The Abbott Government

[SirRumpole]

It appears to be very difficult to even identify the fire, let alone fight it.lol

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ve-7-gp-copayment-policy-20141126-11ul0w.html
This has been the archilles heel, of medicare since its inception. Labor will have to address it, if they attain office.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...budget-too-hard-too-soon-20141126-11u72n.html

No let's just let the debt blow out, to the point where we are screaming for a bail out.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the $7 co payment has nothing to do with debt or deficit, it won't help to fix either of them.

What we have here is a government that says its trying to reduce debt, but dreams up looney ways of shooting themselves in the foot.

Why not cut out the tax credit for mining company royalties for starters ? Keep the carbon tax revenue, tax superannuation at the marginal rate if you want to reduce the deficit .

 

[sydboy007]

launch some decent policy seems th ebest way forward.

Quarantine NG and frame it as making the tax system fairer, more efficient and aimed at helping those under 40 get into the housing market.

Stop throwing money at the states to privatise infrastructure if theirs not a clear community benefit.

Stop being so focused on roads and let the productivity commission and infrastructure Australia guide where limited funds will produce the best results.

cajole the states to either argue the case for a broadening / increase in the gst or bring in a broadly based land tax to help fund their community obligations. Frame it as helping to make public infrastructure self funding by being able to get some of the uplift in land value back rather than the increase being pocketed solely by those who benefit from the infrastructure spending.

Bring back reasonable benefit limits for super and have them increase annual to the CPI. Frame it as stopping super being treated as a tax minimisation system for the rich. ATO should have figures readily available as to how much could be saved.

Bring in a reverse mortgage scheme for pensioners and stop treating the largest financial asset most people have as being invisible for access to the aged pension. Frame it as an intergenerational equity issue where the falling participation rate means there's less tax payers for an increasing number of pensioners. Everyone needs to chip in to keep the tax and welfare system sustainable.

Good policy is hard to argue against, especially when you use the right frame to show the why as we all as the how.

 

[sptrawler]

launch some decent policy seems th ebest way forward.

Quarantine NG and frame it as making the tax system fairer, more efficient and aimed at helping those under 40 get into the housing market.

Stop throwing money at the states to privatise infrastructure if theirs not a clear community benefit.

Stop being so focused on roads and let the productivity commission and infrastructure Australia guide where limited funds will produce the best results.

cajole the states to either argue the case for a broadening / increase in the gst or bring in a broadly based land tax to help fund their community obligations. Frame it as helping to make public infrastructure self funding by being able to get some of the uplift in land value back rather than the increase being pocketed solely by those who benefit from the infrastructure spending.

Bring back reasonable benefit limits for super and have them increase annual to the CPI. Frame it as stopping super being treated as a tax minimisation system for the rich. ATO should have figures readily available as to how much could be saved.

Bring in a reverse mortgage scheme for pensioners and stop treating the largest financial asset most people have as being invisible for access to the aged pension. Frame it as an intergenerational equity issue where the falling participation rate means there's less tax payers for an increasing number of pensioners. Everyone needs to chip in to keep the tax and welfare system sustainable.

Good policy is hard to argue against, especially when you use the right frame to show the why as we all as the how.

IMO, You are know starting to talk a more balanced scenario.

All you need to do, is start and focus on the welfare system, to make it a back stop position not a desired position.

Aside from that, your ideas have a lot of merit.

You just have to get away from the belief, that all those that have saved money, should pay more.

Likewise all those that spend their money, deserve more.

There has to be a reward for being responsible, and there should be a safety net, for being irresponsible.

To punish the responsible, and overly reward the irresponsible, just encourages mediocity.IMO

How you can encourage, endeavour, sacrifice and striving, when you reward and excuse unproductive behaviour, is hard to reconcile.

Just as Abbott talked cuts to spending, you now are suggesting increasing the tax base.

The door swings both ways.

You suggest RBL's fixed to cpi, yet spat the dummy when pensions were to be linked to cpi.
If it's fair, let it be fair.

 

[noco]

launch some decent policy seems th ebest way forward.

Quarantine NG and frame it as making the tax system fairer, more efficient and aimed at helping those under 40 get into the housing market.

Stop throwing money at the states to privatise infrastructure if theirs not a clear community benefit.

Stop being so focused on roads and let the productivity commission and infrastructure Australia guide where limited funds will produce the best results.

cajole the states to either argue the case for a broadening / increase in the gst or bring in a broadly based land tax to help fund their community obligations. Frame it as helping to make public infrastructure self funding by being able to get some of the uplift in land value back rather than the increase being pocketed solely by those who benefit from the infrastructure spending.

