Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Budget fears

Emily Morris 29 April 2014 92

It seems to me that every day we are now hearing new ‘worst case’ scenarios in preparation for Joe Hockeys big moment in the sun.  Increased taxes, rising pension ages, changes to university funding – the list goes on (funnily enough no talk of changes to paid maternity leave which I find surprising).  It seems to me we are all in the firing line.

What do you think would be the worst case details for Canberra?  What are the areas to watch come budget night?  Is there anything you hope to see included?


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
92 Responses to Budget fears
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 3 4 5
Neergnevets 9:33 pm 14 May 14

Hey – great infographic of the Budget here:

http://excelschool.com.au/Photos/2014-15%20Budget%20by%20Excel%20School.pdf

Done by local Excel guys.

dungfungus 8:32 pm 06 May 14

Funky1 said :

dungfungus said :

Anna Burke made much of her “free” education under the Whitlam Labor Government on Q&A last night and a contributor to the Canberra Times letters to the editor did the same in the today’s issue.
What hope have we got when people with tertiary qualifications still do not understand that there is nothing “free” in this country?
The same people b%*ch about having to repay their HECS and HELP loans which only represent a small amount of what the actual cost of tertiary education is.
It costs under $20000 for tuition fees to get a BA in Arts at ANU and yet some people go to great lengths to avoid paying even this small amount. There are billions of dollars outstanding in unpaid HECS/HELP loans already.
I am in favour of the government getting a bit more commercial minded in granting and managing education loans. Why should the taxpayer bear the burden for a few who think they are entitled to “free” education?
I am sure the majority will support Hockey if he changes the current system.

And I’m sure they won’t!!

Well, if they don’t, prepare for spending cuts like we have never seen before.

Funky1 2:21 pm 06 May 14

dungfungus said :

Anna Burke made much of her “free” education under the Whitlam Labor Government on Q&A last night and a contributor to the Canberra Times letters to the editor did the same in the today’s issue.
What hope have we got when people with tertiary qualifications still do not understand that there is nothing “free” in this country?
The same people b%*ch about having to repay their HECS and HELP loans which only represent a small amount of what the actual cost of tertiary education is.
It costs under $20000 for tuition fees to get a BA in Arts at ANU and yet some people go to great lengths to avoid paying even this small amount. There are billions of dollars outstanding in unpaid HECS/HELP loans already.
I am in favour of the government getting a bit more commercial minded in granting and managing education loans. Why should the taxpayer bear the burden for a few who think they are entitled to “free” education?
I am sure the majority will support Hockey if he changes the current system.

And I’m sure they won’t!!

dungfungus 8:42 am 06 May 14

Anna Burke made much of her “free” education under the Whitlam Labor Government on Q&A last night and a contributor to the Canberra Times letters to the editor did the same in the today’s issue.
What hope have we got when people with tertiary qualifications still do not understand that there is nothing “free” in this country?
The same people b%*ch about having to repay their HECS and HELP loans which only represent a small amount of what the actual cost of tertiary education is.
It costs under $20000 for tuition fees to get a BA in Arts at ANU and yet some people go to great lengths to avoid paying even this small amount. There are billions of dollars outstanding in unpaid HECS/HELP loans already.
I am in favour of the government getting a bit more commercial minded in granting and managing education loans. Why should the taxpayer bear the burden for a few who think they are entitled to “free” education?
I am sure the majority will support Hockey if he changes the current system.

wildturkeycanoe 6:44 pm 05 May 14

Golly, didn’t I open a can of worms there. Perhaps we leave this one for a different forum and go back to the ridiculous budget that is going to make everyone’s life a living hell for the next, fifty years or so? Or, maybe it will only last till next “forced” election some time later this year, then everything gets back to normal.

dungfungus 3:41 pm 05 May 14

neanderthalsis said :

dungfungus said :

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

As I said earlier, having children in some countries is not a lifestyle choice. Remember the one child policy in China?

They don’t make you have children in China, you are free to have none at all. You can even have more than one if you are prepared to pay the social burden levy or a farmer, or well connected…

I think you have misunderstood this. The “one child policy” means “only one child” so if a couple want more children it is not a “lifestyle choice”. There may be ways the wealthy can circumvent this as you have alluded to.
Only non-democratic countries with extreme cultural/religious doctrines compell their subjects to have large families. They will be coming to a town like ours soon.

bigfeet 3:18 pm 05 May 14

dungfungus said :

As I said earlier, having children in some countries is not a lifestyle choice. Remember the one child policy in China?

You could still choose to have none if you wished.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-children, and don’t have anything against anyone who chooses to have them. If they work within your lifestyle, well good for you. I even have no issues with the state subsidising to a small degree those who choose to have children.

The concept didn’t work with my wife and mine’s lifestyle, so we chose not to have them. That is our choice and having children is other peoples lifestyle choice. Fine by me!

neanderthalsis 2:41 pm 05 May 14

dungfungus said :

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

As I said earlier, having children in some countries is not a lifestyle choice. Remember the one child policy in China?

