I think you are mistaking affirmative action with equality of opportunity.

You can be sure if those genders were reversed the feminists would be out in force screaming "sexism!". That only 1/3 of undergraduate degrees are completed by men is concerning, if higher education isn't appealing to men it ipso facto must be more appealing to women, which sounds a lot like gender discrimination.

On a side not it's interesting to note that Sweden has one of the highest paid parental schemes in the world and consequently one of the highest female workforce participation rates. We really need to step out of the dark ages and catch up with the rest of the world by embracing paid parental leave for women, rather than Labor constantly deriding it with their envious howls of "millionaire women getting paid $75,000".

By all means have 6 months paid leave. If anything that should be a central pillar of Labour party policy. The amount they want to pay some sheilas is the issue. (The fact that the Labour party is opposing it is bizarre.)

Make it 6 months at the minimum wage or 1.5 times the minimum wage and be done with it. That's a figure that most people would wear. ($75k or $50k is way too much.)

Rubbish.

Read the first sentence in the quote form the Swedish government itself: they themselves do consider this outcome of their gender equality programs as reverse gender inequality.

You are using the same arguments against this outcome that was once used against women: they don't like education, they're not smart enough to do it anyway

As a man and father of a boy I don't want a country where someone has 1/3 chance of having a university degree just because they were born the wrong sex.

And I hope we NEVER go down the whole path of the Scandanavians.

Yeah, because they've got a better standard of living, are happier, have better educated people, better health outcomes and live longer.

I hope we never go down that path. What a nightmare.

By doing it that you can only class it as welfare, it isn't designed as some welfare payment to help new mothers cope with the financial pressures of raising children. It's a workplace entitlement designed to incentivise women to have children and return to the workforce, and thus increase mothers participation in the labour force that will increase income tax revenue and stimulate economic growth. It's also paid for by the levy on big business not transfer payments out of consolidated revenue, so no one is burdened by this payment. Almost all OCED countries peg PPL to income, the few exceptions include Australia and that "septic tank" called America.

Feminism does not ideologically have a problem with a situation where, based on entry marks, men get more higher education spots than women. There is empirically a lack of bias to oppose there. Feminist thought would say "Why aren't women successful in schooling, is the school system ignoring the needs of young women? If so, how is it doing this and what can we do to draw attention to/stop it happening" The problem is in places like workplaces, where you can't empirically justify skewed distributions as there is no standardised entry test, not reflecting the gender distribution of qualified candidates (and once employed, having a gender skewed pay rate.)

I don't think it is as simple as saying there is gender discrimination in their education system because less men are choosing to complete their education. Nordic unskilled workers are paid substantially higher than their international counterparts, and a lot of these positions involve manual labour that (rightly or wrongly) seems to appeal more to men. Their young men have the opportunity to enter the workforce at a younger age and earn more money than foreign counterparts, which is quite likely to have an impact on the number of young men deciding whether to continue their education. Also, mandatory conscription for men aged 18 and over was only suspended in 2010, which may be yet to have a flow-on effect on the figures.

I am a big supporter of Nordic parental leave schemes, and they are a lot better than what even the Liberal Party had tabled. In Sweden, both parents are eligible to take parental leave and share the allocated amount between them in a ratio they see fit. Of course, this requires money to implement- but I am in the camp of "I am willing to sacrifice my own wealth for the benefit of fair society." I don't mind paying more tax, and I'd do so happily... if the two parties who get to decide where it goes weren't so preoccupied with spending it where it is least needed.

Be careful, the devil is actually in the detail.

Abbott's policy is not designed to complement your existing PPL, like Labor's was. Under Labor, if you recieved something more generous than the basic PPL in your own employment contract or collective agreement, you got to keep it. If you didn't have it, you could access Labor's as a safety net.

While I don't think it was generous enough, this scheme did actually encouraged employers to offer more generous Paid Parental Leave than the minimum entitlement to make themselves an attractive employer of choice for workers.

Abbott's scheme overall is more generous. However, it's designed to replace existing PPL entitlements in employment contracts for people under $100,000.

So for example, if you are on a union negotiated agreement with really good PPL, or if you are lucky enough to be employed by an employer who gives you something more generous in your own employment contract (eg a longer time off) than what Abbott is offering, you'll actually lose your entitlement and be back on Abbott's scheme.

