Few tidbits from the Federal Budget for Canberra

Hmmm just a thought but have all the people whingeing to the various media about the Budget looked a bit further over the edge of their coffee cup and seen the horrendous lives that people in, oh say, Burma or China, Afghanistan or Iraq are living at the moment? Compared to them, we all live like kings.

“Well i guess you must consider human society some kind of a race?”

yes I think most people do

“and in direct competition with each other? “

yes definitely, 100% no questions asked

I suppose you are one of the people who advocate 6th place geters getting a ribbon?

“Question though, if that is the case who are the the human equivalent of the horse owners?”

owners of capital and means of production and I forgot the high achievers

“Are you thinking of bankrupting yourself, losing all your assets so you can become poor and get a few thousand extra dollars from the government? Do you think that would be a good decision financially for you?”

Thanks for your concern petal. I’ll manage. My trusts and companies are set up so I can pay little tax if required – smart hey?

“Do you now find yourself in a situation where you can not breed due to financial hardship?”

Again my trusts will ensure we qualify

No social conscience – I pay more to charities eavch year than you do in taxes. I justr prefer to have choice who I support no some communist manadarin from social engineering departments

What you fail to understand is that some people are capable of thinking of others needs. I know it must be an alien concept for you, but its true and it where I am coming from.

You still have a bunch of questions to answer from comment 116.

“If there were no benefits, people would starve to death. Do you really think there are people so lazy that they would sit around and starve? They would get desperate and steal. History has shown us this”

We’ll there are a lot of lazy unemployed people who sit around and wait for their benefits instead of getting a job

“Yet your argument of go get a job is not silly or laughable at all. Chump. Oh and I have a job.”

Well not a very good one obviously if you are that keen to get government support.

Ok you answered nothing. So ill assume every point i made that you didn’t answer, you couldn’t. Also that the rich can still afford to breed, even if they dont get a few thousand dollars from the government. Which therefore throws Tuckeys argument out the window.

If there were no benefits, people would starve to death. Do you really think there are people so lazy that they would sit around and starve? They would get desperate and steal. History has shown us this.

But I agree its a terrible message that the policy sends, people who have more money paying more tax, people with less money paying less tax. Its just so unfair, I feel for you.

You silly arguments about crime going up if there are no benefits is laughable. Go and get a job!
Yet your argument of go get a job is not silly or laughable at all. Chump. Oh and I have a job.

tap

please explain to me how person in 2008 in Australia could starve to death? They’ll only starve if they are lazy or incompetent.

You silly arguments about crime going up if there are no benefits is laughable. Go and get a job!

I’m personally not interested in any benefits, I’m worried about the message the policy sends.

I want all the bright young things out there striving to better themselves and breeding with each other. Nothing wrong with a bit of selectivity.

I guess “Iron Bar” Tuckey’s just got Gattaca out on DVD.

Bugalugs, you didnt answer the following questions:

Well i guess you must consider human society some kind of a race? and in direct competition with each other? Question though, if that is the case who are the the human equivalent of the horse owners?

Are you thinking of bankrupting yourself, losing all your assets so you can become poor and get a few thousand extra dollars from the government? Do you think that would be a good decision financially for you?

Come on mr superior, surely you can find it in you to at least answer all the questions in a comment? Or maybe im to inferior to be bothered with?

One more question:

Do you now find yourself in a situation where you can not breed due to financial hardship?

As has been covered already the wealthy will still be more wealthy even after paying more tax, so im not out to steal their wealth and give it to the people who need it.

As horrible as that sounds.

I’ll stick with living in O’Connor, thanks.

Reward? Punish? How can you really feel like this is happening? Would you prefer there be no safety net and have people starve to death? Considering your lack of ethics and a conscience you will not understand other people starving is a bad thing, so let me give you a reason that you might understand: Crime would go up immensely. The chances of you actually being robbed would go up a lot. You are in a position to help more, therefore you should. Considering you clearly do not have the strength of character and decency to do it by yourself, im mighty glad the government is forcing you.

You don’t seem to understand that some people actually need help from the government. You do not.

I don’t really mind who breeds.

I do not envy a person with no social conscience. If i were a better person I would feel pity for them, but im not so i tend to just feel saddened at how greedy and selfish humans can be.

They could always give the rich a nice yellow star to wear…

It’s in the best interest of society to have people become wealthy. As people get wealthier they tend to use less public resources and contribute more through tax and spending. More money is then available for the government to spend on necessities including welfare.

This doesn’t make wealthy people “better” or “superior” despite what the class warriors will say. Taxation is about the redistribution of income. You need to have someone at the top end to redistribute that income from.

The attitude that the wealthy are inherently bad was popular around 1917. Tax systems need to be fair, for all income brackets. A higher burden of taxation for high income earners is fair in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean lining them up against a wall and rifling through their pockets, especially if the result is subsidising people who would rather receive from society than contribute (in any form).

tap, you are a tax thief because you advocate taking a disproportionate amount of high achievers (rich people)endeavours ie. their weath. You want to reward under achievers by punishing the high acheivers (rich)

You let envy and jealously cloud your judgement and you seek to even the score by thieving from the rich

“You really do consider yourself superior to poor (and middle class) people don’t you?”

Yes I do! Is there anything wrong with being pragmatic?

Any sane rational citizen would prefer more Deakins, Forrests and Red Hills over Holts, Charnwoods and Spences.

Maybe you and your comrades tap, prefer for the underclass to continue to populate to support a voting bloc?

Well i guess you must consider human society some kind of a race? and in direct competition with each other? Question though, if that is the case who are the the human equivalent of the horse owners? Or maybe you are just selfish and greedy.

