Oh so the Mining companies must have been screaming with joy that it was introduced in the first place?.

Just stop posting :lol:

-PB

Took you a whole post to change your tune from small business to big business. Stop posting drivel with no substance behind it.

Edited by db-pgfc: 19/5/2014 04:34:27 PM

People need to stop engaging with people like SocaWho and rusty. You lose too much substance when yousp end all your time refuting fallacious nonsense.

Oh boy, where do I start?



I really struggle with this whole idea that people on benefits are somehow spongers because they pay no tax. That's the whole idea of a welfare safety net. You pay into the system when you are working, and access the benefit only when you need it. If you aren't currently earning an income, or if you aren't ever able to (like you have a disability), of course you don't pay money into the system. You're accessing the benefit.

People walk around acting like it's a bad thing. It's not. It actually helps the economy by ensuring that everyone has money in their pocket to get by at all times, instead of sleeping on the street.

As for business - they are not being asked to contribute more. In fact they are being asked to contribute less: goodbye mining and carbon taxes, and a 1% cut to the business tax rate. There's a 1.5% levy, but that's not coming off the deficit, it's for the PPL scheme. Budget emergency! :lol:



As a percentage of income, very high income earners are not being asked to pay any permanent tax increases on their income. If we were really serious, that debt levy would be made permanent.



Nobody is getting fucked over? You mean like some lower income people who, all added up, will lose 10% of their income by these changes to taxes and the family payments system, while high income people will temporarily lose a few hundred bucks? While the government is actually forgoing more revenue from carbon pricing and company taxes? While aged pensioners get their pensions cut back at the same time as low income workers lose their superannuation guaruntee, and sthe super increase to 12% gets cancelled, but the rich can still chuck money and assets into funds taxed at 15%?

Our country is in a budget emergency!! ......but don't you dare come after my income tax, my fringe benefits, my capital gains, my high income superannuation tax concessions... :roll:

Even in net terms, once having taken into account the carbon tax repeal, lower income earners are still substantially worse off. Remember - fuel excise increases are regressive and were not included in the carbon tax, because many low income people can't change their behaviour to avoid paying it. That alone will slug people who drive - and the money is not going to fund public transport alternatives like commuter rail, because the Abbott government slashed all urban rail funding to build more smog-filled motorways for the trucking companies.

All of this before you look at the GP tax, the family payments changes...



Just to clarify some history - the Hawke government co-payment didn't last because of the massive backlash within the Labor party and the community. It was not brought in without significant objections, it contributed to the end of Hawke's leadership, and it was quickly junked.



It's not about that at all. It's more that I reject this whole idea that the only way to back a (politically overblown) deficit is to solely slug low and middle income earners. Cuts can be part of the equation, but not ones that create an underclass. Burden sharing is fine, but not when the overwhelming burden is put on people who can least afford it. That's what the budget does.



Edited by lastbroadcast: 19/5/2014 05:40:03 PM

Thank you! Finally a man who speaks sense. =d> =d>

The irony of what you've just posted which contributes nothing to this discussion is just hilarious.

The budget certainly isn't close to perfect, they never are. However, the amount of FB whinging I've seen because people now aren't getting all the government support for their kids so they can't buy a pack of smokes a day is off the chain (I know a lot of derros from school). :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited by benelsmore: 19/5/2014 06:28:29 PM

they listen to triple J
thats what gets them all riled up

the unions are very effective at running fear campaigns

that said, i'm no fan of either major party, nor the greens

funny watching you lot support them like football teams. best policy is to remove yourself from being aligned with any of them.

Has Tony Abbott miscalculated with his new budget?

Mr Abbott has been accused of backtracking on election promises with his new budget

On these pages last week I asked whether Tony Abbott's first budget as Australian prime minister was brave or foolhardy.

Early evidence would suggest the answer is the latter.

Two new opinion polls show Mr Abbott's popularity and that of his government have tanked since last Wednesday's budget.

