The Abbott Government

[sydboy007]

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.

* They probably receive quite a bit of Govt assistance
* No one forced them to take on an obscene sized mortgage
* Abbott wants to increase the HECS debt of all students
* No one forced them to have another kid or two

So why do you believe the rest of us owes those with kids the life style they feel they deserve?

 

[SirRumpole]

Increasing support to the bottom 30% should make this fair.

How are you going to compensate self funded retirees, some of whom earn quite low incomes , but aren't on a pension or part pension ?

 

[noco]

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

Why do you call it greed?...

Are you jealous of their success after studying hard at uni for 6 years.

Are you envious that they may have a professional job that is earning them twice or three times as much as the average wage.

Many professional people and others in business don't work a 38 hour week...from one who knows what it is like to work 10 to 12 hours per day and sometimes 7 days a week.

The die hard unionist complain about having to work 38 hours and the further complain about someone who works hard and accumulates a bit of wealth and asses.....In hard times those unionist should go back to working 40 hours at the same rate of pay and help out our diminishing economy created by the Green/Labor Party.

Hard work never killed anyone.

Get over it Rumpy.

 

[noco]

* They probably receive quite a bit of Govt assistance
* No one forced them to take on an obscene sized mortgage
* Abbott wants to increase the HECS debt of all students
* No one forced them to have another kid or two

So why do you believe the rest of us owes those with kids the life style they feel they deserve?

What a weak argument you put up.

How do you know they receive quite a bit of government assistance?

How do you know they have taken on an obscene sized mortgage?.....I know professionals who live in average sized houses.

What has Abbott got to do with the current system?

How many kids a couple want has nothing to do you with you...that is their decision.

You will have to do better than that Rumpy......you are slipping in your old age.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why do you call it greed?...

Are you jealous of their success after studying hard at uni for 6 years.

Are you envious that they may have a professional job that is earning them twice or three times as much as the average wage.

Many professional people and others in business don't work a 38 hour week...from one who knows what it is like to work 10 to 12 hours per day and sometimes 7 days a week.

Hard work never killed anyone.

Get over it Rumpy.

If a couple earning professional salaries have a massive mortgage then they are buying property(properties) that they can't afford. Why should my taxes or the income of businesses pay for that indulgence ?

If they want kids they can buy a smaller house=smaller mortgage and trade up later. It's all about responsible financial management, something the higher income earners have always lectured the "working classes" about.

 

[SirRumpole]

What a weak argument you put up.

How do you know they receive quite a bit of government assistance?

How do you know they have taken on an obscene sized mortgage?.....I know professionals who live in average sized houses.

What has Abbott got to do with the current system?

How many kids a couple want has nothing to do you with you...that is their decision.

You will have to do better than that Rumpy......you are slipping in your old age.

Why quote syd, and then have a go at me ?

Senility setting in perhaps ?

 

[noco]

If a couple earning professional salaries have a massive mortgage then they are buying property(properties) that they can't afford. Why should my taxes or the income of businesses pay for that indulgence ?

If they want kids they can buy a smaller house=smaller mortgage and trade up later. It's all about responsible financial management, something the higher income earners have always lectured the "working classes" about.

Once again how do you know they have a massive mortgage?

You are only assuming.

The word "ASSuME" makes an ass out of you and me.

As I said before I know some professionals in town who live in average houses and up grade as their families grow. ....

You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[noco]

Why quote syd, and then have a go at me ?

Senility setting in perhaps ?

I like to kill two birds with the one stone because you both think alike.

 

[SirRumpole]

Once again how do you know they have a massive mortgage?

Did you notice the word IF in my sentence ?

The essential point I'm making is that the children/mortgage balance is a personal lifestyle choice and should not be funded by the rest of us, whether the recipients of PPL welfare are professional, white collar, blue collar or whatever.

Saying that though, action can be taken to reduce the price of homes and therefore the cost of mortgages by limiting properties that foreign investors can buy and cutting down on negative gearing so that more couples can get a decently priced house and have children as well.

