# Levy to pay for NDIS



## Julia (30 April 2013)

The airwaves have been overwhelmed today with lobby groups touting an addition to the Medicare levy to pay for the NDIS.  There have been countless representatives of Disability organisations, quite understandably commending such a proposal.

Are you happy to pay an additional % to cover this?  Estimates I've heard are from $300 to $500 p.a.

It seems to me to be a very loaded question.  To say no, would be to imply lack of concern for the very real problems of people with disabilities, and I wonder if this is why the government have instigated this discussion in such emotive terms so close to the Budget?

Personally, I feel immensely sympathetic to people who - because of inadequate funding - can't get help with showering more than once a week, can't get a wheelchair when that would be their only means of leaving their homes etc - but at the same time, given the woeful incompetence of this government in applying any of the most worthwhile initiatives, - I'd feel reluctant to hand over any more dollars to them when I have essentially no understanding of how those funds would actually be implemented in making lives easier.

I've yet to see how people with disabilities would be discerned amongst the population.  Would everyone now on a Disability Pension be moved to the new scheme?  Would it cover all intellectual disabilities, all mental illness, as well as obvious physical impairments?  Who is going to decide who is included or excluded?
Most people experience some disability as they get old.  Are the elderly going to be included in the scheme when what they experience is the expected result of the aging process?

So many questions.  Yet we are being asked, apparently, to accept that handing over more money will be something we can happily do in the certainty that it will transform the lives of those people with disabilities.

What do you think?


----------



## banco (30 April 2013)

I don't think anybody thinks Labor will be in power to implement an NDIS so their ability to execute plans seems irrelevant to me.


----------



## Julia (30 April 2013)

banco said:


> I don't think anybody thinks Labor will be in power to implement an NDIS so their ability to execute plans seems irrelevant to me.



Yes, that's quite true, banco.  But they are attempting to nail down the legislation before they are thrown out as far as I can tell.  If I'm wrong in this supposition, I'm more than happy to be corrected.

It is, however, more the whole question of the initiative itself and how it should be paid for that motivated the thread, given both sides have agreed it is necessary.


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2013)

Can someone explain to me, In simple terms.
What NDIS gives, that disability pension and compensation payment doesn't?

Also on a cyncal note, who would run it?


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2013)

I think Pete enjoyed defending his legacy on the ABC's 730 tonight and had some sound advice for Julia Gillard's John,



> LEIGH SALES: Let's whip around a few other issues quickly. How do you think the National Disability Insurance Scheme should be funded, should it be by a levy?
> 
> PETER COSTELLO: I'd only say this. I wouldn't be introducing it in this form at this time. The budget's in deficit. To fund it you'll have to borrow more money. Wouldn't you say, seeing as we're in deep deficit, seeing as we can't afford to pay for all the spending we've currently got on the books, why should we actually spend more? I'd actually be looking at ways in fact to reduce the spending now, maybe to put it - put some money aside in the future. I wouldn't be sitting down and saying we'll go into a new spend which could be when it fully flowers something like $8 billion a year.




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3748704.htm

Any new levy (or increased medicare levy) might as well be called the people smugglers levy. We have to pay for their present failures first before we get to their future dreams.


----------



## banco (30 April 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Can someone explain to me, In simple terms.
> What NDIS gives, that disability pension and compensation payment doesn't?
> 
> Also on a cyncal note, who would run it?




It will provide money for the services/goods that disabled people need like expensive wheelchairs, nursing assistance etc.  One of the arguments for the NDIS is that how you got your disability can determine what sort of care you get because if say you are hit by a car and get a big insurance payout you are better off than someone who was born with the disability.


----------



## bellenuit (30 April 2013)

Julia said:


> Yes, that's quite true, banco.  But they are attempting to nail down the legislation before they are thrown out as far as I can tell.  If I'm wrong in this supposition, I'm more than happy to be corrected.
> 
> It is, however, more the whole question of the initiative itself and how it should be paid for that motivated the thread, given both sides have agreed it is necessary.




It would be nice is political parties set aspirational goals. Goals that they aim for, but will not try and do all at once. When the money is there, they can take big steps to achieve the goals, when it isn't, then they hold off until it is.

In relation to the NDIS, I think the coalition should link funding of it to funding of Gonski. We can only afford one (and then only partly) not both, and the NDIS seems to be the one that has universal approval. If the government legislates funding for Gonski to make it difficult for the coalition to renege on it when in power, as has been suggested today, the coalition should make it clear that the states will be expected to use that funding for the NDIS first and foremost instead. I'm not sure the mechanics of doing this, but it should be made clear to the states that they are choosing between the NDIS and Gonski as to how they allocated received federal funds. Any state that is the beneficiary of legislated federal funding for Gonski will have the respective amount deducted from their federal NDIS allocation. I'm not sure of the dollars associated with each scheme, but it may be one way for the coalition to defeat Gillard's subterfuge.


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2013)

banco said:


> It will provide money for the services/goods that disabled people need like expensive wheelchairs, nursing assistance etc.  One of the arguments for the NDIS is that how you got your disability can determine what sort of care you get because if say you are hit by a car and get a big insurance payout you are better off than someone who was born with the disability.





People with disability allready have access to those services. It sounds like a massive scam, about to happen, to me.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2013)

Julia Gillard could politically snooker Tony Abbott's paid parental scheme by opting for his corporate levy instead of a taxpayer levy. 

It's Labor though, so they'll probably do both. :frown:


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2013)

sptrawler said:


> People with disability allready have access to those services. It sounds like a massive scam, about to happen, to me.




I don't think this government will be happy until everybody gets money for everything with the exception of working.


----------



## chops_a_must (1 May 2013)

I don't have a problem with it.

What I have a problem with is people being kept alive, or being born, when they actually shouldn't.

I just can't see any benefit to anyone in these instances, at all.


----------



## medicowallet (1 May 2013)

I am not really up to date with this initiative.

I do know that quite a few drug addicts are on disability pensions, which not only pays more per f/n but also conveniently keeps them off unemployment figures?

Will this NDIS also pay more to people who are unfit to work due to, dare I say it without getting smashed over the head  (as I mean it in the least sinister way possible), poor life choices?

Or will it be targeted much more smartly?

MW


----------



## dutchie (1 May 2013)

medicowallet said:


> Or will it be targeted much more smartly?
> 
> MW




Government spending money smartly? Now that's an oxymoron.

Levy = just another increase in tax.

i.e. We desperately need more money to waste.


----------



## drsmith (1 May 2013)

It will be interesting to see if they attempt to legislate the change to the Medicare levy before the election.



> The increase - from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent - will take place from July 2014 and see the Government raise around $3.2 billion a year.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-01/medicare-levy-increased-to-fund-ndis/4661660


----------



## basilio (1 May 2013)

Lots to think about here.

If there is a National Disability scheme it needs to be paid for.  Increasing the Medicare levy is probably the cleanest most transparent way to do that.

I believe one of the other parts to this story is a comprehensive overall  review of the current disability pension scheme. In essence the government would review every disability pensioner to see how they can rehabilitate them or get them back into the workforce. This would be an important opportunity of either government to reassess perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who have been allowed to gainand stay on disability pensions with minimal supervision.

