Budget 2014

[qldfrog]

sure Brisbane to Cape was just to demonstrate the pathetic range of the fleet we purchased, as opposed to russian or chinase potential opponents
definitively not a military tactic recommendation

 

[bigdog]

MORE BUDGET NASTIES NOT DECLARED BY HOCKEY!!

http://www.theage.com.au/money/budg...ers-and-matureage-workers-20140516-zreh5.html

Budget's secret sting for pensioners and mature-age workers

Date
May 16, 2014
David Potts

New rules discourage anyone over 65 from remaining in the workforce.

Pensioners, mature-age workers and self-funded retirees will be stung sooner than expected by the budget.
Those eligible for the part pension from next January will be hit by an effective 50 per cent tax as super payments are included in both means tests, financial advisers warn.

Worse, after July 1 this year those on concession cards which are available to pensioners could lose as much as $2000 a year, says Louise Biti, head of technical services at Strategy Steps, which advises financial planners.
The pension concession and Commonwealth Seniors Health cards offer travel, electricity, phone and council rate discounts in an agreement with the states.

But buried in the budget documents the government reveals it will be "terminating" this agreement after July 1, saving $1.3 billion over four years.

"It will hurt pensioners the most. This will cost $1000 to $2000 a year. No one was expecting that. Since it's not a direct payment to pensioners the government didn't want to highlight this," Biti says.

The separate abolition on September 20 of the "seniors supplement" attached to the Seniors Health card for self-funded retirees will cost couples $1320 a year.

But the biggest sting is the government's decision to count super drawdowns as part of the assets test from next January.

This will bring super into the deeming net where it is assumed to earn a certain return, as is the case for term deposits and other financial investments.

Currently super pension income is adjusted by dividing the balance by the pensioner’s life expectancy.

Under deeming, super will be simultaneously caught by both the assets and income tests.

For example, a 65-year-old with $250,000 in super on the full pension would, after January 1, be assessed as earning $8284, which is above the $7176 income threshold. Every dollar earned above $7176 would lose 50 cents of pension.

In a double whammy, you lose some of the pension to begin with, then another 50 cents in every dollar you earn if you keep a part-time job, financial planner Paul Moran, principal of Moran Howlett Financial Planning, says.

“Under the assets test you could work part-time to use up the income test threshold but now if you have a super pension you’ll lose half. The change amounts to a new tax of 50 per cent for many existing and soon-to-be pensioners and veterans. It’s a huge hit,” Moran says.

It will hit even harder in 2017 when deeming starts with balances of $30,000 (or $50,000 for couples) instead of the current $46,600/$77,400.

Those getting the age pension before December 31 will be exempted from the new super deeming rule. But this will also discourage anybody over 65 from remaining in the workforce, at the risk of being caught in the new rules from next year.

“There’s an incentive to retire if you reach 65 this year. Or you could resign, go on the pension and then go back to work part-time and start a super payment so long as you do it before December 31,” Moran says.

“These are not wealthy people. So getting $100 less a fortnight is very material to them,” he adds.

In another budget hit, the mature age worker’s tax offset for those in the workforce aged over 55 and earning less than $63,000 a year will be scrapped on July 1.

Although this will pay for the new $10,000 subsidy to employers for hiring older workers who had been on the dole for six months, Biti warns this could backfire.

“A boss might sack you and hire somebody else and get the $10,000,” she says.

Other budget booby traps include:

• The fringe benefits tax rising to 49 per cent for those earning over $180,000 paying the deficit levy.
  
• The franking credit from dividends drops from 30 to 28.5 per cent after July 1, 2015.
  
• A freeze on the thresholds for the private health insurance rebate and Medicare levy surcharge from July 1, 2015. This will reduce the value of the rebate for some and push others into the surcharge as wages rise.
  
• The abolition of the twice-yearly income support bonus on Centrelink and Veterans’ Affairs payments.
  
• The abolition of the dependent spouse tax offset from July 1.

One piece of good news that has escaped notice is Treasurer Joe Hockey’s claim that households will save “on average around $550 next year alone” from the abolition of the carbon tax.

And while the Medicare levy rises to 2 per cent on July 1, it appears the higher tax-free threshold of $19,400 due to start on July 1, 2015 has also been spared the axe.



 

[sptrawler]

Labor and the left should be happy with that, bigdog, they say people with money in super shouldn't get any pension or perks.
Labor will wave that through.

 

[Smurf1976]

One piece of good news that has escaped notice is Treasurer Joe Hockey’s claim that households will save “on average around $550 next year alone” from the abolition of the carbon tax.

There's really only a benefit in some states however and even that is at least partially offset. There's 3 carbon-based fossil fuels we use, and only one of them is getting cheaper for most under this plan whilst the other two get more expensive.

Oil (petrol and diesel) - gets more expensive due to fuel excise indexation.

