Bulk billing is dead. Not a good time to be in Australia if you are sick

[Parley]

Skani, why do you so resent paying your way in life ??

 

If you have the blessing of a university degree it usually means you will earn around $1M more during your working life than someone who doesn't.

It is only right you pay for this education.

 

People also pay for a quality private education. If it is worth having it is worth paying for.

 

 

You also haven't yet offered any solutions to fixing up labors economic legacy.

[sueandave]

Talk about picking your stats.

 

The 0.9% increased contribution from "some well-paid couples" (let's not call them "hard working") contributes a greater dollar amount than 10% from the single parent.

 

Now, money is money, so the hospital or school which receives this amount is better off from the high-earners than the low earners. They _are_ doing the heavy lifting. Their increased contribution, in dollar terms, still outweighs that of their low-paid neighbours. Which is fine and fair, so let's give them just a moment of acknowledgement.

 

Hardworking folk are in all sections of our community, and what ever current stats you look at, it is an unfair budget,

[Xenon4017]

Hardworking folk are in all sections of our community, and what ever current stats you look at, it is an unfair budget,

 

So tell me, how can you raise the money fairly?

 

I don't want to hear a big wish list of what you would spend the money on; I'm only interested in the income side of the equation. Would you increase the VAT base? Increase income tax across the board? Only for "top earners". More corporation tax? 4WD tax? Increased duty on tobacco, alcohol and fuel?

 

There's lots of ways to raise money, most of which have unintended consequences. But which would you choose in the interests of "fairness"? Don't forget, though, not a word about where the money will go; we all know there is an endless list of good causes. I want to know where the money will come from.

[Skani]

surely they not going give nothing and see kids homeless ,

 

Yes they are. Not just "kids" - if you are under 30 and lose your job you will receive nothing for 6 months. That is fine if you have parents AND they are willing AND are able to support you for 6 months. But many are not. What happens if you have a partner and kids? That's 3+ without an income for 6 months.

 

isn't there council houses here

 

Yes, but you still have to pay rent for a council house. And the wait for one can be years as it is, without adding more people without an income.

 

they have centre link payments .

 

But, if they are under 30, they won't have for the first 6 months under the proposed changes.

 

what I do get annoyed about is the higher tax earners get slated in a fashion to pay more. they already do pay more than a fair share people in higher professional jobs they carnt get away from it by taking cashies

 

What I get annoyed about is the high earners who pay no tax at all. If you do some research you will find that there are many of those. They may not take cashies but they have a multitude of tax avoidance schemes which weren't touched at all in this budget.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Skani

[Tina2]

Hiya skani , I know where you coming from but surely they not going give nothing and see kids homeless , isn't there council houses here , like I say I don't understand the system in oz but , I do know someone in another state here , unfortunately lost there job which is very sad , but they are still on a good thing here , have food vouchers , if they fall behind with rent they get a bit of help with that , they have centre link payments .

 

And nd to top it of are still going through with there house build , probably moved in it now . How does that work .

 

People who do cash in hand jobs are on a good thing I tell you , I don't mean this in a offensive way to anyone but , I have seen a lot in the other state people coming out of work ok theve done there two yrs or whatever and are entitled to whatever but now they claiming they had a bad back and got there notes from uk , claiming some sort of disability here , I am horrified on how they passed the medical and how come no questions have been asked .

 

 

I know also people living a dam good lifestyle here but not paying tax , lots of cash in hand , do I blame em not really lol , what I do get annoyed about is the higher tax earners get slated in a fashion to pay more. they already do pay more than a fair share people in higher professional jobs they carnt get away from it by taking cashies or whatever I'm not bothered what we have to pay , that's the way it is but I do think systems all over the show are unfair . Anyway I have my point and I do see your point too something needs doing to make it fair then , but I did think the vouchers and stuff was a good idea for some who abuse the system . :biggrin:

 

Yes there is government housing but I believe the waiting list is around 5 years and many of these homes are in low employment low public transport areas. A new system was introduced in Qld NRAS these are private homes built by investors. The tenant pays part of the rent around the $330 to $350 per week, the balance of market value has then been paid by the goverenment around $60 to $80 a week. These homes are in areas with good transport and some hope of getting a job. This is now on the chopping block, so the person who is renting via NRAS will now not only loose the Family Tax B around the $140 a fortnight, but will face having to find non existant alternative accomadation or come up with an extra $120 to $160 a fortnight in rent.

we know of Real estate agents whose phones are ringing off the hook by people currently renting via the NRAS or normal private rental wanting to break there lease and find less expencive accomadation. Sadly there is little or nothing less expencive in most areas, again unless you move way out of the suburbs with no jobs and poor transport, not to mention yet again that many single parents are not allowed to move anyway.