The economic policies have outraged the prime minister's usual critics.

But you know when The Australian newspaper, usually the government's most enthusiastic cheerleader, is suggesting he made a pig's ear of things and that the government has miscalculated.

The Australian is owned by Rupert Murdoch, famous for picking up on the public mood.

That mood is not good. The paper said the budget had been judged the worst ever.

Over the weekend tens of thousands took to the streets in cities across Australia in protest.

The budget, tabled by Treasurer Joe Hockey last week, proposes cuts in health, education and welfare The numbers who turned out were still relatively small, but the government will be worried.

Mr Abbott's economic diet of new taxes, swathing cuts to public services and public broadcasters, a rise in the pension age and new payments to visit the doctor has clearly not gone down well with some voters.

But what has most likely caused more anger is that Australians feel they've been lied to.

During last year's election campaign, Mr Abbott was adamant none of those measures would happen under his watch and promised to be a government of "no surprises".

The prime minister has denied deceiving the public but his argument largely based on semantics is pretty thin. He's been accused of presenting "dog ate my homework" excuses.

The polls suggest the public thinks so too. There is lots of material like this doing the rounds on social media now branding the prime minister "phoney Tony".

The opposition Labor Party, previously in something of a hole, has been having a field day with the material.

And it is indeed quite astonishing to compare what Mr Abbott said pre-election to what the budget actually delivered.

He will likely struggle to get some of the budget proposals through a hostile Senate. That would be embarrassing.

These are early days in Mr Abbott's premiership. The next general election is still more than two years away.

But it's important to remember last year's victory at the polls wasn't so much a ringing endorsement of him, as an utter rejection of Labor.

Mr Abbott spent virtually all his time in opposition, lambasting the Labor government over its broken promises.

He may face his remaining time in office facing the same charge.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27468311

I find it hilarious how the people who swung their vote to the libs basically on the back of the asylum seeker fear mongering are the ones that are up in arms the most from the budget changes. That is what you get for being so clueless :lol: :lol: .

Also it really is incredibly easy to get a casual/part time job if you are at uni. BUT the problem starts to come in for those with almost a full week contact hours. As a commerce student their really is no excuse for me to have no job. I have friends though who are doing engineering and med who are at uni 30+ hours a week not including the extra study you have to do outside of that plus the travel that is included, not quite sure how they are meant to fit any sort of decent working hours in amongst that.

I really disagree with that.
Granted in a lot of cases most don't put as much effort in as they probably should but I'm an inner city student and have plenty of mates I went through residential colleges with living in the same area and not many of us have jobs. As I said though I don't put anywhere near enough effort in if I'm being honest, but 'incredibly easy' is just so far from the truth considering how competitive it is in the city.

But but but you're just being a lazy student who is budging off the tax payer . ;) hell up until a mo th ago I was studying during the night and working a full time job and raising a family and paying a mortgage . It isn't easy at all but to the idiot sheep care ?? They only listen to what the papers tell them

I did engineering and worked 16 hours a week at Subway. I was fortunate in 2 ways, 1) being able to live at the olds and 2) having Monday afternoon off uni.

Not everyone is so fortunate.

Spot on.

-PB

NATSEM research shows low-income couples with children to bear brunt of Abbott Government's budget

By political correspondent Emma Griffiths

The Coalition has cut almost $7.5 billion over the forward estimates by freezing family payments. Photo: The Coalition has cut almost $7.5 billion over the forward estimates by freezing family payments. (ABC News, file photo)

Low-income couples with children and single parents will bear the brunt of the Abbott Government's first budget, losing up to 15 per cent of their disposable income when the measures hit in full, according to independent modelling.

The findings from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) at Canberra University stand in contrast to the Government's insistence that the budget is "fair" and "shares the burden".

The Coalition has cut almost $7.5 billion over the forward estimates by freezing family payments and axing some benefits altogether, with most measures beginning on July 1, 2015.

