The Abbott Government

[SirRumpole]

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?

I have a preference for a sustainable population and natural population growth that uses resources efficiently. If you want people to have more children, paying them to do so isn't the best way to do it, because people start doing it for the money.

Quality is better than quantity. Let people who really want children and can afford to pay for them have them, but don't encourage the rest to do what they can't afford themselves. As I said , there is no guarantee that family tax benefits actually gets spent on children. Fund child care centres and better education systems if you want to ensure that children benefit.

 

[sptrawler]

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?

I probably have a leaning towards local babies, it tends to promote our own culture. The idea of allowing unabated immigration isn't, IMO, conducive to national pride.

The other problem is Australia's ease of access to welfare and pension system, we are finding it difficult to support it already.
The addition of large numbers of people, who haven't contributed to the system, place further pressure on those working to pay for them.
I know it sounds a bit selfish, however not many countries in the world, offer the ease of access we do.

 

[sptrawler]

I have a preference for a sustainable population and natural population growth that uses resources efficiently. If you want people to have more children, paying them to do so isn't the best way to do it, because people start doing it for the money.

Quality is better than quantity. Let people who really want children and can afford to pay for them have them, but don't encourage the rest to do what they can't afford themselves. As I said , there is no guarantee that family tax benefits actually gets spent on children. Fund child care centres and better education systems if you want to ensure that children benefit.

Isn't that the basis for Abbott's PPL idea? to enable the professional couples to have time off to have babies, yet still meet their financial commitments.

Not that I agree with it, but I'm sure I heard somewhere, it was to encourage our 'high achievers' to have babies.

As you say, there isn't much sense in encouraging people to have children, who can't afford to bring up children.

 

[SirRumpole]

Isn't that the basis for Abbott's PPL idea? to enable the professional couples to have time off to have babies, yet still meet their financial commitments.

Professional couples who want to have babies don't need any financial encouragement from others, they already have the incomes to manage.

 

[sptrawler]

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.?

We've been through this before, and as you know I aree with you.
The only point of difference we had was the amount of the limit, what you are suggesting above, I feel is spot on.

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."?

The welfare system has to be paid for by tax reciepts, the more that is given away in welfare, the more the tax burden on the productive sector.
The government has to somehow make the welfare system a safety net not a lifestyle. If that means relocating people to where the work is, or restricting access to welfare payments, or building affordable housing so be it.
Something is seriously wrong, when we have unemployed sitting on the streets of Sydney begging, while we had to bring in cleaners from overseas.
Just handing out money, with no accountabilty, hasn't worked. I certainly don't know how to fix it, but more of the same isn't the answer.

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.?

The carbon tax was crazy, it put us at an unfair dissadvantage to our competitors, e.g NZ
The MRRT was a band aid solution to a bigger issue, to put an add hock tax on a high risk venture, would have made it impossible to raise capital. Something needs doing, but shooting from the hip isn't it.

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.?

A lot of people did have a problem with the pension being linked to cpi, the papers were all over it and Shorten.
I said at the time, will the same people be screaming if the pension goes down with average wages, you bet they will.
Getting people to accept any cuts to anything is proving impossible, well that will mean the productive sector becomes less productive, as it will be taxed 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?

Your suggestions heve been very good, however they will only work for a period of time, untill welfare swallows up the extra taxes. Then you will have to think up more ways of paying for the guys sitting on Sydneys streets and housing the pensioners.
Do I have any ideas, well non that would be palatable, or acceptable.
It is a bit like the aboriginal issue, you can't buy them self respect and motivation, but we just throw more money at them.

 

[Tisme]

I probably have a leaning towards local babies, it tends to promote our own culture. The idea of allowing unabated immigration isn't, IMO, conducive to national pride.

The other problem is Australia's ease of access to welfare and pension system, we are finding it difficult to support it already.
The addition of large numbers of people, who haven't contributed to the system, place further pressure on those working to pay for them.
I know it sounds a bit selfish, however not many countries in the world, offer the ease of access we do.