Bring back reasonable benefit limits for super and have them increase annual to the CPI. Frame it as stopping super being treated as a tax minimisation system for the rich. ATO should have figures readily available as to how much could be saved.

Bring in a reverse mortgage scheme for pensioners and stop treating the largest financial asset most people have as being invisible for access to the aged pension. Frame it as an intergenerational equity issue where the falling participation rate means there's less tax payers for an increasing number of pensioners. Everyone needs to chip in to keep the tax and welfare system sustainable.

Good policy is hard to argue against, especially when you use the right frame to show the why as we all as the how.

What a shame the Green/Labor coalition didn't have the right policies 2007/2013......if they had implemented the right policies we would not be in the mess we are today....Strange as it may seem but Shorten does not have any policies either.

 

[noco]

IMO, You are know starting to talk a more balanced scenario.

All you need to do, is start and focus on the welfare system, to make it a back stop position not a desired position.

Aside from that, your ideas have a lot of merit.

You just have to get away from the belief, that all those that have saved money, should pay more.

Likewise all those that spend their money, deserve more.

There has to be a reward for being responsible, and there should be a safety net, for being irresponsible.

To punish the responsible, and overly reward the irresponsible, just encourages mediocity.IMO

How you can encourage, endeavour, sacrifice and striving, when you reward and excuse unproductive behaviour, is hard to reconcile.

Just as Abbott talked cuts to spending, you now are suggesting increasing the tax base.

The door swings both ways.

You suggest RBL's fixed to cpi, yet spat the dummy when pensions were to be linked to cpi.
If it's fair, let it be fair.

It is true...you cannot make the poor richer by making the rich poorer and that is the philosophy of the Labor Party.

 

[sptrawler]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the $7 co payment has nothing to do with debt or deficit, it won't help to fix either of them.
.

Through to the keeper.

 

[sptrawler]

Why not cut out the tax credit for mining company royalties for starters ? Keep the carbon tax revenue, tax superannuation at the marginal rate if you want to reduce the deficit .

Beautifull, just beautifull.

Shut down mining, most will go broke at the moment anyway.

Increase the carbon tax to include transport companies, as was meant to happen in 2015.lol

Make superannuation a compulsory, extra tax.
Why not just up the tax rates?

Can't follow your reasoning, other than to pay for welfare.lol

 

[SirRumpole]

Beautifull, just beautifull.

Thanks, I am

Shut down mining, most will go broke at the moment anyway.

Minerals are a diminishing resource, prices will go up in the long term. Maybe the states should collect royalties by value not volume

Increase the carbon tax to include transport companies, as was meant to happen in 2015.lol

Don't know about that. Instead of abolishing the carbon tax entirely, the rate could be reduced to say $10 a tonne. It wold still bring in revenue, but would take a load of business.


Make superannuation a compulsory, extra tax.
Why not just up the tax rates?

Tax super contributions at the marginal rate instead of 15%. Currently it's one of the biggest tax dodges around for the rich.


Can't follow your reasoning, other than to pay for welfare.lol

Well, I think the family tax benefit (introduced by the welfare socialist John Howard ) should be phased out, so that's one welfare expense reduced.

See comments in red above

 

[Tisme]

Yes, especially when it comes from a leftist rag called Independent Australia.

News is only valid if it's not from the left?

I had a feeling you would bite on that one, but fact remains fact.

 

[sptrawler]

See comments in red above

I'll number them as they don't show up on the response page:

1. If States collected Royalties on value versus as against volume, they would be in deep $hit at the moment.

2.So now you're saying modify the carbon tax, where you were saying keep the carbon tax, subtle difference.

But it still cost Qantas $100million of its $300million loss, then showbag Bill was saying bail them out?

Sounds like another shoot from the hip, missed it last time shot.
At least Syd thinks it through a bit.

3, Super is a compulsory deduction from your pay, it is taken on the understanding you can't use it, but the financial systems can.
For you foregoing that money, it is taxed at 15%.
What you are saying is, it should be taken from you at your marginal rate.
Why not just up the marginal rate by 1 or 2%? Taking 9% of you pay at the top rate is a bit rough?

4. The family tax benefit was introduced to help promote a positive population growth, most first world countries have a negative population growth.
It was introduced, same as the child allowance to help promote famillies as the costs to have famillies increased.
Much easier just to get rid of it and import people ala Labor policy.

