The Abbott Government

sptrawler said:

Well it's do remember, the last Government having something to say, about a certain rich large lady and a certain rich large man.
Funnily enough they are now trying to climb in bed with the large man,lol

Click to expand...

Yes, and the large man is attacking his own class !!!

Have we slipped into a parallel universe perhaps ?

Sorry about the spelling, it was meant to read I not it's, was side tracked.

SirRumpole said:

Yes, and the large man is attacking his own class !!!

Have we slipped into a parallel universe perhaps ?

Click to expand...

Also backflipping on the hecs issue, maybe Shorten has offered him a deal, which would be true to form.

Knobby22 said:

The Australian - hardly the Government's harshest critic - estimates the overall spending for 2013-2014, a fiscal year in which the Coalition has been at the helm for nine of the 12 months, at around $410 billion - an increase of nearly $50 billion over the previous, supposedly profligate, year of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. And why not? Revenue collected by Tony ("our taxes will always be lower") Abbott will rise from 23 to nearly 25 per cent of GDP.

Click to expand...

Are you making allowances for the spending commitments the government inherited from Labor? I don't want to place all the blame on Labor because Mr Abbott did commit to the NDIS and Gonski during the election campaign and thus has to take some responsibility for this.
The point of the Budget, as I understand it from the government, is that it's directed toward coping with not the present time so much as the projected spending in years to come when the factors I outlined earlier will come into play.

For instance, my parents ran a business for years and then went bankrupt unfortunately near retirement. They did manage to start again and saved some money but need the pension to survive, at a pretty average standard. now the government is effectively reducing the pension over time.

They worked in the period where there was no super except near the end of their working lives.

Click to expand...

This is something that is repeated often. I don't understand why it needs to take compulsory super for people to adopt the initiative that they will need to save for their own retirement. Nothing personal directed toward your parents, Knobby. Just puzzlement at the general principle that people apparently don't do the simple calculation of working out what they will need in retirement plus give some thought to how much any of us can depend on any government to look after us for ever.

Now they are not going to get discounts on their electricity, gas, water etc. They will be in big trouble.

Click to expand...

I might be quite wrong, but I have the impression those on pensions will continue to receive these concessions. It's people who depend on the Seniors' Card and perhaps the CSHC who might lose these if the States and the Feds cannot sort out their differences.

Again, best not to assume these concessions will always be available. Weren't most of them offered when we were running decent surpluses? I'm not sure about this. But it's a bit like the tax cuts that John Howard gave out when instead he could have avoided adding to the culture of entitlement and put those funds into an additional fund for the future.

Another family member is the opposite. Earns $700,000 a year, negative gears the income and gets a sports car subsidised by taxpayers every two years. Nice guy and he is renting out a place cheap for my parents. The point is that he is hardly touched, while the poor are hit badly.

BTW, he is happy as the company tax rate got lowered by 1.5% further increasing his income.

Click to expand...

There's no doubt that the affluent will feel less affected than those on low incomes. That's simply always the case. The more money we have the more choices we have.
However, we can't depend on governments to look after us under all circumstances and to make up for decisions we've made which have reduced our financial position.
It's a whole other subject to consider why some people will always be poor and others always find a way to achieve financial independence.

This budget is not about paying back the debt. It is about changing Australia to be less equitable.

Click to expand...

Do you believe there is no real problem and we can continue on our present trajectory? If not, what changes would you like to see made as an alternative to what is suggested in the budget?

Thanks Julia.

So much sense after the preceding anti-Abbott verbiage.

gg

Speaking of unsustainable spending,

* who introduced Family Benefit payments ?

* how was it funded ?

Garpal Gumnut said:

Thanks Julia.

So much sense after the preceding anti-Abbott verbiage.

gg

Click to expand...

Paul Sheehan hit the nail on the head when he made comparisons between the two major political leaders.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../you_wanted_courageous_leadership_you_got_it/

noco said:

Alan Jones hit the nail on the head when he made comparisons between the two major political leaders.

Paul Sheehan hit the nail on the head when he made comparisons between the two major political leaders.

Click to expand...

No doubt they both drink in the same inner city Sydney pub.

Abbott wants to scrap the carbon tax and save a working family $550 per year.

Why are the nay sayers reluctant to talk about this?

All they want to talk about are negative aspects of the budget

noco said:

Abbott wants to scrap the carbon tax and save a working family $550 per year.

Click to expand...

And cost them $2,000 + in lost benefits and fuel excise increase.

Julia said:

Are you making allowances for the spending commitments the government inherited from Labor? I don't want to place all the blame on Labor because Mr Abbott did commit to the NDIS and Gonski during the election campaign and thus has to take some responsibility for this.
The point of the Budget, as I understand it from the government, is that it's directed toward coping with not the present time so much as the projected spending in years to come when the factors I outlined earlier will come into play.