To be perfectly honest, if people like you didn’t breed and your attitude died out with your generation I wouldn’t be too upset. You really do consider yourself superior to poor (and middle class) people don’t you?

Shame on you.

Honestly answer this question: Are you thinking of bankrupting yourself, losing all
your assets so you can become poor and get a few thousand extra dollars from the government? Do you think that would be a good decision financially for you?

I also want to know why you consider me a thief?

Wilson Tuckey came up with a very interesting comment last week

He suggested that in the racehorse interesting you actually paid more for high achievers to mate.

In seems in Australia in 2008 we are doing the opposite.

Giving low achievers all the incentives and penalising the high achievers from re producing.

Why we could end up with more tax thieves such as tap

I don’t know about Tax (I think that’s looking unlikely) but the word is that Centrelink was going to lose a few.

Whats in the budget for me…. stuff all really. But hey, its their first budget since being elected so they really didn’t need to deliver anything too amazing. The next one will be more interesting hopefully.

There does not and should not need to be government incentives to become wealthy. This is because becoming wealthy is its own incentive. All tax breaks for the rich can do is make it easier for a person once they are wealthy, to become even more wealthy. This is also unneccasary because the same incentive of getting wealthier for its own reasons is there, plus once a person has money, it is far easier to make more. A wealthy person wanting tax breaks is nothing more than greed. A wealthy person being bitter about less wealthy people being given extra benefits (or even any benefits) is nothing more than selfishness.

The GST is extremely flawed in its theory. Granted the wealthy buy more things than the poor, and so in one sense pay more tax. However the poor still buy things. A tax of one dollar in ten for an essential item such as bread, that wealthy and poor both must buy, harms the poor more than the wealthy. To end this flaw non essential items would have to have no GST, and then there would certainly be huge arguments as to what constitutes essential and what doesn’t.

People are different, the fact that one person can start with no money and become a millionaire does not mean that all the people who can not do the same are at fault. Life should be made as bearable as possible for all people in our society.

There is a lot of belt-tightening, and they are saying the 3.5% ‘savings dividend’ will mean smaller agencies have to lose staff.

ATO and Centrelink were both supposed to lose a few I thought?

Which departments ended up with staff cuts? Before the Budget, the APSC set up a unit to redeploy redundant APS staff, but so far no-one seems to have suffered staff cuts? I wonder what htey’re going to do now?!

^^ what Jazz(hands) says. The Nationalist in me would prefer a cleaning of the entire slate, and implementing a proper, every Australian pays a uniform rate of tax system, a single figure based off every dollar.

I’d also support banning wheel of goon for rich people, they probably wouldn’t know how to do it right anyway, nor probably would they have the necessary hills-hoist…

I also think the way Government implements things is flawed. Subsidies only appeal to those members of society who can afford the capital outlay in the first place. Coming from an organisation that takes great lengths to know where I am and how much I earn, I would prefer a letter to come out 6months in advance, informing me of their intention to put solar (or whatever) on my roof.

If I don’t want it, sign here, if that time is inconvenient, sign here, if that time rocks, sign here.

Most of you will get the drift.

I’m of the view that our whole welfare and tax system is flawed. I’ve known far too many people throughout my working career to date who have quit their jobs becuase they are better off financially (inc stress and lifestyle) relying on welfare systems than in the workforce. I’d far prefer to see a scheme which incentivises people to work better/harder/smarter or whatever and are rewarded or supported appropriately.

That said i’ve no idea how to do it. I’m impressed with the governments co-contribution scheme for superannuation. GST (although its flawed in its current version) is also great in theory as the ‘richer’ you are the more you’re like to spend on lifestyle(eg, i’ll buy a $40 of wine rather than cask and correspondingly pay more tax on it)

Absolute cutoffs like the solar rebate only disuade people from taking on those technologies that are for the betterment of all, and things like the baby bonus and first home owner grants, which on the surface sounds great but really aren’t (lets face it, the average aussie has no financial intelligence) imo needs to be scrapped or approached differently. (FHOG could have been addressed by lowering stamp duties).

IMO our current systems make it to easy to be lazy & we as australians have lost something as a result.

WMC: And the rebate for couples is at $100,000 too? not $150,000? Yeah thats not too cool. I maintain that it would be worth donating to charity or the like because they would end up ahead anyway, but i certainly agree that if this budget lessens the amount of households who convert to solar then that was a mistake. These green loans sound good though, and also good for you about doing all this.

Yeah thats cool man, I really shouldn’t have flown off the handle like that either.

and a partnership with a combined income under $100K isn’t eligible?

Anything under $100K is eligible – $900, $9000, $99,000. What I’m saying is that it’s very easy to point the finger at somebody like me earning $106K all on their lonesome and say “nothing for you, rich boy”, but that a couple, each earning less than average annual earnings, is similarly excluded even though nobody would dream of calling them ‘rich’. It shocks me that two APS3s could get hitched and suddenly find themselves living in a ‘wealthy household’, ineligible for a rebate. That’s one f.cked up definition of wealth.

I’m tossing up between ditching the solar and staying with 100% Greenchoice at around $300 a year, or helping our local solar installer to stay afloat by getting the other $8K through a new green loan.

And apologies for the moron comment. We may disagree, but my insult was uncalled for.

It should be viewed as part of the condition for living in this country. You can get quite rich here, but if you do, you’re expected to give some back to the country for all the breaks it gave you whilst you weren’t. If you were born rich, well, it should be obvious…

You will still always have enough money to get buy very comfortably on $150,000 a year.

tap: absolutely.

I think where you and I would have a difference of opinion is likely to be in what’s “fair”, how much higher should tax be, benefit or drawbacks of taking more from the productive to prop up the unproductive etc.