 

[Tisme]

If anyone seems to be shackled by blind bias, it would appear to be yourself.

There seems to be plenty of coalition voters on here, being critical of the governments performance.

It just lacks the venom against Abbott, I for one, have never seen or heard him ranting and swearing in anger.
Which Rudd did on numerous occassions, one such occassion, targeted at a service woman on a plane.

I haven't seen him make a venemous unfounded personal attack on the world stage, to bolster his standing, by playing the gender card.
As Gillard did.

Can you highlight one occassion where Abbott has verbally abused anyone?
Everytime I've seen or heard him, he appears to disslike confontation, as it was with the Allan Jones interview.

If anything, I think he is too curteous.

As I said in an earlier post, he needs to grow a pair, or move over and let someone else have a go.

Your constant personal attack on him, seems to undermine your arguements, as they are immediately seen as biased.

Anyway back to matters of politics and policy.

Yes I can to all your requests, but it would be easier if you looked up hansard yourself.

Having a go at me won't change the facts and that you seem very eager to be an apologist for Tony = ratified my initial barb about (wasting) voting.

In fairness to me, and Rumpole will attest, I was not so kind to previous Labor leaders either, but they aren't running the country at this time. This thread is the Abbott one and on topic.

 

[Julia]

Bring back reasonable benefit limits for super and have them increase annual to the CPI. Frame it as stopping super being treated as a tax minimisation system for the rich. ATO should have figures readily available as to how much could be saved.

Bring in a reverse mortgage scheme for pensioners and stop treating the largest financial asset most people have as being invisible for access to the aged pension. Frame it as an intergenerational equity issue where the falling participation rate means there's less tax payers for an increasing number of pensioners. Everyone needs to chip in to keep the tax and welfare system sustainable.

Good policy is hard to argue against, especially when you use the right frame to show the why as we all as the how.

Agree with these points, syd. Well made. The government needs to address the very basics of fairness in order to get the electorate back on side. I'm not sure they have much comprehension of the strength of the feeling in the electorate in order to do this.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes I can to all your requests, but it would be easier if you looked up hansard yourself.

Having a go at me won't change the facts and that you seem very eager to be an apologist for Tony = ratified my initial barb about (wasting) voting.

In fairness to me, and Rumpole will attest, I was not so kind to previous Labor leaders either, but they aren't running the country at this time. This thread is the Abbott one and on topic.

Not aplogising for Abbott at all, just asking you substantiate the personal attack.
Being impartial, I personally don't think Abbott is handling the position well.
However suggesting he has an affliction is a bit out there, people with the affliction may take offence

 

[noco]

* The Abbott Govt was in office for nearly 2/3s of the previous budget. They didn't make any changes to it accept to add $8B+ in borrowings which they have to the RBA

* The current budget is all the Abbott Govts. The adults are in charge Noco. Read the memo. When the MYEFO is released showing the Hockey projected deficit is going to balloon by billions I hope you'll give him the same lecturing that you were so happy to provide to Swan. They'll have to increase the future projected budget deficits as well.

Remember, the Labor deficits were due only to over spending. There is no revenue issue. The ToT is not relevant. Falling iron ore and coal and LNG prices don't affect the budget. Falling worker participation doesn't affect the budget. Aging of the population doesn't either. So the Govt doesn't need to raise taxes. They just have to cut cut cut till they balance the budget. Well at least that's what Tony kept saying while in opposition.

Perhaps you should read my post # 4823 again only this time absorb the contents a little more closely and particularly the high lighted section below.

This FBO confirms Labor delivered six successive deficits totalling $240 billion with many more to come. Including 2013-14, Labor left the Government with future deficits of $123 billion over the forward estimates to 30 June 2017. .

Yes the adults are in charge and the kiddies are on the other side of the chamber, commonly known as the opposition.

 

[SirRumpole]

4. The family tax benefit was introduced to help promote a positive population growth, most first world countries have a negative population growth.

It didn't work though did it ? They had to bring in a baby bonus as well.

Taking money with taxes and giving it back with benefits is not an efficient way of achieving a purpose. If encouraging people to have children is the objective (which is social engineering anyway), the best way to do it is spend some of the tax money on child care services instead of returning it as a general grant that doesn't necessarily get spent on children.

 

[SirRumpole]

 

[sydboy007]

IMO, You are know starting to talk a more balanced scenario.

