Australian Politics thread [merged]

[1965]

I was talking about negative gearing pal

Try again

My apologies, that was the Labor Party.

 

[WilliamPowell]

What about the pensioners? What are they losing out on? $7 hospital visits?

Sorry Angus the fact that you have to even ask that question clearly shows have no idea when it comes to pensioners and how tough some are doing it.

Would love to see how you'd go living on $300-$350 a week with no other savings to fall back on, being in poor health that requires regular (read minimum fortnightly) doc visits and medications and having to deal with cost increases in things like food, water, gas, electricity that happen regularly

Doubt that you could manage it

My late mother always said sometimes you need to take a walk in someone else's shoes to truly understand their lot in life

Reckon you might need to do it

[1965]

What about the pensioners? What are they losing out on? $7 hospital visits?

Sorry Angus the fact that you have to even ask that question clearly shows have no idea when it comes to pensioners and how tough some are doing it.

Would love to see how you'd go living on $300-$350 a week with no other savings to fall back on, being in poor health that requires regular (read minimum fortnightly) doc visits and medications and having to deal with cost increases in things like food, water, gas, electricity that happen regularly

Doubt that you could manage it

My late mother always said sometimes you need to take a walk in someone else's shows shoes to truly understand their lot in life

Reckon you might need to do it

Just correcting the autocorrect

 

[🏅Dooks]

well said Tiga, one of the smartest posts in a while. No time for dole bludgers.

Dooks you crap on about negative gearing costing x amount of dollars. How is that worse than a family on 100k receiving family benefits.

I see first hand where families are earning 150-200k yet continue to receive benefits and i'm not talking about PPL.

Happens in all classes not just the top end who utilize tax benefits. I gave you an example of middle class who are reaping thousands of dollars through tax minimization. This is not an isolated example. Middle class are raping the system also.

Need i remind you it was your beloved labour party who created it.

So if the middle class are raping the system, and the working class and unemployed are too, is it the top 10% that are getting shafted?

I dont have any issue with cutting back middle class welfare. Thats not the point I made at all. I actually agree with it on the face of things. A basic ppl is needed though I beleive.

The premise your suggesting is that two wrongs make a right in respect of this mid class welfare and neg gearing. 

The thing that does pee me off is the continued distribution of wealth to the top 10% and this budget is another mechanism. Have a look at the states and the cotinued hollowing out of the middles class, cuts in wages and govt payouts to the super wealthy etc etc. Now more vacant homes in America than the homeless. Is this where we are heading for our kids? No free or cheap health care or education. Looks like it.

But if you could pls explain what middle class welfare someone on 200k is obtaining id be interested!

[tiga]

[dwaino]

Poor Frances must have been doing it tough. Luckily daddy advocates nepotism.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/former-classmates-angry-scholarship-abbotts-daughter?CMP=fb_gu

[1965]

Bump

Class warfare.

Even I didn't think Abbott would be this bad.

Poorest families pay most in budget
 
May 22, 2014

Tom Allard
National Affairs Editor



The poorest 20 per cent of Australian families will pay $1.1 billion more into government coffers than the richest households as a result of the budget, highlighting the huge inequity in the government's four-year blueprint for fiscal repair.

New analysis from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) has crystallised how heavily the burden of budget consolidation has fallen on those less well-off, especially if they have school-age children.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poorest-families-pay-most-in-budget-20140521-38p5m.html#ixzz32ODpCgxE

[Judge Roughneck]

well said Tiga, one of the smartest posts in a while. No time for dole bludgers.

Dooks you crap on about negative gearing costing x amount of dollars. How is that worse than a family on 100k receiving family benefits.

I see first hand where families are earning 150-200k yet continue to receive benefits and i'm not talking about PPL.

Happens in all classes not just the top end who utilize tax benefits. I gave you an example of middle class who are reaping thousands of dollars through tax minimization. This is not an isolated example. Middle class are raping the system also.

Need i remind you it was your beloved labour party who created it.

So if the middle class are raping the system, and the working class and unemployed are too, is it the top 10% that are getting shafted?

I dont have any issue with cutting back middle class welfare. Thats not the point I made at all. I actually agree with it on the face of things. A basic ppl is needed though I beleive.

The premise your suggesting is that two wrongs make a right in respect of this mid class welfare and neg gearing. 

The thing that does pee me off is the continued distribution of wealth to the top 10% and this budget is another mechanism. Have a look at the states and the cotinued hollowing out of the middles class, cuts in wages and govt payouts to the super wealthy etc etc. Now more vacant homes in America than the homeless. Is this where we are heading for our kids? No free or cheap health care or education. Looks like it.

But if you could pls explain what middle class welfare someone on 200k is obtaining id be interested!

What ever u pinko green hippie

[🏅Dooks]

well said Tiga, one of the smartest posts in a while. No time for dole bludgers.

Dooks you crap on about negative gearing costing x amount of dollars. How is that worse than a family on 100k receiving family benefits.

