The Abbott Government

[Julia]

Why make the sick and elderly pay increased costs for health when by increasing the Medicare levy, everyone contributes to the health system ?

As trainspotter has observed, $7 to visit the doctor is not unreasonable, especially when it's capped at ten visits which includes GP consultations and any supplementary items like pathology or XRays. That's just $70 per year. I do not believe people cannot afford that.

As usual there is much emoting of how cruel and unkind this is with such ridiculous statements as "many people need to visit their doctor five times a week (really???) and in no time at all they will be spending half of their total benefit. What utter rubbish.

For mine it boggles my mind how this government can make the youth wait 6 months to receive any welfare (which they're upping to 25 to receive the dole, until then they will recieve the lesser payment of newstart)

Newstart is just the formal name for the dole: same thing.

 

[overhang]

So therefore now they find themselves in office, they should do nothing, rather than hurt your feelings. Priceless

I didn't realise your feelings were so important in the scheme of things. How many times in your life have you made a commitment that due to changed circumstances you couldn't keep.
I do agree that politicians make stupid promises, its has always happened, and the politicians are judged at the election as to whether it was worth it.
Gillard was judged harshly because the electorate couldn't reconcile the broken promise, with the percieved gains.
Abbott will be judged likewise.

Play the ball not the man! You have completely over exaggerated my point.

There's an important difference. Like Peter Costello's first budget, this effort relates to fixing the fiscal imbalance. The carbon tax did not.

Also, by making the more politically difficult decisions now, this government is not setting itself up for ever increasing reactionary responses like the Gillard government did as the budget situation worsened.

In other words, it's better politically to take the greater corrective action in the first budget than have fiscal policy look like a rudderless (no pun intended) ship for an entire term.

I do agree somewhat that this is a somewhat tactical move to ease the burden early on rather than breaking commitments in the 2nd or 3rd year closer to the election and a smart move on that front. In 3 years time we might find out if these broken promises come back to bite.

 

[overhang]

Newstart is just the formal name for the dole: same thing.

My mistake I meant youth allowance.

 

[sptrawler]

Play the ball not the man! You have completely over exaggerated my point.

.

I don't feel that is fair, you made a personal take on the fact promises were broken.
I responded by agreeing and pointing out promises are broken every election.
Then I went on to say politicians are judged by their broken promises, as will Abbott.

Maybe you are being a bit sensitive? I percieved your point of a broken promise as being over exaggerated.

My appologies if offence was taken.

 

[overhang]

I don't feel that is fair, you made a personal take on the fact promises were broken.
I responded by agreeing and pointing out promises are broken every election.
Then I went on to say politicians are judged by their broken promises, as will Abbott.

Maybe you are being a bit sensitive? I percieved your point of a broken promise as being over exaggerated.

My appologies if offence was taken.

I raise several points and you have the nerve to carry on about my hurt feelings over the broken promise point, the press have covered the broken promises too so I'm not the only one who finds this government a bit hypocritical on this point but to carry on about my hurt feelings is just plain condescending. Drsmith had a sensible reply.

 

[sptrawler]

I raise several points and you have the nerve to carry on about my hurt feelings over the broken promise point, the press have covered the broken promises too so I'm not the only one who finds this government a bit hypocritical on this point but to carry on about my hurt feelings is just plain condescending. Drsmith had a sensible reply.

If you read back through the threads, you will find that I have an immense dislike of the press and their childlike infatuation with nonsensical emotive issues, to ramp up circulation.
Drsmith probably has more patience than me.
I applogised if you took offence

As for your other points I didn't have a problem with them, sounded fair and reasonable.

 

[banco]

There's an important difference. Like Peter Costello's first budget, this effort relates to fixing the fiscal imbalance. The carbon tax did not.

Also, by making the more politically difficult decisions now, this government is not setting itself up for ever increasing reactionary responses like the Gillard government did as the budget situation worsened.

In other words, it's better politically to take the greater corrective action in the first budget than have fiscal policy look like a rudderless (no pun intended) ship for an entire term.

