The Abbott Government

[Knobby22]

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:

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:

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.

It was Denis Napthine, Liberal premier of Victoria who said that the discounts would be lost under the budget. He was very critical on the TV news.
Either he was misinformed or Hockey has changed this now after being shocked by the voter backlash.

I personally find it hard to see how lowering of company tax rates can be justified at this time.

Single pensioners can have it very bad as we all know.

What did you think about the alternatives proposed?

 

[SirRumpole]

Hawke/ Keating in 1983.


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.

Well, Labor had to fund the Libs reckless 'entitlement' spending didn't they ?

 

[Knobby22]

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.

Thanks sptrawler. Good points. If you haven't enough money to retire on then selling the family home is a good option and I have no problem with that. I know an Italian guy who sold his family home and used the money mainly to visit his home village in Italy then lived in a caravan with his wife till he died a few years later. We live in a freee country and should be able to do what we like.

I disagree on the whether the benefits will come back however. It's usually one way in this period of history.

 

[CanOz]

Well at least at this stage you guys can get your super. Despite living in Australia as a PR for 12 years i cannot get my super unless i retire in Australia, provided they let me immigrate. This should be in the Super thread really...

 

[Julia]

Well at least at this stage you guys can get your super. Despite living in Australia as a PR for 12 years i cannot get my super unless i retire in Australia, provided they let me immigrate.

So what would happen to your Super if you were never to return to Australia?

 

[Calliope]

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.

If your parents are in their 80s I guess you are a baby-boomer and a true product of the Age of Entitlement... and your children more so.

However don't despair. The Age of Entitlement, post-budget, is still alive and kicking.

Contrary to general opinion, the Treasurer’s budget measures on welfare are more about cost-cutting than ending the age of entitlement.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/th...entitlement-20140519-38k0s.html#ixzz32EDmy2wk

 

[craft]

Well at least at this stage you guys can get your super. Despite living in Australia as a PR for 12 years i cannot get my super unless i retire in Australia, provided they let me immigrate. This should be in the Super thread really...

Can – this doesn’t sound quite right.

You don’t have to move back to Australia to get your super – You just have to meet the same conditions of release as if you lived in Australia ie preservation age, permanently retired etc.

You can’t get it early as you once could by moving out of Australia permanently.

 

[CanOz]

So what would happen to your Super if you were never to return to Australia?

I'm not sure Julia, i assume it just falls under 'lost' super and goes where ever that goes. No doubt the government has plans for it already:frown:

 

[CanOz]

Can – this doesn’t sound quite right.

You don’t have to move back to Australia to get your super – You just have to meet the same conditions of release as if you lived in Australia ie preservation age, permanently retired etc.

You can’t get it early as you once could by moving out of Australia permanently.

Well unless its changed recently Craft, that's not the advice that I've been given. In fact, i cannot even self manage it.

I was suspicious of the first advice that i was given so i checked it with my new accountant in QLD and indeed they also confirmed it.

In any case now that I'm married to an Australian citizen it doesn't faze me much, but sometimes plans change...

 

[Julia]

It was Denis Napthine, Liberal premier of Victoria who said that the discounts would be lost under the budget. He was very critical on the TV news.

Are you sure he wasn't referring to the discounts which are available via a Seniors' Card and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card? (Judd first raised this a few days ago). The Seniors Card is State based and apparently funded by the Commonwealth, at least in part.

There has been a proposal by the government to remove one of the concessions currently available on the CSHC, apparently worth about $800 p.a.
The CSHC does not offer any entitlement to discount on Council rates, something that apparently a pension card does to the tune of around 20% off.

I personally find it hard to see how lowering of company tax rates can be justified at this time.

The economy is still soft. Presumably the government are thinking about a slight lowering providing an incentive to invest and increase staff.

What did you think about the alternatives proposed?

I am not an economist. I have no idea of how much money could be saved by any particular measure. However, fwiw:

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.