So, I’ll go back to reading Quadrant and you’ll continue reading Green Left Weekly 😀

CaptainWhorebags: Well, we are agreed, a higher tax burden is part and parcel of being wealthy in our society. Im glad this budget has moved more in that direction than any in the last ten or so years. And also true that those that do do financially succeed will still be better off than the average even when they do pay a higher rate of tax.

tap: yes, it is true that if you fail in a high risk venture that there is a welfare net underneath you to make sure you don’t freeze to death in the gutter. That welfare net is there and available to all.

The existence of the welfare system is neither here or there in risky ventures. We all have access to welfare if needed, yet despite this few take the risks to get ahead and even fewer succeed. Those that do are rewarded with higher earnings. Some others take very few risks and just work really damn hard to become wealthy.

I’m not suggesting that the wealthy are doing it tough or deserve handouts. A higher tax burden is part and parcel of being wealthy in our society. I’m sick of the attitude that the wealthy DESERVE to be financially penalised or didn’t deserve their wealth in the first place.

Thumper: Eh opinion. I disagree with you but whatever (two birds, one stone perhaps?), the fact remains the argument saying a person who is a dollar over gets screwed is untrue because our tax system handles that, with tax deductable donations to charity and many other things.

WMC:So what you are saying is that 1 person earning over $100K is not eligible,
and 1 person under $100K is eligible,
and a partnership with a combined income under $100K isn’t eligible? … that is a bit odd. Im agreeing more and more that the solar rebate should have remained to all, everything towards helping fix the environment should be done. No wonder the Greens were pissed.

Thumper: Sure it is, these things exist for exactly this kind of a reason. As a way of making the lines drawn in the sand fairer.

And the fallout begins. According to this article in The Age, solar installation business stand to lose millions of dollars, which means they’ll have to lay off all the people they’ve put on to help meet Government-created demand. It appears the program was a victim of its own success – doubling the rebate saw applications rise from 30 to 300 a week. A lecturer at Monash calls it a retrograde public policy step. “It would appear they are thinking of the rebate as middle-class welfare,” he said.

@tap – still waiting to hear a sound policy and administrative reason for a cut-off to zero at $100K, leaving people on $99K free to rake it in, but dual-income families under average weekly earnings out in the cold. “I reckon you’ve got it easy” isn’t sound public policy. “Get a loan and pay it back with interest because you earn very slightly more than other ‘rich’ people” isn’t either.

WMC: I might take this opportunity to add some more substance to my fairly inane rant last night before i went to bed. The first thing is we would need to agree on a definition of easy. I think that the hyptothetical couple could save that money in well under two years, so thats easy. If they wanted it now they could get a loan, easy. The interest on the loan would be more than worth it in the long run with the saving on power. I say that is easy.

CaptainWhoreBags: Caf made a good point in comment 71 about high risk ventures. You would r viewpoint about taxing poor less is fair enough, except its really a you say potato, is say potato kind of thing (that saying doesn’t really work when written but you get the idea). Im of the opinion that the haves would still complain. Plus the point of the budget was to get a bit more money.

Thumper: Wouldn’t a person earning a dollar over only have to donate a bit of money to a charity to lessen there taxable income by a dollar?

ant: when you say “the rich win”, you do realise that the majority of wealthy people didn’t have someone tap them on the shoulder and say “congratulations, you’ve been selected to be rich. here’s some money”

The financially successful people I know put in a lot of hard work to get there, often high risk investments (such as starting a small business). I agree that middle class welfare should be reigned in, but I don’t think that the solar rebate is middle class welfare. It’s a subsidy to encourage uptake of environmental technology. The net effect of this measure will be less uptake of solar power.

“I’m glad the rich are getting taxed more” is just tall poppy syndrome. We have a massive surplus, so why should the rich get taxed more? Argue for the poor getting taxed less.

And bloody hell abolish the baby bonus. Recent conversation “you wouldn’t believe how expensive strollers are”
“Didn’t you get a baby bonus?”
“Yeah, but we used that to get the floors done”

No longer paying it as a lump sum is a good start.

And its not me thats doing the whingeing here. Its the poor souls who are above $100,000 (and some dude who earns over $330K) struggling to get by.

Fantasy land? Ok pay close attention now, its been said many times but you have missed it, really try to get it this time, moron.

Two people on say, $53K each equals 106K right? which means 6K over, right? you with me? moron? So you would need to lower your taxable income by $6000, right? moron? That is a very possible thing to do, moron. Especially if doing it will mean you get $8000 back for your solar rebate. Moron.

Just get over it, being rich isn’t so hard. Moron.

Well, look at it thsi way. The rich can still make the decision to save up and get solar power. And over a few years, it’ll pay for itself. And over the next few years, power costs are going to be spiralling up. So, the solar will pay for itself even faster. Meanwhile, the poor who didn’t get it will be paying higher and higher prices.

So once again, the rich win, even though they felt grumpy about it at the beginning.

we need tens of thousands of tax officers to deal with it.

There’s only 22,000 people in the entire ATO. Not all of them are ‘tax officers’, and even fewer look after income tax. It’s not complex – it’s five rows in a two column table. Anybody in Australia can work out their income tax using simple arithmetic.

Is that just because it wouldn’t have affected you?

No, it’s because it would be consistent. You can’t tell people they’re rich, and so don’t need one rebate, but they’re poor enough for another.

realistically you will still be wealthy without this extra $8000. Others do need your tax money.

The solar rebate has SFA to do with rich and poor. It has to do with people investing in the nation’s future, and the government meeting them halfway as an incentive – you know, like those child care rebates with no income test you’ve been failing to whinge about even though they’re going to ‘the rich’.