My nationalistic side says we should promote local culture, but on the otherhand I'm not too sure if that isn't already evaporating as our homegrown kids adopt the global perspective.

I'm told, but I can't get to the core of it, that the handouts and support we think we are giving migrants isn't what the shock jocks would have us believe. I do know of two friends in their sixties, who migrated here in their twenties, but didn't take the oath and as such couldn't get flood relief and centrelink compensation because of it.

I was raised in poor town Perth, although I was fed and clothed and the people around me were first and second gen migrants from Italy, Yugoslavia and the UK and it didn't change my habitual tendancy for all things Aussie (although I admit the "mate" term was foreign to me until grade 7 when a new boy with an odd nasal twang joined the class). I liked my childhood, except those long hot days when were limited to watching boring ABC shows while laying in the breezeway of the house. I went on to do rather well for myself and get a very good education in the process as did many of my "poor migrant" friends who also made good, becoming politicians, industry leaders and household names.

 

[sptrawler]

Professional couples who want to have babies don't need any financial encouragement from others, they already have the incomes to manage.

Maybe they are just as stiched up with debt as everyone else?

 

[sptrawler]

I was raised in poor town Perth, although I was fed and clothed and the people around me were first and second gen migrants from Italy, Yugoslavia and the UK and it didn't change my habitual tendancy for all things Aussie (although I admit the "mate" term was foreign to me until grade 7 when a new boy with an odd nasal twang joined the class). I liked my childhood, except those long hot days when were limited to watching boring ABC shows while laying in the breezeway of the house. I went on to do rather well for myself and get a very good education in the process as did many of my "poor migrant" friends who also made good, becoming politicians, industry leaders and household names.

Sounds much like my story.

Except my friends aren't politicians, industry leaders or household names, just salt of the earth types.

 

[sydboy007]

I probably have a leaning towards local babies, it tends to promote our own culture. The idea of allowing unabated immigration isn't, IMO, conducive to national pride.

The other problem is Australia's ease of access to welfare and pension system, we are finding it difficult to support it already.
The addition of large numbers of people, who haven't contributed to the system, place further pressure on those working to pay for them.
I know it sounds a bit selfish, however not many countries in the world, offer the ease of access we do.

So to clarify, you do support a high population Australia as long as it's not brought about by immigration? Unabated local population growth is OK?

You do understand that the majority of people coming to Australia as immigrants don't have access to welfare. They get here because they're supposedly work ready and coming in to fill areas of skill shortages within the economy.

To get an idea of the truth regarding access to welfare for immigrants - https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/47temporary_residence.htm

Refugees receive the same social security benefits as everyone else. They account for the smallest caterogry of immigration as well.

Some other myths that are perpetuated:

Myth: Refugees living in Australia receives a larger weekly allowance from Centrelink than age pensioners.
Fact: A single person with no dependent children applying for the Newstart Allowance (whether or not he or she is a refugee) receives over $250.00 LESS per fortnight than a single age pensioner.

Myth: Refugees receive higher rates of payment under Centrelink programs than other Australians.
Fact: Centrelink payments are calculated at exactly the same rate for both refugees and non-refugees.

The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS) provides assistance to asylum seekers living in the community who are experiencing financial hardship. ASAS offers income support to cover basic living expenses, paid at 89 per cent of the Centrelink Special Benefit (which is usually paid at the same rate as the Newstart Allowance). This equates to around $446.00 per fortnight, or around $300.00 less than the single age pension.

The truth is Australia has some of the hardest to access social welfare in the world, and it's more tightly targeted to need than pretty much anywhere else as well.

Now you might believe smoking Joe's big lie "…the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian." The truth is most Australians get more from the system than they put in! Unless you’re earning at least $1,174 per week, you’re taking more from the tax system than you’re contributing. Or, to use Joe’s terms, at least 60% of Australians are ‘leaners’!