[Tina2]

So tell me, how can you raise the money fairly?

 

I don't want to hear a big wish list of what you would spend the money on; I'm only interested in the income side of the equation. Would you increase the VAT base? Increase income tax across the board? Only for "top earners". More corporation tax? 4WD tax? Increased duty on tobacco, alcohol and fuel?

 

There's lots of ways to raise money, most of which have unintended consequences. But which would you choose in the interests of "fairness"? Don't forget, though, not a word about where the money will go; we all know there is an endless list of good causes. I want to know where the money will come from.

 

Well first sort out the family court and let people move to find work, or be close to family who can help with child care so the parent can work, then they would not need family tax A or B. It about being fair and looking at the reasons people or not able to work to support themselves. Guess i will get shot down on this one, but for those under 30 what about 2 years national service ? No not saying send them over seas to fight in a war, but they could take care of what needs to be done her in Aus while the regular forces do the dangerous over seas thing. They could even be formed into a much larger coast guard to protect our boarders, but most of all they would learn the value of working and gain some basic skills. So it becomes a case of Learn, earn or 2 years national service. At least they would be fed and have a roof over there head.

[Tina2]

Another thing to consider, everyone agrees kids need to be doing more exercize. Removing Family Tax B and all these increased costs will be the breaking point for many familys and will see kids no longer able to join the local football or cricket team or what ever, so again a two level society. The rich can give there kids 2 or 3 sports a season, the poor kids get zero.

[Xenon4017]

Well first sort out the family court and let people move to find work, or be close to family who can help with child care so the parent can work, then they would not need family tax A or B. It about being fair and looking at the reasons people or not able to work to support themselves. Guess i will get shot down on this one, but for those under 30 what about 2 years national service ? No not saying send them over seas to fight in a war, but they could take care of what needs to be done her in Aus while the regular forces do the dangerous over seas thing. They could even be formed into a much larger coast guard to protect our boarders, but most of all they would learn the value of working and gain some basic skills. So it becomes a case of Learn, earn or 2 years national service. At least they would be fed and have a roof over there head.

 

Well, hat's off for sticking to the brief. Your ideas seem to be aimed at increasing the working population, which in turn will increase revenue from income tax (and GST from the things they buy with their income). It will also have the knock-on effect of reducing expenditure, but I said we wouldn't talk about that.

 

And, interestingly, you've adopted a third option to prevent people from staying at home, unemployed. The threat of national service might indeed spur some into action. It need not be military service; there's enough other public works/charities/aged care facilities who could do with an extra hand. I must admit, whilst the devil is in the detail, in principle I can't find much wrong with your suggestion. But I'm sure it'll attract a wave of criticism from people who simply don't think we should compel people to get off their arse.

[Shellybingobingo]

Point taken , Tina2 and skani . I see ya point , and Skani there is Noway high earners lose all there tax we have it stopped my oh is a contractor so get higher paid than let's say a staff position , we have it stopped so casual that comes straight out to the taxman , and he don't get hol pay or super , but his choice to work contracting still better off that way than staff . I have seen my hubby's tax that gets stopped it's practically half his salary , it makes me feel sick . There is another way we could benefit by working for yaself oh knows I don't properly how to explain think they split dividends or somert my oh knows I'm a bit useless haha . But I get ya point I'm not heartless lol x

[Parley]

I think wakey's right.

I'll leave the mothers club to chat amongst themselves.

[Harpodom]

I think wakey's right.

