Letter to Abbott - Opposing Maternity Scheme

Jake Zanoni has penned his thoughts on a Paid Maternity Leave Scheme.

I just sent this email to my Senator (Senator Gary Humphries – ACT) and cc’d Tony Abbott. All those who are opposed to this scheme should likewise contact their Coalition representatives. Hopefully the influx will be enough to galvanise those in the Party Room who disagree with the scheme into preventing it from becoming a reality.

Dear Senator Humphries,

I am emailing you about the Coalition’s Paid Maternity Leave scheme announced today. My fiancee and I plan to have children sometime in the next 5-6 years and as such one could assume we are the demographic of voters that this scheme is designed to appeal to. Despite that however I wish to inform you of my strong opposition to this scheme.

It is true that I have a fundamental philosophical opposition to any form of compulsory maternity leave scheme (and the obligatory paragraph on that is forthcoming), however I believe that this scheme is practically flawed in that the funding aspect does not achieve its ostensible goals.

My understanding is the purpose of the levy on the ‘biggest businesses in Australia’ is so that the larger businesses (read: fat cat capitalist pig dogs) that can ‘afford it’ are the ones who bear the burden, leaving the rest of Australia unfettered.

The first problem with that line of thinking is that it relies on these businesses not simply incorporating the increased cost into their pricing. Economic theory and literature on this topic (looking at increases of the corporate tax, which would have the same economic effect) shows us that in response to this scheme, these businesses will raise prices. As such, it is not the fat cat that will pay for this scheme but the every day Australian individual that purchases the products and services of these businesses, who must now pay more.

In addition, we no longer live in a corporate environment where these large businesses are owned by the one stereotypical tycoon (the Rockefeller’s, Ford’s, and Monty Burns’ of the world). These big businesses are in fact owned by shareholders, many of whom are again the every day non wealthy Australian individual. People like my mother and step father. My friends. My colleagues. Myself. As part owners of these businesses it is us that will pay for this scheme through reduced profits, leading to reduced dividends.

Now to finish off with my obligatory libertarian rhetoric; my fiancee and I are hard working and proud people. We desire to have children and we make that choice understanding the consequences. We do not desire for the Government to initiate force on other individuals, so that our choices may be subsidised. If we are lucky enough to have the skills to negotiate maternity/paternity leave as part of our employment contracts, well we may indeed desire such a condition, however if we are not, we will make alternative arrangements. In addition we will voluntarily assist our fellow community members who fall on hard times, and have children that need care.

I am not unaware of the pain of growing up in a poor household. My father was poor as was my mother. My mother was a single parent from the time I was two to the time I was an adult and we lived through many times of hardship. I am intimately aware of the burden and cost that a child can be. I however refuse to endorse a system that uses force to place that burden on others.

If the Federal Coalition wishes to assist potential parents like my fiancee and myself YOU CAN! Decrease federal taxes. Decrease the size and scope of the federal government. Decrease the burdens of the bureaucracy. Leave us to live our lives as we choose. Fix the vertical fiscal imbalance by providing State Governments with the capacity to raise revenue in accordance with their responsibilities, and the ability to coordinate that revenue without Federal strings. Maintain a fiscal policy that does not provoke unneccessary and damaging monetary policy.

By focusing on the core liberal and conservative principles of small government, low taxes, and individual freedom, you can do far more for people like myself and my fiancee than any compulsory and poorly considered maternity leave scheme.

I hope you will consider my position on this matter as you and the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party go forth.

Yours sincerely,
Jake Zanoni

Jake Zanoni blogs at http://pimpinforfreedom.wordpress.com/

Comments

[Peter Whelan]

1.

When the Liberal Democratic Party gets a Senator elected (hopefully in 2010) he/she will be certainly voting against such a proposal. Even my wife, who has minimal political interest said when she heard Abbott talking about taxing big business, "What? Abbott's becoming more socialist than Rudd!"

[Robert Candelori]

2.

Excellent letter by Jake.

The current Abbott policy is clearly socialist and does not accord with Liberal principles.

[Andy's RANT!]

3.

I knew Rudd was a Progressive, but I didn’t think (until now) that Abbott is one too. This is a bad policy.

