Advertisement

Contradiction in Abbot’s interview

By 15 May 2014 11

As per an interview with the “Sunrise” show, around the 7:14 time stamp on the interview, our PM made some interesting comments about the “states” taking on more of a role with managing their own economies, saying “We want the states to more grown up adult governments”. If we look at the recent situation with gay marriage in the ACT, it can be nothing further from the truth, when Mr. Abbot overturned our state rights because the Commonwealth knows best. If the right for two men or two women is of such importance that Federal Government must intercede, then what of the local economies, the local schools who may not teach of evolution? He has stepped over that very thin line. [I am also personally swayed against same sex partnerships, but only as a personal opinion. When they make it a law that I can see in some respects is an injustice, I would swing the other way]. Apart from the rest of the BS laid down yesterday, what do you guys think about this hypocrisy?

Then he goes on to talk about how the Carbon tax repeal will save families $520 per year. That’s a pittance compared to the $2600 he reaps from families losing FTB part B, forcing more mothers into work while trying to figure out how to pay for before and after school care, at the same time as all the newly unemployed, newly sacked public servants and disability pensioners are forced into job seeking with ever climbing unemployment figures that reflect the lack of consumer confidence, considering we all have to tighten our belts. Gasp! I am glad I got that out of my system. Can anyone here tell me I’m wrong?

Please login to post your comments
11 Responses to Contradiction in Abbot’s interview
#1
Gibbo3:09 pm, 15 May 14

You are definitely wrong.
Family Tax Benefit B applies to the primary income.
And in fact there is a reduction in payment when the other person in a relationship undertakes employment.

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/family-tax-benefit-part-a-part-b/ftb-b-income-test

Income test for Family Tax Benefit Part B
This income test for Family Tax Benefit Part B is updated on 1 July each year.

Family Tax Benefit Part B is for families (single parent or couple) in which the primary earner has an adjusted taxable income of $150,000 or less per year.

Single parent family
If you are a single-parent family with an annual adjusted taxable income[1] of more than $150,000, you will not be eligible for Family Tax Benefit Part B.

If your income is at or below this limit you will continue to get the maximum rate of Family Tax Benefit Part B.

Two parent family
If you are a two-parent family in which your primary earner has an annual adjusted taxable income of more than $150,000 you will not be eligible for Family Tax Benefit Part B. This is regardless of the lower income of the other parent.

If the primary earner’s income is at or below this limit, Family Tax Benefit Part B will be assessed on the basis of the second earner’s income. Secondary earners can earn up to $5,183 each year before it affects the rate of Family Tax Benefit Part B.

Payments are reduced by 20 cents for each dollar of income earned over $5,183.

If you are the secondary earner and your partner earns $150,000 or less, you can still get some Family Tax Benefit Part B if your income is below:

•$26,390 a year, if your youngest child is under 5 years of age, or
•$20,532 a year, if your youngest child is 5–18 years of age

#2
watto235:17 pm, 15 May 14

Regardless of how you put it, there is a lot of contradiction. I have no issues with a tough budget. I have issues with lying about what he was going to do to get elected. And then using one argument when it suits him and another when it doesn’t. Lets get rid of the carbon tax and mining tax, and instead we’ll increase taxes elsewhere! The reason is because the big companies that pollute fund the liberal party. not because its to help out families. At least I can see how corrupt the unions are and also their association with labor.

#3
dungfungus7:41 pm, 15 May 14

Where were you when Joe Hockey said many times “the age of entitlements is over”?
What hasn’t been promulgated enough is that we are still borrowing $1 billion a month and part of this is funding the benefits that are being withdrawn.
We need that benefits money to help to pay interest on the debt already accrued which is about the same amount per month that we are borrowing. How ridiculous is that? We are borrowing money to pay interest! Doesn’t that ring some sort of alarm bell?

#4
watto238:56 pm, 15 May 14

dungfungus said :

Where were you when Joe Hockey said many times “the age of entitlements is over”?
What hasn’t been promulgated enough is that we are still borrowing $1 billion a month and part of this is funding the benefits that are being withdrawn.
We need that benefits money to help to pay interest on the debt already accrued which is about the same amount per month that we are borrowing. How ridiculous is that? We are borrowing money to pay interest! Doesn’t that ring some sort of alarm bell?

