grahamffc Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Does anyone know where all out tax money actually goes? A very limited Public Health Service, half of kids go to private schools, and a reasonably small military (compared to US or UK). A mate if mine claims it all goes to 'indigenous programmes' but I suspect he is over simplifying things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest66881 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 This may help, or not? http://www.wheredomytaxesgo.com.au/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 How insulting you are to your in laws. Could it be that they have lived in Australia longer than you and have more experience of what life is like under governments of differing ideologies? They have no clue what is being done in their name. Like most Aussies their version of 'news' is that fed to them by the Murdoch press and the mainstream media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 I'm not hanging my head in shame! You are conveniently forgetting who got the country into this mess in the first place. Please don't say we have less debt than most first World countries and don't blame the GFC. The country was debt free in 2006. Didn't take Labor long to fix that. what mess? You've clearly swallowed the rhetoric whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie 2 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Does anyone know where all out tax money actually goes? A very limited Public Health Service, half of kids go to private schools, and a reasonably small military (compared to US or UK). A mate if mine claims it all goes to 'indigenous programmes' but I suspect he is over simplifying things. Given the relatively small population and the 3 tiers of government, I would say too much money is spent on the bureaucracies. There should be a debate about this. Would it be feasible to do away with State governments and Local Councils and have simply a Federal Government and 2 or 3 state area based councils/committees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie 2 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 what mess? You've clearly swallowed the rhetoric whole Well if you can't see it for yourself I am not going to attempt to educate you and for your information, I make my own decisions and do not simply follow what someone else says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelP Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 If this government was serious about reducing unnecessary spending it would axe the $7 billion annual subsidies to the private health insurers. That would save a lot more than Medicare co-payments. If left to the free market, private health insurance would not be attractive in Australia - people just weren't interested in taking out cover the 1990s, so John Howard had to start propping it up with massive subsidies. They claim that private insurance helps keep people out of public hospitals. No it doesn't, it just helps people jump the queue - and in NSW they even have private patients being treated in public hospitals - taking up beds! Now Tony Abbott talks about ending 'the age of entitlement'. Are wealthy Australians entitled to taxpayer-subsidised queue-jumping health insurance? If Joe Hockey really wanted to fix his fictional 'budget crisis' he would remove those subsidies. Even better, imagine if the $30 billion that we have given to the private insurers over the last five had been invested in public hospitals and the PBS - more beds, less waiting times and more lifesaving drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 If this government was serious about reducing unnecessary spending it would axe the $7 billion annual subsidies to the private health insurers. That would save a lot more than Medicare co-payments. If left to the free market, private health insurance would not be attractive in Australia - people just weren't interested in taking out cover the 1990s, so John Howard had to start propping it up with massive subsidies. They claim that private insurance helps keep people out of public hospitals. No it doesn't, it just helps people jump the queue - and in NSW they even have private patients being treated in public hospitals - taking up beds! Now Tony Abbott talks about ending 'the age of entitlement'. Are wealthy Australians entitled to taxpayer-subsidised queue-jumping health insurance? If Joe Hockey really wanted to fix his fictional 'budget crisis' he would remove those subsidies. Even better, imagine if the $30 billion that we have given to the private insurers over the last five had been invested in public hospitals and the PBS - more beds, less waiting times and more lifesaving drugs. Few other ideas for clawing back funds: stopping 'Operation Sovereign Borders', closing offshore detention centres and start processing asylum claims in the community, giving asylum seekers work rights, not buying 58 F35's, scrapping the PPL scheme (age of entitlement over, my arse) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tina2 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 i want to know if the $88,000 is "household" income. I dont work and struggle with health issues, but as the O/H works I dont get anything in the way of health care cards or reduced perscriptions. Today my month medication gave me a bill of $182 ! Under this idiotic idea it will cost me $70 to see a GP to get a new perscription, $245 to see my specialist, $500 for an MIR, $102 for an xray and that is just for starters. Quite simply they just want to kill off all those who are ill or ageing. On a different note, taking the family home into consideration when deciding if the elderly get the aged pension. Many elderly live in what 50 years ago were paddocks but today those suburbs are classed as "inner city" A 2 bed terrace house that 50 years ago probably cost $10,000 may well today be worth $800,000. So what happens then ? Do all these elderly people have to sell and move to a cheap area with little or no infrastructure ? Who will determine what your home is worth ? Prices go up and down all the time think of all the paper work that is going to generate for a constantly changing age payment. Guess they want all the elderly to move in with there kids, doubt that will work as many dont have the room for there parents to live with them and they themselves are struggling. This really is the worst government I have ever seen. Wonder if the human rights commision would like to get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 If