I'll leave the mothers club to chat amongst themselves.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll-fails-to-deter-tony-abbott-from-pressing-ahead-with-unpopular-budget/story-fn59niix-1226922369013#

 

I don't have a subscription to this 'paper', I'm sure you do parley.

 

The bit I can see sans subscription says this, you getting worried yet?:

 

Newspoll fails to deter Tony Abbott from pressing ahead with unpopular budget

 

TONY Abbott has vowed to “press steadily forward” with his unpopular budget in the wake of today’s shock Newspoll, saying he wasn’t elected “to win a popularity contest”.

The latest Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian, revealed the government’s first budget is the most unpopular in more than 20 years, with support for the Coalition dropping to the lowest level since the dying days of Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership in 2009.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Harpodom

[flag of convenience]

Skani, why do you so resent paying your way in life ??

 

If you have the blessing of a university degree it usually means you will earn around $1M more during your working life than someone who doesn't.

It is only right you pay for this education.

 

People also pay for a quality private education. If it is worth having it is worth paying for.

 

 

You also haven't yet offered any solutions to fixing up labors economic legacy.

 

What legacy? You refer to overspending by both ALP and Lib's. The solution is a sensible reduction in spending over time. Education will become more class based in the main but we need to look at the overall ideology of this government in the movement away from a welfare state.

[Tina2]

Well, hat's off for sticking to the brief. Your ideas seem to be aimed at increasing the working population, which in turn will increase revenue from income tax (and GST from the things they buy with their income). It will also have the knock-on effect of reducing expenditure, but I said we wouldn't talk about that.

 

And, interestingly, you've adopted a third option to prevent people from staying at home, unemployed. The threat of national service might indeed spur some into action. It need not be military service; there's enough other public works/charities/aged care facilities who could do with an extra hand. I must admit, whilst the devil is in the detail, in principle I can't find much wrong with your suggestion. But I'm sure it'll attract a wave of criticism from people who simply don't think we should compel people to get off their arse.

My thoughts of military service over shall we call it home duty helping in nursing homes etc is that in the military you are under supervision and are made to get out of bed and do what is required. Taught to deal with people with respect that sort of thing. Public Works etc is in some way similar to community service issued by the courts and half the time people dont even turn up, and if they do they (in many cases) put in a half hearted effort.

Sadly the media always choose to portray mr abbotts impression of the lazy unemployed. Did you see the young couple on TV ? I think they were around 18 and the girl was already pregnant. He wanted to be a chef and now his plans are "destroyed" Well join the military they will teach you to cook ! or try getting a job in a kitchen washing dishes. I am all for getting people a job, all I keep saying is be fair and look at the entire situation as to why they are not working.

[akiralx]

So tell me, how can you raise the money fairly?

 

I don't want to hear a big wish list of what you would spend the money on; I'm only interested in the income side of the equation. Would you increase the VAT base? Increase income tax across the board? Only for "top earners". More corporation tax? 4WD tax? Increased duty on tobacco, alcohol and fuel?

 

There's lots of ways to raise money, most of which have unintended consequences. But which would you choose in the interests of "fairness"? Don't forget, though, not a word about where the money will go; we all know there is an endless list of good causes. I want to know where the money will come from.

 

Firstly I would remove negative gearing completely, tighten up rules on tax-avoiding family trusts, and also amend the taxing of superannuation - all these would however affect the more wealthy in society. I would also cancel the recent $12bn defence spend.

Edited May 19, 2014 by akiralx

[akiralx]

What legacy? You refer to overspending by both ALP and Lib's. The solution is a sensible reduction in spending over time. Education will become more class based in the main but we need to look at the overall ideology of this government in the movement away from a welfare state.

 

Agreed - though spending has remained fairly constant - it's the tax income which has fallen.

[Xenon4017]

Firstly I would remove negative gearing completely, tighten up rules on tax-avoiding family trusts, and also amend the taxing of superannuation - all these would however affect the more wealthy in society. I would also cancel the recent $12bn defence spend.

 

Well, removing negative gearing in one fell swoop will almost certainly put the brakes on the housing market, and probably the construction sector as a whole. Will the additional money you generate (by not giving so much tax relief) by offset by the decreased revenues from a smaller construction sector?

