This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Krudd/Swan scraps private health rebate for rich

Jump to new

Bushman

Joined
6 June 2007
Posts
1,314
Reactions
10
Labour's Robin Hood wannabee is continuing his attack on the 'middle class' by scrapping the private health rebate for 'wealthy' Australians. This follows labour stimulus bias to the 'low income earners' who received $900 to spend on VB and ipods whereas the 'rich' got zilch. (....and yes I am bitter as I received zilch).

Good old Labour class warfare hey. Next they will send all those wearing glasses off to the re-education camps.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25446087-601,00.html

This on a day that I read that Krudd threw a hissy fit when over in Iraq because SAS troops could not locate a hair dryer?
 
This will affect even those still receiving the full 30% rebate because many will drop out if not getting the rebate and premiums will go up accordingly.

Not to mention the additional pressure on our already failing public health system.

There's just nothing like a Labor government, huh!
 
So he rips $2b off the sick and sends $20b out to people in the mail so they can buy plasmas.

He should have left medical alone and included dental in the mix, thats badly needed.

I despise Rudd, thats all I can say without losing it.
 
What gets me is that "rich" are defined as "high income earners". Don't tell me that a couple with children, maybe a HECS debt, paying off a mortgage, and working their guts out to jointly earn $150K a year are rich. Assets (unencumbered) make you rich, and there are really only a few ways to get those assets:

Inherit them
Win Lotto
Work like hell to earn them

Looks like the third option is going to be closed off for most, wait for the first two to come under the tax microscope.

Cheers, badger
 
I agree that Rudd needs to get rid of middle/upper class welfare.

If you are rich, then you will pay for your private health anyway - to get the superior service.

If you are not, then a 30% rebate may entice you to scrounge so that you can pay for private health - and then are not reliant on the public system. This reduces the cost of public health system.

However, because our hospitals are in Shi* condition - the $2 billion saved should be paid directly to public hospitals each and every year to reduce waiting times and improve the terrible conditions in hospitals.

Instead, it will be used to pay 30% of the interest on our soon to be $200billion debt.

Krudd should be taking over public hospitals anyway. Perhaps, this is a move towards that at the next election??
 

That's it -who are these 'rich' they are talking about? $150k is not 'rich'?
 
So it's becoming clearer and clearer by the day, Steven Price wasn't lying when Garrett informed him at the airport before Labour won the election that if they win, "me too" Rudd would be changing everything...

Yesterday it was super, today it's private health insurance, tomorrow childcare rebates...

W@nkers like Rudd and journo's like David Marr believe it is the middle-class who have had it too easy for too long and point at Howard initiatives like the baby bonus as an example of a middle-class free ride...last time I checked it wasn't just the middle-class who under a coalition government received this benefit...nope, by all means Shazza opening her legs after a bender at the local was entitled to it too...under the ALP it's only Shazza and her mates...

It will be the middle-class not the rich that suffer...the rich are already looking at -ve gearing to get around the cuts to super. Re: health-care they'll just reduce their salaries, and get paid in options etc. How can a couple earning $75K each ($150K in total) get ahead under Rudd's changes? While being demonised for apparently being 'well off'?

The ALP have never been good to the middle-class...ever and I'd love to hear what all those posters who declared (before the last election) that Rudd should be given a go think now?...can't help but laugh to myself seeing the similar types at my work turn around and curse him. What's that saying? 'careful what you wish for...'cause you might just get it'.

I'm going to get myself a bottle of French champagne - Bollinger, soon before Rudd imposes heavy taxes on it, and hopefully drink to an ALP defeat at the next elections. Sure, as if the coalition will be able to make changes over night...but anything will be better than seeing Rudd/Swan and their smirk mugs at the dispatch box in the lower house...
 


I would agreewith your sentiments, even though I am not middle class.

The middleclasses are the backbone of our society financially and need to be supported.

Swan is a dill and will bash them.