Abbott proposes a 1.7% levy (TAX) on any company with a taxable income over $5m. If this is introduced it’s only a matter of time before ALL companies pay this levy. You know this and I know this.
I also can’t work out why Abbott has made himself a target of increasing taxes. The opposition has had the Government on the ropes over the ETS, the possibility of more taxes to “pay for health” and what may be lurking in the Henry Tax Review. Now you’re painted with the same “let increase taxes brush”.

This is the type of socialist policy you’d expect to come from Europe, not the conservative force in Australian politics. This is a bad policy.
So if a woman should have more than one baby, does that mean they get 6mths off for each one? Why would a women ever go back to work? just keep pumping babies out.
Unless Mr. Abbott is going to lower the company tax rate, then this is a terrible policy. Is he going to get rid of FBT? You had better have something for business (Here’s an idea, if a business wants to pay for their employee’s private health insurance, make it FBT exempt!)

Big business will pass the cost onto the consumer, which means small business so either way, we’re all going to pay. You also say that this Levy (Tax) will be removed once the budget is in surplus – sure, like a Government ever relinquishes a tax! Whether it is a Labor or Conservative Government – once the Levy (TAX) is in play it will never go away!

Governments of both political bent have got to stop taxing the bejesus out of the wealth generators of this country – the businesses. Are you purposely going out of your way to alienate business?
Add to the fact we are living with higher interest rates and the Risk of an ETS, why go after the wealth generators of this country?

Corporate Tax Rates for Singapore

• Zero tax for new Singapore companies on the first 100K annual profits for the first 3 years
• All companies to enjoy approx. 9% corporate tax rate for profits up to 300K
• Overall company tax rate is a flat 18% which will be further reduced to 17% from 2010

Corporate Tax Rates for Hong Kong – 16.5%

Do you want to see more of Australia’s business leave Australia and set up shop in HK or Singers??
This might a vote winner for the “working families” but this policy stinks on ice for Australian Businesses.

[Michael]

4.

Agreed!

Especially love "These big businesses are in fact owned by shareholders, many of whom are again the every day non wealthy Australian individual. People like my mother and step father. My friends. My colleagues. Myself. As part owners of these businesses it is us that will pay for this scheme through reduced profits, leading to reduced dividends."

[Paul]

5.

Decrease federal taxes. Decrease the size and scope of the federal government. Decrease the burdens of the bureaucracy. Leave us to live our lives as we choose. Fix the vertical fiscal imbalance by providing State Governments with the capacity to raise revenue in accordance with their responsibilities, and the ability to coordinate that revenue without Federal strings. Maintain a fiscal policy that does not provoke unneccessary and damaging monetary policy.

Agree with that 100%. Would love to see a conservative government actually do it as well, not juts be a little less socialist then the socialist government in power now

[TimP]

6.

Yeah, this policy sucks so very badly. My feelings towards the Coalition where just starting to move up from second worst (ALP being worst) to actually being a party worth voting for, but now, well the "second" part might be overly charitable. A couple of weeks ago I would have considered it absurd that I might have preferred the ALP over the Coalition, but now I'm not so sure, which is sad.

[John from Newcastle.]

7.

The Coalition needs to get into power and put the dysfunctional Labor government we currently have back into opposition where they belong.
If it takes making some promises that will get a large portion of the public onside with the Libs and give Tony Abbott a better profile then so be it.
I would be happy to pay a bit more tax on my business if it means that the Coalition will be returned to manage the economy correctly, unlike Rudd, Swan and the rest of the no hopers.
You really do have to look at the big picture and stop being so selfish.

[Anon]

8.

Big business will pass the cost onto the consumer, which means small business so either way, we’re all going to pay. You also say that this Levy (Tax) will be removed once the budget is in surplus – sure, like a Government ever relinquishes a tax! Whether it is a Labor or Conservative Government – once the Levy (TAX) is in play it will never go away!

That same argument could also be made in regards to the ETS.

[Phil Twiss]

9.