Eligibility thresholds for payments will also be frozen for two years, a measure which effectively lets inflation reduce the cut-off for benefits over time.

NATSEM principal research fellow Ben Phillips has studied the effects of the budget and says it is "not fair at all".

"We'd estimate around 1.2 million families that would be on average around $3,000 a year worse off by 2017-18, whereas the top income groups - so the top 20 per cent of households - would have either no impact or a very small positive impact," he told PM.

Mr Phillips found that a single parent of two school-aged children who was looking for work would lose $4,243 a year or 14.8 per cent of their disposable income by 2017.

And they would still lose that much even if the parent found a job that paid $40,000 a year.

A couple with two school-aged children who both worked to bring in a combined income of $60,000 a year would lose $6,350 or 10.9 per cent of their annual disposable income.

And even if their household income climbed to $90,000 a year, the loss would remain the same.


Status Income p.a. Benefits (ALP) Benefits (L/NP) Difference p.a. Reduction

Sole parent, children 8 & 12 $0 $32,855 $28,612 -4,243 -14.8%
Sole parent, children 8 & 12 $40,000 $13,258 $9,015 -4,243 -8.7%
Couple, children 8 & 15 $60,000 $16,695 $10,345 -6,350 -10.9%
Couple, children 8 & 15 $90,000 $10,695 $4,345 -6,350 -8.8%

"It's a substantial hit and these are of course to the families who are already in the most precarious positions," Mr Phillips said.

He said the cuts, linked to the Government's push to get people off welfare and into work, will lead to lower income families taking a "hit to their take-home pay".

"If you're a single mother who's working 20 hours a week on the minimum wage, your income is only around $15,000 to $16,000," he said.

"You don't have a lot of opportunities to actually earn more or to work more hours, you have children to look after, so it's a difficult position."

Research finds debt levy would have 'token impact'

The NATSEM research found that the temporary 2 per cent income tax increase for the nation's top earners, to pay off the nation's debt, would have a "token impact".

"If you're on $200,000 ... your impact would be around $400 per year, and that compares to a single-earner family ... who may be losing $3,000 to $4,000 per year by 2017-18, so [there is] a dramatic difference," Mr Phillips said.

He has also pointed out that the Government's new $750 payment for single parents earning the maximum rate of Family Tax Benefit A will cut out completely when the household income hits $45,000.

Researchers from the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University also found that those receiving government benefits do the budget "heavy lifting".

According to the ANU projections, an unemployed single parent with an eight-year-old child will lose $54 a week or 12 per cent of their disposable income.

Neither set of figures took into account the other major budget hits - the $7 fee on GP visits, X-rays and blood tests, the $5 fee for medicines, or the fuel excise hike.

$7.5 billion in budget cuts to Family Tax Benefits
•Freezing FTB payments for two years from July 1, 2014, saves $2.6 billion over 4 years
•Limiting the FTB-B to families with children under 6, saves $1.9 billion from July 1, 2015
•Dropping the primary earner income limit for FTB-B from $150k to $100k, saves $1.2 billion over four years from July 1, 2015
•Cutting the FTB-A large family supplement from July 1, 2015, saves $377.7 million over 4 years
•Cutting an add-on for additional children to the higher income free threshold, saves $211 million over 4 years from July 1, 2015
•Trimming the end-of-year supplements and ceasing indexation from July 1, 2015, saves $1.2 billion
The payments will be $600 (down from $726) for each child for FTB-A and $300 (down from $354) for each child for FTB-B.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-19/sharing-of-budget-pain-not-fair-natsem-modelling-says/5463008

Boy that lifting sounds a whole lot heavier than those who fall into the 0% tax bracket. Those middle and higher income tax brackets are among the highest in the developed world. One of the reasons our overall tax to GDP is low compared to the OECD is because we have among the lowest tax rates for those on no and low incomes, and one of the most progressive and targeted redistributions of welfare spending, illustrated by the fact that nearly 50% of Australians pay NO net tax. This contrasts to somewhere like Sweden and the 'Nordic model' where tax rates kick at really low income levels and despite the high welfare spending welfare benefits are pegged to income (ie the more you earn, the more unemployment, PPL, pension you get).