The effect of this is that employers will actually start dumping their own paid parental leave, and throwing people back onto the government entitlement. It gets the leave off their books.

There will be many women out there, especially in the public service, who are going to actually have their PPL cut back massively because of this.


Edited by lastbroadcast: 14/5/2014 01:39:08 PM

Edited by lastbroadcast: 14/5/2014 01:42:40 PM

So I have -$13 in the bank.

That's with my family tax benefit I am losing.

Well in abbott.

Centrist =\= left, I'm pro defense, pro protectionism, pro social safety nets, pro universal medical care, pro business innovation incentives etc. There isn't a political party that best represents my set of ideals so I have to read through each parties manifesto and decide which one is the least objectionable. I don't mind having a high tax cost if it results in a high level of governmental services, after all government should be able to provide them at a better rate than private business due to economy of scale.

Since you are supposedly right leaning you should be jumping up and down with glee at the cuts to social safety nets? Oh wait, you aren't because it directly impacts you! Congratulations! Welcome to the real world.

Ha ha. Brilliant. Well spotted.

On another thread I was saying you need to look after and help up minorities who may need it and here he was posting pictures saying "God damn, I love being white."

The irony is terrific.

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=91532&p=2

The thing is I don't actually dislike the Liberal party, I dislike Abbot as Prime Minister because he is incompetent in his representation of the people of Australia. There are Liberal party ideals that I really like, but the Liberal party has been moving away from them ever since Howard was first elected. He introduced centralisation of government, lots of middle class welfare, reduced spending on GDP producing infrastructure etc. Labor didn't do much better, but they got the NBN right at least.

Really we haven't had a very centrist ideology in power since Keating, Liberal stopped being conservative and went right, Labor stopped being left and went right, the Democrats stopped being centrist and died, the Greens are far too mixed a bag to really offer a sound alternative and we are left with PUP having the most centrist set of policies, which is frankly frightening.

Needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few?
There would be very few people who wouldn't agree the public service entitlements are way out of step with the private sector. I won't be getting upset about ladies losing a full 12 months off at full pay in order for more ladies to have access to the scheme. Of all the lousy stuff in this budget, this ain't one of them.

This is a great read from Alan Kohler:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/13/politics/budget-suicidal-heroism




Basically on the expenditure side, the vast majority of the spending cuts - up to 88pc of them - come from the health and social services sectors. The rest comes from public education, public hospitals, foreign aid, and an end to industry assistance. Disproportionally these cuts will affect lower income people, people on pensions, people who need to use public services, etc.

So apart from industry assistance cuts, there is very little heavy lifting for business and high income earners.

Also -
- There are actually increases in defense spending.
- Almost all of the so-called "infrastructure package" is actually just reorganised spending, most of which comes from slashing rail funding and local road funding and redirecting it into motorways as Anthony Albanese explains
- Abbott's PPL means that high income earners now get income replacement PPL for women on incomes up to $100,000.

At the same time -
Massive cuts in education funding after year 4, meaning goodbye Gonski
Massive cuts to public health
Massive cuts to public transport
State governments will be expected to pick up the slack - meaning they'll probably want to put up the GST


On the revenue side, there will be a 4.1% increase in revenue next year. The vast majority of the revenue increases come - again - from regressive taxes and charges that negatively affect low and middle income earners the hardest:

- medicare co-payments,
- increase in cost of prescription drugs on the PBS,
- fuel excise increase (except for big business, who will keep their exemptions),
- increased in taxes on mushrooms, mangoes, and wine, etc
- massively increasing HECS charges and deregulating student fees

The only increases in taxes on business or high income earners are the Paid Parental Leave levy, and the temporary high income tax levy. On the other hand, there's going to be a cut to the company tax rate, and the carbon and mining taxes are going to go. There's also no tax increases on rich people's tax breaks, like negative gearing, taxes on trusts...etc.

In short:-

- the vast majority of the burden of spending cuts come from people who use health or social services, especially the old, unemployed, students, young people, and the sick. None of the burden comes from business.
- the vast majority of the burden of tax increases comes from regressive taxes and charges that hit the poor and the sick

Even shorter:




Edited by lastbroadcast: 14/5/2014 03:14:47 PM

Edited by lastbroadcast: 14/5/2014 03:18:49 PM

is there something wrong with opinion based on many years of experience and observation???

i know that i have paid higher taxes than many like 45 cents in the dollar for over 35 years, as i am the ONLY bread winner in my family, my wife stayed home to bring up my 4 children, i pay the medicare levy and the top up payment as i self fund my own healthcare for my family, i have never been paid ANY welfare in the 35 years i have been working, i don't get PPL, i didn't get first home owners grant, for many years superannuation did not exist and now i find i have limited superannuation to retire if i am lucky enough to retire, didn't get back to school allowances.