I see first hand where families are earning 150-200k yet continue to receive benefits and i'm not talking about PPL.

Happens in all classes not just the top end who utilize tax benefits. I gave you an example of middle class who are rea8ping thousands of dollars through tax minimization. This is not an isolated example. Middle class are raping the system also.

Need i remind you it was your beloved labour party who created it.

So if the middle class are raping the system, and the working class and unemployed are too, is it the top 10% that are getting shafted?

I dont have any issue with cutting back middle class welfare. Thats not the point I made at all. I actually agree with it on the face of things. A basic ppl is needed though I beleive.

The premise your suggesting is that two wrongs make a right in respect of this mid class welfare and neg gearing. 

The thing that does pee me off is the continued distribution of wealth to the top 10% and this budget is another mechanism. Have a look at the states and the cotinued hollowing out of the middles class, cuts in wages and govt payouts to the super wealthy etc etc. Now more vacant homes in America than the homeless. Is this where we are heading for our kids? No free or cheap health care or education. Looks like it.

But if you could pls explain what middle class welfare someone on 200k is obtaining id be interested!

What ever u pinko green hippie

Checkmate 

[Francois Jackson]

well said Tiga, one of the smartest posts in a while. No time for dole bludgers.

Dooks you crap on about negative gearing costing x amount of dollars. How is that worse than a family on 100k receiving family benefits.

I see first hand where families are earning 150-200k yet continue to receive benefits and i'm not talking about PPL.

Happens in all classes not just the top end who utilize tax benefits. I gave you an example of middle class who are reaping thousands of dollars through tax minimization. This is not an isolated example. Middle class are raping the system also.

Need i remind you it was your beloved labour party who created it.

So if the middle class are raping the system, and the working class and unemployed are too, is it the top 10% that are getting shafted?

I dont have any issue with cutting back middle class welfare. Thats not the point I made at all. I actually agree with it on the face of things. A basic ppl is needed though I beleive.

The premise your suggesting is that two wrongs make a right in respect of this mid class welfare and neg gearing. 

The thing that does pee me off is the continued distribution of wealth to the top 10% and this budget is another mechanism. Have a look at the states and the cotinued hollowing out of the middles class, cuts in wages and govt payouts to the super wealthy etc etc. Now more vacant homes in America than the homeless. Is this where we are heading for our kids? No free or cheap health care or education. Looks like it.

But if you could pls explain what middle class welfare someone on 200k is obtaining id be interested!

pretty simple i would have thought

Income 200k
"EXPENSES"180k

= taxable income $20,000 which then = family tax a and b.

seen it many times over the years so dont be fooled into thinking its only the top end who reap the awards.

As for the top end getting shafted if you ask me they pay their dues to society with a high tax rate and im guessing its amongst the highest in the world. They deserve any handouts whatsoever and that includes PPL and on just on that stop bringing it up as its not even set in stone. Its a stupid policy of abbots new budget and wont pass senate IMO. Lets just deal with the here and now shall we.

As for negative gearing it was introduced to stimulate the economy and its served its purpose in society. Should it continue, No as its a blatant handout. Will it continue yep so my advice to you is if you cant beat em join and go get one yourself and look after your retirement.

Lastly on neg gearing ive many middle and even lower class of people who successfully use negative gearing so to assume that only the top end utilize this tax break would be very naive.

[🏅Dooks]

As for the top end getting shafted if you ask me they pay their dues to society with a high tax rate and im guessing its amongst the highest in the world. They deserve any handouts whatsoever

why do they deserve any handouts whatsoever if they are financially sound? shouldnt handouts be limited to the poorest, neediest members of society?

are you also suggesting the top end doesnt tax minimise like the middle class example you gave?

[1965]

Dammit Abbott

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTiN_Y5M2sw

 

[WilliamPowell]

What about the pensioners? What are they losing out on? $7 hospital visits?

Sorry Angus the fact that you have to even ask that question clearly shows have no idea when it comes to pensioners and how tough some are doing it.

Would love to see how you'd go living on $300-$350 a week with no other savings to fall back on, being in poor health that requires regular (read minimum fortnightly) doc visits and medications and having to deal with cost increases in things like food, water, gas, electricity that happen regularly

Doubt that you could manage it

My late mother always said sometimes you need to take a walk in someone else's shows shoes to truly understand their lot in life

Reckon you might need to do it

Just correcting the autocorrect

 

Thank you

[Smokey]

Poor are not carrying the budget

John Roskam
Australian Financial Review
23rd May 2014

................................

There’s a world of difference between the government giving you less of something that isn’t yours to begin with, and the government taking something from you that is yours in the first place.

What NATSEM also showed is that the earning of $60,000 a year will get an additional $4736 in welfare benefits, taking their total disposable income to $64,736.

A couple earning $200,000 will pay $67,547 in tax, making their total disposable income $132,453.