Probably start with the ones under 50 I would imagine.


----------



## prawn_86 (1 May 2013)

While i am happy to pay for those less fortunate than I in society, i again have no faith that the current (high) levels of taxes are being spent correctly, and that another tax increase will be any different. That is without even seeing the details on the NDIS.

I would be interested to see how much could be saved by cutting pensions for politicians state and federal, and their travel etc. Or at worst case, make them only available for the amount of years they worked, not for life. There is plenty of fat that could be cut still without raising taxes.

Mining tax, carbon tax, flood tax, NDIS tax and yet still going backwards fiscally


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> i again have no faith that the current (high) levels of taxes are being spent correctly, .




I think we need some perspective here. Australia is one of the _lowest_ taxing countries in the OECD. Infact, our government sector is smaller than the US.

Personally, I think there's room to cut a few other things out of the budget to pay for the NDIS. And I think, on the face of it, the NDIS is a better use of my money than some of the tax concessions we have to pay for at the moment.


----------



## Julia (1 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> Personally, I think there's room to cut a few other things out of the budget to pay for the NDIS. And I think, on the face of it, the NDIS is a better use of my money than some of the tax concessions we have to pay for at the moment.



Agree.  However, I would be concerned about how much of the levy would be absorbed by the inevitable additional layer of bureaucracy to administer it, how likely it is that it will be more functionally applied than the government's other initiatives to date, and most of all, how eligibility will be determined.

Banco makes a good point about someone rendered disabled as a result of an accident where there's a substantial payout v someone born with a disability.

The idea, mentioned by Basilio, that the establishment of the scheme will involve individual reviews of every disability pensioner sounds good, but what a monumental task.


----------



## prawn_86 (1 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> I think we need some perspective here. Australia is one of the _lowest_ taxing countries in the OECD. Infact, our government sector is smaller than the US.




I dont doubt you're correct, i guess when i see a marginal rate of 37%, plus 8% HECS plus 1.5% medicare levy coming out of my pay cheque yesterday it gets to me sometimes. I fail to see how i use more government resources than when i was earning half what i do now, yet i am getting taxed significantly more.

Debate for a different thread however.


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Banco makes a good point about someone rendered disabled as a result of an accident where there's a substantial payout v someone born with a disability.




The draft report from the Productivity Commission advocated the NDIS not being means tested, I believe the government plan is the same. When you receive a payout is that for loss of income and care or just loss of income? As the NDIS is not replacing the disability pension, then the loss of income component is irrelevant but a payment for future care should be included in determining someone's eligibility and assistance under the NDIS.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 May 2013)

The most progressive nations on the planet, such as the Scandanavian countries and France do have very high taxes and very good support for anyone in need.   I call them "more progressive" because they have higher happiness and life satisfaction levels overall.  They also have reasonable economic and political stability.

On the flipside, there seems to be a lot of people who are on constant lookout for anything free, anything government-subsidized.  They want their rent subsidized.  They want student handouts.  They want free schooling.  They want top health care but won't pay $30 to go to a doctor - instead they go to the bulk billing clinic.  They look at the government as a parent figure.  Dad can I have some money to get a new car?  That's their mindset.  A progressive country wouldn't encourage that sort of culture.

Is there anything wrong with current systems, or is it just that people want more?  I think those in dire straights have always been well looked after here.


----------



## moXJO (1 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> I think we need some perspective here. Australia is one of the _lowest_ taxing countries in the OECD. Infact, our government sector is smaller than the US.




Does that include all the hidden taxes we pay or just the basic rate?
Actually, compare electricity and insurances cost of putting a worker on for business and other costs and we would be closer to one of the higher cost nations.


----------



## moXJO (1 May 2013)

I support the NDIS, but:

Is it sustainable at this point in time? These things tend to blow out by billions (think dental scheme, solar subsidies etc) so where will the money come from then.

Will it be open to large scale rorts?  Every man and his dog is on disability benefits.



We seem to be putting a lot of money in to no economic benefit policy. Either start losing some of the big policy ideas and cut middle class welfare or push us closer to recession by taxing us more.


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2013)

moXJO said:


> Does that include all the hidden taxes we pay or just the basic rate?




It includes everything.







moXJO said:


> Actually, compare electricity and insurances cost of putting a worker on for business and other costs and we would be closer to one of the higher cost nations.




Sure. Got any proof of that, or is it just your opinion?


----------



## chops_a_must (1 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The most progressive nations on the planet, such as the Scandanavian countries and France do have very high taxes and very good support for anyone in need.   I call them "more progressive" because they have higher happiness and life satisfaction levels overall.  They also have reasonable economic and political stability.
> 
> I think those in dire straights have always been well looked after here.




This isn't quite true.

Leigh, A., & Wolfers, J. (2006). Happiness and the Human Development Index: Australia Is Not a Paradox. Australian Economic Review, 39(2), 176-184. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8462.2006.00408.x

"In ‘Happiness and the Human Development Index:
The Paradox of Australia’, Blanchflower
and Oswald (2005) observe an apparent puzzle:
they claim that Australia ranks highly in
the Human Development Index (HDI), but relatively
poorly in happiness. However, when we
compare their happiness data with the HDI,
Australia appears happier, not sadder, than its
HDI score would predict. This conclusion also
holds when we turn to a larger cross-national
dataset than the one used by Blanchflower and
Oswald, when we analyse life satisfaction in
place of happiness, and when we measure development
using Gross Domestic Product per
capita in place of the HDI. Indeed, in the World
Values Survey, only one other country (Iceland)
has a significantly higher level of both
life satisfaction and happiness than Australia.
Our findings accord with numerous crossnational
surveys conducted since the 1940s,
which have consistently found that Australians
report high levels of well-being."

It does however, explain many of Australia's quirks with the disposition of its citizens.

I'm not sure about those in dire straits being treated well. It depends who you are and what you're suffering from. I think we can do better.


----------



## sinner (1 May 2013)

I agree with the sentiment in Julias first post as well as what prawn said about cutting the fat from political pork.

There is such a massive disconnect between what has already been wasted away/is currently being spent at the Government level and the relatively tiny amounts of money which would be required to relegate issues like hunger, homelessness, education, eldery/youth rights, human rights, into the past.

Yet Julia Gillard will spend what seems to be at least 150 million of our own (taxpayer) money to fund her election campaign this year, enough to fund 4% of the NDIS for a year, by my calculation.

As a single male in the 25-35Y bracket, I pay more into society than most/all other demographics. To be honest, if I thought the money would be used intelligently/efficiently I would be first in line pay even more into society. Colour me skeptical.


----------



## moXJO (1 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> It includes everything.
> 
> View attachment 51981
> 
> ...






> A report released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development identifies Australia as the third-highest taxing of the OECD's 34 members in terms of the rate facing a one-income married couple with two children.
> In 2010 the rate facing such a couple on the average wage was 20.4 per cent. Only Finland and Denmark charged more, at 22 per cent and 23.6 per cent.
> But when cash benefits were taken into account the rate facing the Australian couple fell to 6.6 per cent, the tenth-lowest among the OECD nations.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...-tax-burden-20110512-1ekt3.html#ixzz2S0Ud0YZu

We are actually one of the highest taxing but a whole lota pork to bring it under?
Ill look up some cost of worker comparison charts, elec, etc sorry just an opinion at this stage


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2013)

moXJO said:


> We are actually one of the highest taxing but a whole lota pork to bring it under?




