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

[Paul1Perth]

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.

 

Switzerland is cold for a lot of the year and very expensive, even compared with here. Bermuda is the size of Rottnest with a lot more people living there. It's not as idylic as you might think. Very expensive, with a fair amount of racial problems. If you move from here thinking you are going to have a better lifestyle, think again. I guess if you had the amount of cash where you could just jet between Switzerland and Bermuda, paying a few thou more, to help out the country, shouldn't bother you too much.

[Paul1Perth]

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.

 

Have a really good look at things like family trusts, negative gearing, for a starter.

[Xenon4017]

Switzerland is cold for a lot of the year and very expensive, even compared with here.

 

Really? Thanks for that, I'll just cancel my Jetstar flight to Zurich.

 

Quick pop quiz.

 

Who's the richest man in Europe? I'll give you a clue; he has a big collection of small Allen keys.......

 

And where does he live? And, of course, why?

[Paul1Perth]

Really? Thanks for that, I'll just cancel my Jetstar flight to Zurich.

 

Quick pop quiz.

 

Who's the richest man in Europe? I'll give you a clue; he has a big collection of small Allen keys.......

 

And where does he live? And, of course, why?

 

Don't know the answer to any of those Xenon. You'll have to enlighten me.

[flag of convenience]

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.

 

I don't subscribe to enforced in nursing homes either. Really think about it. Would wish to be "cared' for by some surely youth in your dotage? Only there to get his dole? The old surely deserve better than that. Army neither the solution. Why should they be the solution to society's ill's? I would imagine neither side would welcome such a move.

 

Better make education more applicable to those without academic interest which means channelling into trade focused courses at a young age. Stop any baby bonus payments as well.

[Paul1Perth]

Really? Thanks for that, I'll just cancel my Jetstar flight to Zurich.

 

Quick pop quiz.

 

Who's the richest man in Europe? I'll give you a clue; he has a big collection of small Allen keys.......

 

And where does he live? And, of course, why?

 

Just had a quick look Xenon and according to forbes the richest guy is Amancio Artega and is Spanish and lives in Spain. Maybe you were thinking of someone else. This guy has stuck by his country by the look of things. Spain wouldn't be a bad place to live tbh. We thought about going there or Portugal but the language problem would have been too tough. I like it here much better.

[flag of convenience]

Switzerland is cold for a lot of the year and very expensive, even compared with here. Bermuda is the size of Rottnest with a lot more people living there. It's not as idylic as you might think. Very expensive, with a fair amount of racial problems. If you move from here thinking you are going to have a better lifestyle, think again. I guess if you had the amount of cash where you could just jet between Switzerland and Bermuda, paying a few thou more, to help out the country, shouldn't bother you too much.

 

But Switzerland has probably close to the highest living standards in the world. Expensive for visitors but pure quality. More former partner improved her life quality to no end moving there ten odd years back. That was from an already high level to start with.

 

Life is certainly not just about economics of course and I would be personally a little bored living in Switzerland. Even better situation, but keeping the tax man in mind is to live in Germany close to the border and work in Switzerland. We know many that do it. In fact we would fill up the tank in Switzerland far cheaper than Germany less than half an hours drive.

 

Switzerland property prices like Germany's did not escalate like Australia's either. The cold is only a factor for a few months. Houses are very well built so hardly a factor. Winter sports are equally eagerly anticipated as well.

[akiralx]

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?

 

I don't believe negative equity is a worry for many Australian homeowners, particularly any who would soon get on the housing ladder.

 

At the end of the day the arguments against the abolition of negative gearing are ideological, treating houses just like any other investment like stocks and shares. But they aren't - humanity generally regards shelter as a basic human need like food and heat as essential for survival and so homes should not just be treated as another tax-efficient vehicle. Companies which people are free to invest in only exist to make a profit, houses have other purposes.

 

Sadly in Australia too many people do treat houses as just a financial vehicle - I know of many rental properties where their wealthy owners never refurbish or improve, allowing them to become more delapidated, shabby and unpleasant to live in, as they aim to extract as much money from them as possible. They just don't care that another human being has to live there.

[Xenon4017]

I don't believe negative equity is a worry for many Australian homeowners, particularly any who would soon get on the housing ladder.