Gas - gets more expensive in Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas and SA (but not WA or NT) due to the move to export parity pricing 3 years from now.

So overall, there's a benefit in WA and the NT definitely, and a lesser benefit in Qld and NSW. In Vic and SA the rising gas price cancels out the benefits for most households, and Tas is a net gainer from the carbon tax anyway thus stands to lose.

So it's a $550 saving for a minority (WA, NT), a lesser saving for a large chunk of the population (Qld, NSW), no real saving for another big chunk (Vic, SA) and a loss for a minority (Tas). It sure ain't an across the board saving that's for sure.

And that is, of course, assuming that the "savings" don't simply disappear as an increase in profits rather than a reduction in prices. Coal is primarily used to generate electricity, and with gas set to become uneconomic for baseload (2017), a significant amount of coal-fired capacity removed from the market and the reduction in hydro output (2014 and further in 2015) it's quite likely that the end of the carbon tax won't be fully reflected in wholesale power prices at least after 2017.

More politics....

 

[Smurf1976]

It would also seem sensible to refuel and deploy them out of Darwin, Townsville and Curtin, in the event of a threat, not Brisbane.

Regardless of whether we're operating them out of Brisbane, Darwin or wherever we still need fuel to put in the tank and spares to maintain them with.

No fuel = immediately useless. No spares = useless as soon as something breaks and needs replacement.

Armed with that knowledge, any real enemy would just need to stage a faux war, wait until we use up all the fuel and parts we've got flying around, then commence the real war. Easy.

 

[sptrawler]

Regardless of whether we're operating them out of Brisbane, Darwin or wherever we still need fuel to put in the tank and spares to maintain them with.

No fuel = immediately useless. No spares = useless as soon as something breaks and needs replacement.

Armed with that knowledge, any real enemy would just need to stage a faux war, wait until we use up all the fuel and parts we've got flying around, then commence the real war. Easy.

Being completely honest, the ability of Australia to defend its immense shoreline with the population we have is virtualy imposible.
The alliances we have would be required, part of the alliance with the U.S requires us to purchase equipment and compatible technology from them.
So it really becomes an issue of do you go alone, do you maintain existing alliances or do you form new ones.
If we form new ones with a senior power, we will have to purchase equipment and technology from them.
Well that's my understanding of it.
I would think the fighters would be bought ,no matter which party is in power, behind the scenes the U.S still needs sales.

 

[sptrawler]

Taking the seniors concession card from pensioners sounds a bit rough.
Changing their indexation is one thing, removing concessions on rates, utilities and transport will be a big hit on them.
Now that is one that needs throwing out of the budget.

 

[Knobby22]

noco can tell us why it is good.

 

[CanOz]

The guys in NZ got thier stuff together....

New Zealand forecasts 2014-15 surplus in budget that bears striking difference to Australia's

It is hard to imagine the contained New Zealand finance minister bopping in his office ahead of delivering the nation's budget, as Joe Hockey apparently did.

But the Australian Treasurer's dance song Best Day of My Life would have been more appropriate for his New Zealand counterpart Bill English, who has served up one of the rarest of economic dishes: a forecast budget surplus of $NZ372 million ($340 million) in 2014-15, after a $NZ2.4 billion ($2.2 billion) deficit this financial year.

Also on the menu were election year sweeteners including extended parental leave, and free doctor's visits and prescriptions for children up to 13 years old.

By contrast, Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey delivered a hard-to-swallow $50 billion deficit accompanied by a collection of bitter pills, among them, co-payments for GP visits and cuts to welfare, family benefits and the public service.

"I don't think it's a tale of two different economies, I think it's a tale of two different policy choices," PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) New Zealand partner and corporate tax leader Geof Nightingale said.

"The fundamentals of each country are quite similar. Australia's forecasting economic growth of 2.5 to 3 per cent. New Zealand is much the same.

"Australia is forecasting to get unemployment down to about 4 per cent, New Zealand's much the same.

"I think the difference really is that Australia's policy pain has come last Tuesday night. Ours came a few years ago and we're enjoying a modest relief from budget pain."

Mr Nightingale says Australian politicians have ridden the mineral boom and failed to address the country's deficits.

"What's happened is corporate tax revenue has fallen off but structural spending has increased and so the deficit got wider," he said.

"I think Joe Hockey's budget on Tuesday night was the first step in trying to bring it back into balance."

New Zealand prime minister John Key says his government has kept spending at about the same levels for five or six years as the country claws its way back from the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes.

The partial sale of state-owned energy assets and high global prices for New Zealand's dairy exports have helped bring the budget back into the black.

"We'll be racking up $NZ7.5 billion worth of surpluses in the next three or four years; Australia will have amassed about $100 billion in debt," Mr Key said.