This is something that is repeated often. I don't understand why it needs to take compulsory super for people to adopt the initiative that they will need to save for their own retirement. Nothing personal directed toward your parents, Knobby. Just puzzlement at the general principle that people apparently don't do the simple calculation of working out what they will need in retirement plus give some thought to how much any of us can depend on any government to look after us for ever.


I might be quite wrong, but I have the impression those on pensions will continue to receive these concessions. It's people who depend on the Seniors' Card and perhaps the CSHC who might lose these if the States and the Feds cannot sort out their differences.

Again, best not to assume these concessions will always be available. Weren't most of them offered when we were running decent surpluses? I'm not sure about this. But it's a bit like the tax cuts that John Howard gave out when instead he could have avoided adding to the culture of entitlement and put those funds into an additional fund for the future.


There's no doubt that the affluent will feel less affected than those on low incomes. That's simply always the case. The more money we have the more choices we have.
However, we can't depend on governments to look after us under all circumstances and to make up for decisions we've made which have reduced our financial position.
It's a whole other subject to consider why some people will always be poor and others always find a way to achieve financial independence.


Do you believe there is no real problem and we can continue on our present trajectory? If not, what changes would you like to see made as an alternative to what is suggested in the budget?

Click to expand...

My parents didn't plan to go bankrupt. They got caught out in the "recession we had to have" exacerbated by Keating. They employed people and were a classic small business. They had built up property and had stupidly agreed to put up the family home to the banks.They went from wealthy to paupers in an amazingly short time.

They managed to save a bit of super and have recovered somewhat when they bought a small house which went up in price which they have since sold. Luckily they have the family to look after them, other pensioners will not be so lucky

Has our Govt spending as a % of GDP gone up over the last 30 years? No not much. Has our tax take as a % of GDP gone down? Yes. it is poor management by Labor and Liberal. I criticised Labor only a week ago as a high spending low taxing government that couldn't work out why they had run up a deficit.

Howard was lauded when he first came in and cleared the decks. He made many important changes and actually got a boost in the polls. The reason is simple: the changes were perceived as fair, everyone was taking their share and it was perceived that the changes would be good for the country.

The changes being made now are unfair: they disproportionately hit the poor and give advantage to the rich. The public know this and the polls reflect this. 53% of people say this budget is "bad for Australia", with Howard it was the other way 61% approved.

From the Grattan Institute "Budget modelling based on 45,000 families backed by the Bureau of Statistics showed the burden of this budget would fall "almost entirely" on the low end of the national income distribution. Typically a low income family will be worse off by $4,000 a year".

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...diculed-over-bad-policies-20140519-38k7y.html This link also shows some other fallacies of the budget as pointed out by economists.

Do you believe that once the budget is balanced again that what was taken away will be restored? Of course not.
It is social engineering.

So given the above facts what would a sensible leader, e.g. like John Howard do?
1. Raise the marginal tax rates by a small amount. This would easily cover the savings made by the other budget measures.
2. One of the largest drains on the budget (this is true) is superannuation tax breaks to the wealthy. They could limit the 15% annual tax break to say $200,000 a year where it changes to 30% and save quite a large amount.
3. Make cuts equitably e.g. why do private schools not get a cut? Why do companies get a tax break?
4. Make some of the other changes that are reasonable that have been proposed.
5. Continue changes to Superannuation so people can be expected to have enough to retire on in the future, reducing pension reliance. this means helping the lower paid build up their super, through good policy.
My parents are in their 80s. They won't be a drain on taxpayers forever. Don't hit the pensioners that grew up in the Depression.

I just believe in the Australian way of everyone getting a fair go. I believe that if you get the marks you should be able to go to Melbourne/Sydney University and not be scared off by $30,000 a year fees which frankly I can't afford and expect to save enough to retire but am in a better position than many others. I believe that we should have a safety net. Sure, it's got problems that need fixing but it should still exist.

Basically, share the pain equitably. I do think the Australian public won't put with this budget and the Liberals will have to change it. it is unfortunate that it is not being argued in all facets of the press. Did you watch media Watch last night? Very illuminating.

SirRumpole said:

Speaking of unsustainable spending,

* who introduced Family Benefit payments ?

* how was it funded ?

Click to expand...

Howard introduced it and it was obviously funded as the ran a surplus. Your point is?

While we are on twenty question.

* Who brought in the repugnant fuel excise tax complete with indexing? That everyone is ranting about.

Thanks for your further thoughts, Knobby.
Agree that it's the minimal effect on the well off compared with the significant effect on the poor that is the Budget's most unacceptable aspect.

I don't think anyone should worry about too much at this stage because what gets through the Senate, even the new one, will not be what was announced last week.

On this:

Why do companies get a tax break?

Click to expand...

To encourage companies, especially small businesses, to expand/invest/take on more staff.
Company tax rate in Australia is much higher than in many similar countries.