Is it any wonder there are so many lefties out there, they have to defend their entitlements and vote Labor in otherwise they might have to pay their way as citizens of Australia....GOD HELP US.....

It has been revealed by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra, that 48% of the 12.2 million “income units” in Australia pay nothing in tax. This is due to the tax they are paying is being more than offset by the welfare benefits they are receiving. For example, 85% of single parent families pay no tax, once you include what welfare they receive, and in comparison 55% of single person households, which comprises of mostly pensioners, pay no tax.
Of the types of families studied, the most beneficial were single parent households which on average receive $26,321 in benefits versus paying $4,415 in tax, a net benefit of around $22,000. Whereas couples with children pay the highest amount of average tax, $35,369 and receive $8,917 in benefits each year.
Dr Stephen Kirchner at the Centre for Independent Studies has stated that, ‘Traditionally the purpose of the welfare state was poverty alleviation and helping people who can’t help themselves’, ‘whereas now we seem to have shifted more to an entitlement mentality where a lot of government expenditure is designed to make life easier for people who can actually take care of themselves.’

"Massive cuts to public transport" - but ricecrackers' busses!

Also, why can't Tone tell us how much he's going to spend on the renos for his pimp pad?

-PB

but of course we whinge about how much tax we pay.......... To many Australians on the gravy train......

years ago it was "a fair days work for a fair days pay", now it's what's in it for me, and what conditions do i get, they all know their rights but very few know what their responsibilities or obligations are......

what can i get and what can i get away with mentality........

Edited by batfink: 14/5/2014 03:45:49 PM

Shorten is an embarrassment......and a light weight numpty....monotone dribbling moron

Even the Lib Premiers aren't happy :lol:

-PB

He may not be very inspiring, but in a choice between Bill Shorten and this abomination of a budget, I'd pick Shorten seven days a week.

most states would be ok if they got their full allocation of the GST revenue....but it's well known Tassie and SA are subsidised heavily by the other states

Would never have thought they would have that sort of position :lol:

For those who haven't heard of them before


Another one of these "think tanks" with cool official sounding names but with obvious agendas. Institute of Public Affairs being the well known one.

Penny Wong opens the big tin of whoop-ass. Share this one around, left wingers:

www.youtube.com/embed/bGAl7TssQHI

Edited by lastbroadcast: 14/5/2014 05:01:33 PM

IPA are neoliberal as it gets lol.

It always funny when people try and defend the budget thanks to the Independent Audit, the one headed up by a panel of Tone's mates :lol:

Just like the independent commission that approved Newman's payrise, the commission that he set up :lol:

-PB

The Commission of audit wasn't an audit, it was a political manifesto written by the Business Council of Australia.

Amongst the stupid things in that report, it even recommended a ten year freeze to the minimum wage, even though it was supposed to be a report into government spending. The minimum wage has nothing to do with it, because almost no government hires workers on the minimum wage.

Some of the stuff in the audit report that would have hit the rich (like negative gearing), Joe Hockey didn't include in the budget.

One the other hand, other things that hit the poor have all been done to some extent. In facct the overall dollar figure of cuts to social spending and health actually exceeds what the audit report recommended.

There was also not one increase to income taxes in that audit report, because the government deliberately excluded tax increases from the terms of reference, because they are also doing a tax review (that will likely recommend increasing the GST). But of course, a co-payment isn't a tax. :lol:

Because right-wingers are opposed to all forms of welfare and social support? Righto.

That's akin to calling you a commie simply because you're a left winger.

No, it would be more like you saying all left-wingers hate wealth and success.

What you've suggested would be like saying all right-wingers are fascists.

Thanks for making another point for me :lol:

NB: Facists are lefties, but ok...

Anyway, the left-right paradigm is outdated. We don't even have a mainstream left-wing party anymore, with Labor becoming ever so centrist. I know it's a kind of bullshit test, but this is a decent rough guide:



I wish we had a libertarian-right wing party :(

Edited by 433: 14/5/2014 10:28:32 PM