 

[boofhead]

People do have the option of renting. What is wrong with Labor's PPL based scheme? Seems it is more Coalition middleclass welfare. Abbott is eager to have some Howard traits. In doing so reduces company tax for most companies to 28.5% and larger companies pay 1.5% levy. With softing government revenue it seems a risky to reduce government income. I didn't check if the corporate tax rate reduction is 100% tied to PPL (which is not yet introduced) or will happen no matter what.

People with higher incomes have better capacity to handle child costs, leave etc than those on low wages. With the age of entitlement over maybe Coalition should stick with the Labor implementation that is more of a safety net.

 

[noco]

Did you notice the word IF in my sentence ?

The essential point I'm making is that the children/mortgage balance is a personal lifestyle choice and should not be funded by the rest of us, whether the recipients of PPL welfare are professional, white collar, blue collar or whatever.

Saying that though, action can be taken to reduce the price of homes and therefore the cost of mortgages by limiting properties that foreign investors can buy and cutting down on negative gearing so that more couples can get a decently priced house and have children as well.

IF..MAYBE..PERHAPS does not negate the word ASSUME!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[noco]

People do have the option of renting. What is wrong with Labor's PPL based scheme? Seems it is more Coalition middleclass welfare. Abbott is eager to have some Howard traits. In doing so reduces company tax for most companies to 28.5% and larger companies pay 1.5% levy. With softing government revenue it seems a risky to reduce government income. I didn't check if the corporate tax rate reduction is 100% tied to PPL (which is not yet introduced) or will happen no matter what.

People with higher incomes have better capacity to handle child costs, leave etc than those on low wages. With the age of entitlement over maybe Coalition should stick with the Labor implementation that is more of a safety net.

Yes I agree so long as it is applied to all, including public servants and politicians.

We should all be treated equally...why should there be a system for some and a different one for others...PS think they are the salt of the Earth and there should be treated differently to others.

PS also get 12% superannuation as well, where as other workers only get 9.5%

Do you agree?

 

[boofhead]

I think all workers should get 12% but the Coalition is willing to delay that.

We're not all equal and the Coalition's PPL makes it far less equal. I don't know what you're trying to say as your reasoning seems to confliction. Also isn't the Coalition policy more strongly Fabian than Labor's? You keep beating on about Fabians then somehow defending the Coalition PPL.

I'm not a fan of strong population growth. It seems to cover of the cracks of societial problems by dilution. Maybe it is like stars. Grow to be big, burn bright, die young. Abbott quickly got to work on the major Labor changes he campaigned about but will he get the budget right and move the whole nation to a better place? If someone earning $20,000 gets more clawed from them than someone on $500,000 then something is wrong. Give up on looking to USA for economic guidance as has the largest national debt seen.

Abbott and co antics in opposition are coming home to roost. Populist media grabs don't make good policy.

 

[sydboy007]

How are you going to compensate self funded retirees, some of whom earn quite low incomes , but aren't on a pension or part pension ?

Well, if you are a fully funded self retiree, then you're likely to be over the assets test:

Single Home Owner $771,750 Non Home Owner $918,250
Couple combined Home Owner $1,145,500 Non Home Owner $1,292,000

At 5% yield on either of those amounts you would be earning a significant amount over the full aged pension. An overseas holiday and some house repairs should see the majority able to scrap in under the upper limit of the assets test and gain access to the cheaper pharmaceuticals / water / council rates / car registration / licence renewal / cut price public transport on offer too. Assistance to the aged already dwarfs any other form of spending. Nationally it's over 3 times what we spend on defence.

Considering their income is likely to be tax free they're sitting pretty compared to the majority of under 40s paying rent and tax.

Current tax payers don't owe pensioners a comfortable retirement.

 

[SirRumpole]

Current tax payers don't owe pensioners a comfortable retirement.

And those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives don't owe an easier lifestyle to those who haven't.

 

[sptrawler]

And those who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives don't owe an easier lifestyle to those who haven't.

You obviously haven't read between the lines, if the welfare costs are going to keep climbing and taxes on workers and business keep lowering, then someone has to pay more.

Front and centre Sir Rumpole.