A raising of the GST might be more simple and more logical, with appropriate compensation for the poor.
I'm against applying the GST to fresh fruit and vegetables, given the rising rate of obesity. We should be providing an incentive to healthy eating imo, not a disincentive.

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.

I'm not sure about too many disincentives to Super if the aim is to have more people being self funded in retirement.
One aspect that I do think should be changed is the capacity for an elderly person to receive a full pension whilst living in a $2M home. I'd like to see the value of homes over $1M in Sydney and Melbourne, and less in regional areas, included in the assets test for the pension.
No need for any of the emotive whining about 'throwing poor, vulnerable old people out of their cherished family homes'. If they are determined not to downsize, then they can engage a reverse mortgage to provide an income stream to supplement the reduced amount of government pension.

I don't see why struggling young people, already finding it so difficult to save enough to get into their first home, should be seeing their taxes going to the old who can afford to make a contribution to their own income.

3. Make cuts equitably e.g. why do private schools not get a cut? Why do companies get a tax break?

Can't comment on private schools. Entirely unfamiliar with schools funding these days.
Company tax rate already commented on.

4. Make some of the other changes that are reasonable that have been proposed.

Can't comment here as I have no idea what you're referring to.

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.

I think the need for this is clear to both sides of politics. However, there is no need for anyone to be dependent on government policy to ensure enough to live on in retirement. All through our lives we have choices about whether to think about how much we will need in retirement and how to get there, or alternatively to decline to think about it, spend most of what we earn, and then wail when we get old about how unfair it is that the government didn't make us save more.

Some good comments on this in the Superannuation thread. I certainly wouldn't be committing excessive amounts to Super at age 30.

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.

As far as I can tell, there will no hit on pensioners who grew up in the Depression, other than perhaps the $7 to visit the GP and the increase in PBS medicines which are presently extremely discounted over their real cost. Then there's a safety net ensuring maximum of $70 p.a. is paid. Surely that's fair enough and should reduce over servicing.
Even these measures will probably not happen because the other parties are vowing not to support them in the Senate.

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

So who do you think should pay for people to go to university? It's not as if anyone has to pay up front for their degree. The taxpayer provides what seems to me a pretty cheap loan with no requirement to even pay back a single dollar until income reaches a certain level, I think about $50K. Seems absolutely fair to me.

And on paying back what is spent on anyone's education, let's think about some of these hugely wealthy sports stars who have had extremely large amounts of money spent on their training via the Australian Institute of Sport. AFAIK none of this is paid back even when they earn hundreds of thousands. Happy to be corrected if I'm in error on this.

 

[Knobby22]

Are you sure he wasn't referring to the discounts which are available via a Seniors' Card and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card? (Judd first raised this a few days ago). The Seniors Card is State based and apparently funded by the Commonwealth, at least in part.

There has been a proposal by the government to remove one of the concessions currently available on the CSHC, apparently worth about $800 p.a.
The CSHC does not offer any entitlement to discount on Council rates, something that apparently a pension card does to the tune of around 20% off.

.

You must be right. The Commonwealth funding has disappeared. He was talking energy costs not council rates.

 

[craft]

Well unless its changed recently Craft, that's not the advice that I've been given. In fact, i cannot even self manage it.

I was suspicious of the first advice that i was given so i checked it with my new accountant in QLD and indeed they also confirmed it.

In any case now that I'm married to an Australian citizen it doesn't faze me much, but sometimes plans change...

Don’t know your situation but never heard a requirement to move back to access.

Nothing has changed recently that I know of.

Either you were a temporary resident and you can get your super on leaving Aus or you are a permanent resident or citizen in which case you have to meet standard conditions of release and this is due to having a right to retire in Australia

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Super/In-detail/Temporary-residents/Super-information-for-temporary-residents-departing-Australia/

Like I say I don’t know your situation but do know if I, as a citizen moved oversees, I could claim my super in another country under the same conditions of release as if I was in Australia.