All you need to do, is start and focus on the welfare system, to make it a back stop position not a desired position.

Aside from that, your ideas have a lot of merit.

You just have to get away from the belief, that all those that have saved money, should pay more.

Likewise all those that spend their money, deserve more.

There has to be a reward for being responsible, and there should be a safety net, for being irresponsible.

To punish the responsible, and overly reward the irresponsible, just encourages mediocity.IMO

How you can encourage, endeavour, sacrifice and striving, when you reward and excuse unproductive behaviour, is hard to reconcile.

Just as Abbott talked cuts to spending, you now are suggesting increasing the tax base.

The door swings both ways.

You suggest RBL's fixed to cpi, yet spat the dummy when pensions were to be linked to cpi.
If it's fair, let it be fair.

I have no problem with rewards for being responsible. I do have a problem when a small minority of people are able to take obscene advantage of the super system and use it as a tax minimisation scheme. When Howard removed RBLs and brought it tax free super the ATO were advising only 2.4% of people accessing their funds were hitting either limit. So why remove it when the impact was pretty much no impact? Even today, when you factor in CPI increases, RBLs would still impact relatively few. In the last year RBLs were relevant 2006–07 the lump sum limit was $678,149, while half as a pension limit was was $1,356,291. That was for each individual. So a couple could have had over $2.5M in super. Are you telling me that was not enough to have for a comfortable retirement? The figures today would be $822,748 / $1,645,496. Over $3M in super for a couple. Surely that's enough money to have huge amounts of Govt support to accumulate? $3M generating 5% from bonds is $150K a year tax free. Yes an extreme example, but it's those extremes that are bleeding the budget.

Could you point to some specific examples where I "...encourage, endeavour, sacrifice and striving, when you reward and excuse unproductive behaviour, is hard to reconcile."

What cuts to spending has Abbott proposed? He's further narrowed the tax base, with a very minimal broadening via bring about fuel excise indexation. Changes to the way the aged pension are calculated might save the Govt money, though over the next few years probably wont when compared to the current system. No real changes to welfare have been proposed except to make the youth destitute, but he's offering thousands of dollars to businesses to employ someone over 50.

I don't have an issue with the pension being increased at the CPI. I do have an issue when it's the best of CPI or average weekly earnings. Best of both worlds, though with the stagnant wages now a CPI increase is probably a better pay rise than a lot of people will get over the next few years. I do ask how we afford it when the participation rate is in the rapid decline phase. It's already down 5% since Howard left office. It's likely to be down that much again by 2020. Any increase in the over 60s employment will likely just increase youth unemployment even more.

There are no easy answers, but at least the ones I'm proposing have a chance of being accepted by the voters. They can be shown to be fair, don't impact too many people, and actually do help to stop the revenue bleed.

Would you care to offer some ideas of your own?

 

[sydboy007]

4. The family tax benefit was introduced to help promote a positive population growth, most first world countries have a negative population growth.
It was introduced, same as the child allowance to help promote famillies as the costs to have famillies increased.
Much easier just to get rid of it and import people ala Labor policy.

Don't you find that a bit hypocritical? You're blaming Labor for their big Australia policy (even though Howard was a Big Australia policy man too) but you support a policy by Howard to increase natural population growth via increasing the birth rate.

So, are you against a large population for Australia, or you just have a preference for a big Australia filled with local babies?

 

[sydboy007]

Perhaps you should read my post # 4823 again only this time absorb the contents a little more closely and particularly the high lighted section below.

This FBO confirms Labor delivered six successive deficits totalling $240 billion with many more to come. Including 2013-14, Labor left the Government with future deficits of $123 billion over the forward estimates to 30 June 2017. .

Yes the adults are in charge and the kiddies are on the other side of the chamber, commonly known as the opposition.

You can't blame the outgoing Govt for future deficits. Are you now arguing that the 2014-15 deficit is also Labors? What happens if the Abbott Govt has even bigger deficits than was forecast?

 

[noco]

Don't you find that a bit hypocritical? You're blaming Labor for their big Australia policy (even though Howard was a Big Australia policy man too) but you support a policy by Howard to increase natural population growth via increasing the birth rate.

So, are you against a large population for Australia, or you just have a preference for a big Australia filled with local babies?

Yes but Howard did it methodically and legally.......Rudd/Gillard/Rudd and about four different Immigration Ministers during 2007/2013 allowed in 50,000 illegal boat people compliments of the Indonesian people smugglers.