As Syd say's personal tax rates are too high and we all know corporate tax has to drop to hold industry here.

That means, as Syd says, land owning people who are self funded are ripe for the picking.

Gen Y's answer, to support their lifestyle.
Also Bill Shortens, if you read what he is saying.lol

 

[SirRumpole]

You obviously haven't read between the lines, if the welfare costs are going to keep climbing and taxes on workers and business keep lowering, then someone has to pay more.

Front and centre Sir Rumpole.

As a self funded retiree I don't get any welfare. No concessions on power, rates, transport, Medicare etc, but want I don't need is life to get harder so a few Gen Y'ers get to buy new iPods.

Cut family tax benefits as I have mentioned before, they are the biggest welfare con, put the money into better child care facilities that don't cost an arm and a leg for the parents.

Syd raised a very valid point about reverse mortgages. Excellent idea and should be encouraged.


And why should individual taxes keep reducing ? We are a low taxed country by international standards. If people want services now and in the future, then the money to fund those services has to be raised.

 

[sydboy007]

You obviously haven't read between the lines, if the welfare costs are going to keep climbing and taxes on workers and business keep lowering, then someone has to pay more.

Front and centre Sir Rumpole.

As Syd say's personal tax rates are too high and we all know corporate tax has to drop to hold industry here.

That means, as Syd says, land owning people who are self funded are ripe for the picking.

Gen Y's answer, to support their lifestyle.
Also Bill Shortens, if you read what he is saying.lol

So what's your solution to the falling working aged population, pensioner tsunami, and off shore tax havens siphoning corporate taxes out of the country?

The most efficient tax system targets land and consumption and resources. tax what's not moveable so you can lightly tax that which is ie workers and capital within companies. The Swiss do it and it's not controversial there. Each canton has a wealth tax. I don't seem to recall the country falling into a heap over it. They seem pretty successful actually. Certainly a far greater manufacturing prowess than import everything Australia.

It's not class or generational war fare as you seem to make it out to be. To me it's the only viable option we have. The googles and apples and glencores have shown they don't have any interest in paying taxes here. Heck even the Future Fund uses the same tricks, so it's hard for the Govt to tut tut to businesses over it.

So we can keep on pretending she'll be right, or we need to start making significant changes to the way we source revenue. It needs to be done more efficiently so that the costs of avoidance start to become less attractive. Our problems are as much about spending as it is about the way we tax.

At least I actually present options. Most on this forum like to whinge about the major parties doing nothing but then put their hands up in the air as if to say don't look at me.

 

[Tisme]

At least I actually present options. Most on this forum like to whinge about the major parties doing nothing but then put their hands up in the air as if to say don't look at me.

I think that has a manifold of reasons, but perhaps the problem is the parties aren't a broad enough church for today's peoples.

Sure there are diehards who are compelled to vote as they have always done, lest they have to unscramble all the self determinations of their own good judgements, but I have noticed (from decades on the internet boards) that there is a definite softening of bipolar loyalty and more openness about the stupidity and errors made from their tribal preference. I'm not sure how much of that is due to policy drift away from the core values and how much can be attributed to people finding out their arch political enemies don't necessarily have cloven hooves and barley twist horns.


I like that both Lib and Lab have to answer to voters at the polls, instead of the old entrenched regimes pre Whitlam.

 

[sydboy007]

As a self funded retiree I don't get any welfare. No concessions on power, rates, transport, Medicare etc, but want I don't need is life to get harder so a few Gen Y'ers get to buy new iPods.

Was superannuation the path to becoming self funded? There's plenty of Govt assistance provided through it, and further assistance via super being tax free. Others probably used some NG property as well. That's an $8B cost to the budget each year.

Someone receiving no pension benefits as a home owning couple should be generating an income of around $60425 a year tax free. That's readily achievable using various inflation linked bonds for 5% yield. Some fixed interest bonds are still offering 6 to 6.5%.

If you paid tax on that at standard rates it would be $12300.00 or over 1/3 of the couple pension. Seems a reasonable pay back for living on twice the aged pension.