The Abbott Government

[sptrawler]

Oh god........

Lets see Budget.....disaster......media's fault

Hockey...............epic fail.

Plane crash, hoopla by the bucket full, tough words........right wing commentary happy Abbott's approval rating rises, sigh.

Terrorism, great opportunity .....guess what, talk tough......over reach look like a tosser.

This mob are really a rabble they cannot even get agreement form a centre right senate to pass legislation.

Mean while Labor keep spending all our money.............when will they ever stop?

Agree with you completly Ifocus, it would be much easier to just let the minority parties dictate your policy, like Labor did.
Then everyone gets a full term and can retire from office, like Labor did, then let the next Government sort the mess.

Well that would have been ok, however the losers are prepared to further cripple the economy.

We end up wearing it. Absolute dicks, they were thrown out, yet they can't let go.lol
Obviously when Labor can't spend our money, they have to try and stop us from saving money. morons

 

[IFocus]

Agree with you completly Ifocus, it would be much easier to just let the minority parties dictate your policy, like Labor did.
Then everyone gets a full term and can retire from office, like Labor did, then let the next Government sort the mess.

Well that would have been ok, however the losers are prepared to further cripple the economy.

We end up wearing it. Absolute dicks, they were thrown out, yet they can't let go.lol
Obviously when Labor can't spend our money, they have to try and stop us from saving money. morons

Right now Labor are channelling Abbott, no to every thing and no imagination remember cheering for that.

This government has lost its direction thanks to being held captive to the right and vested interests.

Abbott keeps on saying one thing while doing the opposite with complete arrogance same as when in opposition.

The winner out of all this is minor parties.

 

[Logique]

I don't know what they stand for anymore, other than turning on their own constituency and making empty promises.

You have to communicate with people and take them with you. They're no better at this than the last lot.

 

[sptrawler]

I don't know what they stand for anymore, other than turning on their own constituency and making empty promises.

You have to communicate with people and take them with you. They're no better at this than the last lot.

Don't they still stand for reducing spending and bringing the budget under control, I just thought it was nobody agrees with that idea.

They don't seem to have a problem telling people what needs to be done, it's just no one wants to do it.lol

A bit like telling a fat person they need to reduce eating, the last thing they want to hear.

Oh well wait untill round two when they want to increase taxes, then you will hear the other half of the population, they will be saying why us we pay too much already.

You have to communicate and take people with you, that's a cracker, best one I've heard in ages.
As though anyone in our society wants to tighten the belt, best of luck selling that.

 

[noco]

Don't they still stand for reducing spending and bringing the budget under control, I just thought it was nobody agrees with that idea.

They don't seem to have a problem telling people what needs to be done, it's just no one wants to do it.lol

A bit like telling a fat person they need to reduce eating, the last thing they want to hear.

Oh well wait untill round two when they want to increase taxes, then you will hear the other half of the population, they will be saying why us we pay too much already.

You have to communicate and take people with you, that's a cracker, best one I've heard in ages.
As though anyone in our society wants to tighten the belt, best of luck selling that.

Yes SP, as I keep saying everyone is happy while you are filling their pockets with money from the credit card until it becomes overloaded and it all has to be paid back.......I also keep reminding ASF members...those Dudd $900 cheques we received was only a loan and now must be paid back.

Socialism is a wonderful thing until they run out of other people's money.

 

[SirRumpole]

.I also keep reminding ASF members...those Dudd $900 cheques we received was only a loan and now must be paid back.

So, what did you do with your $900 , and and you written a cheque to the Treasury for $900 ?

 

[noco]

Right now Labor are channelling Abbott, no to every thing and no imagination remember cheering for that.

This government has lost its direction thanks to being held captive to the right and vested interests.

Abbott keeps on saying one thing while doing the opposite with complete arrogance same as when in opposition.

The winner out of all this is minor parties.

IFocus, the government is being held captive by a hostile Green/Labor, PUPPY senate who have their own agenda to prevent the Abbott government success in bringing the economy under control.......none of these economic vandals have the national interest at heart...they are not concerned about our young people having to pay back Labor's disastrous 6 years of economic chaos.......it is all about self interest.

 

[sptrawler]

Well noco it isn't rocket science is it.
The government spends and the government takes in taxes.

The people don't want to reduce the welfare spending bleed, therefore taxes increase.

The problem with that is, you are taking from the productive section of the economy and giving it to the non productive section of the economy.

This in turn makes the productive section more costly and the non productive section becomes more costly.

Funny how no one seems to be able to understand it, maybe you are right and there is a conspiracy.