Now before you say why should the top 40% support the bottom 60%, it's pretty much because they can afford to - as the below chart shows. Being one of those in the 40 I'm happy to help those less fortunate, though I'd like to see a better targetting of assistance, and make the whole system a lot more efficient.

Now as SirRumpole has said, the tax churn of paying tax and receiving benefits is plain bad. The dead hand of Govt at each step makes that an expensive option. So policies that change the tax system to provide those on lower incomes with a similar outcome as they do now, helping to avoid the churn, would do a lot to make the system more affordable and easier to understand.

The massive amounts of largesse around super has to stop. Poor people shouldn't have to see higher income taxes just so a very small percentage can accumulate massive amounts of money in super. $1M at 5% provides someone with a tax free income of $50K a year. That's above the 47K median income, which for a single person is reduced via tax and high rental costs. Super is not the only way to save for retirement. I doubt those who can hit the $1M in super target would suddenly stop saving for their retirement.

Possibly the easiest way to make super fairer is via taxing contributions at the marginal rate. The 15% tax on earnings is still a pretty big incentive to save within super. The low taxing of super earnings is now starting to be the biggest component of tax forgone. A change like this would also mean those who lost out from the removal of the LISC will actually get a benefit for their super contributions.

The primary residence being outside pension assets has to stop. Possibly the easiest way forward is to bring the value of land within the assets test, along with a decent jump in the assets limit for those who don't own property. Land values are calculated for each state already, they are updated every 5 years, and there's well established processes in terms of challenging the valuation. It also avoids trying to determine the value of the structures on the land.

Quarantine NG to new builds, funnel the savings into building affordable housing. The increase in construction activity will increase economic activity and tax receipts.

There's so much that can be done to make the way we raise tax revenue simpler and fairer, but so far it's not on the political agenda.

 

[SirRumpole]

Maybe they are just as stiched up with debt as everyone else?

In which case they probably have more assets than they need and would pass their greed onto their children.

 

[sptrawler]

So to clarify, you do support a high population Australia as long as it's not brought about by immigration? Unabated local population growth is OK?

You do understand that the majority of people coming to Australia as immigrants don't have access to welfare. They get here because they're supposedly work ready and coming in to fill areas of skill shortages within the economy.

To get an idea of the truth regarding access to welfare for immigrants - https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/47temporary_residence.htm

Refugees receive the same social security benefits as everyone else. They account for the smallest caterogry of immigration as well.

Some other myths that are perpetuated:

Myth: Refugees living in Australia receives a larger weekly allowance from Centrelink than age pensioners.
Fact: A single person with no dependent children applying for the Newstart Allowance (whether or not he or she is a refugee) receives over $250.00 LESS per fortnight than a single age pensioner.

Myth: Refugees receive higher rates of payment under Centrelink programs than other Australians.
Fact: Centrelink payments are calculated at exactly the same rate for both refugees and non-refugees.

The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS) provides assistance to asylum seekers living in the community who are experiencing financial hardship. ASAS offers income support to cover basic living expenses, paid at 89 per cent of the Centrelink Special Benefit (which is usually paid at the same rate as the Newstart Allowance). This equates to around $446.00 per fortnight, or around $300.00 less than the single age pension.

The truth is Australia has some of the hardest to access social welfare in the world, and it's more tightly targeted to need than pretty much anywhere else as well.

Now you might believe smoking Joe's big lie "…the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian." The truth is most Australians get more from the system than they put in! Unless you’re earning at least $1,174 per week, you’re taking more from the tax system than you’re contributing. Or, to use Joe’s terms, at least 60% of Australians are ‘leaners’!

Now before you say why should the top 40% support the bottom 60%, it's pretty much because they can afford to - as the below chart shows. Being one of those in the 40 I'm happy to help those less fortunate, though I'd like to see a better targetting of assistance, and make the whole system a lot more efficient.

