get more than the other? If you use the argument that rich women living a lavish lifestyle won't leave their highly paid job for peanuts, thus you have to dangle a bigger carrot in front of them to encourage them, then tough shit. They should either suck it up and get what everyone else does, or they can choose not to leave the workforce if they are that selfish they cannot give up their expensive lifestyle for 1 or 2 yrs.

Paid maternity leave is a good policy, but giving more money to more wealthy women IS middle/upper class welfare.

If that isn't the case then forget everything I just said, because then I agree with you 100%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Paid maternity leave at a capped level would seem to make the most sense. I agree that I don't really see the need to pay anyone above the going rate to have kids.

I think you have to remember that the primary goal of paid maternity leave schemes is increasing workforce participation for child bearing age women. That means that it has to be linked to personal circumstances and not a one size fits all approach. If you have the “going rate” at $50,000 for example for 6 months, then you are paying more to women that earn less than this, and are discouraging women who earn more. Unfortunately it must be tied to personal income to properly achieve the intended goal. However, there should be a cap in my view at around $100,000 (or perhaps a little less). This would cover the income for 6 months of the overwhelming majority of women of child bearing age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

I think you have to remember that the primary goal of paid maternity leave schemes is increasing workforce participation for child bearing age women. That means that it has to be linked to personal circumstances and not a one size fits all approach. If you have the “going rate” at $50,000 for example for 6 months, then you are paying more to women that earn less than this, and are discouraging women who earn more. Unfortunately it must be tied to personal income to properly achieve the intended goal. However, there should be a cap in my view at around $100,000 (or perhaps a little less). This would cover the income for 6 months of the overwhelming majority of women of child bearing age.

Thats why I said capped rate, not flat rate. I agree that you don't want it at the point where you're actually incentivising women on low incomes to leave work and start popping kids out, but I don;t think we should be matching six-figure salaries either. I'd favour a policy that matched 100% of incomes up to a certain level (say 50k) then paid a reduced percentage up to a cap of 80-100k.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trist

I think you have to remember that the primary goal of paid maternity leave schemes is increasing workforce participation for child bearing age women.

Whose goal is this?
Paid maternity leave is for women who have a baby who would other wise struggle financially while not working.
Paying a woman $100K for six months to have a baby is terrific and all, but giving that amount of money only to women who are used to getting that much is insane.

Add the fact that women with higher paying jobs will usually find it easier to work later in their pregnancy (my sister is working at 8.5 months pregnant as a client account manager, she would be out of work at 6 months or sooner if she was a laborer) and with telecommuting can typically get back to work faster too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

Whose goal is this?
Paid maternity leave is for women who have a baby who would other wise struggle financially while not working.
Paying a woman $100K for six months to have a baby is terrific and all, but giving that amount of money only to women who are used to getting that much is insane.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Thats why I said capped rate, not flat rate. I agree that you don't want it at the point where you're actually incentivising women on low incomes to leave work and start popping kids out, but I don;t think we should be matching six-figure salaries either. I'd favour a policy that matched 100% of incomes up to a certain level (say 50k) then paid a reduced percentage up to a cap of 80-100k.

Yeah, no problem really in that. It adds a bit more complexity to it (usually the simpler the better for these types of policies), but not too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trist

It adds a bit more complexity to it (usually the simpler the better for these types of policies), but not too much.

So, if you assess each recipient's income before giving them a pension so that the needy get greater payments, that adds complexity, which is bad. If you assess each recipient's income before giving them a pension so that the wealthy get greater payments, that simplifies things, which is good. Is that it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Thats why I said capped rate, not flat rate. I agree that you don't want it at the point where you're actually incentivising women on low incomes to leave work and start popping kids out, but I don;t think we should be matching six-figure salaries either. I'd favour a policy that matched 100% of incomes up to a certain level (say 50k) then paid a reduced percentage up to a cap of 80-100k.

It should be a higher amount (perhaps the average wage rather than minimum), and maybe for 6-8 months rather than the 4.5 it is currently, but your suggestion is way too unwieldy imo. What Labor has put in place isn't ideal, but it's something that can be built on.

If there is a problem with people having babies just to gain welfare payments, the best way to discourage the practice would be an awareness campaign to make it clear that, welfare payments or not, having a baby will leave you "out of pocket".

Welfare payments should be about meeting essential expenses. It's reasonable that non-essential items cost the parents more than they get in welfare benefits. Intentionally discriminating against a child because you think that the mother might be a bludger is not reasonable.

On a slightly different topic, I read some speculation that Hockey might be sending out "feelers" to the Liberal Party machine. The speculation was that he was rightly attacking the middle class welfare that was brought about by Howard after the 2001 election and that Abbott seeks to increase. The speculation ventured further that Abbott had derogated Rudd & Gillard enough that the Liberal Party might be confident enough to oust him and to replace him with someone who could convey more of a vision to voters.

On the point of middle class women/families not having children, imo there are bigger issues at play and government maternity leave addresses none of it. The transitory nature of employment is probably the biggest issue. There is less security in the employment sector, plus a middle class income is just not enough to sustain a large family.

The interesting thing is that lower fertility rates in the western world are probably partly due to the welfare state. Once upon a time children were an insurance policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

On the point of middle class women/families not having children, imo there are bigger issues at play and government maternity leave addresses none of it. The transitory nature of employment is probably the biggest issue. There is less security in the employment sector, plus a middle class income is just not enough to sustain a large family.

The interesting thing is that lower fertility rates in the western world are probably partly due to the welfare state. Once upon a time children were an insurance policy.

Stay off the skag mofo.