- Joined
- 5 August 2004
- Posts
- 1,996
- Reactions
- 0
krisbarry said:Well last year I payed a total of $25,000 back to the ATO and my income was a $20,000. How did I end up paying so much back you ask?
Try....
HECS & Student Supplement Loan
(thought I should pay it off after having this debt for more than 10 years)
I think the tax cuts would have been better of spent on our Universities and Hospitals. Rather than jackin' up the HECS fees 25% and growing the public hospital waiting lists
krisbarry said:You missed the point, I was simply stating that it is possible to pay lots of money back to the ATO and be relatively poor off. AND it is possible to be very wealthy and pay very little back to the ATO (people workin' the tax system in their favour) eg deductions, write-off, black market trade, under the counter wages, tax offsets. etc.
I never said uni should be free, I agree students should pay thier way in life too.
My argument lies with the fact that there was no need to raise HECS fees 25% (More than 5 times the CPI) When the government is sitting on a 9 Billion surplus. On a side note, there was no 25% increase in Austudy payments to offset the increased costs.
My second argument is with the crises faced in our public hospital system. Longer waiting queues, poor instruments/equipment, lack of doctors and nurses. I work in one, so I know full well the filfth that linger within.
tech/a said:Politics!!!!!!!!
Just get down and do it.
Pay the tax or dance with it.
Peoples whinging,wining,postulating and hypothosising wont change a damned thing.
Tax is a cost of Living OR cost of Doing business it is smart to minimise BOTH!
krisbarry said:My second argument is with the crises faced in our public hospital system. Longer waiting queues, poor instruments/equipment, lack of doctors and nurses. I work in one, so I know full well the filfth that linger within.
mime said:Another thing. The federal govt is raising the fees to push people out of overflowing uni's and into TAFE and trades.
The way government wastes money is shocking.
I have first hand experience of a situation where government decided that the latest management fad ought to take precedence over a highly skilled group of tradesmen. That fad was "outsourcing" and the plan was to replace this group of people with contractors. Never mind that the contract (cheapest quote which was totally unsuitable anyway) was THREE TIMES the cost of doing it in house (including the cost of the building they were in etc.).
Ideology must prevail and the skilled people must be lost in favour of a bunch of temporary contractors. Or so the goverment thinks anyway. Thankfully the plan was scrapped when an election was called but other very similar proposals went ahead. Now there are problems because even though the expenditure has been greatly increased since outsourcing of those functions (so we pay MORE after the government sacks its own workers), the public is complaining that the work is not being done. That and the fact that what used to last 10 years is now lucky to last literally 6 months due to the contractors ALWAYS being able to find some new way to cut corners. Of course I don't blame the contractors, their responsibility is to themselves but the bottom line is that outsourcing costs a fortune when government is the customer and we all pay, pay, pay for this nonsense.
And in the process of all this outsourcing we have effectively abandoned the public sector training of skilled trades people which used to occur on a very large scale. Another loss for which we are all now starting to pay.
I have no real objection to paying taxes but I object to handing my money over to the various overcharging / underperforming contractors which the various governments (state and federal) employ to do the actual work for which we are paying. If it's cheaper to employ the people directly, which is often the case when all the costs are included, then that's what should be done. The way for the government to help the private sector is not by directly providing work but rather by getting its own work done cost effectively and using this to reduce taxes.
Rant over.
Interesting to think about those at the bottom. A large percentage are separated women in their mid 50/60s, who after supporting their husbands and raising the children are now alone, broke and sleeping in their cars. If they have one. And the increase in young fellows came after the closing of Tech Schools.
"
The Daily Telegraph and the Murdoch press in Australia are targeting low-income Australians as “bludgers” again - but who are the REAL bludgers?
Let’s look at the facts:
The Newstart allowance is nearly $200 per week below the poverty line.
Over 730,000 children are dependent on welfare payments to their parents/careers.
32% of people receiving Newstart allowance are over 50.
50% of Australians and 70% of households have accessed welfare at some time in the last 15 years.
'Welfare dependants' (people who relied on welfare for most of the last decade) make up 0.3% of welfare recipients.
The portion of Australians on welfare today is the lowest it has been in 20 years.
Out of 30 OECD Countries Australia ranks 25th for welfare spending.
The Newstart allowance has not increased in real terms in over 2 decades. In 1997 MPs salaries were twice the average wage, today they are 3 times the average wage.
MP’s claimed a total of over 8000 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. The minister responsible for welfare at that time, Alan Tudge, claimed the equivalent of 39 years’ worth of Newstart payments.