Now as SirRumpole has said, the tax churn of paying tax and receiving benefits is plain bad. The dead hand of Govt at each step makes that an expensive option. So policies that change the tax system to provide those on lower incomes with a similar outcome as they do now, helping to avoid the churn, would do a lot to make the system more affordable and easier to understand.

The massive amounts of largesse around super has to stop. Poor people shouldn't have to see higher income taxes just so a very small percentage can accumulate massive amounts of money in super. $1M at 5% provides someone with a tax free income of $50K a year. That's above the 47K median income, which for a single person is reduced via tax and high rental costs. Super is not the only way to save for retirement. I doubt those who can hit the $1M in super target would suddenly stop saving for their retirement.

Possibly the easiest way to make super fairer is via taxing contributions at the marginal rate. The 15% tax on earnings is still a pretty big incentive to save within super. The low taxing of super earnings is now starting to be the biggest component of tax forgone. A change like this would also mean those who lost out from the removal of the LISC will actually get a benefit for their super contributions.

The primary residence being outside pension assets has to stop. Possibly the easiest way forward is to bring the value of land within the assets test, along with a decent jump in the assets limit for those who don't own property. Land values are calculated for each state already, they are updated every 5 years, and there's well established processes in terms of challenging the valuation. It also avoids trying to determine the value of the structures on the land.

Quarantine NG to new builds, funnel the savings into building affordable housing. The increase in construction activity will increase economic activity and tax receipts.

There's so much that can be done to make the way we raise tax revenue simpler and fairer, but so far it's not on the political agenda.

As I've said on numerous occassions, I feel our population should increase as it can be facilitated and afforded.
Increasing the population, when we are having trouble supporting the existing population, is dumb.IMO


I just feel that whichever government is in, should to a certain degree be allowed to implement the agenda they believe will work, then be judged on the outcome.

IMO Both Labor and Liberal have good and bad policy, and depending on the economic cycle, both are required to have a turn in office. It is what makes our country work.

As for saying I dissagree with the top 40% paying more, I actually don't care, I don't work any more.
If my memory serves me right, you mentioned personal tax rates should fall.

 

[Tisme]

I was wondering to myself, which I do on a regular basis, how long it took to hatch a crafty plan to denigrate Bill Shorten instead of actually focusing on the dire state of the Australian economy (that's what the govt keep telling us at least).

So some toady has one of those moments where the name "Barnacle Bill" pops into his pea brain head and inwardly starting laughing, breaking out to gafoors like any school child is apt to do.

The solution is immediately at hand, all that is needed now is a situation to allow the funniest thing ever thought of to be announced... eureka lets call executive ineffectiveness and poor negotiation skills "barnacles" and in a few days spontaneously drop Bill's name at the end of it ... Stewie Griffin would be so impressed with the wit, up there with Juliar and other monumental additions to our lexicon.

I mean really guys, are you adults in charge or children!! I'm prepared to buy Parliament a book or two of erudite scholars practiced in the art of sophisticated, nonetheless crushing, wit:- Disraeli, Churchill, Whitlam, Keating and even Menzies.

That's my daily serve on our rudderless ship.

 

[IFocus]

Rabble


Coalition's GP co-payment strategy foundering on the rocks of confusion

The Abbott government appeared to be successfully executing this manoeuvre. It briefed the press gallery it was shelving the $7 GP co-payment (which it effectively already had, having long given up on attempts to persuade the implacably opposed Senate crossbench to pass it) and that it was “going back to the drawing board”.

Then this

But then the leader of the government in the Senate, Eric Abetz, insisted the government was, in fact, standing by the policy, the treasurer Joe Hockey said “our policy stands” and the health minister, Peter Dutton, suggested the government could try to impose it via regulation.