Don't get me started on middle class welfare! I'd much rather the NDIS money came from handouts to people who don't need it, rather than a new across the board tax. Get rid of negative gearing and roll back the pre-2007 super tax changes and you'd pretty much have the NDIS paid for.

The point stands that Australia is one of the lowest taxing countries in the OECD when measured as a % of revenue. Even when I worked in the US (supposedly a low tax paradise) I worked out I was paying more tax there than I would have been in Australia once I factored in federal tax, NY state tax and NYC income tax.


----------



## white_goodman (1 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> Don't get me started on middle class welfare! I'd much rather the NDIS money came from handouts to people who don't need it, rather than a new across the board tax. Get rid of negative gearing and roll back the pre-2007 super tax changes and you'd pretty much have the NDIS paid for.
> 
> The point stands that Australia is one of the lowest taxing countries in the OECD when measured as a % of revenue. Even when I worked in the US (supposedly a low tax paradise) I worked out I was paying more tax there than I would have been in Australia once I factored in federal tax, NY state tax and NYC income tax.




NY/NJ is the highest tax environment in the states.. it might be different in Nevada, Florida, Delaware etc


----------



## moXJO (1 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> Don't get me started on middle class welfare! I'd much rather the NDIS money came from handouts to people who don't need it, rather than a new across the board tax. Get rid of negative gearing and roll back the pre-2007 super tax changes and you'd pretty much have the NDIS paid for.
> 
> The point stands that Australia is one of the lowest taxing countries in the OECD when measured as a % of revenue. Even when I worked in the US (supposedly a low tax paradise) I worked out I was paying more tax there than I would have been in Australia once I factored in federal tax, NY state tax and NYC income tax.




Deutsche Bank did some study on most expensive places in the world, I'm sure Aust was in the top 5. Studies like that tend to leave out a lot of factors. Perhaps my small business 'have a whinge' rating is just set to high today.

I agree with middle class welfare. While handouts are nice I'd rather not being taxed so much and the tax that I do pay be put to good use. Yeah like that's going to happen.
 I do smell tax reform in the wind. Not sure if the current crop of meatheads either side can deliver.


----------



## Julia (1 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> The draft report from the Productivity Commission advocated the NDIS not being means tested, I believe the government plan is the same. When you receive a payout is that for loss of income and care or just loss of income? As the NDIS is not replacing the disability pension, then the loss of income component is irrelevant but a payment for future care should be included in determining someone's eligibility and assistance under the NDIS.



Just one of many questions to which at this stage we have no answer.



moXJO said:


> I support the NDIS, but:
> 
> Is it sustainable at this point in time? These things tend to blow out by billions (think dental scheme, solar subsidies etc) so where will the money come from then.



Yes, and let's remember that the amount proposed to be raised via the levy will not even equate half the cost.  Where is the rest of the funding coming from?

Another question:  why is Julia Gillard not prepared to take the legislation for this, which would presumably have to demonstrate how it would be funded in full, to the parliament in this term?
She has decided it 'will happen', but is choosing to make it instead an election issue where she can be big on the emotive stuff and ignore the lack of complete funding.



> Will it be open to large scale rorts?  Every man and his dog is on disability benefits.



Yes.  Just imagine the cries of discrimination of your disability doesn't qualify and your neighbour's does.
This is one of the reasons I think a clear description of what is and is not considered a qualifying disability and where the lines will be drawn is necessary before everyone gets carried away on a wave of feel good warm fuzziness that suggests no person with any sort of disability will ever again have anything to struggle against.

This cynicism shouldn't suggest that I'm anything other than very sympathetic to people with genuine disabilities, regardless of their cause.  I just cannot imagine, e.g. the plight of someone who is quadriplegic, and am in awe of the courage so many people with severe disabilities display.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 May 2013)

Got a great movie for you Jules.  Have you seen The Untouchables?


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2013)

white_goodman said:


> NY/NJ is the highest tax environment in the states.. it might be different in Nevada, Florida, Delaware etc




True but places like Southern NY (ie excluding rust belt cities like Ithaca) and NJ have some of the highest wages in the country. Where the job opportunities are the taxes are highest. I find the US tax system confusing, once you add in property taxes which can be extortinate in no income tax states like Texas; I had a mate living in Dallas, he was paying ~3.5%/year in property tax on his $1m home.

The old DTA between Australia and the US was that you only paid tax once at source, so if you found a state with 1% income tax you'd only pay there and no Federal tax in Australia or the US. I'm pretty sure they closed that neat loophole.


----------



## drsmith (1 May 2013)

drsmith said:


> It will be interesting to see if they attempt to legislate the change to the Medicare levy before the election.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-01/medicare-levy-increased-to-fund-ndis/4661660




This is more about politics than it is about anything else,



> Prime Minister Julia Gillard is offering to bring her disability insurance levy before Parliament ahead of the election, but only if the Coalition backs the legislation.




It's a very strange political tactic though. All the Coalition has to do is say no.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-01/medicare-levy-increased-to-fund-ndis/4661660


----------



## McLovin (1 May 2013)

drsmith said:


> This is more about politics than it is about anything else,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah I thought that too. Regardless of the merits of the program, it's hard to see how you can possibly think you'll come out ahead trying to bluff the opposition into increasing taxes. Then again, they seem pretty dyslexic when it comes to reading the electorate.


----------



## drsmith (1 May 2013)

With regard to the merits of the program, that's a separate question to raising taxes to fund it. 

The first consideration should be how it fits into the prioritisation of existing spending. For example, if Labor effectively managed our immigration program, that in itself might provide a similar amount of revenue to raising the medicare levy by 0.5%.

The second issue is that in just raising marginal tax rates (this is effectively what an increase in the Medicare levy does), it does nothing for overall tax reform. 

Labor is trying to sell this as a change for good. That though fails the tests of managing spending and efficient tax collection. 

To make matters worse for Labor, all the above is before we even get to the issue of trust.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Got a great movie for you Jules.  Have you seen The Untouchables?




Sorry, that should have been *In*touchables.  Superbly written movie.  Many writers couldn't/wouldn't go that deep.


----------



## MrBurns (1 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Sorry, that should have been *In*touchables.  Superbly written movie.  Many writers couldn't/wouldn't go that deep.




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=2569&page=174&p=769505&viewfull=1#post769505


----------



## DB008 (1 May 2013)

It's a loaded question.

Whomever is in power votes...

Yes - then you are spending money you don't have, can't manage a budget/economy...
No - then you are an a$$hole and not willing to help out those in need, etc, etc, etc.....


----------



## sydboy007 (1 May 2013)

I support the NDIS, but would rather a lot of tax concessions be cut to help pay for it that an increase in the medicare levy.

Maybe quarantining negative gearing to the income of the asset and not any other income.

Net rental income for 2010-11 was -$7.862B, quite a jump from 2009-10 which was -$4.810 (since the halving of CGT on assets held over 12 months investment properties have never made a profit)

Limit child care subsidies.