They don’t make you have children in China, you are free to have none at all. You can even have more than one if you are prepared to pay the social burden levy or a farmer, or well connected…

Maya123 1:41 pm 05 May 14

wildturkeycanoe said :

Maya123 said :

Tough, your teenagers want cars. Tell them to wait until they are adults and have an income and can buy their own. Spoilt, if they expect others to buy cars for them.
I also wondered about the above. If one child puts you into a difficult debt, why number two and three child?

Debt problem fixed prior to arrival of #2, then things went south again. It happens. I never have said that having the children put any extra financial burden on us. Even without the kids the circumstances that caused the problems still happened and had their impact. My partner not working had nothing to do with the arrival of our baby, it had already happened. It also coincided with the Liberal government taking power. Funny that things have gone south again, with the Liberals taking the helm.
BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

The family line (genes) would continue no matter what surname they bore. Males, who place such importance on the male line, think less of the females in the family. You might argue you don’t think this way, but your statement says otherwise, because if you only had a female child you would be disappointed, because she wasn’t male to pass on your surname. (But she could if she chose.) But what about your partner? What about her not passing on her family name? What if she wanted to? Would you argue against this; tell her she can lose her family name, but it’s important you don’t? Anyway, how can you be sure that the males going back through history were really the sons of their supposed fathers? The number who weren’t makes a joke of the male line thing.

dungfungus 1:22 pm 05 May 14

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

So it’s a vanity thing?

What’s vain about that? Seriously? I just don’t want the pompous rich people being the only ones who are allowed to breed, “cause they can afford it”. Isn’t eligibility for parenthood based on financial capacity a form of genocide, whereby only a few wealthy families will be the only ones around in future generations? Imagine a century from now, when there won’t be any lower class and the rich folks’ kids will have to do demeaning things like plumbing and garbage collection.

I go back to my original point. Having children is always a lifestyle choice. Nothing wrong with that at all but people need to accept it instead of coming up with altruistic justifications.

BTW, I am also the last male of a line and the family name will die with me. I’m not that vain to think that really matters. It will make no difference in the scheme of things whether there is someone with my last name on this planet or not.

As I said earlier, having children in some countries is not a lifestyle choice. Remember the one child policy in China?

bigfeet 12:02 pm 05 May 14

wildturkeycanoe said :

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

So it’s a vanity thing?

What’s vain about that? Seriously? I just don’t want the pompous rich people being the only ones who are allowed to breed, “cause they can afford it”. Isn’t eligibility for parenthood based on financial capacity a form of genocide, whereby only a few wealthy families will be the only ones around in future generations? Imagine a century from now, when there won’t be any lower class and the rich folks’ kids will have to do demeaning things like plumbing and garbage collection.

I go back to my original point. Having children is always a lifestyle choice. Nothing wrong with that at all but people need to accept it instead of coming up with altruistic justifications.

BTW, I am also the last male of a line and the family name will die with me. I’m not that vain to think that really matters. It will make no difference in the scheme of things whether there is someone with my last name on this planet or not.

Postalgeek 11:49 am 05 May 14

wildturkeycanoe said :

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

So it’s a vanity thing?

What’s vain about that? Seriously? I just don’t want the pompous rich people being the only ones who are allowed to breed, “cause they can afford it”. Isn’t eligibility for parenthood based on financial capacity a form of genocide, whereby only a few wealthy families will be the only ones around in future generations? Imagine a century from now, when there won’t be any lower class and the rich folks’ kids will have to do demeaning things like plumbing and garbage collection.

I think idiocracy is closer to the mark.

wildturkeycanoe 10:48 am 05 May 14

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

So it’s a vanity thing?

What’s vain about that? Seriously? I just don’t want the pompous rich people being the only ones who are allowed to breed, “cause they can afford it”. Isn’t eligibility for parenthood based on financial capacity a form of genocide, whereby only a few wealthy families will be the only ones around in future generations? Imagine a century from now, when there won’t be any lower class and the rich folks’ kids will have to do demeaning things like plumbing and garbage collection.

bigfeet 3:16 pm 04 May 14

wildturkeycanoe said :

BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

So it’s a vanity thing?

JC 11:29 am 04 May 14

justin heywood said :

JC said :

Don’t disagree with there being a structural problem with the budget. Since the first intergenerational report was commissioned by Costello and Howard it has been telling us the cost to government of an aging population is going to cost us more and that taxes need to rise to cover it.

Instead what does Howard and Costello do? Yes give tax cuts to win elections. Labor of course is no better on this front of course as they too didn’t address the core issue which is on the revenue side. They of course had to deal with the GFC, though the Liberal lovies deny that was ever an issue in Australia. A crazy statement if ever I heard.

We now have two buffoons running the show who are, to their credit trying to address the core issue of rising costs to government of social services due to aging population, but their solution to it is slash an burn and make those that can least afford to pay either pay more for it or go without. Whilst at the same time blaming economic mismanagement by the previous government as the reason for the need. The real solution needs to be an equitable rise in taxes over time to 1996 levels and a lowering of welfare to those that really don’t need it.