Mr Key says the Australian economy is still reasonably robust and is not in crisis, but he warns the economy could face a crisis of confidence.

 

[bigdog]

Did you know that the medicare levy is increasing from 1.5% to 2.0% on July 1 2014?

This is a 33% increase in the levy.

Labour introduced the increased levy in 2013.
From July next year, the levy will rise by 0.5 percentage points to 2 per cent, which is expected to raise $11 billion for the scheme over four years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-15/medicare-levy-increase-passes-lower-house/4692240
Legislation to increase the Medicare levy to help fund DisabilityCare has passed the Lower House of Federal Parliament.

From July next year, the levy will rise by 0.5 percentage points to 2 per cent, which is expected to raise $11 billion for the scheme over four years.

The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives this morning and has passed with bipartisan support.

It will now be considered by the Senate.

Opposition families spokesman Kevin Andrews has told Parliament the Coalition is hoping it will not be a permanent measure.

"Although this legislation will pass with our support, we view the levy increase as only a temporary measure until the budget has been repaired and is in a strong surplus," he said.

 

[qldfrog]

yes I know->so that + extra levy: +2.5% on the "rich":
which seems to be defined as "every one who has more $ than I and so should be taxed to death".
And this is a liberal government...
Now making sure I do not belong to these nasty people who dare to work hard to be successfull;
Europe descent to the bottom all over again.
So much angst....

 

[Wysiwyg]

Did you know that the medicare levy is increasing from 1.5% to 2.0% on July 1 2014?

I choose not private health so I pay a 1% Medicare Levy Surcharge in addition to the Medicare Levy of 1.5%. So with this new charge I will pay 3% of my taxable income which effectively lessens any tax refund for over payment of tax. I will be claiming all my entitlements to the maximum from now on. Stuff this system, you do the right thing and make your own way in life and they hit you wherever they can regardless. I would not spend more than $250 on health care per year, maybe a visit for a cold or cautery for a sunspot.

"Although this legislation will pass with our support, we view the levy increase as only a temporary measure until the budget has been repaired and is in a strong surplus," he said.

Thankfully!

 

[sptrawler]

Now for my pet hate the media.

Apparently the treasurer was on t.v last night answering questions about the budget, all I've heard all day is that the $7 medicare levy is a tax apparently.

Is that all that came out of an hour interview, my god, no wonder chanell 10 is going 'guts up', that's all they repeated on the news.

Unfortunately I was a captive audience in a doctors surgery.
Then I pick up the west newspaper, same crap.OMG

 

[sptrawler]

Now for my pet hate the media.

Apparently the treasurer was on t.v last night answering questions about the budget, all I've heard all day is that the $7 medicare levy is a tax apparently.

Is that all that came out of an hour interview, my god, no wonder chanell 10 is going 'guts up', that's all they repeated on the news.

Unfortunately I was a captive audience in a doctors surgery.
Then I pick up the west newspaper, same crap.OMG

IMO here is more crazy reporting, by 'the west'.

Barnett decided against wasting taxpayers money, by not going to Newmans call to arms.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/23665171/barnett-defends-missing-meeting/

Why should he have to defend his decision, just because the leader of the opposition said he should have gone?

If he had gone, no doubt McGowan would be complaining it was a waste of taxpayers money and the 'west' would talk that up.

The media has gone mad.IMO

Just heard on the channel 10 evening news that Hockey said the preservation age is going to be lifted. Has anyone got a link or is it just more media B.S talk up.

 

[Julia]

Just heard on the channel 10 evening news that Hockey said the preservation age is going to be lifted. Has anyone got a link or is it just more media B.S talk up.

Probably referring to his comment on Q and A last night where - in answer to persistent repetition of the question from Tony Jones, Mr Hockey agreed and he and Mr Abbott 'had in mind' that further consideration would need to be given to a discussion with all stake holders about the best way to manage the future of Super.

But no doubt the irresponsible media will have easily translated that into a fait accompli that Mr Hockey has declared the preservation age will be raised.

Soon all this stuff will settle down, we can go on with our lives, and eventually see what makes it through the Senate. Meantime, the media are revelling in anything that might enhance their presence.

 

[sptrawler]

Probably referring to his comment on Q and A last night where - in answer to persistent repetition of the question from Tony Jones, Mr Hockey agreed and he and Mr Abbott 'had in mind' that further consideration would need to be given to a discussion with all stake holders about the best way to manage the future of Super.

But no doubt the irresponsible media will have easily translated that into a fait accompli that Mr Hockey has declared the preservation age will be raised.

Soon all this stuff will settle down, we can go on with our lives, and eventually see what makes it through the Senate. Meantime, the media are revelling in anything that might enhance their presence.

I read Hockey is going to sue Fairfax, at last something might happen. Probably a storm in a teacup but he might shake them up a bit.