Tighten up on the cheap pharmaceuticals for pensioners - say you need to be getting a minimum of 50% of the OAP to be entitled to the highly subsidised medicine, otherwise get treated like the rest of us

I'm sure there's plenty of other programs that could be trimmed or deleted.


----------



## DB008 (1 May 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I support the NDIS, but would rather a lot of tax concessions be cut to help pay for it that an increase in the medicare levy.
> 
> Maybe quarantining negative gearing to the income of the asset and not any other income.
> 
> ...




Yes, there was an article in the SMH on how to get back to surplus today. Negative gearing was mentioned, among other things.

The video that 'white goodman' posted (in another thread) proposing a 25% flat tax rate - and take out concessions like negative gearing, trusts, etc etc, is still replaying in my head.

Would any government do this in real life?


----------



## sydboy007 (1 May 2013)

DB008 said:


> Yes, there was an article in the SMH on how to get back to surplus today. Negative gearing was mentioned, among other things.
> 
> The video that 'white goodman' posted (in another thread) proposing a 25% flat tax rate - and take out concessions like negative gearing, trusts, etc etc, is still replaying in my head.
> 
> Would any government do this in real life?




I'd always been against flat taxes, then watched a video of Milton Friedman (someone posted on macrobusiness) and after 20 minutes had started to consider it a viable option.

You can see his speech here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8

I found it one of the best critiques of the whole political tax system, and it was in 1978!!!!


----------



## drsmith (1 May 2013)

DB008 said:


> Yes, there was an article in the SMH on how to get back to surplus today. Negative gearing was mentioned, among other things.
> 
> The video that 'white goodman' posted (in another thread) proposing a 25% flat tax rate - and take out concessions like negative gearing, trusts, etc etc, is still replaying in my head.
> 
> Would any government do this in real life?




Was this the SMH article ?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/mr-swan-its-simple-to-save-12b-20130430-2ir76.html

Some are a bit over the top, for example, broadening and raising the GST.

With the exception of 1 and 8, the list overall does target holes in existing taxes which to me is a better principal than just raising tax rates.


----------



## drsmith (1 May 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> I'd always been against flat taxes, then watched a video of Milton Friedman (someone posted on macrobusiness) and after 20 minutes had started to consider it a viable option.
> 
> You can see his speech here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TruCIPy79w8
> 
> I found it one of the best critiques of the whole political tax system, and it was in 1978!!!!



A flat tax with a welfare safety net strikes me as the most simple and practical solution.

For example, a marginal rate of 30% on a tax free threshold of $35000. Where income is below $35000, a welfare benefit of 30 cents in the dollar is payable for every dollar below $35000. This welfare benefit would max out at $10500 with no income.

The only debate then is where to set the tax free threshold and hence the welfare benefit for those below it.

No deductions at all on salary income.


----------



## drsmith (1 May 2013)

If it is indeed $180k to process per asylum seeker, we know how to fund the NDIS, in full.



> 3,436 new clients arrived in April.
> 
> @ $180,000 per person to "process", that's just on $620 million in new costs for April.




http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...he-client-numbers-and-the-results-are-in.html


----------



## Julia (1 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Got a great movie for you Jules.  Have you seen The Untouchables?






Gringotts Bank said:


> Sorry, that should have been *In*touchables.  Superbly written movie.  Many writers couldn't/wouldn't go that deep.



Despite film clip from Mr Burns, I'm completely puzzled by the relevance of the movie.  Sorry if I'm being dense.
May I do a Pauline Hanson and ask ' please explain'?



DB008 said:


> It's a loaded question.
> 
> Whomever is in power votes...
> 
> ...



Exactly.   The emotive approach, with the media in full co-operation showing heart rending grabs of disabled children, is in full play to invoke a sense of shame and guilt on the part of anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support Gillard's proposal, regardless of any practical cost issues.

It's a political ploy designed to render invalid any criticisms of why they can't fund it via cost savings on a multitude of wasteful tax concessions rather than an additional tax.


----------



## DB008 (1 May 2013)

Julia said:


> It's a political ploy designed to render invalid any criticisms of why they can't fund it via cost savings on a multitude of wasteful tax concessions rather than an additional tax.




Politics sinking to new lower levels....sad isn't it...


----------



## banco (1 May 2013)

Julia said:


> It's a political ploy designed to render invalid any criticisms of why they can't fund it via cost savings on a multitude of wasteful tax concessions rather than an additional tax.




Which wasteful tax concessions?  They'd have to cut some big ones to get the money they need.  I can imagine the howls of outrage on this board if they proposed cutting the super or the negative gearing tax concessions.


----------



## MrBurns (1 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Despite film clip from Mr Burns, I'm completely puzzled by the relevance of the movie.  Sorry if I'm being dense.
> May I do a Pauline Hanson and ask ' please explain'?
> .




I only put that there because the film was mentioned (and I love the clip)


----------



## sptrawler (1 May 2013)

Unfortunately the NDIS, will be seen as another frantic policy thrown together by the government, in a bid to gain some credibility.
Sad really, because it probably would replace an outdated model.
However, the Labor government is just becomming a sideshow for Gillard's ego.IMO
Swan and the boys are toast and I will be really interested in seeing how Julia goes.


----------



## MrBurns (2 May 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Unfortunately the NDIS, will be seen as another frantic policy thrown together by the government, in a bid to gain some credibility.
> Sad really, because it probably would replace an outdated model.
> However, the Labor government is just becomming a sideshow for Gillard's ego.IMO
> Swan and the boys are toast and I will be really interested in seeing how Julia goes.




It's sickening to see Gillard moving among the disabled with them thanking her for something that will never be delivered.


----------



## Tyler Durden (2 May 2013)

How about instead of paying the increase in levy, I just give $300 to a disabled person? And I won't even claim it as a tax deduction.


----------



## chops_a_must (2 May 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Unfortunately the NDIS, will be seen as another frantic policy thrown together by the government, in a bid to gain some credibility.
> Sad really, because it probably would replace an outdated model.
> However, the Labor government is just becomming a sideshow for Gillard's ego.IMO
> Swan and the boys are toast and I will be really interested in seeing how Julia goes.




Actually, this is one policy that has had a heap of work go into it.

Once again, it's the implementation that is the problem.


----------



## dutchie (2 May 2013)

Tyler Durden said:


> How about instead of paying the increase in levy, I just give $300 to a disabled person? And I won't even claim it as a tax deduction.




Value to disabled person if you give him $300 directly = *$300*

Value to disabled person if you pay $300 tax to
government to pass on to disabled person              = *$ 50*    ($300 less administration fees, pollie gold card etc)


----------



## MrBurns (2 May 2013)

Someone on Ch9 just said, Gillard is using the disabled as a human shield now as she did with school children recently...........rings true.


----------



## noco (2 May 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Someone on Ch9 just said, Gillard is using the disabled as a human shield now as she did with school children recently...........rings true.




Plus 1. And another diversion from the real issues like Asylum seekers, the carbon tax, the economy and the huge debt which the inning coming government will have to pay for during the next dexade.