JC, FFS, there have been 6 budgets and 3 Prime Ministers since John Howard. Yet somehow you have managed to convince yourself that it’s all his fault and that the ‘buffoons’ in charge now don’t know what they are doing either. Presumably, your team was the only one who knew what they were doing.

You don’t think there could be a teensy bit of bias in your thinking?

NSS. Did you miss the bit in my post where I said that Labor did nothing too? Did you miss the bit where I at least gave some kudos two the two buffoons? My issue is they are going about it the wrong way, the core issue is lack of income not too much expenditure and with an aging population it is going to get worse, even with retirement pushed out to 70.

As for bias, so what? I am not a journo, I am an individual expressing my personal view, like everyone else on this board.

justin heywood 5:47 pm 03 May 14

JC said :

Don’t disagree with there being a structural problem with the budget. Since the first intergenerational report was commissioned by Costello and Howard it has been telling us the cost to government of an aging population is going to cost us more and that taxes need to rise to cover it.

Instead what does Howard and Costello do? Yes give tax cuts to win elections. Labor of course is no better on this front of course as they too didn’t address the core issue which is on the revenue side. They of course had to deal with the GFC, though the Liberal lovies deny that was ever an issue in Australia. A crazy statement if ever I heard.

We now have two buffoons running the show who are, to their credit trying to address the core issue of rising costs to government of social services due to aging population, but their solution to it is slash an burn and make those that can least afford to pay either pay more for it or go without. Whilst at the same time blaming economic mismanagement by the previous government as the reason for the need. The real solution needs to be an equitable rise in taxes over time to 1996 levels and a lowering of welfare to those that really don’t need it.

JC, FFS, there have been 6 budgets and 3 Prime Ministers since John Howard. Yet somehow you have managed to convince yourself that it’s all his fault and that the ‘buffoons’ in charge now don’t know what they are doing either. Presumably, your team was the only one who knew what they were doing.

You don’t think there could be a teensy bit of bias in your thinking?

dungfungus 5:47 pm 03 May 14

JC said :

dungfungus said :

.
Yes, it’s the same Wayne Swan who promised us year after year a budget surplus and look at the mess he left us with.

Yep an economy that is the envy of the world. Not a bad mess to be left with hey? But yeah you don’t believe the words independent economists just Joe Hockey and Co. Guess you read it all in the Terrograph.

Name me two of the independent economists you are referring to.
I don’t read the Telegraph except when I go to the barber but I am comfortable knowing you have read what they have to say about our economy.
You made no comment on Wayne Swan (and Penny Wong for that matter) continually failing to deliver budget surpluses that they had promised. You can’t have it both ways anymore you know.

wildturkeycanoe 1:41 pm 03 May 14

Maya123 said :

Tough, your teenagers want cars. Tell them to wait until they are adults and have an income and can buy their own. Spoilt, if they expect others to buy cars for them.
I also wondered about the above. If one child puts you into a difficult debt, why number two and three child?

Debt problem fixed prior to arrival of #2, then things went south again. It happens. I never have said that having the children put any extra financial burden on us. Even without the kids the circumstances that caused the problems still happened and had their impact. My partner not working had nothing to do with the arrival of our baby, it had already happened. It also coincided with the Liberal government taking power. Funny that things have gone south again, with the Liberals taking the helm.
BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

JC 12:55 pm 03 May 14

milkman said :

We have a structural problem that needs to be fixed BEFORE it’s as bad as other places. Far better to tackle this now.

And giving credit to the previous Labor goverment for profligate spending on crap which ‘saved’ us from recession (by 0.3% GDP for 1 quarter remember) is a bit silly.

And it’s debt, not debit.

Of course this commission of audit looks bad. That way the budget won’t seem so bad in a week and a bit.

Don’t disagree with there being a structural problem with the budget. Since the first intergenerational report was commissioned by Costello and Howard it has been telling us the cost to government of an aging population is going to cost us more and that taxes need to rise to cover it.

Instead what does Howard and Costello do? Yes give tax cuts to win elections. Labor of course is no better on this front of course as they too didn’t address the core issue which is on the revenue side. They of course had to deal with the GFC, though the Liberal lovies deny that was ever an issue in Australia. A crazy statement if ever I heard.

We now have two buffoons running the show who are, to their credit trying to address the core issue of rising costs to government of social services due to aging population, but their solution to it is slash an burn and make those that can least afford to pay either pay more for it or go without. Whilst at the same time blaming economic mismanagement by the previous government as the reason for the need. The real solution needs to be an equitable rise in taxes over time to 1996 levels and a lowering of welfare to those that really don’t need it.

JC 12:46 pm 03 May 14

dungfungus said :

.
Yes, it’s the same Wayne Swan who promised us year after year a budget surplus and look at the mess he left us with.

Yep an economy that is the envy of the world. Not a bad mess to be left with hey? But yeah you don’t believe the words independent economists just Joe Hockey and Co. Guess you read it all in the Terrograph.

« Previous 1 3 4 5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site