The important difference for you is that it's a liberal prime minister rather than a labor prime minister who is breaking promises. All the rest is post hoc rationalisation.

 

[sptrawler]

YEH, at last.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...-budget-measures/story-fnii5yv7-1226918057038

Let's go to an election to see if the silent majority want to go back to crisis management.
At least it will stop the ranting by fairfax media, please, please , please bring on an election.

 

[sydboy007]

YEH, at last.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...-budget-measures/story-fnii5yv7-1226918057038

Let's go to an election to see if the silent majority want to go back to crisis management.
At least it will stop the ranting by fairfax media, please, please , please bring on an election.

I'd say Abbott would have little to no credibility at another election any time soon.

August 2013

Reporter - The condition of the budget will not be an excuse for breaking promises?
Abbott - Exactly right. We will keep the commitments that we make.

Doesn't really get any clearer than that.

March 2012 - Abbott - No ones personal tax will go up.

Unless Abbott came out and stated categorically he would stand down if he did anything other that what he said during the next election campaign, I think a large section of the community would be very unwilling to trust him again.

Factor in the states turning against him over the $80B in cuts for education and health care, and it would be a very brave unpopular PM to go to the polls.

Rural constituents may turn against the NP members too as Ian Macfarlane promised no cuts to landcare and now $484M is being cut.

While I'm happy to see some middle class welfare pared back, I find it quite abhorrent that so many distorting tax lurks benefiting the rich have been left unscathed. Removal of the halving of CGT - $5B a year, quarantining NG to new assets - starts off in the 10s of millions but over time the savings will compound, killing off the PPL - $5B a year, are better options than setting up the under 30s to destitution.

If they capped pre tax super contributions at 10K per year they could save $6B a year, and removing tax free super for the over 60s is another $3B a year. Both these changes would be very progressive tax changes.

All the above are certainly better options than hacking into the CSIRO again, cutting landcare funding (I view them as the equivalent of lifesavers for the bush).

 

[SirRumpole]

As trainspotter has observed, $7 to visit the doctor is not unreasonable, especially when it's capped at ten visits which includes GP consultations and any supplementary items like pathology or XRays.

I'm not so much concerned about $7 co payment on services as the $5 increase (80c for card holders) increase in medicines. For people who need medicines all the time, this will be a significant impost.

 

[SirRumpole]

Because the carbon tax put another impost on our already strugling small business and manufacturing sector. Our business costs are stupidly high already( wages and taxes), to add further costs on top was just dumb. When you have ground all the employers into the ground what then. Dumb politics.

And what do you think a continually increasing fuel tax will do to business costs ?

It's not just consumers that use fuel. Every business that transports goods does. Inflation will rise , the excise will increase, which contributes to inflation which causes the tax to rise ad infinitum.

I can't see how people who think they are smart can't see that this tax will be worse than the carbon tax. It really is a great big new tax on everything.

Why put a joke tax on high income earners for three years only, and cut family benefits permanently ? Because the rich can afford it and the age of entitlements is over.

You are missing the point. If the rich can afford it they can pay the levy permanently, not just for three years. That's why it's a joke.

 

[noco]

And what do you think a continually increasing fuel tax will do to business costs ?

It's not just consumers that use fuel. Every business that transports goods does. Inflation will rise , the excise will increase, which contributes to inflation which causes the tax to rise ad infinitum.

I can't see how people who think they are smart can't see that this tax will be worse than the carbon tax. It really is a great big new tax on everything.



You are missing the point. If the rich can afford it they can pay the levy permanently, not just for three years. That's why it's a joke.

So what is the alternative Rumpy?.....Go back to the good old days (07/13) of borrowing $100,000,000 a day just to keep everyone happy!!!!!!!!!!!

It will still have to be paid back or do you think money grows on trees?

 

[SirRumpole]

So what is the alternative Rumpy?.....Go back to the good old days (07/13) of borrowing $100,000,000 a day just to keep everyone happy!!!!!!!!!!!