this government was serious about reducing unnecessary spending it would axe the $7 billion annual subsidies to the private health insurers. That would save a lot more than Medicare co-payments. If left to the free market, private health insurance would not be attractive in Australia - people just weren't interested in taking out cover the 1990s, so John Howard had to start propping it up with massive subsidies. They claim that private insurance helps keep people out of public hospitals. No it doesn't, it just helps people jump the queue - and in NSW they even have private patients being treated in public hospitals - taking up beds! Now Tony Abbott talks about ending 'the age of entitlement'. Are wealthy Australians entitled to taxpayer-subsidised queue-jumping health insurance? If Joe Hockey really wanted to fix his fictional 'budget crisis' he would remove those subsidies. Even better, imagine if the $30 billion that we have given to the private insurers over the last five had been invested in public hospitals and the PBS - more beds, less waiting times and more lifesaving drugs. I am not wealthy but I am a high income tax payer. I pay a lot of tax, with the latest increases it will be an average 40% of my total income. I also maintain health insurance which is also very expensive. Fortunately have not had any significant medical matters, although I did pop to the doctors once and paid the bill on the day without complaint. If I do need the health insurance, then I understand it will have some very large "gap" fees to pay or something. The suggestion that better off people are being subsidised by others is really very ignorant and probably based on jealousy rather than any fact. The ~40% of my income that was deducted last year went somewhere and as it definitely wasn't on services for me, I shall speculate that much of it went on the less fortunate in society. I don't mind that I pay tax to support others in need, I am glad I live in a country with a welfare state, but the suggestion that I am being subsidised rather than doing the subsidising really is very annoying, not to mention wrong. I suspect Mr Abbott is trying to make a name for himself as the one that cleared a deficit quickly, whereas he should be trying to tackle it in a measured but assured fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie 2 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 I am not wealthy but I am a high income tax payer. I pay a lot of tax, with the latest increases it will be an average 40% of my total income. I also maintain health insurance which is also very expensive. Fortunately have not had any significant medical matters, although I did pop to the doctors once and paid the bill on the day without complaint. If I do need the health insurance, then I understand it will have some very large "gap" fees to pay or something. The suggestion that better off people are being subsidised by others is really very ignorant and probably based on jealousy rather than any fact. The ~40% of my income that was deducted last year went somewhere and as it definitely wasn't on services for me, I shall speculate that much of it went on the less fortunate in society. I don't mind that I pay tax to support others in need, I am glad I live in a country with a welfare state, but the suggestion that I am being subsidised rather than doing the subsidising really is very annoying, not to mention wrong. I suspect Mr Abbott is trying to make a name for himself as the one that cleared a deficit quickly, whereas he should be trying to tackle it in a measured but assured fashion. I agree with your post except for the last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicF Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 It was a much better system before medicare. Then everyone who worked paid for private medical benefits and that was it. No levies or gaps. Now people pay the levy, private health cover and the funds are not allowed to pay the total bill. I got money back from my health fund when I had my third son because I paid top cover and they didn't have a private room available at the time. Just out of interest (because I genuinely don't know) what happened to people who couldn't afford private health cover before Medicare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie 2 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Just out of interest (because I genuinely don't know) what happened to people who couldn't afford private health cover before Medicare? As everyone had to have medical benefits, or have enough money to cover the costs, it was affordable for everyone who was working. We had one wage of $45 a week when we came and from memory it cost about $3 a week for top family cover. Those who weren't working or on benefits got free health cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicF Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 I don't mind paying towards my medical care, I don't use a bulk billing doctor and happily go off to private providers for minor things that are covered by Medicare. We are both earning and can afford to pay a bit extra on top of the Medicare rebate. I would rather pay that money in to private health care and then have that cover any medical costs but as it is we don't bother with hospital cover as we aren't sure we would be able to pay the gap if we needed anything doing. We have decided to rely on the public system and wait if we need to instead. We have extras cover that has gaps but we get far more back than we pay out in premiums at the moment so that doesn't bother me. If private health cover didn't have gaps I'd be happy to pay greater premiums and not use the public system at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelP Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Read the fine print in the Commission of Audit - it recommends the removal of price controls on private health insurance. Last year the new Liberal health minister Peter Dutton approved a 6-8% increases in premiums. Without controls, premiums will rise by a lot more than this. On top of this, the Liberals are also going to sell off Medibank Private, government ownership of which helped keep health premiums in check. So from 2015 you are going to face Medicare co-payments AND much higher private health cover premiums. It's no coincidence that the biggest donors to the Liberal Party are private health insurers such as Ramsay Health ($500,000). They are going to get a very good return on their investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.