Labor wanting to up the population to 50million, was an interesting concept, why do we need 30m taxi drivers.

 

[Logique]

Don't they still stand for reducing spending and bringing the budget under control, I just thought it was nobody agrees with that idea...You have to communicate and take people with you, that's a cracker, best one I've heard in ages. As though anyone in our society wants to tighten the belt, best of luck selling that.

It can be done sp! But not by sitting out the back of the parliamentary office, smoking cigars with Mathias Cormann.

Pollies need to be in touch, i.e. for the information of the Treasurer, petroleum excise tax costs poor people just as much as the cigar smokers.

A nation that surcharges pensioners and children $7 to visit their doctor is a nation that has lost it's soul. And wants to increase it's public health spending by discouraging preventative medicine. The AMA is correct on this point.

Frankly, I'm glad that Clive Palmer told the Coalition where to get off on their doctor tax.

 

[sydboy007]

Don't they still stand for reducing spending and bringing the budget under control, I just thought it was nobody agrees with that idea.

They don't seem to have a problem telling people what needs to be done, it's just no one wants to do it.lol

A bit like telling a fat person they need to reduce eating, the last thing they want to hear.

Oh well wait untill round two when they want to increase taxes, then you will hear the other half of the population, they will be saying why us we pay too much already.

You have to communicate and take people with you, that's a cracker, best one I've heard in ages.
As though anyone in our society wants to tighten the belt, best of luck selling that.

IFocus, the government is being held captive by a hostile Green/Labor, PUPPY senate who have their own agenda to prevent the Abbott government success in bringing the economy under control.......none of these economic vandals have the national interest at heart...they are not concerned about our young people having to pay back Labor's disastrous 6 years of economic chaos.......it is all about self interest.

Riddle me this. If the dole and disability support is one of the lowest rising costs in the budget why was it targeted - budgeted at $10.5B? If the rise in medical costs is roughly in line with economic growth, why was it targeted? Why was a medical research fund created to siphon $7 per GP visit created when there's a budget emergency and the debt is crippling the economy? The debt isn't but that's the narrative the current Govt has run with for years.

Why was the aged pension, rising much faster than all other forms of welfare, not touched? Assistance to the aged is budgeted at $55B. This is the largest outlay of the budget. Nearly twice that allocated to education, nearly 2.5 times allocated for defence, more than the $52.1B in general revenue assistance to the states. Why is someone under 30 expected to survive for 6 months without an income in the coming downturn / potential recession but by the treasurers own words "currently, an individual with a home and almost $800,000 in assets still qualifies for the age pension; a couple with a home and almost $1.1 million in assets also qualify for the age pension”. How is that fair?

Why was there no tax reform in the budget? All we had was bandaid solutions that would in most cases cause major social issues and probably end up costing us more than the proposed savings.

We were told the Govt had a plan, yet voters feel the only plan is attack the poor, unless it's another conspiracy that all the polls are being doctored, even the ones run by newscorp.

Saying we have to wait for the tax white paper is not policy. It's a cop out. There's 363 tax expenditures benefiting mainly the top 30% of income earners. They distort the allocation of scarce capital in the economy. Why couldn't some of them have been reduced or removed in the budget? Why is the tax system being narrowed and increasingly reliant on income taxes? Why is the Government going against treasury advice to increase indirect taxation while reducing income and corporate taxes?

A fair budget wouldn't have the opposition that the Government's unfair budget is getting. A fair budget is easy to defend. An unfair budget gets you into wild statements like poor people don't have cars.

Why was it always the previous Govts fault, but this Govt seems to be blameless, and it's always some external party's fault? It's an uncooperative senate - no more than the previous one. It's the media. How is the media any more partisan than prior to October 2013?

 

[sptrawler]

It can be done sp! But not by sitting out the back of the parliamentary office, smoking cigars with Mathias Cormann.

Pollies need to be in touch, i.e. for the information of the Treasurer, petroleum excise tax costs poor people just as much as the cigar smokers.

A nation that surcharges pensioners and children $7 to visit their doctor is a nation that has lost it's soul. And wants to increase it's public health spending by discouraging preventative medicine. The AMA is correct on this point.

Frankly, I'm glad that Clive Palmer told the Coalition where to get off on their doctor tax.

I was going to have a shot at the obvious contradiction regarding pollies smoking cigars/ pollies arriving in private jets.