----------



## prawn_86 (2 May 2013)

Really ramping up the rhetoric now. Bill Shorten was just on Sky Business challenging anyone who doesnt support this to run against him because he cares, and anyone who doesnt support it is ignorant and should look into the eyes of those who are disabled etc etc


----------



## MrBurns (2 May 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> Really ramping up the rhetoric now. Bill Shorten was just on Sky Business challenging anyone who doesnt support this to run against him because he cares, and anyone who doesnt support it is ignorant and should look into the eyes of those who are disabled etc etc




Bill Shorten , another useless user, when I see Gillard hugging the disabled I feel nauseous, I've never seen a politician stoop so low. she is nothing short of despicable. 
She'll never deliver on this and she knows it.


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Bill Shorten , another useless user, when I see Gillard hugging the disabled I feel nauseous, I've never seen a politician stoop so low. she is nothing short of despicable.
> She'll never deliver on this and she knows it.




See Leigh Sales interview Swan on levy;

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3749648.htm#


----------



## MrBurns (2 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> See Leigh Sales interview Swan on levy;
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3749648.htm#




Swan is so clearly unfit to be treasurer of Australia............plainly speaking , he's a dope.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (2 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Despite film clip from Mr Burns, I'm completely puzzled by the relevance of the movie.  Sorry if I'm being dense.
> May I do a Pauline Hanson and ask ' please explain'?




You mentioned how you felt sympathy for quadriplegics in wheelchairs.  The movie addresses this point specifically, but not in a way that you'd expect.  On DVD.


----------



## Boggo (2 May 2013)

Maybe they should reduce the size of the donations to islamic schools in Indonesia, they seem to be able to increase funding there without an issue !

Pickering sums it up...
http://pickeringpost.com/article/julia-how-could-you/1280


----------



## Calliope (2 May 2013)

Boggo said:


> Maybe they should reduce the size of the donations to islamic schools in Indonesia, they seem to be able to increase funding there without an issue !
> 
> Pickering sums it up...
> http://pickeringpost.com/article/julia-how-could-you/1280




The is nothing more disgusting than using disabled people as a "human shield". I don't think even Saddam Hussein would have stooped to this level.:disgust:


----------



## noco (2 May 2013)

I believe Gillard and Shorten are playing politics with these disabled people in an attempt to wedge Abbott and the Coalation into bipartite  support for one of two reasons.

a) Gillard and Shorten may have doubts about the support of the independants.

or

b) Gillard and Shorten are after Abbott's support in case the whole thing goes 'belly up'. They can then turn around and blame Abbott because he supported it.

There no doubt Abbott has seen through Labor and there cunning plot by stating he needs more information on how Labor will fund the short fall and if Abbott wins the next election, he will remove the medicare levy when the budget gets back in the black. I think Abbott is one jump ahead of Gillard in this instant.





http://www.couriermail.com.au/feder...re-levy-for-ndis/story-fnho52jo-1226633713915


----------



## Julia (2 May 2013)

prawn_86 said:


> Really ramping up the rhetoric now. Bill Shorten was just on Sky Business challenging anyone who doesnt support this to run against him because he cares, and anyone who doesnt support it is ignorant and should look into the eyes of those who are disabled etc etc



Just nauseating and morally bankrupt.  Gillard is doing the same.  "Guilting" people into humble acquiesence and forcing the overlooking of the practicalities.

Another concern is the mirage they are creating in the minds of people with disabilities and their careers.
I've heard a number of them saying "this will completely change my life", or from carers "This will give Joe/Jill a proper quality of life and a good job".  Perhaps that sort of miraculous change will happen, but I doubt it.

Then there is the stumbling speech of a disabled person saying "Thank you, thank you, Ms Gillard."
It's pretty cruel to raise such hope imo.


----------



## drsmith (2 May 2013)

Tony Abbott to Julia Gillard,

_I'll match your 0.5% increase to the Medicare levy and raise you the details of how you will fund the full scheme and the full details of who benefits._

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-02/abbott-indicates-support-for-modest-ndis-levy/4664966

In giving conditional support, Tony Abbott has effectively called Julia Gillard on whether or not this is a political stunt.


----------



## Judd (2 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Just nauseating and morally bankrupt.  Gillard is doing the same.  "Guilting" people into humble acquiesence and forcing the overlooking of the practicalities.
> 
> Another concern is the mirage they are creating in the minds of people with disabilities and their careers.
> I've heard a number of them saying "this will completely change my life", or from carers "This will give Joe/Jill a proper quality of life and a good job".  Perhaps that sort of miraculous change will happen, but I doubt it.
> ...




I agree with your sentiments, Julia.

I have dealt with individuals with disabilities, and I assume many on this form know or have had contact with people with various disabilities.  It costs; heaps.  Imagine a paraplegic, wheelchair bound.  Look at their residence, assuming they have one.  Consider cost of providing proper access front and back, width of entrance doors, internal corridors.  Then compare the toilet area in a private home compared with a disabled facility in a commercial building.  Add in additional wet area (shower, vanity, bath.)  Look at main bedroom and whether it is suitable in size for a person confined to a wheelchair.  Add in bed lifts, chair lifts.  Kitchen area; height of benchtops.  Laundry.  Pretty soon, it is demolish residence and rebuild as a special.  Then when/if it comes time to sell, who is going to buy it?  A secondary issue obviously but still a valid question in my opinion. 

There is a touch of "over the top" in the above but I can see the Opposition Leader's point in asking that the Government specify the parameters of who is eligible and any limitations.

It was one of my concerns as soon as the NDIS was announced.  Naturally, the response I received after I wrote to my local member was, apart from motherhood statements, not exactly illuminating.

I support NDIS in principle and am happy for my taxes to assist in some way but I really do wish to know what the ins and outs are rather than sweeping statements.


----------



## Onceblue (2 May 2013)

I'm a carer of a profoundly disabled child and from my perspective this levy is at least a start. May not be perfect but it brings the issue to a head and seems equitable and transparent. 
In all the years of surplus all that Howard could do was build a future fund for public service pensions. Sure he gave me a carer bonus and told me how much I was saving the country. How many of you would do something similar, say give up work to look after elderly parents? As a carer I have little choice.
Whats needed is not dribbles of money, its disability infrastructure, accommodation and respite programs.


----------



## IFocus (2 May 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> Actually, this is one policy that has had a heap of work go into it.
> 
> Once again, it's the implementation that is the problem.




Over all its likely to be a good out come but geezes what a mess getting it there.


----------



## sptrawler (2 May 2013)

IFocus said:


> Over all its likely to be a good out come but geezes what a mess getting it there.




Well we can only hope. 
There isn't anything good, they can claim as a legacy so far.


----------



## Julia (2 May 2013)

Judd said:


> Pretty soon, it is demolish residence and rebuild as a special.  Then when/if it comes time to sell, who is going to buy it?  A secondary issue obviously but still a valid question in my opinion.
> 
> There is a touch of "over the top" in the above but I can see the Opposition Leader's point in asking that the Government specify the parameters of who is eligible and any limitations.



Probably not that much over the top, Judd, in fact.