HE won't affect the rich or poor but the middle guys and gals will suffer

gg
 

Julia

A bit of a furphy from the health insurance industry about people dropping out. The story refers to rebates ceasing at $240k. At this level the new improved medicare surcharge of 1.5% for those without insurance will be $3,600 a year, which is about what my fully optioned family private health insurance premium is. Would I drop my health insurance to save $3,600, but then get slugged with the same amount of tax. No because we get optical, dental etc and have used the obstetrics for three kids, though last one will be out of the way soon. Also useful for the knees when I start getting old.

The challenge for KRudd is that he is using the $150k cut off for so many things - health insurance, school equipment rebates, baby bonus, family tax benefit b, child care benefit (?) that anyone earning close to that amount will have no incentive to earn the next $10 or $20k.
 
Bushman said:
That's it -who are these 'rich' they are talking about? $150k is not 'rich'?
Click to expand...

Two people on $75 k each is $2,200 cash in hand in total per week according to the ATO calculator.

A $320,000 home loan requires a payment of $400 a week , leaving $1,800 for food, car, overseas travel caviar, champagne etc.

How can anyone who has disposable income of $1,800 a week after paying the mortgage not be considered to be rich, in comparison to the vast majority of the population.
 
A $320,000 home loan requires a payment of $400 a week , leaving $1,800 for food, car, overseas travel caviar, champagne etc.
Click to expand...

Yet you omit the payment of utilities – water, electricity, and gas are all going up, school clothing, books, fees, etc – which these ‘rich’ $150K couples can’t claim. I’d like to see how many of these middle-class (we’re excluding the upper middle-class from this) can live comfortably week in/week out on caviar and champagne, and luxurious os holidays...

Anyway gooner, you’re missing the point – why are the dregs of our society worthy of getting everything on a plate, while the rest of us work for what we have and any tax advantage we might have enjoyed, taken away because we’re supposedly ‘well off’. As per your example, the middle-class have a mortgage to pay off of $320K, while the dregs pay a few dollars to live in housing commission. Their adult children don’t go and work since it would mean a slight increase in rent so their scum offspring end up on the dole, bored at home and terrorising neighbourhoods…gee sounds too good to be true…no wonder ‘supposed’ asylum seekers are risking life and limb for this kind of life.

As GG put it – the middle-class are the backbone of our society. Why you yourself have mentioned that there will be no incentive to earn more since more cash will mean more tax disadvantages…what then for our backbone, engine room workers who are the life support of the dole bludging welfare rorting scum?

Sometimes I can’t help but laugh at the double standards of our country…we are told that we need to be educated and study hard and get a good job, then when one sacrifices and puts their head down to achieve something, ends up with a good job and a HECS debt to boot they’re labelled as ‘well off’ and social democrat governments do all they can to rip their guts open and give to those who have no interest in working. Sad state of affairs.

Re: Marr…I made the stupid mistake of d/ling qanda when he was on it a fortnight ago and listening to it while drifting to sleep…unfortunately, his comments had me wide awake hurling insults at the notebook…took forever to finally get some kip ;-)
 

According to the ABS (2006) figures, 6% of families have gross income over $150,000 (about 3 times median), so I think it is fair to say that we are talking about the top echelons of Australian society who will be impacted by these change rather than average middle class families, who would be in the $50,000-$150,000 income range. Should the top 6% of income earners get welfare - probably not. I suspect that the family income of most ASF posters is above average and so it is easy to forget that half of Australian families get by on less than $50.000 a year.

As for your comments about "the dregs of our society worthy of getting everything on a plate", this would appear to be unrelated to whether rich families should get welfare payments. Many families who live in housing commission houses are genuinely poor or suffer from mental or physical disabilities. Not everyone can work for Macquarie Bank or be a lawyer - even if they studies hard, many people do not have the intelligence. If you look up centrelink payments, you will see that they are not exactly living on the hog - $400 a week for a couple on the dole is a long way from the $2,200 of our couple earning $150,000 a year.
 
have been over the threshold for many years and never bothered with private halth cover. Been happy to pay the 1% on tax... Why should I subsidise those who are sick or want a massge or new jogging shoes?