 

I'm generally against taxing super; we should be encouraging people to save for their retirement. In any case, when these rich retirees buy the yacht and the waterside apartment they'll pay VAT and stamp duty, so the state will get the money later rather than sooner.

 

And cancelling 12bn off defense won't generate income, so I'm removing 2 points from your score for failing to read the question properly.

[akiralx]

Well, removing negative gearing in one fell swoop will almost certainly put the brakes on the housing market, and probably the construction sector as a whole. Will the additional money you generate (by not giving so much tax relief) by offset by the decreased revenues from a smaller construction sector?

 

 

I would be prepared to allow negative gearing for a short while longer on new builds, just abolish it on existing properties. I believe Australia would generally benefit from a brake on the housing market.

[Tina2]

I would be prepared to allow negative gearing for a short while longer on new builds, just abolish it on existing properties. I believe Australia would generally benefit from a brake on the housing market.

 

The issue i see with that is it will result in a lack of affordable rentals.

[Paul1Perth]

Also worth noting that the biggest donor to the Liberal Party by a country mile ($500,000) last year was Ramsay Health, operator of private hospitals. They will obviously benefit massively financially from a shift from public to private hospital care.

 

My wife works for Ramsey. She had to do some on line tests that took her hours at home so she could carry on practising recently. At the end of the tests she had to comment on how Ramsay could do things better. I told her to put stop spending so much on computer systems and people worried about entering every bit of data to cover their arse and spend more on nursing staff and doctors.

 

She agrees with me but thought they might track her back to her comment. They have spent loads on the hospital to be fair and the new ward she's working on is good. One of the things they did though was give them extra terminals where they used to have to share one. They have just about one each now and she often finds the other nursing staff, who are a lot younger, have disappeared out of the clinic and are in the office on the computer, updating facebook, booking flights for their holidays, sending private e-mails.

 

She says there can be beeps going on the machines in the ward that need seeing to and the staff are more interested in finishing off a personal e-mail.

[akiralx]

The issue i see with that is it will result in a lack of affordable rentals.

 

Not really - 95% of NG properties are not new builds so NG just substitutes homes for sale into homes for let. So its abolition would mean people could buy and not have to rent.

[Tina2]

Not really - 95% of NG properties are not new builds so NG just substitutes homes for sale into homes for let. So its abolition would mean people could buy and not have to rent.

Thanks I learnt something

[Paul1Perth]

Hey guys, I hear the NHS is really good.

 

It used to be until the UK had the conservatives in for a few years.

[Xenon4017]

Not really - 95% of NG properties are not new builds so NG just substitutes homes for sale into homes for let. So its abolition would mean people could buy and not have to rent.

 

But would it? Let's assume that those who are currently renting would have a credit status whereby a bank would lend.

 

Abolish NG, and prices fall. But where would it stop? You wouldn't want a previous renter to land straight into negative equity, would you?

[Paul1Perth]

Lets think about it, do we want an American style medical system or an English one! We as a nation have a mixture of folk, haves and have nots, some possibly self inflicted, and others accidents or organ transplants cancers whatever. These folk need our help they need regular Dr appointments. specialist appointments pathology x-rays etc After hearing Joe Hockey this morning on Sunrise admitting that this budget has been unequal and the lifting will be done by the lower to middle income earners, it took a badgering by the journo for him to say that, he also stated that if the heavy lifting was to be done by the highest income earners they would leave the country and go else where. Just perhaps the lower income people do not have this choice! cannon fodder maybe,

 

Joe admitted that did he, there's a surprise. If he thinks that the richer people will up sticks and move just because they are asked to contribute a bit more I think he's overreacting. That argument gets used a lot. Where will these rich folk choose to go and live where they can have it as good as here?

[Xenon4017]

Joe admitted that did he, there's a surprise. If he thinks that the richer people will up sticks and move just because they are asked to contribute a bit more I think he's overreacting. That argument gets used a lot. Where will these rich folk choose to go and live where they can have it as good as here?

 

Switzerland or Bermuda, depending on what kind of climate they want. Or both, and just jet between the two. When you've got loads of cash, most countries welcome you with open arms just for the VAT receipts.