It's probably too early to make any proper assessment of public expectations at this stage, but just listening to radio callers, my concern that there's a very unrealistic expectation out there seems justified.
eg several people, getting close to older age, seem to have the view that all their requirements will be covered under the NDIS, such as visits to physiotherapists, podiatrists, purchase of mobility aids etc.
I'd have thought all this - when it's a result of simply the aging process - was the responsibility of the individual.

Many of the people currently receiving Disability Pensions apparently are eligible on the basis of some sort of mental illness.  Given the often nebulous nature of psychiatric diagnoses, how will eligibility for mental illness be determined for qualification to the NDIS?.

It's up to the government to clearly spell out who will be included or excluded.


----------



## sptrawler (2 May 2013)

Julia said:


> Probably not that much over the top, Judd, in fact.
> 
> It's probably too early to make any proper assessment of public expectations at this stage, but just listening to radio callers, my concern that there's a very unrealistic expectation out there seems justified.
> eg several people, getting close to older age, seem to have the view that all their requirements will be covered under the NDIS, such as visits to physiotherapists, podiatrists, purchase of mobility aids etc.
> ...




Being cynical and loving conspiracy theories, it may be something that only Labor could get in.

Like I asked a few posts back, what does NDIS offer that the disabilty pension doesn't?

It may be the first initiative that actually saves money.lol


----------



## Judd (3 May 2013)

It appears there is a start to put some "flesh" on the program.

Cuts out those who are over 65 and expect a daily visit from the physio sort of thing.  And for those carers (and they become totally exhausted through the physical and emotional effort) who anticipated that it may lead to their charges "getting a good job" as I heard one carer say, it ain't gonna cut it to that extent.  I do fervently hope that it the program does include respite care.  I know I could have used that in regard to my late wife (MS/Cancer) but, having said that, I coped without it simply because it is gutless just to give up.



> Who is covered?
> 
> To qualify for care and support under the NDIS, a person must:
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (3 May 2013)

Won't it be interesting to see how this disability scheme works out.

One of my fears is that it will be absolutely rorted by the medical aids fields and facility providers. When i have had to look at the price for various mobility aids I just can't see the fair cost in them. If any government wants to keep control of costs and ensure it works for largely the benefit of recipients I think they should, if necessary, start up a business that makes these aids. (Could even use the disability workers as employees ?)

With regard to having to adapt homes for people with disability. Certainly a significant one off cost but again I think these may be overestimated when a builder sees these contracts as a opportunity to make a killing. Again I actually think a government run building program could be as/more cost competitive than the highly commercial driven private enterprise alternative. And I don't think reselling these homes will be a problem. In fact there will be a ready market for people who need these facilities. I can see an excellent niche market place for disability friendly homes.

I also keep thinking about the way the Gold card system is used and abused by the medical industry. Liberal and Labour governments agreed to giving WW2 veterans a Gold card for effectively total and free medical service. 

It's gold all right. Watch the eyes of doctors and anyone who has a test they can offer light up when they see patients flash that card. We have to make sure that everything is ok don't we  ??

I would be concerned that this scheme could fall in that trap without some robust  overview.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Being cynical and loving conspiracy theories, it may be something that only Labor could get in.
> 
> Like I asked a few posts back, what does NDIS offer that the disabilty pension doesn't?
> 
> It may be the first initiative that actually saves money.lol




If you believe that you will believe anything.* It's a fiscal timebomb.*



> IN recent weeks Julia Gillard has delivered a masterclass in reckless democratic socialism, which will ultimately sap prosperity. The formula is tried and proven, here and overseas. First, build support for an appealing social spending scheme. Second, play down its cost and fan falsehoods about the level of existing government support. Third, propose a small tax increase that gives voters the impression the scheme is affordable.
> 
> Fourth, refuse to consider more politically painful offsetting savings, however reasonable.
> 
> Finally, use emotional blackmail against voters and political opponents to ensure success.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...fiscal-time-bomb/story-fnc2jivw-1226634220120

Basilio says;



> It's gold all right. Watch the eyes of doctors and anyone who has a test they can offer light up when they see patients flash that card. We have to make sure that everything is ok don't we ??




The difference Bas is that Gold Card holders are diminishing at an increasing rate.  WW2 veterans are practically non-existent . Potential claimants for disability care are increasing expotentially.


----------



## bunyip (3 May 2013)

Julia said:


> The airwaves have been overwhelmed today with lobby groups touting an addition to the Medicare levy to pay for the NDIS.  There have been countless representatives of Disability organisations, quite understandably commending such a proposal.
> 
> Are you happy to pay an additional % to cover this?  Estimates I've heard are from $300 to $500 p.a.
> 
> ...



I know for a fact that disabled people are woefully underfunded in Queensland at least, probably in every other Australian state as well. They live pretty awful lives which could certainly be improved by more money. 
But Labor plonking a levy on us to pay for it is a bit rich. If they hadn't splashed money around crazily they might have been able to afford the NDIS from revenue, rather than putting yet another impost on ordinary citizens. 
Forking out a few hundred extra dollars a year wouldn’t financially trouble me, but I can well imagine it being a burden on many people who are already cash strapped.
Quite apart from that, governments who get grandiose plans should be able to provide the funding themselves from revenue, otherwise put the plan on hold until they can.

I’d have no confidence in this inept ALP government to competently implement and administer such a scheme anyway.
This one is just another Gillard idea that she’s introduced in the hope it will be a vote winner. I suspect that once again she’s miscalculated – she’s likely to further alienate voters by bleeding even more money out of them.


----------



## Judd (3 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> ........It's a fiscal timebomb.




Without a doubt it will be unless Governments of any political persuasion are prepared to say NO, beyond this limit we will not go as it imposes an onerous duty on taxpayers.  Taxpayers can lash out when pushed beyond limits.

I saw a case of it happening in a minor way.  Was in discussion with a group who had children in primary school (public).  One child at the school has severe mobility issues and is in a wheelchair.  Large amount of funds spent on access, etc and upgrading a classroom to accommodate this person.  So much so, that regular building maintenance affecting the other 499 children in the school was falling behind.  A bit of grumbling from the parents it seems.  Clincher was that Year 6 kids were to go on a two day camp.  School, at pressure from affected parent, said nup, not fair on wheelchair student who cannot go bush, we will go to a day trip to museum or whatever.  Nothing eventuated.  The other kids themselves complained and refused to go indicating just because so and so cannot climb a tree why should we be stopped from enjoying ourselves.

Only a small tale but the moral?  Be very careful of how far you go in pleasing interests groups as the back lash from others who may be adversely affected may not be very pretty.  I wonder whether Governments understand that.


----------



## bunyip (3 May 2013)

Boggo said:


> Maybe they should reduce the size of the donations to islamic schools in Indonesia, they seem to be able to increase funding there without an issue !




I'm as disgusted as you are that we throw good money away to build muslim schools in Indonesia. 
We’ve wasted more than enough money on them to pay for a NDIS many times over.


----------



## Tink (3 May 2013)

What has happened to free speech in this country. 
Oh thats right, we arent allowed to question anything.

Myers has been pillared for giving an opinion that the public shouldnt have to fork out more money, more taxes, and now they are taken to task over it.
I cant believe it..