Stop regurgitating coalition policies. Noone is arguing that we didn’t need to make cuts such that we are not borrowing money to pay interest. However the budget went further than that and set about ideological changes because liberal wants to get rid of things too under the disguise of a fake “budget crisis”. I have no issue with cutting welfare to the middle class. However he is also adding welfare to the middle and upper class with his maternity leave scheme. So on one hand he is telling people pay for a doctor, pay for your education, no more handouts and on the other hand he is saying except if you want to have a baby then let us pay for your 6 months off, because the current minimum wage for 18 weeks isn’t generous enough. Very hypocritical if you ask anyone who isn’t a blind coalition or labor voter.

#5
milkman9:40 pm, 15 May 14

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Where were you when Joe Hockey said many times “the age of entitlements is over”?
What hasn’t been promulgated enough is that we are still borrowing $1 billion a month and part of this is funding the benefits that are being withdrawn.
We need that benefits money to help to pay interest on the debt already accrued which is about the same amount per month that we are borrowing. How ridiculous is that? We are borrowing money to pay interest! Doesn’t that ring some sort of alarm bell?

Stop regurgitating coalition policies. Noone is arguing that we didn’t need to make cuts such that we are not borrowing money to pay interest. However the budget went further than that and set about ideological changes because liberal wants to get rid of things too under the disguise of a fake “budget crisis”. I have no issue with cutting welfare to the middle class. However he is also adding welfare to the middle and upper class with his maternity leave scheme. So on one hand he is telling people pay for a doctor, pay for your education, no more handouts and on the other hand he is saying except if you want to have a baby then let us pay for your 6 months off, because the current minimum wage for 18 weeks isn’t generous enough. Very hypocritical if you ask anyone who isn’t a blind coalition or labor voter.

How about you stop regurgitating Labor policies then.

FWIW I think it’s a strange budget, and I think I need to read more analysis and think about it, but re-spewing the cr*p the commercial media is peddling is helping no-one.

#6
Canberroid9:47 pm, 15 May 14

dungfungus said :

Where were you when Joe Hockey said many times “the age of entitlements is over”?
What hasn’t been promulgated enough is that we are still borrowing $1 billion a month and part of this is funding the benefits that are being withdrawn.
We need that benefits money to help to pay interest on the debt already accrued which is about the same amount per month that we are borrowing. How ridiculous is that? We are borrowing money to pay interest! Doesn’t that ring some sort of alarm bell?

Not if the money is invested in the economy and has a higher rate of return than the borrowing interest rates. Don’t forget that the Australian government gets lower interest rates than you or I ever will. Managing the budget of Australia is not the same as managing a household budget, and this whole “budget emergency” thing is utter rubbish. $1b/month sounds like a big number, but compared to the GDP it’s not that bad. A large deficit is bad, but a large surplus is a wasted opportunity.

Not that I’d want Wayne “Surplus at any cost” Swann back in charge of finances…

#7
JC11:02 pm, 15 May 14

dungfungus said :

Where were you when Joe Hockey said many times “the age of entitlements is over”?
What hasn’t been promulgated enough is that we are still borrowing $1 billion a month and part of this is funding the benefits that are being withdrawn.
We need that benefits money to help to pay interest on the debt already accrued which is about the same amount per month that we are borrowing. How ridiculous is that? We are borrowing money to pay interest! Doesn’t that ring some sort of alarm bell?

So if it rings an alarm bell why didn’t Abbott and Hockey do something about it? All they have done is adjusted spending, to match exactly what Labor had planned anyway ($415b) but on their own agenda and adjusted income sources along traditional Liberal ideological lines of make the poor pay and the save the rich and corporate the pain.

Doesn’t seem to be doing anything very much to me.

#8
dungfungus9:15 am, 16 May 14

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Where were you when Joe Hockey said many times “the age of entitlements is over”?
What hasn’t been promulgated enough is that we are still borrowing $1 billion a month and part of this is funding the benefits that are being withdrawn.
We need that benefits money to help to pay interest on the debt already accrued which is about the same amount per month that we are borrowing. How ridiculous is that? We are borrowing money to pay interest! Doesn’t that ring some sort of alarm bell?

