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.