 

At the moment it isn't , because prices only go up (generally). But abolish NG and a 500k house drops to 450k. Then it falls within the grasp of a first home buyer. All good. Except that 6 months later it's worth 400k. If circumstances dictate that they move, they can't get back anything liek what they paid, so they're trapped again. The only winners are those who correctly call the bottom of the market; the investors.

[Xenon4017]

Just had a quick look Xenon and according to forbes the richest guy is Amancio Artega and is Spanish and lives in Spain. Maybe you were thinking of someone else. This guy has stuck by his country by the look of things. Spain wouldn't be a bad place to live tbh. We thought about going there or Portugal but the language problem would have been too tough. I like it here much better.

 

Well, it depends where you look, but I'll accept that at the highest levels, the comparisons are a bit fuzzy; not everyone keeps their accounts visible. But, here is a link that I was alluding to:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-27/europe-s-richest-person-kamprad-to-move-back-to-sweden.html

 

Now, he intends to move back to Sweden (hasn't yet, I believe), but nevertheless, his self-imposed exile of 40-odd years ought to tell you something about the mobility of the super-rich.

[akiralx]

At the moment it isn't , because prices only go up (generally). But abolish NG and a 500k house drops to 450k. Then it falls within the grasp of a first home buyer. All good. Except that 6 months later it's worth 400k.

 

I'm not sure I can see why it would fall from $450K to $400K?

[akiralx]

The only winners are those who correctly call the bottom of the market; the investors.

 

It's the owner-occupiers who have to focus more on the bottom of the market - the investors don't need to worry as much as any rental shortfall can be written off against tax. So the $450K house which a hard-saving first-time buyer might run to $460K to buy, an affluent investor might be willing to pay $480K for - as long as he earns enough in taxable income negative gearing will take care of the rest.

 

That's why every honest economist regards NG as an absurd distortion of the market - of capitalism itself. If NG was removed investors really *would* have to accurately call the bottom of the market like everybody else - because if they overpaid and their rental income was not enough to service the loan the generous Aus tax system would not come to their aid.

[Parley]

Bloody bunch of thugs tried to beat up Sophie Mirrabella today.

 

The loony left.

[sueandave]

Bloody bunch of thugs tried to beat up Sophie Mirrabella today.

 

The loony left.

 

That is disgusting, (but who knows if they are right left or centre):frown:

[dxboz]

They hardly tried to beat her up! They were just shouting at her

[Paul1Perth]

Well, it depends where you look, but I'll accept that at the highest levels, the comparisons are a bit fuzzy; not everyone keeps their accounts visible. But, here is a link that I was alluding to:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-27/europe-s-richest-person-kamprad-to-move-back-to-sweden.html

 

Now, he intends to move back to Sweden (hasn't yet, I believe), but nevertheless, his self-imposed exile of 40-odd years ought to tell you something about the mobility of the super-rich.

 

Now he says his wife has died he no longer sees the need to be in Switzerland and wants to return home. Wonder if they'll get the taxes now and he's willing to pay them?

[Paul1Perth]

Bloody bunch of thugs tried to beat up Sophie Mirrabella today.

 

The loony left.

 

I think there are enough people, from left and right, feeling betrayed Parley to say which side the "thugs" came from.

[Parley]

Yeah. The loony left.

[Xenon4017]

Now he says his wife has died he no longer sees the need to be in Switzerland and wants to return home. Wonder if they'll get the taxes now and he's willing to pay them?

 

I only skimmed the report, but apparently he only has to pay tax on whatever income he earns now, which will be divis on shares and the like. Point being that Sweden has foregone 40 years of squeezing the cash cow, to the benefit of Switzerland. Obviously the super rich have health insurance in hand, so he won't cost Sweden anything when he returns, but they've still turned down nearly half a century of corporation tax from one of the worlds biggest companies. All in the name of what? So that left wing polis can "stick it to the rich". It's easier to migrate now than ever before; every one on this board is testament to that.

[Toolbox]

It is interesting though that Labor did not put up any alternative policies in their budget reply with a few to fixing the economy.

 

While they can play populist politics for a while, at some point they need to say how they will fix the mess.