I've yet to find a private health cover that does not include ridiculous massages and the like. I'll continue to pay my 1% mediacare and go offshore for my health care.



cheers,
 
Stan 101 said:
Why should I subsidise those who are sick or want a massge or new jogging shoes?
Click to expand...

well you already are if you pay the 1% extra in tax.


I have no problem removing the rebate, if the corresponding 1% tax is removed, so that we have a choice.
 
Soft Dough said:
well you already are if you pay the 1% extra in tax.


I have no problem removing the rebate, if the corresponding 1% tax is removed, so that we have a choice.
Click to expand...

Soft dough - sorry mate, that's going to 1.5%, so you are better off getting insurance. There are some really cheap deals around so you can avoid the surcharge - hospital only, but $500 a year (I think, don't hang me on the number)
 
gooner said:
Soft dough - sorry mate, that's going to 1.5%, so you are better off getting insurance. There are some really cheap deals around so you can avoid the surcharge - hospital only, but $500 a year (I think, don't hang me on the number)
Click to expand...

it is going UP?
 

I d/led a great e-book I haven’t had the chance to read yet…titled how to use stats to distort the truth. Those ABS stats for staters are more than 3 years old and no way reflect the boom in jobs and salaries that occurred after 2006. Anyone that was looking for an ‘office’ job between 2006-2008 would have been looking at a starting range of $75K for accounting, finance or IT. Chuck in a spouse, and sorry $150K is not the top echelon of society. There is a big difference between office admin at $75K and company director at $250-300K.

Should the top 6% of income earners get welfare - probably not. I suspect that the family income of most ASF posters is above average and so it is easy to forget that half of Australian families get by on less than $50.000 a year.
Click to expand...

According to you, a family earning a combined salary of $150K aren’t deserving of any tax benefits while one earning $149.9K is…

As for your comments about "the dregs of our society worthy of getting everything on a plate", this would appear to be unrelated to whether rich families should get welfare payments.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it is..for it’s the ‘well off’ who contribute to society in the form of taxes, for it is the ‘well off’ who get up every morning and work for a living or employ those who need to eat. It seems to me you have no problem with welfare going to those who couldn’t be bothered contributing ‘cept complaining how poor they are while rorting the system for even more….and of course ALP governments who rely on their blind allegiance and only too happy to 'accommodate'...pardon the pun ;-)

Many families who live in housing commission houses are genuinely poor or suffer from mental or physical disabilities.
Click to expand...

And you know this for a fact do you? Please show me some more ‘distorted’ facts you found on the net. I for one made a mistake once of buying near a housing commission estate and saw first hand what I described above. The clever ones drive beemers and have cable dishes on their roofs. I recall a conversation with an old acquaintance who works for NSW Department of Housing telling me a of a lady ringing up complaining she didn’t have water views from her housing estate in North Sydney….tell me, how hard is it to secure housing commission in the city of Sydney, especially near the bridge. For those whose families have lived their since their inception…why not hard at all since it's passed on!

Let’s not forget the Dept of Housing officer taking bribes from ‘scum’ to move up the queue for ‘affordable' housing.

As for physical disabilities… the irony was the neighbours next door to me who also made the mistake of buying near a housing commission estate consisted of a brother and sister paying off a mortgage. Her brother was deaf and dumb…


Too true…why we had sparkies and truckies using initiative earning $100K during the mining boom…good on ‘em. Maybe you don’t think of them as intelligent, but I do, there are those intelligent enough who work with their hands…we even have those intelligent sparkies who sell their allotment to Macarthur Coal and now live the good life…who said you had to go to uni to make a mint…

If you look up centrelink payments, you will see that they are not exactly living on the hog - $400 a week for a couple on the dole is a long way from the $2,200 of our couple earning $150,000 a year.
Click to expand...

Again, is this from personal experience? See during the recession we had to have I spent nearly a year on the dole looking for a job straight out of uni…I got $210 a fortnight, did me okay…just like $400 a week for a bunch of low-life's not wanting to work who aren’t interested in material possessions, as long as they have enough for grog, fags, and the pokies…they're stoked!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...