----------



## McLovin (3 May 2013)

Tink said:


> What has happened to free speech in this country.
> Oh thats right, we arent allowed to question anything.
> 
> Myers has been pillared for giving an opinion that the public shouldnt have to fork out more money, more taxes, and now they are taken to task over it.
> I cant believe it..




Based on your example, one would reach the conclusion free speech is alive and well. I'd be more worried if people weren't allowed to take to task an opinion they disagree with.

Rest assured, like most of the faux outrage on the internet, this will have blown over in a week.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (3 May 2013)

McLovin said:


> Rest assured, like most of the faux outrage on the internet, this will have blown over in a week.




The Twitterverse is the home of the perpetually outraged.  They need a new target every week it seems.  Something new to be outraged about.  Favourite targets for outrage are "inappropriate comments" by celebrities and those in power.  Yaaaawn.


----------



## McLovin (3 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The Twitterverse is the home of the perpetually outraged.  They need a new target every week it seems.  Something new to be outraged about.  Favourite targets for outrage are "inappropriate comments" by celebrities and those in power.  Yaaaawn.




Absolutely. And invariably some self styled "social media commentator" will be on breakfast TV explaining what it all means.


----------



## Julia (3 May 2013)

Bernie Brooks was simply stating a fact.  Given the hysterical nature of the Twitterverse et al, it was probably a pretty silly thing to say. 

 I wonder if at some stage we will move on from this level of sensitivity and outrage.  It's becoming awfully tedious.


----------



## Julia (3 May 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Like I asked a few posts back, what does NDIS offer that the disabilty pension doesn't?



As far as I understand it, the DSP is just a source of income like the dole.  The NDIS will cover eg respite care, aids such as wheelchairs, modifications to homes etc.



> It may be the first initiative that actually saves money.lol



Dream on.



basilio said:


> One of my fears is that it will be absolutely rorted by the medical aids fields and facility providers. When i have had to look at the price for various mobility aids I just can't see the fair cost in them.



Good point.  Had a recent example of this recently:  I like Orthaheel walking sandals.  Buy them from the chemist for $78.00.  The podiatrist over the road has the exact same product -  $189.00!!


----------



## bunyip (3 May 2013)

*An email contact sent this to me - don't know who wrote it.*

Of all Gillard’s electioneering “initiatives”, the NDIS will be her most disastrous. The disabled and their carers will be devastated when they discover it’s just another Gillard fraud. It has little hope of implementation and no hope of working.
This is the blatant, vote-catching scam that makes me the most angry, and I’ll tell you why.
·         Between 35 and 40 percent of all departmental budgets is usurped in administrative costs. That’s normal, but the projected NDIS will not fare anywhere near that well.
·         The NDIS will be yet another new monolithic department employing an army of Labor-voting, dubiously qualified Public Servants because there is no similar department on which to draw or compare.
·         The scheme itself will attract far more fraudulent claims than the ATO and Centrelink combined and that requires other monitoring departments, investigators and much litigation.
·         There is no legal definition of “a disability”. Therefore, medicos and shrinks will be kept busy supporting claims of disabilities instead of treating them.
·         Claimants who have been denied access to the scheme must be given recourse to an appeals process. There’s another new department with associated legal-aid costs.
·         Litigation can be expected from the carers/families of unsuccessful claimants who have had accidents or died, allegedly as a result of a rejected disability.
·         Who will legally discern a “temporary disability” from a “permanent disability?”
·         Is downs syndrome more deserving than severe depression or a recurring drug addiction?
·         Can a mental disability equate fairly to a physical disability?
·         A crippling spinal injury is surely a disability but what if it marginally improves? Who monitors that? Is the claimant legally required to return benefits on an honesty basis? More legal aid!
·         Who are the recipients of the benefits when the disabled are unable to administer them? Who determines that? Mmmm.
·         Can disabled pensioners in private nursing homes trust their carers with various benefits? They haven’t been able to in the past.
·         How is it possible to legally determine the extent of a disability? Will it be on a scale of one to ten? Does seven qualify and six not?
One thing is certain, 34,000 illegal immigrants will take a keen interest in the scheme. Sewn lips, isolation and mental anguish seem a reasonable basis for a legitimate claim, via legal aid.
Julia Gillard has cruelly gladdened the hearts of the needy, but it’s Tony Abbott who will wrestle with the reality.
As is usual with this type of scheme, the smart operators manipulate it while the truly needy miss out.
It is the carers who need support and their roles are more easily quantified and regulated than the disabled.
While you’re there sew up Julia’s lips because every time she opens her mouth someone is terribly disappointed


----------



## Ves (3 May 2013)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The Twitterverse is the home of the perpetually outraged.  They need a new target every week it seems.  Something new to be outraged about.  Favourite targets for outrage are "inappropriate comments" by celebrities and those in power.  Yaaaawn.



Modern society has encouraged, and in fact sheltered, a culture of passive-aggressive, soulless machines.  This is what happens when society boils down to a lowest common denominator "individual expression."  In a facist regime the supporters of the dictator hurl stones at those who oppose the order of things,  in a spiritually bankrupt democracy those who oppose are outcasted by social means.  Social ostracism vs physical repression.  And in America they wonder why there is a new shooting to talk about on Twitter every second week (with plenty of scapegoat causes to blame rather than focussing on the real truth).


----------



## Julia (3 May 2013)

bunyip said:


> *An email contact sent this to me - don't know who wrote it.*
> 
> Of all Gillard’s electioneering “initiatives”, the NDIS will be her most disastrous. The disabled and their carers will be devastated when they discover it’s just another Gillard fraud. It has little hope of implementation and no hope of working.



Sounds absolutely right, bunyip.  We have been overwhelmed with joyful gratitude since the Prime Minister's announcement where Tony Abbott had to accede or be branded as a hater of people with disabilities.
The harsh reality as described in your post is yet to be realised.

Unless Mr Abbott can come up with some very rigid criteria, this will turn out to be the biggest budget blow-out ever.


----------



## IFocus (4 May 2013)

As usual angry rants from the right but as usual its Labor that put in place reforms for the disadvantaged in Australia while others look the other way, some balance on the history behind the NDIS from Peter Hartcher

"It's been a long battle to secure a national disability insurance scheme - and politically at least, largely led by one minister."



> When Bill Shorten entered Parliament at the 2007 election and Kevin Rudd appointed him parliamentary secretary for disability services, the former leader of the Australian Workers Union realised he knew nothing about the subject.
> 
> Within three or four days of taking the post he went to see Kevin Cocks. The conversation inspired him. "He convinced me this wasn't a charity issue," says Shorten, "it is about rights. If you can't cross a street or go to a shop, it's a rights issue."






> He set up a business advisory group, he set up a statutory advisory group, drawing powerful, well-known and well-connected people to the cause. He met every disability group he could to encourage them to press their cause and to mobilise around the idea of a national disability insurance scheme.
> 
> He found an early ally in Rudd and his wife, Therese Rein. He won staunch backing from his senior minister in the portfolio, Jenny Macklin. Wayne Swan was positive. With their backing, he persuaded the Rudd cabinet to commission the Productivity Commission to write a report on the feasibility of an insurance scheme. And when Gillard deposed Rudd, with Shorten's help, he worked to convert Gillard to the cause.
> 
> And opposition members such as the senator Sue Boyce, Darren Chester, Judi Moylan and Mal Washer urged him on.