 

 

 

 

 

Pay more attention will you :SLEEP:

 

 

[Rupert]

Yes no one is a winner but the budget has hit to different degrees sectors of our population, and the people are shouting about this unfairness where most of the lifting is going to be done and comparing.

 

quote Concerns over broken promises and a lack of fairness have been vindicated by an independent analysis of the impact of budget decisions by the Australian National University. It found high income earners can largely escape the so-called "heavy lifting" of fiscal repair, with some well-paid couples worse off by just 0.9 per cent compared to a single parent on payments with a child aged six, who could lose more than 10 per cent of their income.

Voters agree, with nearly two thirds calling it unfair - 63 per cent, compared to 33 per cent who marked it ''fair''.

 

Talk about picking your stats. But if you want to get into %s, how about the one concerning what % of hard earned income a hard working couple are already handing over to other people and the increase in that, versus the supposed decrease in receipts (originating from other people's income) for welfare recipients? Is it really the same thing?

 

I am sure some people would not be happy until the hard working couples are paying over 98% of their income to welfare recipients. Perhaps that would be Utopia for some on here, but fact is, the wealth generators would think what is the point, stop working and tax receipts go down as tax rates go up. Anyway, my point remains, there are no winners and TA as done himself no favours with this very unintelligent budget and through his lying.

 

Final point, but is there any reason the single mum in your example cannot go to work? My sister was an involuntary single mum since her child was about two and she was as good as even before then. But like me, my sister was taught to aspire beyond a life on benefits and she was taught that you have to work at things. And she has never been on benefits, not in her 20 years as a single mum (she supported her daughter through university as well).

[wakeboard1980]

Then of course if you are subtracting 'rent a crowd' you have to add in those many thousands who would have gone if they could, but couldn't: those in country areas, those with other family commitments etc etc. Look at the polls today. Look at the way the State Premiers have united....

 

Tony Abbott truly is the worst Prime Minister this counbtry has ever had: he, Hockey, Bishop, Payne and Bishop should go. Now.

 

in your opinion

 

And like I said, a pretty poor turnout for something that is apparently so wrong, just my opinion.

[wakeboard1980]

So do many other people who later find themselves in unfortunate circumstances.

Life is extraordinarily fickle. It takes only a second and a stroke of bad luck for anyone to be in a position of needing help. None of us is exempt from that possibility. To think otherwise is to live in a fool's paradise.

 

 

 

But that's not what happens. That child is being supported care of the taxpayer . If there is an accident or chronic illness that child will receive care from the taxpayer which you couldn't possibly afford if you had to pay for the complete cost.

If the "I should only pay for what I use" principle is applied, then taxpayers without children should have their tax drastically slashed because they shouldn't be paying for any nursery/education/training or maternity/child health costs.

 

 

 

I agree that a parent should not be allowed to escape their responsibilities. But that is the function of laws/systems which need to be applied effectively.

 

 

 

So what would happen if your partner developed a drug, alcohol, gambling habit which you found intoleratle to live with, or died, and you were left to bring up 2 young children on your own? You have to leave your job and exist on a single supporting parent benefit or the children go into full time day care - both supported by other taxpayers.

 

Social welfare taxes are just like a giant insurance policy. You pay your premiums and hope you will never have to claim - but it's there in case of an emergency to save you from disaster.

read my original post again, I didn't post in response to a single parent needing help because of drug problems or a death, I can come up with multiple scenarios as well, just like you have.

[wakeboard1980]

I don't know whether you are planning on returning to Oz but, if you are, you should be moaning too because the cuts to health and education, the increased fees for universities and the slashing of unemployment benefits without any increase in job creation, will make a much more miserable country for your children than the one in which you grew up.

 

We always used to pay for the doctors, so a $7 fee would not really bother us, health and education was always taken care of as well, but if we did have to rely on the government then I suppose you have to look at it in a way that you are getting something for a fraction of the real cost, the same goes for university.

Miserable country how? It is what you make of it.

[Xenon4017]

Talk about picking your stats. .....

 

And talk about plagiarism!

 

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/health/211795-bulk-billing-dead-not-good-time-australia-if-you-sick-15.html#post1936517070

 

At least try and leave half a dozen pages in between, otherwise someone's going to notice.