Either the government wants people to use solar, or it doesn’t, and how much people earn has nothing to do with it – except that you’ve got SFA chance of somebody on average weekly earnings socking away $8,000, which means the whole thing grinds to a halt. I’m still waiting for you to explain to me why ‘others’ earning $99,999 need my tax money, but ‘the rich’ earning a dollar more don’t. ‘The line had to go somewhere’ is a bullsh.t cop-out – there’s absolutely no administrative reason it has to work that way.

The fact that you think I can ‘easily afford’ another eight grand after scrounging to save this lot just shows you live in a f.cking fantasy land. Would you tell a couple, each of whom are earning well under average weekly earnings – say, $53K each – that they could easily find $16,000? I doubt it, but they earn more in the hand than I do, moron.

However they can still easily afford it, comrade.

But you’ll notice the comment directly above yours where I mention how spending more on tackling climate change would have been great.

Im just glad the rich are being taxed more.

The adjustment to the solar cell rebate is a blow to the environment and solar tech industry.

Those still eligible for the rebate are less likely to be able to afford the $8000 or so that they have to front up themselves.

Those who can afford to pay half of the solar cost (ie, higher income earners) now have less of an incentive to do so.

But hey, wealthy people are the sux, am I right comrade?

sepi: Yeah the pensioners and I heard the Greens weren’t happy about whats being spent on climate change. Two things I would have seriously liked to have seen become a priority.

Like I said, even if I was only marginally in the higher bracket there would be ways of lowering my income a few bucks to get me to the lower tax bracket. But even if that were not possible, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I’m fine with the idea of paying tax, I want good public services, that takes money, I understand and accept this.

Your second paragraph is just another line being drawn in the sand (well, two lines, but you know what I mean). You may not have complained if the solar rebate stopped at $150,000. Is that just because it wouldn’t have affected you? If that is the case then by the time your income reaches $150k then you would be complaining again. You do not need this rebate, not being able to get this $8000 is not going to send you broke, realistically you will still be wealthy without this extra $8000. Others do need your tax money.

Income tax is staggered, and that makes it administratively complex and we need tens of thousands of tax officers to deal with it.

And other benefits are lines in the sand – like the baby bonus.

It’s a bummer for you this year, but they can’t suit everyone all the time.

I feel more sorry for the pensioners who got nothing really.

the $100,000 a year vs $99,999 a year is just a line in the sand, it had to be drawn somewhere.

It isn’t drawn in income tax. How would you feel if you went over an income tax bracket and the new higher rate suddenly applied to _all_ of your income because you’d crossed a line? If income tax is staggered, it makes sense that rebates that have eligibility criteria based on taxable income should be likewise staggered.

If they’d said “the solar rebate is $8,000, then reduces by x cents for ever dollar earned over $100,000, reducing to zero at $150,000 along with all the other benefits”, I wouldn’t complain. If they’d said “child care rebates are also means tested” I wouldn’t complain. If they’d said “we’ve updated all these thresholds like Medicare – lets update the solar water rebate threshold as well, then make the solar power rebate the same” I wouldn’t complain. It’s the rock show “let’s pull numbers out of our ar$es and damn any sense of cohesion or clarity” approach that gets my goat. His name is Goaty Goat McGoat, and he’s not happy.

@ Greg W: Wealth is great, and doesn’t need correcting. It’s poverty that’s shit and needs correcting. If doing that — creating a just society, where we don’t let the devil take the hindmost — requires a progressive tax base where people who are wealthier contribute more to this goal, so be it. I don’t resile from that for a minute.

tap said :

Aspirational voters who think that benefits should be given to the rich so that ‘when i get there, ill be better off’ have fallen for a terrible con that Howard and his cronies pushed. Some will make it, sure, but most won’t. Most are just giving their tax dollars to the rich who need it less than they do, and thanking them for it.

Another example of how the Howard government took us further along the American road. Americans actually believe that they can all “make it”. If they work hard, and don’t upset the cart, they’ll be The Man one day. Their society is a pyramid scheme, needing the vast many to prop up the very few. Sadly, it seems that Australians are now thinking this way too.

I want my taxes used to help the needy and unfortunate. We all have a better society if the government uses our taxes for things that benefit everyone, and gives a hand to those at the bottom.

Go on Thumper, call them working families. You know you want to…

Agreed caf and kramer.

“There is good reason we are not a communist state.”

but a bit more socialism – or more progressivism wouldn’t go astray.

GregW: And one of the reasons they were able to take those risks is that there was always a welfare safety net under them! If the consequences of failure are too severe, then people will take less risks.

Look, tax is your membership dues to society. The only reason you’re able to convert your hard work into tangible things at the rate you do is because there’s a massive social and economic framework around you enabling that. If you withdrew from society totally you could avoid having to pay tax, but the downside would be that even if you worked just as hard as you do now, you wouldn’t have anything like as comfortable a life to show for it.

I just find it interesting that even people who clearly have nothing to worry about financially, are upset about their financial situation.

They also seem to think that the only reason they strived and worked so hard is now all defunct because people on lower incomes now pay less tax. How so? At the end of the day they will still have more money than people on lower incomes (the $100,000 a year vs $99,999 a year is just a line in the sand, it had to be drawn somewhere. Im sure some creative accountancy will be able to take care of a difference like that anyway), so why should they feel their wealth is being ‘corrected’? Another way to look at it is they can help more, so they are. They are giving more money to the country, and to people who need it, than people on lower incomes and that they should be proud of.

Aspirational voters who think that benefits should be given to the rich so that ‘when i get there, ill be better off’ have fallen for a terrible con that Howard and his cronies pushed. Some will make it, sure, but most won’t. Most are just giving their tax dollars to the rich who need it less than they do, and thanking them for it.