> And the commission proposed a way to do just that. Australia would need to double the amount it spent on disability support from $7 billion a year to $14 billion, but it would also bestow an economic benefit.
> 
> Some 220,000 people with disability would be able to enter the workforce, and gross domestic product would be raised by 1 percentage point or $32 billion in today's dollars, by 2050.
> 
> Fewer people would need a disability support pension so that would save the budget $2.7 billion a year, in today's dollars, for the next 90 years. Overall, the scheme would "easily" meet the benchmark of delivering a net economic gain to the country, the commission found.






Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...n-apartheid-20130503-2iyhe.html#ixzz2SGsioQqf


----------



## Calliope (4 May 2013)

There is little doubt that Abbott will be the next Prime Minister but is he capable of making hard decisions?



> Supporting a scheme that will cost billions more each year than the levy will collect, just because Labor is trying to wedge Abbott as uncaring about the disabled, isn't pragmatism: it's capitulation. And it will impact on the budget, not just at a time when we are in deficit, but when the structural deficit continues to become more pronounced.



Read more;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-a-do-nothing-pm/story-fn53lw5p-1226634885499


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2013)

IFocus said:


> As usual angry rants from the right but as usual its Labor that put in place reforms for the disadvantaged in Australia while others look the other way, some balance on the history behind the NDIS from Peter Hartcher
> 
> "It's been a long battle to secure a national disability insurance scheme - and politically at least, largely led by one minister."
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...n-apartheid-20130503-2iyhe.html#ixzz2SGsioQqf



The problem is that we have had to bare too much witness to how Labor's grand schemes end in practice.

We as a whole will be paying for Labor's fiscal mismanagement for a long time. The rise in the Medicare levy I feel is just the beginning of that process.


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2013)

Calliope said:


> There is little doubt that Abbott will be the next Prime Minister but is he capable of making hard decisions?
> 
> 
> Read more;
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-a-do-nothing-pm/story-fn53lw5p-1226634885499



I also feel he was too soft on largely acquiescing to the Medicare levy rise. 

Labor I feel has spent whatever few political chips it had left on this one and for the short term for the Coalition, a tax increase Labor implements is one that don't have to when in office. These are perhaps the political reasons for his response.

In combination with his own grand paid parental leave scheme though, it's a concern.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 May 2013)

drsmith said:


> I also feel he was too soft on largely acquiescing to the Medicare levy rise.
> 
> Labor I feel has spent whatever few political chips it had left on this one and for the short term for the Coalition, a tax increase Labor implements is one that don't have to when in office. These are perhaps the political reasons for his response.
> 
> In combination with his own grand paid parental leave scheme though, it's a concern.




It's smart politics IMO.

He knows he's going to need the revenue, and it's something that won't be blamed on him.


----------



## drsmith (4 May 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> It's smart politics IMO.
> 
> He knows he's going to need the revenue, and it's something that won't be blamed on him.



It was good short term politics in isolation, but I just hope he himself is not ideologically about increasing taxes to pay for grand schemes as Labor has been.

His paid parental scheme funded from the same tax increase principal I feel does raise concern about where he stands ideologically. This was also touched on last week in an interview on the ABC's 730 between Leigh Sales and Peter Costello. 



> PETER COSTELLO: Or direct action on carbon. Hey, fellas, you're borrowing to fund the current spending. The easiest cut you'll make is the stuff you never go into.
> 
> LEIGH SALES: In 2008 in your memoirs you wrote of Tony Abbott never one to be held back by the financial consequences of decisions. He had grandiose plans for public expenditure and you were horrified by his economic foundations. Does that remain your view?
> 
> PETER COSTELLO: No, no, because I've got to say to you I think Tony Abbott has grown enormously over the last three years. And I saw him make a comment that he decided that he'd take more of a lead from me and less from BA Santa Maria and I think since then he's been doing extremely well.




Peter Costello's first comment highlighted above cuts to the potential long term implications of the NDIS. I hope for the sake of the nation that Pete's later view on TA is the correct one. We'll get an idea of how much he's grown by what he actually does with his paid parental leave scheme once in office.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3748704.htm


----------



## IFocus (4 May 2013)

drsmith said:


> His paid parental scheme funded from the same tax increase principal I feel does raise concern about where he stands ideologically.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3748704.htm





Its one of the most cynical pieces of self indulgent politics that has been put up for some time not really needed and only raised by Abbott to get him elected (soften his image) nothing to do with ideology.


----------



## IFocus (4 May 2013)

All ego, he certainly was a wizz just sell another TLS and you look like a genius.





> PETER COSTELLO: No, no, because I've got to say to you I think Tony Abbott has grown enormously over the last three years. And I saw him make a comment that he decided that he'd *take more of a lead from me* and less from BA Santa Maria and I think since then he's been doing extremely well.


----------



## Miss Hale (5 May 2013)

if Gillard thinks implementing the NDIS is going to win her votes she may need to think again.  There was a poll in the Herald Sun last Thursday asking the following question, "Do you support raising the Medicare Levy as the best way to fund the NDIS?".  Results were 16% YES and 84% NO.


----------



## drsmith (5 May 2013)

Miss Hale said:


> if Gillard thinks implementing the NDIS is going to win her votes she may need to think again.  There was a poll in the Herald Sun last Thursday asking the following question, "Do you support raising the Medicare Levy as the best way to fund the NDIS?".  Results were 16% YES and 84% NO.



She's rubbing the taxpayer's noses in it today.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-05/gillard-says-ndis-levy-should-be-permanent/4670266


----------



## Bintang (5 May 2013)

Miss Hale said:


> if Gillard thinks implementing the NDIS is going to win her votes she may need to think again.  There was a poll in the Herald Sun last Thursday asking the following question, "Do you support raising the Medicare Levy as the best way to fund the NDIS?".  Results were 16% YES and 84% NO.




She doesn't pay any attention to polls:
"PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has brushed aside another dismal opinion poll for the government, saying the only numbers she cares about are the extra billions going to schools."

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...nt/story-fncynjr2-1226620655001#ixzz2SO6F8FyX


----------



## drsmith (26 November 2013)

After discovering Labor had effectively underfunded Gonski to the extent of $1.2bn in their education budget, the new Coalition government has effectively walked away from it.

What changes now await another grand scheme of Labor's, the NDIS ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-20/early-figures-show-ndis-scheme-cost-blowout/5105304


----------



## drsmith (20 March 2014)

Dear oh dear!



> The review of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) has likened it to "a plane that took off before it had been fully built and is being completed while it is in the air".




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-20/government-signals-possible-delay-to-ndis/5335134


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2014)

It obviously would have been a real interesting ride, if Labor had been elected.

No wonder so many jumped ship, it must have been chaotic in cabinet.


----------



## sptrawler (4 October 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Can someone explain to me, In simple terms.
> What NDIS gives, that disability pension and compensation payment doesn't?
> 
> Also on a cyncal note, who would run it?




One would guess this case falls into the NDIS scheme.
https://thewest.com.au/news/7-news-...ble-could-be-fatal-for-daughter-ng-b88981927z
Why can't someone in government say, fix it?


----------

