I'm not sure about assistance to the unemployed to start their own businesses. So many fail. I'd have thought anyone who had the talent and initiative to start something themselves would already be doing it.
I'm not sure about assistance to the unemployed to start their own businesses. So many fail. I'd have thought anyone who had the talent and initiative to start something themselves would already be doing it.
The federal government is refusing to release more detailed modelling prepared before the budget by Treasury, that shows the likely impact of the proposed measures on different household types.
Documents released under freedom-of-information legislation to Fairfax Media show the government delivered its budget fully aware its spending cuts would hit poorer households much harder than wealthier ones.
But two larger documents were withheld from the FOI request, one of 56 pages and the other of 21 pages. It is understood they show clearly how the less wealthy households would suffer far bigger falls in disposable income than richer ones, especially for families with children aged between six and 16.
Hockey criticised Fairfax Media's report of the Treasury analysis on Monday, saying the figures did not tell the complete story.
He also denied the data indicated the government knew its budget would hit the poor the hardest. He noted it ''fails to take into account the massive number of concessional payments such as discounted pharmaceuticals, discounted transport, discounted childcare that goes to lower-income households''.
However, all of these payments had been cut in the federal budget in one way or another.
Subsidies to pharmaceuticals have been reduced, federal funding for transport discounts are being withdrawn, and there are tougher conditions to get childcare benefits. All these changes will result in lower-income earners being worse off.
Malevolent? Treasurer Joe Hockey says Fairfax Media's reporting of the budget has been sometimes ''quite malevolent''.
Fairfax has been trying to provide the public with what Hockey has not - a table that has been in each of the past nine budgets and was missing in this one. Introduced by Hockey's mentor Peter Costello in 2005, it was at first called ''benefits of new measures for families'' and later ''detailed family outcomes''.
It displays the changes in real household disposable incomes expected as a result of all of the budget measures taken together. It lists the results for up to 17 different family types, among them sole parents, single and double income couples, and couples with and without children.
The plug's been pulled on S18C reform, apparently by the PM himself.
The Coalition will have a job to hold on next time.
The plug's been pulled on S18C reform, apparently by the PM himself.
The Coalition will have a job to hold on next time.
Not a hope in Hades, I am already arranging my affairs for a Short'un Labor administration in just over two years time. Between these two mobs of muppets, what a disaster for Australia.
:1zhelp:
I'll be happy if Abbott is big enough to break his PPL promise next. They must have got some really bad polling results on the S18C reform /sic and realised they were so far out of touch with the voters they had no chance.
Not a hope in Hades, I am already arranging my affairs for a Short'un Labor administration in just over two years time. Between these two mobs of muppets, what a disaster for Australia.
:1zhelp:
S18C 'reform' was just a thank you to Andrew Bolt for his support, and so he could say he had been hit by 'unfair' legislation.
The bottom line for the Prime Minister is this, and it's dire: the Government is unable to legislate its budget policies that voters don't want anyway, writes Chris Berg.
The Abbott Government is about to learn that the hardest political manoeuvre is changing direction.
In their times, Kevin Rudd, John Howard and John Hewson tried this tricky exercise. Each fumbled.
Rudd shelved the emissions trading scheme in April 2010*. This did nothing to restore his prestige. Rudd was shelved by his colleagues two months later.
Howard tried to adjust WorkChoices when it was clear that the policy lacked popular support. The new fairness test, introduced in May 2007, did not placate WorkChoices' critics. Howard lost government and his seat.
Hewson released Fightback! in November 1991. Over the next year the Coalition bled support. Hewson tried to relaunch a softer version of the package in December 1992. It didn't help.
But those leaders had it easy. The Abbott Government is likely going to have to pull this manoeuvre quite a number of times over the next few months.
Chris Berg writes a good piece (ABC of course)
Abbott needs to hit the reset button
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-05/berg-abbott-needs-to-hit-the-reset-button/5648206
I just don't think Shorten will be there...........but then I thought that about Abbott.
Hope you are right. With Labor's convoluted leader selection process, Tony Abbott should call an election the moment Shorten is challenged. Labor would have to run an election campaign without knowing who they are proposing for PM
For the plebeians, it not about reality, it's about perceptions.I don't suppose any of you critics about the backflip by the PM today have even remotely considered that the reason he gave was simply stating what is.
In light of the increased threat of home grown terrorism, jihadist trained dopes from the Muslim community who might be attempting to return to Australia and commit what they have learned in Syria, Iraq, etc to effect within Australia, the government really needs to have the complete support of the muslim community here.
If that community has suggested to the government that the revised legislation would be insulting/threatening/whatever word you like to them, then it seems reasonable enough to me that he should be prepared to go along with them.
Yes, we all love to crow when governments of any persuasion break their promises. But, just personally, I'd rather someone who is prepared to change a promise in light of changed circumstances to one which stubbornly insists on an earlier stand, even when it's not in the national interest.
We might hope that he has now bitten the bullet and will be prepared to take a similar attitude over the dreaded PPL.
I don't suppose any of you critics about the backflip by the PM today have even remotely considered that the reason he gave was simply stating what is.
In light of the increased threat of home grown terrorism, jihadist trained dopes from the Muslim community who might be attempting to return to Australia and commit what they have learned in Syria, Iraq, etc to effect within Australia, the government really needs to have the complete support of the muslim community here.
If that community has suggested to the government that the revised legislation would be insulting/threatening/whatever word you like to them, then it seems reasonable enough to me that he should be prepared to go along with them.
Yes, we all love to crow when governments of any persuasion break their promises. But, just personally, I'd rather someone who is prepared to change a promise in light of changed circumstances to one which stubbornly insists on an earlier stand, even when it's not in the national interest.
We might hope that he has now bitten the bullet and will be prepared to take a similar attitude over the dreaded PPL.
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?