Australian Federal Budget - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-12-2004, 06:32 PM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Australian Federal Budget

Im thrilled about the $3000 a baby born after July 1st - I just have to keep my legs crossed until then. It would have been better if Howard had of addressed paid maternity leave given we have some of the worst provisions in the developed world.

Reducing the cost of day care would have wonderful but this budget seems more tuned to making babies and staying home like a good little Stepford Wife rather than having any concept of the finances of the average Australian family ie part of the working poor

The tax cut doesnt affect me as I dont earn that much, but I suppose its a good thing.

Im still not going to vote for Howard though.
__________________

__________________
beli is offline  
Old 05-12-2004, 08:47 PM   #2
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Howard could offer to give me $5000 personally, and I still woudnt vote for that whiny wanker. Ya know Beli, I hate to say this, but I dont know if I agree with the $3000 baby bonus, I mean I agree with it, but I really hope that it dosnt encourage a lot of young girls to have babies- I went to school with girls who were so eager to become Mums and have babies, now I can just imagine a whole heap of young girls being even more determined to have kids now. Its a dilema though
__________________

__________________
OzAurora is offline  
Old 05-13-2004, 01:22 AM   #3
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Unfortunately our welfare state doesn't differentiate between those who 'unfortunately' fall pregnant yet still want to do the right thing or those who's main gola in life is to start a family, to those who see it as their meal ticket and a life without working for reward. When we do, we can complain about young single mothers. I dont even think this is the real problem though, we are not uneducated, yet we are still dumb somehow.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-13-2004, 06:17 AM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 09:37 AM
I think if the money had of been distributed to the day care centres so they could reduce the cost of child care fees that could possibly cut off the possibility of morons breeding to get $3000. That would have been better.

Or job linked maternity leave payments like the rest of the western world would have been preferable also.

I think the problem is Howard is aiming at stay at home mothers of which there a few varieties:
* rich ones who wont need $3000 anyway
* women with disabilites etc who cant work.
* moron single mothers
* moron families

I think it would have been better to focus on:
* families that survive on 2 crappy incomes
* single parent families
* anybody else that I personally consider to be the working poor.

Howard has his head stuck in the 50's. He seems to want to have husbands as the bread winner and the happy wifey breeding and cooking and ironing hubbies clothes. Aint gonna happen. Hasnt happen for 50 years. Pull your head in Howard.

</rant>
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 05-13-2004, 07:03 AM   #5
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:37 PM
On a sliding scale of an income of up to $85,000 a year, the government will kick in up to 80% of the cost.
We need more registered child care facilities to get rid of the average of 2-3000 places in most local council run facilties. The private sector is just as bad. It ain't funding which is so urgent. It's places for those who need it.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-13-2004, 03:17 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
On a sliding scale of an income of up to $85,000 a year, the government will kick in up to 80% of the cost.
Yep, but the sliding scale starts sliding pretty darn early.

Yep, we do need more child care places.

I also figure if the government could subsidise the child care centres like the used to (and my daughter attends a community based child care centre) then the impact on households would be less. The full cost of day care is $200 to $230 a week (less rebate you mentioned) which is more than most exclusive private schools.

I just think the Howard needs to realise the reality of the modern family. I would love to stop working like Howard seems to want women to do but my husband doesnt earn enough. Not that I intended to whinge. Just a comment.
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 05-13-2004, 06:33 PM   #7
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 12:37 PM
I am have to say that I am ignorant to the child care/day care issue here, I guess cause I dont have any kids. But I do know that if I were to have a child I would work, so I guess one day I will discover the flaws in the system. I do agree however that Howard has his head stuck in a very old fashioned version of families.
__________________
OzAurora is offline  
Old 05-13-2004, 07:45 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Umm, I was suppose there was some other issues addressed in the budget?

or maybe not?

The Year of the Erection indeed.
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 05-13-2004, 09:13 PM   #9
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Reckon Costello will crawl out of hiding and announce if he will run soon? He can only ride on the success of the budget for so long, and then it's just a matter of showing he can do more than creative numbers.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-13-2004, 09:17 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 09:37 AM
I think Costello will wait until after the upcoming election and then slip in alah Hawke/Bush.

I unfortunately think they are going to win this election. I do hope Im wrong.
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 05-13-2004, 09:34 PM   #11
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:37 PM
I agree, except it means then if they lose, then Latham has won. And I dislike him just as much as Howard.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 05-14-2004, 12:05 AM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Good point. I really dont like Australian elections. I cant recall the last time I voted in the positive. Normally Im like, okay, this one is number 47, then this one can be number 46 etc until I end up voting for whomever I hate the least.
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 05-14-2004, 06:05 AM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:37 AM
To be perfectly honest most parties are not particually rousing.
Lib's have the whole conservative value thing but at least they hold better economic and national security credentials than
Labour who have not been able to win me over with the "new" small target policy combined with attempts at populism on many fronts.

All I want is a liberal party based on the principles of liberalism, is it so much to ask?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-16-2004, 12:19 AM   #14
Refugee
 
OzAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,612
Local Time: 12:37 PM
I just hope that people remember at election time that a good economy should not be at the expense of humanitarian rights, environmental degradation/exploitation, war and national security fear-mongering..................

but, oh, thats right for the average Australian a good economy is worth more than the above issues..........


Vote Green, peoples
__________________
OzAurora is offline  
Old 05-16-2004, 12:24 AM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 09:37 AM
I usually vote Democrats or Greens. Which ever one I have in my electorate at the time.
__________________

__________________
beli is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com