The alleged inequity of the budget lies in the fact that the couple receiving more from the welfare system than it pays in taxes will have its benefits cut, while the couple paying the taxes that pay for those benefits won’t be required to pay even higher taxes.

This is a complete perversion of any notion of equity. Somehow equity is now deemed only to apply to people receiving welfare paid for by the taxes imposed on others. No one talks about whether it’s equitable for the government to take close to half of what some people earn.

The misconception about the meaning of equity is reflected in the comment in the Herald that “the poorest 20 per cent of Australian families will pay $1.1 billion more into government coffers than the richest household. . .”

Nothing could be further from the truth. The poor don’t pay anything into government coffers.

.................................

http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/poor_are_not_carrying_the_budget_HWlKGtkkl8hdU9lKiXUl5K

[Smokey]

Keep calm: the cuts are small, the pain shared ... and necessary

Judith Sloan
The Australian
23rd May 2014

EVERYONE needs to calm down. This budget is not tough; arguably, it is too soft.

The explanation for the hostile reaction to — and misinformation about — the budget largely revolves around the slight reduction in entitlements to various groups, which are no longer sustainable given the fall in the terms of trade and our ongoing sluggish productivity performance.

The truth is we have been living in something of a fool’s paradise by believing the party could last.

First, we enjoyed the improvements to living standards associated with the productivity gains generated by the reforms implemented by the Hawke and, to a lesser extent, Howard governments. This provided the wherewithal to distribute some of the gains to various groups, including low- and middle-income earners, families with children and older persons, and to fund education and health more generously.

Just as the luck looked as though it might run out, the terms of trade surged to historically high levels and remained that way for an unprecedented period of time. This fortuitous turn of events prolonged the party.

The astonishing thing about some of the reactions to the budget is that many of the measures should have broad endorsement. Take the change to Family Tax Benefit Part B, which is currently given to single-income families on high incomes with children.

The benefit is being trimmed back to families with incomes of less than $100,000 a year and where the youngest child is less than six years old. The previous arrangement was a clear example of unaffordable middle-class welfare, which could no longer be justified.

The reintroduction of the indexation of fuel excise, something which most left-leaning economists have been advocating for years, will add about 1c a litre to the price of fuel each year, or about 60c to the average weekly fuel bill of the vast majority of drivers.

And while denying the Newstart Allowance to those younger than 30 for a period of six months may seem harsh, there will be various carve-outs.

Surely no one denies that being in a job or training for a job are the best alternatives for young people, rather than leaving them to remain passively on the dole?

When it comes to changes to the age pension, most are down the track, giving older persons some warning of the alterations that will be made to the indexation — which slows the increase in the pension; it doesn’t cut it — and income/asset thresholds.

This is good policy. With 80 per cent of persons aged 65 or older on the full or part age pension, it is imperative that the government act to make the pension sustainable into the future, while protecting those who struggle the most.

It is interesting that there was scarcely a reaction to the Labor government’s decision to extend the age of entitlement to the pension from 65 to 67, but the further extension to the age of 70 has been met by fierce opposition.

In reality, those workers who engage in hard physical labour do not currently last until the age of 65 before they retire.

The beauty of the system of compulsory superannuation is that more and more workers will have the financial means to tide themselves over before they reach the age of entitlement for the Age Pension, as well as partly self-provide for their retirement in some instances. (The government still needs to consider how to better articulate superannuation and the preservation age with the Age Pension.)

The reaction to the Medicare co-payments has also been extreme. In reality, there are co-payments in many parts of the health system and, while some may complain, this aspect of the system is generally accepted.

And remember when co-payments were introduced into the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme? There were dire predictions that large swaths of the population would not be able to afford to have their prescriptions filled.

There was some short-term impact — just as there seems to be with the current fall-off in appointments being made to visit the GP, even though the co-payment arrangements do not take effect for another 13 months — but things will settle down over time.

There are a number of protections for those on lower incomes and for children. But the real point is that the growth in the number and cost of Medicare Benefit Schedule visits has been unsustainable, and imposing a price signal makes good policy sense.

The revolting students have been one of the starkest illustrations of resistance to the new budget measures. But someone pays for the subsidies to higher-education students and these donors include labourers, tradies, salespersons; indeed, lots of people who have never benefited from having a university education.

The extension of the new loan arrangements to those undertaking sub-degree programs means that those who are not well placed to undertake an undergraduate degree in the first instance can still afford to attend higher education.

 And, notwithstanding the imposition of a real interest rate in the HELP loan arrangements, the arrangement remain highly concessional, especially given that graduates are not required to begin to pay back their loans until their annual income is about $50,000.

By any measure, higher education remains a good deal for students, with greater access, more diversity and hopefully higher standards. For every high fee that will be quoted, there will be plenty of more modest ones being charged, giving much greater choice to students than is currently available.

............................

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/keep-calm-the-cuts-are-small-the-pain-shared-and-necessary/story-fnbkvnk7-1226927573883#