But I really find it a bit of a shock, that someone I thought was open minded, can't see the sense in the idea.
Two points.
1. As far as I know those with an ongoing condition are exempt. I know this because my Mum freaked, I said calm down and find out the facts. She asked her doctor and he told her because she had an ongoing condition it wouldn't affect her.
2. From personal knowledge, those who get things free, overuse it, BIG TIME.
If you don't mind that o.k, the cost will keep escalating exponentionally.
Whether it is $7 or $5 or 50cents, it has to cost something, or else it is abused, because it is free, it is of no value.
That's life.

As for the indexed fuel excise, it was introduced by Labor and abolished by Liberal.
To tell you the truth the fuel excise would hurt me, as I have bought a caravan and want to join the grey nomads.
However the ones who are against it, support the carbon tax, weird it is a carbon tax.

The whole problem I have with most of the arguements are, they are against not cutting welfare spending, but against how it is indexed.

The funny thing is, now the average wage is increasing slower than cpi, so it will cost pensioners money to keep the existing system.lol
Another Labor cockup.

All the white sound is confusing the real issues.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why was the aged pension, rising much faster than all other forms of welfare, not touched?

It was, the rate of indexation was cut, that's one of the reasons the budget was unfair to those on low incomes.

 

[sydboy007]

It was, the rate of indexation was cut, that's one of the reasons the budget was unfair to those on low incomes.

• The pension has increased by 25% over the last 4.5 years - well above the 13% increase in the CPI or the 14% increase in pensioner cost of living.
• Just to re-cap, the May Budget announced that the indexation arrangements for the Aged Pension would be changed so that instead of being adjusted upwards twice a year by the greater of male average earnings growth or the pensioner cost of living allowance, it would instead be linked to the consumer price index (CPI), so that it would grow in-line with overall prices and would not increase (or fall) in real terms.
• Moreover, under the current low wages growth environment, pensioners are in the fortuitous position whereby their incomes will likely grow faster than average earnings. For instance, last week the ABS revealed that male average earnings rose by only 1.2% in the six months to May – below the 1.4% rise in the pensioner cost of living index. In effect, pensioners currently get to enjoy increases in line with male earnings when income growth is strong and then increases in line with the pensioner cost of living index when income growth is soft – we should all be so lucky.
• Considering wages are now growing slower than CPI it means pensioners are likely to still be getting a better deal than the majority of workers.

 

[sptrawler]

Riddle me this. If the dole and disability support is one of the lowest rising costs in the budget why was it targeted - budgeted at $10.5B? If the rise in medical costs is roughly in line with economic growth, why was it targeted? Why was a medical research fund created to siphon $7 per GP visit created when there's a budget emergency and the debt is crippling the economy? The debt isn't but that's the narrative the current Govt has run with for years.

Why was the aged pension, rising much faster than all other forms of welfare, not touched? Assistance to the aged is budgeted at $55B. This is the largest outlay of the budget. Nearly twice that allocated to education, nearly 2.5 times allocated for defence, more than the $52.1B in general revenue assistance to the states. Why is someone under 30 expected to survive for 6 months without an income in the coming downturn / potential recession but by the treasurers own words "currently, an individual with a home and almost $800,000 in assets still qualifies for the age pension; a couple with a home and almost $1.1 million in assets also qualify for the age pension”. How is that fair?

Why was there no tax reform in the budget? All we had was bandaid solutions that would in most cases cause major social issues and probably end up costing us more than the proposed savings.

We were told the Govt had a plan, yet voters feel the only plan is attack the poor, unless it's another conspiracy that all the polls are being doctored, even the ones run by newscorp.

Saying we have to wait for the tax white paper is not policy. It's a cop out. There's 363 tax expenditures benefiting mainly the top 30% of income earners. They distort the allocation of scarce capital in the economy. Why couldn't some of them have been reduced or removed in the budget? Why is the tax system being narrowed and increasingly reliant on income taxes? Why is the Government going against treasury advice to increase indirect taxation while reducing income and corporate taxes?

A fair budget wouldn't have the opposition that the Government's unfair budget is getting. A fair budget is easy to defend. An unfair budget gets you into wild statements like poor people don't have cars.

Why was it always the previous Govts fault, but this Govt seems to be blameless, and it's always some external party's fault? It's an uncooperative senate - no more than the previous one. It's the media. How is the media any more partisan than prior to October 2013?

Firstly I wish you wouldn't ask so many questions at once, it is really difficult to balance answering you time, with not ignoring the missus and watching the footy.

1. Disability has been rorted for years, not being funny but I do know it has. (I could have qualified, but chose not to).