It is interesting to hear the cries of ant/tap/zee who seem to view wealth as a mistake that must be corrected. I suppose it is convenient to ignore that most of these people have studied and worked harder/longer, taken more risks etc than the rest. I guess it is similarly convenient to ignore the beneficial impacts these people have socio-economically. There is good reason we are not a communist state.

BTW: I am not so endowed myself, my income last financial year was under $35,000, but I can still think with my head and not my emotions.

bugalugs: Its tough being rich man, I understand. You’ll probably have to save for two weeks before you can afford shoes. Forget ever having a holiday, you won’t be able to afford to go anywhere. You will no longer be able to afford to run a car.

A lot of people have real financial troubles. You should be thankful you have as much money as you do and move on, this isn’t going to make you not rich.

I take part of my earnings under the table.

We are saying the same thing here.

I don’t want welfare! I don’t want a handout!

I’m perfectly capable of looking after myself.

“As for taxing the rich, I guess you have to look at how much money do you actually need? Really?”

Well that is for me to decide, if I want less money I’ll work less, I don’t need any nanny state making the decision for me.

“I pay quite a lot of tax” – what % not $ do you pay. I pay about 39% of my total earning in tax, that is all of Monday and Tuesday for someone else.

I work, I pay quite a lot of tax and get ZILCH back. I don’t qualify for anything, despite being right on the borderline of what is the average wage (apparently), I might even be below the average wage now. But no one’s telling me what to do or anything like it. When you don’t qualify for middle-class welfare (or any welfare), it’s all very simple really. As for taxing the rich, I guess you have to look at how much money do you actually need? Really?

And know that all that tax they’re soaking out of you is going to comfort “Working Families”. That’s where mine’s going. It makes me soooo happy.

Zee/ant

How about I cancel the gardener and cleaner this week and instead have you two come around to my place this weekend and do it for me? Not the whole weekend only 46.5% of your weekend (you should be right to leave about 10 pm on Saturday night assuming you start at midnight Friday night)

When you are talking about taxing the rich, you are taking away my liberty and telling me that you demand 46.5% of my time.

Well I demand your time this weekend.

Not nice being told what to do is it?

People on six-figure incomes complain that the government won’t spoon more taxpayers money at them, and then grumble about “dole bludgers”. The irony.

And by the way – even if it was a lovely luscious lifestyle choice – there are many circumstances I would be hugely FOR single parents staying out of the workforce for a couple of years, if it ensured 100% involvement in their kids early lives!

The absolute best time to detect and begin to intervene physical, mental, or learning disabilities or social defects is *as early as possible* – best for the kid and cheapest for the country in the long run. And the best way to do this is with intensive attention from one or more parents, not stuck with 40 other kids in the creche with 3 underpaid childcare workers. So fuck yeah, give sole parents (usually mothers) with young kid(s) enough to live on. In generational terms its a bargain.

Nemo: “Not a chance in hell I want my tax going to support people who choose not to work. Being a ’single parent’ on Govt benefits is a lifestyle choice. There are plenty of jobs around, especially in Canberra”

How about some facts again, eh? Same ABS series I quoted above for 05-06. In the half million one-parent, one family households with dependent kiddies, with an average of just under two dependent kids in the house, the average number of employed persons is 0.8. While some of those employed persons might be older childen, I’ll bet that a huge majority are the parent. So we are talking in the vicinity of 80% of sole parents in some form of employment.

This situation is one of the worst poverty traps around, where the average disposable household income is LESS THAN $24000 PA, including government benefits, and some of you lot are sooking about benefits cutting out at $100k or $150k pa?

You reckon bringing up children on less than $24000pa (note again, that includes govt benefits) is a lifestyle choice? Get a grip, Nemo. Get. A. Grip.

I thought:
The solar rebate was meant to encourage people to take on Solar,
The Baby Bonus was meant to encourage us to breed,
That both ideas are in the national interest,
And that for both to occur more frequently that wealth was not a discriminating factor.

There wont be many “poor” people that will contemplate the up front cost of solar electric.

the baby bonus should be scrapped, if people are choosing to have children just so they can receive a few thousand dollars as an incentive, then there is somehing fundamentaly wrong about there motivation.

that said I agree if you can’t afford to raise children you shouldn’t be having them.

The tax situation in this country just pisses me off. We desperately need massive tax reform. I would like to see the top tax rate at 30% max. It just annoys me that you put in the hard work to get up there above the 150k mark and you just get slugged. Also other taxes like the luxury car tax of 33%. We already pay some of the highest car prices in the world and they just got more expensive.

They should have got rid of the baby bonus all together and also got rid of the silly first home owners grant. Use the money to up the aged pension by 50% to something slightly reasonable from the pathetic poverty level its at now.

“There are over half a million Australian single-parent households, with 2 kids in each on average, getting by on $446 per week total disposable income. Would I rather see government spending go here than on your baby bonus? Too right.”

Not a chance in hell I want my tax going to support people who choose not to work. Being a ‘single parent’ on Govt benefits is a lifestyle choice. There are plenty of jobs around, especially in Canberra.

The baby bonus was designed as an incentive to have more children, not as a welfare payment.

If you cant afford to raise children, you shouldn’t be having them. The baby bonus should be for all.

Woody Man Caruso, clearly you can afford solar on your own. What happened to paying your way, when your system will eventually pay for itself? Glad to hear you’re off the teat.

Explain to me again how somebody on $100K can ‘clearly afford solar’, but somebody on $99.99K can’t and needs – nay, deserves – a 50% rebate? Here’s hoping you’ve always paid your way – private school, full fee-paying uni place, private health, no Medicare or PBS…

Oh no, laptops will now have to proved to be used for a business use for salary sacrifice purposes and no douple dip depreciation. Is their no humanity to the Rudd Government?