In 2016 Tony Abbott's expense claims were the equivalent of more than 37 years’ worth of Newstart payments, Peter Dutton's were more than 55 years’ worth, Scott Morrison more than 61 years’ worth and Malcolm Turnbull more than 105 years’ worth!
The biggest claimant for 2016 was Julie Bishop with nearly 113 years’ worth of Newstart payments. Bear in mind, these are expense claims only, they do not include salaries and other allowances.
That year Andrew Robb, the former Trade minister, walked into an $800,000 a year job with a Chinese company for whom he had previously approved a 99-year lease on Darwin Port. Robb claimed 38.5 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. He resigned from Parliament mid-February that year!
According to 2014/15 tax estimates, negative gearing costs more than $3.6 billion a year in lost revenue.
That's about as the same as the government spends on assistance to jobseekers and vocational training, and twice what it spends on assistance to Indigenous Australians.
Federal MPs own 524 properties. Most of them are negatively geared.
It costs the equivalent of 156.75 years’ worth of Newstart payments to maintain a single federal MP for one year.
In 2015/16 our 226 Federal MPs cost us the equivalent of 36,120 people on Newstart.
Also in 2015/16, the estimated cost of tax evasion in Australia was the equivalent of nearly 400,000 years’ worth of Newstart payments.
The fossil fuel industry in Australia receives the equivalent of more than 350,000 years’ worth of Newstart payments in annual subsidies.
In 2015 it was estimated that Rupert Murdoch’s US media holdings had siphoned off more than 321,226 years’ worth of Newstart allowance from his Australian media businesses virtually tax free.
(Thanks to Richard O’Brien for the original post and image - figures are his, unverified)"
#PutLiberalsLast
#DrainTheBillabong
#BringFairnessBack
The Newstart allowance is nearly $200 per week below the poverty line.
Over 730,000 children are dependent on welfare payments to their parents/careers.
32% of people receiving Newstart allowance are over 50.
50% of Australians and 70% of households have accessed welfare at some time in the last 15 years.
'Welfare dependants' (people who relied on welfare for most of the last decade) make up 0.3% of welfare recipients.
The portion of Australians on welfare today is the lowest it has been in 20 years.
Out of 30 OECD Countries Australia ranks 25th for welfare spending.
The Newstart allowance has not increased in real terms in over 2 decades. In 1997 MPs salaries were twice the average wage, today they are 3 times the average wage.
MP’s claimed a total of over 8000 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. The minister responsible for welfare at that time, Alan Tudge, claimed the equivalent of 39 years’ worth of Newstart payments.
In 2016 Tony Abbott's expense claims were the equivalent of more than 37 years’ worth of Newstart payments, Peter Dutton's were more than 55 years’ worth, Scott Morrison more than 61 years’ worth and Malcolm Turnbull more than 105 years’ worth!
The biggest claimant for 2016 was Julie Bishop with nearly 113 years’ worth of Newstart payments. Bear in mind, these are expense claims only, they do not include salaries and other allowances.
That year Andrew Robb, the former Trade minister, walked into an $800,000 a year job with a Chinese company for whom he had previously approved a 99-year lease on Darwin Port. Robb claimed 38.5 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. He resigned from Parliament mid-February that year!
According to 2014/15 tax estimates, negative gearing costs more than $3.6 billion a year in lost revenue.
That's about as the same as the government spends on assistance to jobseekers and vocational training, and twice what it spends on assistance to Indigenous Australians.
Federal MPs own 524 properties. Most of them are negatively geared.
It costs the equivalent of 156.75 years’ worth of Newstart payments to maintain a single federal MP for one year.
In 2015/16 our 226 Federal MPs cost us the equivalent of 36,120 people on Newstart.
Also in 2015/16, the estimated cost of tax evasion in Australia was the equivalent of nearly 400,000 years’ worth of Newstart payments.
The fossil fuel industry in Australia receives the equivalent of more than 350,000 years’ worth of Newstart payments in annual subsidies.
In 2015 it was estimated that Rupert Murdoch’s US media holdings had siphoned off more than 321,226 years’ worth of Newstart allowance from his Australian media businesses virtually tax free.
(Thanks to Richard O’Brien for the original post and image - figures are his, unverified)"
#PutLiberalsLast
#DrainTheBillabong
#BringFairnessBack
The way government wastes money is shocking.
I have first hand experience of a situation where government decided that the latest management fad ought to take precedence over a highly skilled group of tradesmen. That fad was "outsourcing" and the plan was to replace this group of people with contractors. Never mind that the contract (cheapest quote which was totally unsuitable anyway) was THREE TIMES the cost of doing it in house (including the cost of the building they were in etc.).