Hey, we are all Fabians now... They did not have the wolf in sheeps' clothing as their first symbol for nothing. Even conservatives are progressive now - we only have to look at the Howard legacy in this respect. The question we need to ask is where does this all end. Who pays for what when everyone is getting something for "nothing"?

Great letter. I will be writing too and encouraging others to do the same.

[Ralph Buttigieg]

10.

G'day,

People here a missing something. Its not just a bad tax but bad social policy. Every other welfare payment is means tested or universal. Not this one. Abbott's parental leave would be based on a woman's income, so a wealthy woman would get a bigger handout then a poorer woman. A bank CEO would get more then a struggling mum who's a part time teller. I'm disgusted.

[John Humphreys]

11.

Excellent letter Jake. It is unfortunate that our side of politics has introduced the idea of a "progressive company tax" and ever-more middle-class welfare churn.

I suggest that a better solution to the problems of work-life balance and managing parenthood is a greater engagement with community groups, not greater reliance on government.

[TerjeP (say taya)]

12.

I'm not so sure that it is "our side of politics". This is being opposed by the ALP. So who are the good guys? One more reason to put the LDP before the majors.

[glenn]

13.

if this birth tax comes in and i was silly enough to employ a woman of child baring age it would mean that when she goes on her 6 month leave i would have to put her job on hold untill she returns..and that means i either do with out her or i have got to put a casual girl on for that 6 month period ???? so where do you find some one good enough to do the job for 6 months ...it sounds like another jolly good rodgering for the poor long suffering employer again.

[James Darby]

14.

Much has been said in the public and private Domains about Tony Abbott's pregnant thoughts on maternity leave.
Only Tony knows if he prepared those thoughts or if the proposal came from a staffer.
Sacking oneself is not an option. Losing (Sacking, dismissing, terminating, cleansing oneself of) the staffer or staffers who where instrumental in preparing this ill conceived, ill timed and de-motivational maternity leave policy is not an option. Those staffers who promoted the policy or who knew about it and did not advise against it must go instantly. Send them to their mates in the socialist Labor Party.
A game of chess can still be one after a bad move as long as you are playing an inferior opponent. Rudd is still an inferior opponent despite the DISASTER of the release of the Abbott Maternity Debacle.
Banks in Australia have a criminal monopoly and make no financial contribution to a non-socialist Party. If you wanted to tax a sector of the Australian community to pay for a socialist scheme surely it is the protected Banks that you would attack and not business (even Big Business) when that business may have the motivation to assist in your election.
No person or Party will win against socialists by being more socialist.
Mistakes are not made for the purpose of creating learning experiences. Mistakes are not 'learnt' from - mistakes are paid for. Doing things right is the best way to learn.
A young driver does not have to crash to learn to drive a car without crashing it. A child can by taught to eat hot food without burning their mouth.
1/ No new policy should hit the streets without maximum 'Think Tank' exposure.
2/ Any staffer that contributes to an obvious failure of a policy and advocates that failure policy as being worthwhile MUST be sacked forthwith. That staffer will continue to whiteant and undermine future endeavours.
3/ If Tony wins the task at hand will be to restore manufacturing, remove Rudd's debt, restore property ownership, secure Australia as a Christian Ethics Nation by teaching opportunity and individual responsibility in Schools. Not to further tax wealth creators.
I recommend to all a revisit to Whitlam. Whitlam resulted in 50,000 persons joining the Liberal Party. Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser are now best bum buddies. "We don't differ on important political issues". The Whitlam economic and social disaster motivated many freedom advocates to do something about replacing him with Fraser. Who new at the time what Fraser was going to show himself to be?
Without the recruitment of 1000's of Active Advocates working to ensure victory for Abbott there will be no sweet victory over Ruinous Rudd. Australia may well never recover from another bout of Rudd as Rudd wants to take Australia into an AsianUnion by 2020. The now apologised for maternity policy cut masts off advocate ships sailing into Abbott's port. All Rudd has is the upcoming Votebuy (With no thanks to John Howard suppling the GST funds to the Labor Party) and 'Climate Change'.

[Ewan]

15.

But what is the point of getting into power to just continue the same crappy socialist program? We don't just want Labor kicked out, we want their policies dumped too, not adopted by a new government.