I am not getting 150k or 100k for that matter, but what is my incentive as a single income earner to overachieve? If i tip over 100k, I am penalised. And they aren’t handouts, they are earnings offset against the taxes we have paid for the last 20 years of working. (whilst others get paid for not working at all – with 3 kids like me, in a defacto relationship, not married etc etc)

um… most of the changes happen at 150,000 not 100k

I want the handouts to be tax cuts for all earning brackets, never mind the fact that with 3 kids, I will soon be broke.

And there were heaps of them, the single biggest thing this budget was tax cuts that effect everyone.

Zee

You obviously misunderstood me.

I don’t want a handout – in fact i don’t want anyone to have a handout. If half the welfare recepients had a second or thrid job than they wouldn’t need handouts either

But if I did want welfare why shouldn’t I recieve something? Together the wife and I pay about $120,000 in taxes

Woody Man Caruso, clearly you can afford solar on your own. What happened to paying your way, when your system will eventually pay for itself? Glad to hear you’re off the teat.

justbands said :

Here’s an idea, how about if you’re getting $150K or so…how about, just an idea remember, but how about you stop expecting government handouts? I earn decent money, I don’t need, don’t expect & have certainly never tried to claim government handouts. You can probably manage without them too. Just an idea.

I am not getting 150k or 100k for that matter, but what is my incentive as a single income earner to overachieve? If i tip over 100k, I am penalised. And they aren’t handouts, they are earnings offset against the taxes we have paid for the last 20 years of working. (whilst others get paid for not working at all – with 3 kids like me, in a defacto relationship, not married etc etc)

I want the handouts to be tax cuts for all earning brackets, never mind the fact that with 3 kids, I will soon be broke.

One day we will move to consumption taxation…

The sad part is that even the American’s will beat us to it with their FairTax.

So we are going okay but where does the RUDD governemtn get off telling me that I’m not “hard working”.

Now I am being punished for being succesful.

Its not really a punishment – you’re just not getting bribed anymore.

In any case, I think the market is rewarding you for your hard work.

Taxing the rich is immoral. We should give them extra money to reward them! Granted they do not need the extra money anywhere near as much as people on lower incomes, but everyone knows people on lower incomes are inferior, hence why they can’t get rich. Richness is everything. We reward inferiority in this country now? Disgraceful!

“Now I am being punished for being succesful?”

Bugalugs, by your own numbers, you and your wife have a combined income of $470,000.

This isn’t “going ok”, you have a household income in about the top 1% of the country, certainly the top 3%. I think this is great and this country needs more people willing to work as hard as you. But I’m gobsmacked that you think you have an entitlement to a single penny of welfare benefits like the Fam Tax Benefit B or government handouts like the Baby Bonus.

In 2005-06, 10% of Australian households had disposable income of less than $274 per week – that’s less than $15,000. There are over half a million Australian single-parent households, with 2 kids in each on average, getting by on $446 per week total disposable income. Would I rather see government spending go here than on your baby bonus? Too right.

(Source ABS Series 6523.0).

thumper; you made a factually incorrect statement and got called on it, that doesn’t make me a troll; what it does do is make you look like an idiot; oh and areaman is 100% correct in comment 45

I’m pretty sure they never said they’d actually make them lower, they just said they’d do what they could with monitoring, which is what they’re implementing now.

Not like the libs claims of keeping interest rates down, or of children being thrown overboard, or of the never, ever GST…nothing like that?

Labor’s claims at the last election that they would lower/control food and petrol prices was one of the biggest con jobs in campaign history and so many idiots, even in here, believed what they said.

how about a poll tax then?

I’m sure we could get into a detailed argument how flat taxes are moronic, but surely the fact that pretty much every first word country has progressive taxation is a sign that it’s a good idea.

The reason we have (relatively) high inflation is because aggregate demand is more than aggregate supply – if I had a pen I’d draw you a graph illustrating the ‘inflationary gap’. WMC the government is attempting to increase aggregate supply by forcing both you and Mrs WMC into work while at the same time trying to reduce aggregate demand by reducing spending. They c*cked up the demand side equation though with the megabillions in tax cuts…
The general question of thresholds is a fair one – the solution is to not have any. I vote for a flat tax and no handouts (except to dole bludgers and gay whales)

@bugalugs: my income is about $330,000 pa

Can I have $8,000? 😉

I’m not a tax professional but the Family Tax Benefit part B is about $3,500 that you’d get now which you wouldn’t get in your dream.

Hey, you’re right. That’s an unexpected bonus. Hopefully eTax will tell me all this at the end of the year.

I still think it’s a dumb idea to have multiple and inconsistent measures of what constitutes a “working family” and eligibility for government support, and that it’s stupid to simply cut that support to zero once you’ve hit a magic number. Say one of us was an APS44 and the other a top level APS3 and we earned $99,999.99 – why should we get full access to benefits somebody on $100,000.01 doesn’t? Am I really that much better off than somebody on 99K? Isn’t it strange that I’m too rich for a rebate for something in the national interesst, but struggling so badly that I need a $3.5K tax break from the government so I can go buy a big screen TV?

I also don’t get how encouraging us both to get into the workforce helps fight inflation. All we’d do with our extra income is spend it, driving up inflation. The government gets less tax to spend on services, but we’re using more by working. We’ve got a national shortage of child care places and we’re soon to hit a senior manager shortage in the APS when most of our SES leave at once. I don’t think we’re short on APS4s – we turn perfectly suitable grads away by the dozen, and don’t bat an eyelid when most of those we do hire leave. Why put in place incentives to encourage me to be a 4?