It will still have to be paid back or do you think money grows on trees?

If you read some of my previous posts, you will see I have given alternatives.

 

[orr]

Dominance Submission and deceit are the default psychological bedrock of infused tory dogma. The image from National Lampoons 'Animal House' ... 'yes Sir may I have another....whack' If someone can put forward a more fitting metaphor for the Budget we have to have, please do. Here we all are buck naked in submission for our confected sins with our self imposed authoritarian overlords administering our just deserved and wantingly recieved penance... Reading the posters to this thread it's easy to descern those who most joyfully await the next.... 'WHACK'

 

[drsmith]

The important difference for you is that it's a liberal prime minister rather than a labor prime minister who is breaking promises. All the rest is post hoc rationalisation.

It's not about me and political history speaks for itself.

Go back to the first budget under the Howard Government and consider how long that government was ultimately in office. Then consider how that compared to the fiscal management strategies of the Gillard government.

 

[boofhead]

As trainspotter has observed, $7 to visit the doctor is not unreasonable, especially when it's capped at ten visits which includes GP consultations and any supplementary items like pathology or XRays. That's just $70 per year. I do not believe people cannot afford that.

While $70 over a year seems ok often the events can happen very quickly. Not so long ago I had a health issue that resulted in me visiting a GP, went off to do scans (with imaging specialists) which found something, back to the GP in the same day then referred to another specialist the next business day. The specialist sent me off to do other scans to help determine the issue. Not long later back to the specialist to look over results. In there are blood tests. The specialist had out of pocket expenses. It resulted in an operation which has follow up visits to the specialist and more blood tests. Then referral to other specialists. More imaging and tests. In a 2 month period I would have used up most of the first 10 co-contribution payments + the out of pocket expenses for one of the speialists. It hit hard quickly. I was thankful I'm not in another health system where I would have had a lot more costs.

 

[sptrawler]

And what do you think a continually increasing fuel tax will do to business costs ?

It's not just consumers that use fuel. Every business that transports goods does. Inflation will rise , the excise will increase, which contributes to inflation which causes the tax to rise ad infinitum.

I can't see how people who think they are smart can't see that this tax will be worse than the carbon tax. It really is a great big new tax on everything..

The carbon tax was going on all types of fuel (petrol, diesel,coal and gas included), but it was also on electricity and emmissions from factories as well. Can't see how you can make that last statement

You are missing the point. If the rich can afford it they can pay the levy permanently, not just for three years. That's why it's a joke.

The earners on $180,000 pay $54,000/tax, earners on less than $50,000 apparently pay no effective tax.
Maybe we should go back to the good old days where the top rate is $0.60/ $1.
The other thing to consider is, the levy may indeed be made permanent after the tax white paper.
This budget is mainly focused on reducing Government spending, the assesment of the tax system is yet to happen.

 

[sptrawler]

This sort of nonesense from Truss, won't help their case.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-pm-warren-truss/story-fnihsrf2-1226918078356

As if someone with a relatively modest super balance is going to blow it, to live on the bloody pension.
The same applies for those who have accumulated $millions in super, as if they are going to blow it to get a health care card. What a joke, I bet the tax dept have figures on exactly what is really going on.
Everyone I know on a self funded pension are trying extremely hard to make their money last as long as possible, it gives them options.
Truss should try living on the aged pension, rather than the taxpayer funded one he is going to get.lol

 

[drsmith]

It will be interesting to see what policies on superannuation get taken to the next election.

It's much harder to blow it over a short period if it can't be taken as a lump sum.

 

[sptrawler]

It will be interesting to see what policies on superannuation get taken to the next election.

It's much harder to blow it over a short period if it can't be taken as a lump sum.

As you say doc, it will be interesting.

The outcome of the tax white paper should open a lot discussion, our current tax system is rapidly aproaching its use by date.

Fewer people in work, more people on welfare, isn't a great mix. Some lateral thinking will be required.