Running a SMSF does have residency requirements - so no arguments there.

This should probably be in the super thread and you might get some additional views from the likes of VES.

 

[sptrawler]

Don’t know your situation but never heard a requirement to move back to access.

Nothing has changed recently that I know of.

Either you were a temporary resident and you can get your super on leaving Aus or you are a permanent resident or citizen in which case you have to meet standard conditions of release and this is due to having a right to retire in Australia

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Super/In-detail/Temporary-residents/Super-information-for-temporary-residents-departing-Australia/

Like I say I don’t know your situation but do know if I, as a citizen moved oversees, I could claim my super in another country under the same conditions of release as if I was in Australia.

Running a SMSF does have residency requirements - so no arguments there.

This should probably be in the super thread and you might get some additional views from the likes of VES.

Craft, there was a loophole several years ago, whereby someone with dual citizenship, could sign a stat dec they were leaving the country, never to return and access their super.
What people were doing was take the money, go overseas for a period then come back.
I can't remember when it was closed off but it was a fair few years ago.
Now I think you have to reach preservation age even if leaving the country. I think that may be what CanOz may be refering to.

 

[noco]

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

What else would you expect from a well trained left wing socialist Communist who learned it all in Moscow and 15 years with the socialist ABC.....She certainly was not in Moscow for a beauty contest.

It is all a beat up.

Emma Griffiths is ABC News Online's political correspondent. She has spent 15 years reporting for ABC TV and Radio News and Current Affairs, including a stint as Moscow correspondent. She has covered state politics in both Queensland and New South Wales and is on her second stint in the federal parliamentary press gallery.
Follow Emma on Twitter: @ejgriffiths

 

[SirRumpole]

What else would you expect from a well trained left wing socialist Communist who learned it all in Moscow and 15 years with the socialist ABC.....She certainly was not in Moscow for a beauty contest.

It is all a beat up.

Emma Griffiths is ABC News Online's political correspondent. She has spent 15 years reporting for ABC TV and Radio News and Current Affairs, including a stint as Moscow correspondent. She has covered state politics in both Queensland and New South Wales and is on her second stint in the federal parliamentary press gallery.
Follow Emma on Twitter: @ejgriffiths

The ABC sent her to Moscow and now she's a communist ?

hahahahahahaha

Better check under your bed matey, the commos are there too

 

[noco]

The ABC sent her to Moscow and now she's a communist ?

hahahahahahaha

Better check under your bed matey, the commos are there too

Yeah she was well trained...as I said before, was not there to enter in a beauty contest.

Gillard also sent two unions heavies over there to get trained and indoctrinated.

 

[noco]

Those dirty comrades of the Greens......the sewer rats used a scotched earth policy knowing full well they were going to be defeated at the last election


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/the-alp-budget-boobytrap/story-e6freon6-1226923077146

 

[SirRumpole]

Those dirty comrades of the Greens......the sewer rats used a scotched earth policy knowing full well they were going to be defeated at the last election


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/the-alp-budget-boobytrap/story-e6freon6-1226923077146

In that case they really suckered Abbott in to 'unity tickets' with Labor on NDIS and Gonski.

Either that or Abbott deliberately lied.

Abbott is either a fool or a liar, any preference ?

 

[sptrawler]

In that case they really suckered Abbott in to 'unity tickets' with Labor on NDIS and Gonski.

Either that or Abbott deliberately lied.

Abbott is either a fool or a liar, any preference ?

I hope he lied, because even the Reserve Bank says we can't afford them.
People need to get over this garbage and start debating the real issue of the deficit.

 

[Smurf1976]

even the Reserve Bank says we can't afford them.

I take comments of this nature from the RBA fairly seriously given that they normally avoid commenting publicly on party political matters. It's not as though they comment on every tax or spending change unless it's either directly related to banking etc or is sufficiently drastic that they feel compelled to comment on it.