And btw, much of the fear is based on inaccurate speculation:

Now they are not going to get discounts on their electricity, gas, water etc. They will be in big trouble.

Click to expand...

As I suggested last night pensioners will not be losing any discounts. Joe Hockey confirmed this on Q & A last night.
Just one more thought: if a pensioner couple were to be 'in big trouble' how do so many single pensioners seem to manage as well as they do? They have the same rates, insurance, electricity etc as two people.

Knobby22 said:

My parents didn't plan to go bankrupt. They got caught out in the "recession we had to have" exacerbated by Keating. They employed people and were a classic small business. They had built up property and had stupidly agreed to put up the family home to the banks.They went from wealthy to paupers in an amazingly short time.

They managed to save a bit of super and have recovered somewhat when they bought a small house which went up in price which they have since sold. Luckily they have the family to look after them, other pensioners will not be so lucky
.

Click to expand...

It is a common story Knobby, my mother had to sell her home and is renting off a family member, this freed up some cash for holidays etc.

Apparently 80% of people over 65 are on the pension, the number is going to balloon over the next 20 years.

I suppose there will be on going changes as the juggling of spending and taxing is re adjusted.
I'm guessing they are $hit scared to hit companies any harder at the moment, we are tetering on an implosion as it is.
I know over here in W.A jobs are being shed at a hell of a rate, shopping centres are full of empty shops. A mate of mine runs a small mechanical business, he used to employ 4 people, they're gone and the tax department has told him not to bother with a PAYG payment untill further notice.
Forge the other week laid of 1500 and went belly up, Bradken are laying off 500. I don't think ramping up the tax on them is the answer in the current climate.
Pensioners aren't the only problem, full time jobs are on the decline, which adds to the loss of tax credits.

As for saying the benefits won't come back when things improve, that seems a bit of a strange call. Are you saying that all the concessions have been there since the introduction of welfare?
I think you will find that the social welfare system is tweeked constantly, as the fiscal situation allows.
Whether this Government does a good fist of it, time will tell and they will be judged by the electorate. At the moment there is a hysterical frenzy going on, exacerbated by a useless media.IMO
But the issues will remain, they won't go away and they will be addressed no matter who is in office.
Shorten can rant on at Abbott lying, but he knows the issues, a falling comodity price and a stagnant secondry industry sector.
The only growing part of our economy is housing, and that's causing its own set of issues.
One hopes the tax 'white paper' comes up with a way of adjusting the tax base, without causing a recession.

sptrawler said:

Howard introduced it and it was obviously funded as the ran a surplus. Your point is?

Click to expand...

My point is that the Coalition go on about "Labor's" unsustainable spending and 'entitlement', but they introduced the entitlement of Family payments, baby bonus and PPL.

While we are on twenty question.

* Who brought in the repugnant fuel excise tax complete with indexing? That everyone is ranting about.

Click to expand...

Malcolm Fraser I believe.

SirRumpole said:

And cost them $2,000 + in lost benefits and fuel excise increase.

Click to expand...

Some details please or are you talking through hat again.

noco said:

Some details please or are you talking through hat again.

Click to expand...

As you appear to be too lazy to do your own research, I'll do it for you this time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-19/sharing-of-budget-pain-not-fair-natsem-modelling-says/5463008

SirRumpole said:

My point is that the Coalition go on about "Labor's" unsustainable spending and 'entitlement', but they introduced the entitlement of Family payments, baby bonus and PPL.




Malcolm Fraser I believe.

Click to expand...

Hawke/ Keating in 1983.

Good old Malcolm, now there is a PM I never liked, brought in import parity pricing.
To bring the price of local oil in line with imported oil.

So there you go, you go on about the Libs, they bring in a welfare payment. You talk up Labor and they brought in the fuel excise with indexing.
Howard stopped the indexing, to help the poor, talk about ironic.

sptrawler said:

Hawke/ Keating in 1983.

You talk up Labor and they brought in the fuel excise with indexing.

Click to expand...

"Tax on fuel in Australia was first introduced in the early 1900s as customs and excise duties3 on transport fuels, such as petrol and diesel, to fund the development and maintenance of Australia's road network.4 The link between fuel taxes and road funding was reinforced by the provision of exemptions (and later rebates) of fuel tax for off-road users of diesel from the late 1950s, and by concessional rates of excise where fuel is used other than as a transport fuel."

Click to expand...

Fuel excise has been around longer than you think

http://fueltaxinquiry.treasury.gov.au/content/backgnd/002.asp

SirRumpole said:

Fuel excise has been around longer than you think

http://fueltaxinquiry.treasury.gov.au/content/backgnd/002.asp

Click to expand...

Nice try at a deflection, the debate is about the excise tax in its current form.

Good Labor ploy, avoid the issue.lol and throw crap before cleaning up their own back yard.