In terms of overall collection of tax revenue and redistribution to those in the poorest households, relative to the OECD average, it's not fair and not true to accuse the well off of not doing their share of heavy lifting. Increasing taxes for those higher income earners will be punitive and fail to address the real structural issue and that is too much welfare moneys going to too many people who do not pay enough tax to make those programs sustainable. Sure it it'd be populist to go out and announce that higher income earners have to pay 75% tax but to punish those in driving seat of the economy would be detrimental to the economy, indeed even the Henry tax review advocated lowering the tax rates of high income earners not raising them.

I understand it's hard to get a casual job if you have the personality and drive of a plank, but for most people who can present themselves in a professional, yet casual manner, picking up a casual job is a piece of cake.

If you have rubbish days for uni, go to Coles and night pack, or get a warehouse job... For those of us with awesome uni schedules, just hope onto a retail position or apply for an internship.

I don't not recommend any one at uni to work part time in a factory . I said the same thing when I was in uni 10 years ago and I got stuck . Took me 9 years to go back to uni whilst working s dead end job

I haven't got the impression that many of us here are members of political parties nor have I seen any posts using the term "we" in regards to a party like they would a football team. Just because you don't like the Liberal party, doesn't make you a Labor supporter and vice versa.

Also see a decent amount of commentary about the policies and why people disagree with them, combined with commentary of the political games that politicians are playing. Just a shame there a few troll posts thrown in there :lol:

Okay Hockey is doing a decent job on Q&A tonight, granted there are times he is left sweating just a bit, but considering the difficulties of the questions he is doing well to survive...although there are times he lacks a touch of empathy.

God I feel for a Joe. He is doing his damned best for the country and being kicked down for doing what is fundamentally required. All people can see is what's in it for them with no concept of the bigger picture, just want government to spend spend spend, increase this payment increase that payment, no idea how to pay for it all and don't really care, as long as it's not them.

All this 'austerity' hysteria, people falling dead in the street due to having a runny nose, pensioners going on crime sprees to make ends meet, is so much ridiculous when you consider labor won't repeal the most punitive measure of all, the carbon tax.:lol:

> Want to live in a society where government provides many services for the population
> Complain about the taxes needed to achieve this

Lel

Edited by 433: 19/5/2014 11:03:27 PM

> complains about the government taking all their money but tax is offset by benefits so actually pays for nothing :lol:

People need to be very careful with Palmer.

That uneasy feeling in your gut that you feel when agreeing with what he is saying should not be ignored.

I suspect he is a ego maniacal sociopath whose sole interest is in attaining political power and manipulating legislation to the benefit of his commercial interests. He is very clever because he toes the popular line on all issues, opposing the carbon tax, opposing direct action, opposing pension age increases, etc etc. I literally think if he was to ever become PM he would wage war with China, just for fun.

Morgan has labour ahead 57.5-42.5 and if I'm not mistaken its the first poll to use purely post budget dates

Given that governments usually slip a little during winter by about one point (an odd historical tendancy) and many Australians are still learning about the budget I wonder if this government is going to break a record for lowest 2pp for an incumbent

Gough whitlam got 38-62. I think that is the lowest for a single poll

funny you should say that I'm considering joining the labour party after this budget

Will have to look at my own finances and my desire to get more spam in my inbox but I'm thinking about it

Unless the ALP get their reforms through(unlikely), you'd be better off joining the Greens.

[youtube]s3bG1LLcUpY[/youtube]

Im not too bothered by union influence in the alp to be honest. Whenever I have played with statistics unions don't have a negative economic impact yet do a lot to reduce inequality. So the reforms won't influence me one way or another