2.Aged pension, they were only going to change the indexing. Currently it linked to acerage wage, they wanted it linked to cpi. Wasn't access to the dole linked to if you had worked recently, also weren't they going to pay relocation cost to where jobs are?
With regards the pension if someone 55 gives up their job, travels the world, buys porsches and blow all their money, qualify for a taxpayer funded income of $32,000 per year indexed to the average wage. Sounds good to me.

3. So when the tax white paper comes out and the tax scales go back to the baby boomer early years, you'le be fine with that. 50k = 60% in todays terms that would be about the $180k/annum.

The reason they are waiting for a white paper on tax, probably is because the aren't as arrogant/ignorant or stupid as the last government and don't want to shoot from the hip.
That seems novel, as everyone today seems to have all the answers, the problem is most haven't lived long enough to understand the questions.

 

[sptrawler]

It was, the rate of indexation was cut, that's one of the reasons the budget was unfair to those on low incomes.

As Syd and I said, pensioners would get more money if it was linked to cpi, not wages. As the RBA has said on numerous occassions they expect average wages to fall and cpi to be at the upper levels of their range.
But as is usual, the plebs listen to the white sound from the hollow vessels. Priceless
Haven't you read wages are falling, cpi is rising, the dollar is falling which will result in a rise in cpi.

I really do get a laugh out of your posts.lol

 

[sptrawler]

• The pension has increased by 25% over the last 4.5 years - well above the 13% increase in the CPI or the 14% increase in pensioner cost of living.
• Just to re-cap, the May Budget announced that the indexation arrangements for the Aged Pension would be changed so that instead of being adjusted upwards twice a year by the greater of male average earnings growth or the pensioner cost of living allowance, it would instead be linked to the consumer price index (CPI), so that it would grow in-line with overall prices and would not increase (or fall) in real terms.
• Moreover, under the current low wages growth environment, pensioners are in the fortuitous position whereby their incomes will likely grow faster than average earnings. For instance, last week the ABS revealed that male average earnings rose by only 1.2% in the six months to May – below the 1.4% rise in the pensioner cost of living index. In effect, pensioners currently get to enjoy increases in line with male earnings when income growth is strong and then increases in line with the pensioner cost of living index when income growth is soft – we should all be so lucky.
• Considering wages are now growing slower than CPI it means pensioners are likely to still be getting a better deal than the majority of workers.

And a lot of people who saved for their retirement, rather than blowing it.
I think you are slowly turning.

 

[sydboy007]

1. Disability has been rorted for years, not being funny but I do know it has. (I could have qualified, but chose not to).

So that's a good reason to cut off someone under the age of 30 from income support?

2.Aged pension, they were only going to change the indexing. Currently it linked to acerage wage, they wanted it linked to cpi.

The current system gives pensioners the higher of average wage growth or pensioner cpi. basically heads they win tails tax payers lose.

With regards the pension if someone 55 gives up their job, travels the world, buys porsches and blow all their money, qualify for a taxpayer funded income of $32,000 per year indexed to the average wage. Sounds good to me.

Interesting to see how sustainable that is when aged support is already 15% of the budget.

3. So when the tax white paper comes out and the tax scales go back to the baby boomer early years, you'le be fine with that. 50k = 60% in todays terms that would be about the $180k/annum.

Why would that be a sensible and sustainable proposal? Why not target all the areas that we choose not to tax? Why not reign in NG? Why not reign in super tax concessions? Why not move the tax revenue from direct taxes to indirect taxes like the henry tax review suggested and which the OECD and IMF and pretty much anyone with a basic understanding of how taxation works is recommending?

The reason they are waiting for a white paper on tax, probably is because the aren't as arrogant/ignorant or stupid as the last government and don't want to shoot from the hip.
That seems novel, as everyone today seems to have all the answers, the problem is most haven't lived long enough to understand the questions.

So you believe there is not a single recommending in the Henry tax review that could have been used in the budget?

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/co...ons/papers/final_report_part_1/chapter_12.htm

138 recommendations and the Govt, like Labor, has chosen to ignore them. How is that rational when we're told there's a budget crisis? It's only rational when political ideology trumps good policy.

How about

Recommendation 10: Consideration should be given to a revised regime to prevent the alienation of personal services income that would extend to all entities earning a significant proportion of their business income from the personal services of their owner-managers, whether in employee-like or non-employee-like cases. This regime may also apply an arm's length rule to deductions arising from payments to associates to ensure deductions reflect the value of services provided.

Recommendation 13: Gift deductibility should be retained, with the deductibility threshold raised from $2 to $25.