Numbers, numbers everywhere, I think I’ll have a drink.

and link to afore mentioned boffin saying boffin type stuff about petrol prices: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/14/2244231.htm

Oddly enough, there was a few academics this morning quoted as saying that petrol prices would increase as a result of the excise exepmtion on condensates being lifted.

And petrol costing more will also mean that groceries will cost more (increased transport and production costs) thus leading to increased inflation leading to higher interest rates which leads to decreased consumer spending power, decreased businesss confidence, increased unemployment and another recession we had to have…

I’m self employed work 60-70 hrs a week and my income is about $330,000 pa. Granted I don’t pay it all to myself as salary as a large amount is paid as super and the rest distributed through a Family Trust

My salary I pay myself is $150,000 pa.

My wife works 50hrs a week and earns about $140,000 pa all as salary.

So we are going okay but where does the RUDD governemtn get off telling me that I’m not “hard working”. Apparaently you are only hard working if you earn less than $150,000.

What about my working hours?

What about the initial debt I took on to estbalish business?

Now I am being punished for being succesful.I don’t want welfare, we are having a child later this year and I’m glad to see baby bonus and family tax benefit cut but cut it for everyone not just the people who work hard and suceed

The budget…yawn. Not a bad effort.

The ALP would like it if every one was poor so they would get elected time and time again.

Lundy, Ellis and the guy from Fraser (forgot his name) aren’t saying much about the cut backs to Canberra. They cried loud and long when Costello did the budget.

The Libs aren’t making much of an impact but Malcolm looks credible.

Tom-tom, I’m not sure that “taking 1.8% of GDP out of circulation” is actually going on. Sure that is the size of the surplus, but the money still has to go somewhere – it has to be invested – if it’s invested it’s back in the economy.

thumper, do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? I’m serious do you actually have a clue? I’m refering to comment 1 ( I’ll let no 19 go as its just not worth it)

It seemed a well balanced, unadventurous but responsible, middle of the road sort of budget with no surprises.

It did however neglect to address inflation and rising fuel and food prices, probably the main reason for the current inflationary rises.

The NCA lost some more money and it appears that Defence will also lose some staff but it was far from a horror budget.

I also believe the Kings highway between Braidwood and Bungendore is to get some sort of upgrade.

Can you please explain to me how taking 1.8% of GDP out of circulation is neglecting inflation? I’m dying to hear this. I could use a laugh.
Oh and just for the record most of the inflation we are seeing is a result of the resources boom flooding the country with money. And for the record the govt. Is taking steps to reduce food and petrol price inflation by introducing more competition ( greater accc powers and the fuel watch scheme for instance)

WMC: If you salary sacrifice a leased vehicle, then you could reduce your taxable income and possibly slip under the radar.

If you do enough KMs per year in a nice big fossil fuel burning 4WD, then you might qualify for the solar rebate, thus helping the environment.

Woody – yep they are complete disincentives. Which won’t be picked up with the review of the tax system recently announced.

How is it we can assess “household” income for medicare levy purposes but not for normal taxation?

It is clear that two wages earning the same as one is a much better financial proposition…

Oh and back to the original story – despite the name, Anzac Park West isn’t a park at all, it’s just a government office building (on the corner of Constitution Ave and Anzac Pde). So that one’s not really a contribution to the Canberra community.

WMC – I think you will find the aim of the policy is to get two people in the workforce, not just one on better wages – thereby increasing participation and lowering inflationary pressures caused by skills shortages.

If you were both in the workforce you would be better off in super down the track too.

The government doesnt want mums at home looking after kids, it wants them in a job and their kids in childcare centres. Hence incentives to make it so. Thats what I am reading from all the spin at any rate.

What you may be overlooking is that two people working at $50,000 pa each is better for the overall economy than one person working at $100,000 pa and one at home looking after the kids. It increases the productive capacity of the economy, and it’s the lack of productive capacity in an economy that causes inflation (essentially, too many consumers, not enough producers).

So perhaps it’s intentional that there are incentives to push people towards that way of life?

If we say the WMC sprog is in child care five days a week at a conservative $60 a day that’s $15,000 a year. You get back 50% in tax, so the impact is $7500 off WMC’s bottom line.
Nonetheless his argument is still a strong one, and it’s pretty easy to get over the threshold once you’re into the dizzy heights of the ELs. That said, we’re always looking for APS4s in my area, so if Mr and Mrs WMC were to follow their dream, I’d snap them up in a second!
Finally I think everyone should have access to solar rebates – even gazillionaires. Mark it down to the public good.

Ohh I’m a trouble maker now. Cool

According to the table I’m looking at in the Herald Sun (I buy it for the football!)those on $110,000 get a $21.15 a week tax cut or $1100 annually in 2008 – 2009 rising to $50 a week or $2600 annually at $2000,000.

Combined with the lifting of the medicare surcharge the vast majority taxpayers will receive a benefit from the budget. I don’t see how people are being penalised for working hard, unless your in the market for a luxury car or having a baby when you earn more than $150,000.

I’m not a tax professional but the Family Tax Benefit part B is about $3,500 that you’d get now which you wouldn’t get in your dream. Additionally means testing of benefits now includes anything that you’ve salary sacrificed (so no more sacrificing your entire salary to super and then claiming benefits) so you still couldn’t claim the solar rebate.

Already your $16,500 is down to $5,000, then add in your share of the child care, and all the added overheads of having two employed people and I strongly doubt you’d come out ahead.

Disincentives, even.

I guess my main gripe is that the ‘incentives’ are actually dicincentives. They use gross income as a cut-off point for what’s a working family and what isn’t – completely ignoring the fact that two families can be on the same gross income, but one of them is ‘wealthy’ and the other isn’t.