So if it rings an alarm bell why didn’t Abbott and Hockey do something about it? All they have done is adjusted spending, to match exactly what Labor had planned anyway ($415b) but on their own agenda and adjusted income sources along traditional Liberal ideological lines of make the poor pay and the save the rich and corporate the pain.

Doesn’t seem to be doing anything very much to me.

Someone else quoted that the top 2% of wage earners (the are rich people but also include the silvertail socialists) will be paying thousands of dollars via the defecit levy for the next 2 years.
That’s what Abbott and Hockey have done about it.

#9
VYBerlinaV8_is_back12:49 pm, 16 May 14

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Where were you when Joe Hockey said many times “the age of entitlements is over”?
What hasn’t been promulgated enough is that we are still borrowing $1 billion a month and part of this is funding the benefits that are being withdrawn.
We need that benefits money to help to pay interest on the debt already accrued which is about the same amount per month that we are borrowing. How ridiculous is that? We are borrowing money to pay interest! Doesn’t that ring some sort of alarm bell?

So if it rings an alarm bell why didn’t Abbott and Hockey do something about it? All they have done is adjusted spending, to match exactly what Labor had planned anyway ($415b) but on their own agenda and adjusted income sources along traditional Liberal ideological lines of make the poor pay and the save the rich and corporate the pain.

Doesn’t seem to be doing anything very much to me.

Someone else quoted that the top 2% of wage earners (the are rich people but also include the silvertail socialists) will be paying thousands of dollars via the defecit levy for the next 2 years.
That’s what Abbott and Hockey have done about it.

And these are the people paying most of the income tax anyway.

#10
Funky12:13 pm, 16 May 14

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Where were you when Joe Hockey said many times “the age of entitlements is over”?
What hasn’t been promulgated enough is that we are still borrowing $1 billion a month and part of this is funding the benefits that are being withdrawn.
We need that benefits money to help to pay interest on the debt already accrued which is about the same amount per month that we are borrowing. How ridiculous is that? We are borrowing money to pay interest! Doesn’t that ring some sort of alarm bell?

So if it rings an alarm bell why didn’t Abbott and Hockey do something about it? All they have done is adjusted spending, to match exactly what Labor had planned anyway ($415b) but on their own agenda and adjusted income sources along traditional Liberal ideological lines of make the poor pay and the save the rich and corporate the pain.

Doesn’t seem to be doing anything very much to me.

Someone else quoted that the top 2% of wage earners (the are rich people but also include the silvertail socialists) will be paying thousands of dollars via the defecit levy for the next 2 years.
That’s what Abbott and Hockey have done about it.

Exactly!! Only for 2 years!! While the other cuts to the lower classes, pensioners, etc will be permanent!!

#11
dungfungus3:11 pm, 16 May 14

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Where were you when Joe Hockey said many times “the age of entitlements is over”?
What hasn’t been promulgated enough is that we are still borrowing $1 billion a month and part of this is funding the benefits that are being withdrawn.
We need that benefits money to help to pay interest on the debt already accrued which is about the same amount per month that we are borrowing. How ridiculous is that? We are borrowing money to pay interest! Doesn’t that ring some sort of alarm bell?

So if it rings an alarm bell why didn’t Abbott and Hockey do something about it? All they have done is adjusted spending, to match exactly what Labor had planned anyway ($415b) but on their own agenda and adjusted income sources along traditional Liberal ideological lines of make the poor pay and the save the rich and corporate the pain.

Doesn’t seem to be doing anything very much to me.

Someone else quoted that the top 2% of wage earners (the are rich people but also include the silvertail socialists) will be paying thousands of dollars via the defecit levy for the next 2 years.
That’s what Abbott and Hockey have done about it.

Exactly!! Only for 2 years!! While the other cuts to the lower classes, pensioners, etc will be permanent!!

Most of the cuts to the battling underclasses will not start for a while anyway. In the meantime they will have to learn to toughen up like everyone else. They can vent their anger by voting for Labor in the next election.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.