Recommendation 18: The tax on superannuation contributions in the fund should be abolished. Employer superannuation contributions should be treated as income in the hands of the individual, taxed at marginal personal income tax rates and receive a flat-rate refundable tax offset.

• An offset should be provided for all superannuation contributions up to an annual cap of $25,000 (indexed). The offset should be set so the majority of taxpayers do not pay more than 15 per cent tax on their contributions. The cap should be doubled for people aged 50 or older.
• An annual cap on total contributions should continue to apply.
• The offset should replace the superannuation co-contribution and superannuation spouse contribution tax offset.
• Compulsory superannuation contributions made by employers should not reduce eligibility for income support or family assistance payments. They should also not form part of the calculation for child support.

Recommendation 51: Ideally, there would be no role for any stamp duties, including conveyancing stamp duties, in a modern Australian tax system. Recognising the revenue needs of the States, the removal of stamp duty should be achieved through a switch to more efficient taxes, such as those levied on broad consumption or land bases. Increasing land tax at the same time as reducing stamp duty has the additional benefit of some offsetting impacts on asset prices.

Recommendation 52: Given the efficiency benefits of a broad land tax, it should be levied on as broad a base as possible. In order to tax more valuable land at higher rates, consideration should be given to levying land tax using an increasing marginal rate schedule, with the lowest rate being zero, with thresholds determined by the per-square-metre value.

Recommendation 53: In the long run, the land tax base should be broadened to eventually include all land. If this occurs, low-value land, such as most agricultural land, would not face a land tax liability where its value per square metre is below the lowest rate threshold.

Recommendation 54: There are a number of incremental reforms that could potentially improve the operation of land tax, including:

• ensuring that land tax applies per land holding, not on an entity's total holding, in order to promote investment in land development;
• eliminating stamp duties on commercial and industrial properties in return for a broad land tax on those properties; and
• investigating various transitional arrangements necessary to achieve a broader land tax.

Recommendation 135: The Australian government should ensure that the rules governing the development of the Budget encourage trade-offs between tax expenditures and spending programs. Budget decision-making processes should measure and treat tax expenditures and spending programs symmetrically, to ensure that there is no artificial incentive to deliver programs through one mechanism rather than another.

I wont bother to list the other worthy proposals from the review, but there's plenty of them.

 

[sptrawler]

I agree completly Syd, there should be a complete overhaul of the tax system, also there should be a reigning in on the welfare system and government spending.

All of the above needs doing to make a sustainable Australian society, Labor stuffed it up, but were given leeway to impliment failed policy.

Now we flip governments, yet don't extend that opportunity, it is stupid.

To put in a new manager and say you can't change anything is dumb. It's destined to fail as no change is allowed.

If they impliment something that in three years has a negative effect, you throw them out and overturn it.

What is currently happening, is no change and credibility is being given to absolute F$$$$$wits like palmer and Shorten.
Nothing sensible to add to the debate, yet have to dissagree, Palmer because he hasn't got a clue and Shorten because they stuffed it and have to see the situation worsen to gain any traction.

Let the change happen and vote on it next election, it isn't the end of the world.

If the change is negative it will be recinded next election, ala the carbon tax, the mining tax.
FFS how can you judge before anything is enacted, why have change at all?

By the way, I'm sure the white paper review would take the Henry tax paper into its considerations.
If they didn't, it would be easy for people to use it as reference to argue, I doubt they would risk the validity of the white paper review on that premise.
But it is a straw man arguement, as you would say.lol

I like the idea of your land tax, the price being paid is stupid and doesn't encourage de centralisation, which in my opinion is essential to maintain Australia as we know it.

I did find it funny that you mocked my examples of how easy it is to rort the existing welfare system, yet you support it. Obviously helps make your post look better, but undermines your sincerity.

 

[noco]

So, what did you do with your $900 , and and you written a cheque to the Treasury for $900 ?

That is for me to know and you to find out whether I actually received one and if I did, how I spent it.

Come what may, I will be paying off other peoples pleasure on the pokies in 2008.

 

[noco]

Recommendation 51: Ideally, there would be no role for any stamp duties, including conveyancing stamp duties, in a modern Australian tax system. Recognising the revenue needs of the States, the removal of stamp duty should be achieved through a switch to more efficient taxes, such as those levied on broad consumption or land bases. Increasing land tax at the same time as reducing stamp duty has the additional benefit of some offsetting impacts on asset prices.

When the GST was introduced all state stamp duties were supposed to have been abolished but the majority of the Labor states continued to collect which was contrary to the GST agreement.