I’m also annoyed about the inconsistency of the various cut-offs. I can’t get a solar rebate, but we can pop out another consumer cum child care statistic and walk away with $5,000. What a joke.

No, here’s what I’m whinging about. Lets say I live out my dream of both of us becoming APS4s again.

Now: I earn $106,000 (give or take). The government gets $29,500 in tax. I get $76,500 in the hand.

Dream: My wife and I earn $53,000 each as bottom-of-the-range APS4s in a central agency. Same gross income as above, but now the government gets a total of $21,000 in tax, and we’re $8,500 *in the hand* better off. I then go on to salary sacrifice our child care, bringing our income below $100,000. We get another $8000 from the government for a solar system rebate.

End result – I’m $16,500 better off plus whatever I save in electricity, we both have much, much less stress (I’d take an APS4 over raising a kid any day), and the government is worse off to the tune of $16,500 plus 50% of a child care place. I haven’t even worked out family tax benefit stuff.

I should definitely do my civic duty and just chuck it all in now. It’s for the good of the country and the next generation.

Woody, at “just over $100k” you’d still get the family tax benefit B and, if you had more kids, the Baby Bonus.

All you seem to be whinging about is the means testing of the solar rebate. Um tough, with the feed in laws they’re debating in the Assembly you’ll make your money back anyway. It shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise considering you’re already ineligible for the water rebate.

Yeah, coz the eight grand I’ve saved just fell off the money tree next to the shed. If it’s in the national interest for me to move to solar, and if I’m willing to meet them halfway, why the hell shouldn’t the government come to the party?

Send your wife back to work Woody, problem solved.

The handout is the Australian way, it would be unaustralian not to expect government intervention before getting off your ass and doing something for yourself.

Comment #8 is unconstitutional.

I’m certainly not getting $150K or so – but I am a bit over that $100K mark that makes the Rudd government think I own a yacht. Like I said, if it was me and the missus pulling in $50K a head, nobody would think we were rich – they’d say we were each earning less than the national average weekly earnings of $1,162.20 a week, or $60,434 a year, so we’d be poor. But if it’s just me pulling in a bit over $100K, and the missus at home with the sprog getting nada, it’s caviar and Moet for dinner again. Never mind that with one tax-free threshold and a higher marginal tax rate I actually earn less than the struggling couple with the same gross income.

Either the government wants to help people to move to solar, or it doesn’t. Is the coal-fired energy burned by working families dirtier than that of ‘wealthy’ Australians, and thus more deserving of relief?

I know, I know…it’s pretty out there. 😉

That’s pretty radical stuff, justbands! You rebel you.

Here’s an idea, how about if you’re getting $150K or so…how about, just an idea remember, but how about you stop expecting government handouts? I earn decent money, I don’t need, don’t expect & have certainly never tried to claim government handouts. You can probably manage without them too. Just an idea.

@peterh: “great to see that my wife who is at home with the kids (by choice) isn’t earning any income, but I earn too much??”

Same boat here. What we need to do, see, is I leave my executive career behind, we both go back to being APS6s, and we just chuck the kid in child care. We’d get two lots of tax free threshold, pay lower rates of tax overall, I can salary sacrifice the child care and collect the child care rebate. Then we get whatever else is on offer because even though we’re actually thousands of dollars better off with the same gross family income, we’ll be a “working family” again.

All the government needs to do is get less tax from me and find another child care place for us. Everybody wins!

apparently, the offical Working Families count was 12 mentions during the speech.

I’m trying to find some definitive mentions of APS effects: who’s affected and by how much. They did flag Defence to suffer, but there were a few other worried Departments also.

The King’s Highway is already set for upgrade between the new HQ JOC and Queanbeyan, although word is most staff will be living in Gunghalin and so will come via Mac’s Reef. I reckon they’ll go via Sutton Road/East Qbn, especially with the road upgrades not being from bungendore.

Upgrades between Bung and Braidwood is probably needed, there’s been quie a few serious crashes on that sector, although the road seems fine to me.

It seems to be a fairly benign Budget. The promised swingeing cuts didn’t happen, the anticipated 3000 public servants to be sacked in Canberra has only turned out to be around 1200 and the orgy of middle class welfare has remained largely intact. I was a bit upset that the pension wasn’t increased and that the seniors and carer’s bonus wasn’t extended to the disabled but overall I think it was a really good budget.

I only counted eight mentions of working families, you could see the Swan restraining himself and forcibly say “families” instead in some instances.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Earn $99,999.99? You’re a battler. Don’t cross the six figure line, though, you fat rich bastards, and don’t expect something with subtletly, like a pro rata reduction in the rebate – you just get zero.

earn 100k, have a house full of kids, a mortgage, and try to reduce your impact on the environment? tell em they’re dreaming. battlers need to battle on, not earn great amounts of money…. so lets dissuade them from achieving, and cap the support that the government will provide.

what about the means test for family tax benefit? great to see that my wife who is at home with the kids (by choice) isn’t earning any income, but I earn too much??

pretty soon I will be a battler too.

I will have to abandon the final stage of our eco-refit. We’ll have tanks, grey water, insulation and energy efficient heating and cooling, but as I’m now part of a “wealthy family” rather than a “working family”, and as I foolishly left it til last, I’m no longer entitled a rebate on a new solar power system. Maybe I’ll spend the last eight grand of our fit-out savings on a donation to whoever’s running against Peter Garrett at the next election.

Earn $99,999.99? You’re a battler. Don’t cross the six figure line, though, you fat rich bastards, and don’t expect something with subtletly, like a pro rata reduction in the rebate – you just get zero.