That's good. Every time we give welfare, it's someone ELSE paying for that person's life. It's an incentive not to take control and solve the issue. Granted, there are times when it's not possible, hence our social safety net. But if this was above the poverty line, there would be no incentive for people to improve their position in life.
John Howard and the Business Council don't agree. They want an increase in NewStart.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...alls-for-a-dole-increase-20180509-p4ze83.html
"50% of Australians and 70% of households have accessed welfare at some time in the last 15 years."
This is disgraceful. How freely do we give access to welfare? This should be a last resort, not something that's available to 70% of households.
"The Newstart allowance is nearly $200 per week below the poverty line."
That's good. Every time we give welfare, it's someone ELSE paying for that person's life. It's an incentive not to take control and solve the issue. Granted, there are times when it's not possible, hence our social safety net. But if this was above the poverty line, there would be no incentive for people to improve their position in life.
"32% of people receiving Newstart allowance are over 50."
I understand some of these have unfortunate events that lead them to this point, but for the most part, if you're 50 with nothing to your name, you don't deserve a large amount of welfare. Sure, we should do all we can to get the person back into productive work, but we shouldn't go out of our way to pay for their lifestyle. A 50 year old should well and truly be in a better place than this.
"MP’s claimed a total of over 8000 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. The minister responsible for welfare at that time, Alan Tudge, claimed the equivalent of 39 years’ worth of Newstart payments.
In 2016 Tony Abbott's expense claims were the equivalent of more than 37 years’ worth of Newstart payments, Peter Dutton's were more than 55 years’ worth, Scott Morrison more than 61 years’ worth and Malcolm Turnbull more than 105 years’ worth!"
While the current state of politics does not impress me, you do realise we hire these people to set the legislation for the country, right? Comparing their income or benefits to those on Newstart is ridiculous. I want to attract the best into politics, not just anyone. If I don't offer these benefits, I won't get the best... (I would argue politicians should be paid more, not less)
"The fossil fuel industry in Australia receives the equivalent of more than 350,000 years’ worth of Newstart payments in annual subsidies."
The fossil fuel industry, as bad as it may potentially be for the environment, provides energy to all Australians. Those on Newstart do nothing (whilst they are on welfare), and are a drain on our country's resources. They may end up in a great, productive job (I'm all for this), but let's not compare Newstart payments to energy providers.
"According to 2014/15 tax estimates, negative gearing costs more than $3.6 billion a year in lost revenue. That's about as the same as the government spends on assistance to jobseekers and vocational training, and twice what it spends on assistance to Indigenous Australians."
Whilst the benefits of negative gearing are debatable (I tend to think it's not practical and makes housing unaffordable), let's not compare those who produce something in the economy, to those who don't.
As it stands, negative gearing is essentially a cost of doing business (the cost of maintaining your investment property) and is offset against the person's income. Much like a business takes out a loan, then claims the interest expense. That's hardly the same as handing out welfare to the minority group that shouts the loudest.
However, I agree that training and assisting jobseekers is paramount.
As for payments to the indigenous, on a per capita basis they already get MORE than everyone else:
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/ind...015/contents/expenditure-workforce-key-points
"On a per person basis, government welfare expenditure was $13,968 per Indigenous Australian, compared with $6,019 per non-Indigenous Australian in 2012–13—this equates to expenditure of $2.32 per Indigenous person for every $1.00 spent per non-Indigenous person."
I think you can agree that spending MORE on aboriginal welfare won't necessarily solve the problem. Not to mention that the system is basically racist, because it intentionally spends more on Indigenous Australians. I'm all for helping people at a basic level (food/shelter), but intentionally targeting a specific race is by definition, racist.
"That year Andrew Robb, the former Trade minister, walked into an $800,000 a year job with a Chinese company for whom he had previously approved a 99-year lease on Darwin Port. Robb claimed 38.5 years’ worth of Newstart allowance in 2016. "
Andrew Robb also served as a Trade minister for the country, and has served in politics for decades. I think he's earned the benefits.
As for the job w/ a Chinese company - if there's anything illegal there, I'm all for making him pay. But innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone.
Let's not compare outcomes, without comparing the behaviors/outputs of each of the parties involved. Otherwise we may as well stop hiding it and just turn to communism.
That's fair enough. He's talking about removing the freeze on Newstart. I don't know the appropriate level for Newstart, but moving above the poverty line is probably a little too far...
It's not meant to be permanent, nor comfortable.
That's fair enough. He's talking about removing the freeze on Newstart. I don't know the appropriate level for Newstart, but moving above the poverty line is probably a little too far...
It's not meant to be permanent, nor comfortable.
John Howard and the Business Council don't agree. They want an increase in NewStart.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...alls-for-a-dole-increase-20180509-p4ze83.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?