So who knows what happening....tell this bloke

The Australian Medical Association president, Brian Owler, told Guardian Australia on Thursday, “We just need to know who is running health policy in this country and what it is … right now it looks like a total mess.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...strategy-foundering-on-the-rocks-of-confusion

 

[Tisme]

Rabble


Coalition's GP co-payment strategy foundering on the rocks of confusion


http://www.theguardian.com/australi...strategy-foundering-on-the-rocks-of-confusion

Do you think the same thing that is happening to Campbell Newman is happening to Tony too = they have become placards, rather than spokesmen of cabinet policy?

 

[SirRumpole]

Do you think the same thing that is happening to Campbell Newman is happening to Tony too = they have become placards, rather than spokesmen of cabinet policy?

Tony Abbott wants the business sector to do the fighting his policies because he and Hockey haven't got the skills to do it themselves.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/pm-urges-business-leaders-to-join-team-australia/5849582

As for Newman, the public seems to be a wake up to him, with the next election too close to call

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-27/queensland-election-too-close-to-call/5921042

 

[banco]

Tony Abbott wants the business sector to do the fighting his policies because he and Hockey haven't got the skills to do it themselves.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/pm-urges-business-leaders-to-join-team-australia/5849582

As for Newman, the public seems to be a wake up to him, with the next election too close to call

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-27/queensland-election-too-close-to-call/5921042

"Team Australia" sounds so patronising. I can only assume it polls well with the bogans.

 

[Smurf1976]

Tony Abbott wants the business sector to do the fighting his policies because he and Hockey haven't got the skills to do it themselves.

It's a risky move asking people to put all their eggs in your basket when that basket is very obviously under stress and may well break.

Looking at the overall situation, a pragmatic business person or group with their own interest in mind would be trying to influence Labor policy or remaining neutral on the basis that a Labor government following the next election is at least a plausible outcome.

 

[Tisme]

Apparently the 7-8% swing against the LNP is not a fall, but merely an efficiency dividend. Apparently they are maintaining their lead with fewer people intent on voting for them. If only we could bottle the formula......

 

[noco]

Professional couples who want to have babies don't need any financial encouragement from others, they already have the incomes to manage.

How do you know they don't need help?

They probably pay the maximum in tax, probably have a mortgage on the house, paying off their uni hex fees.....have another kid or two.

As much as I am against the PPL scheme, if it does not go through then they should bring back the public servants and female politicians in line with the Labor scheme......I thought Labor always promotes fairness.

 

[sydboy007]

As I've said on numerous occassions, I feel our population should increase as it can be facilitated and afforded.
Increasing the population, when we are having trouble supporting the existing population, is dumb.IMO


I just feel that whichever government is in, should to a certain degree be allowed to implement the agenda they believe will work, then be judged on the outcome.

IMO Both Labor and Liberal have good and bad policy, and depending on the economic cycle, both are required to have a turn in office. It is what makes our country work.

As for saying I dissagree with the top 40% paying more, I actually don't care, I don't work any more.
If my memory serves me right, you mentioned personal tax rates should fall.

So handing out family tax benefits and baby bonuses (keepign income taxes higher) is the best way to facilitate and afford the ballooning Australian population? We can barely function as it is. Why do we need more people till we can actually build the roads and public transport systems to deal withthe population we have? So much of the $45B in east coast electricity upgrades were due to forecast population growth and increase in electricity consumption. better a stagnant population for a decade to let us catch up with the infrastructure we need.

What's the senate for then? If the Govt should be allowed unfettered power then why have the senate? i think the haggling at federation had a bit of a clue as to what bad ideas unfettered Govt could come up with.

I believe income taxes should be reduced as indirect taxes are raised. This could be achieved by broadening the GST and impletmenting land taxes, along with ditching payroll tax and lowerig corporate taxes via limiting some of the corporate tax minismisation that's going on. Increasing support to the bottom 30% should make this fair.

Without the senate we'd now be faced with:

* GP tax poorly targeted
* University fee deregulation
* RET castrated (when even the Govts own hand picked economic modeller shows it's good for consumers)
* CEF disbanded (even though it makes a profit)

Sometimes the Govt of the day needs a bit of discipline to stop them being too moronic.