How did the Budget measure up to our fears?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Work at one of the many, many businesses that need unskilled/semi-skilled labour, such as:
McDonalds
Pizza Hut
KFC
Local takeaway
Service station attendent
Retail shops
Target
KMart
Big W
Woolworths
Coles

Oh yeah, because when I was unemployed for 4 months, I never thought of applying for places like that. . If you think you can submit an online application to all of those places (and more) today and have a job two weeks from now, you’re living in fantasy land. Especially a full time job. Especially if you are over 21 and cost them more.

And if you think you can cover rent ($150 – $250 a week share housing, $250 – $450 a week living alone) by moving lawns and washing cars, I’d be very impressed. Throw in the possibility that you may have up to 12 months on a lease remaining, it’s a very bad situation even getting Newstart and rent assistance. Without it, I guess you’d just stop paying the rent and hope you find a job before they forcibly remove you?

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

Confect a crisis, tell lies, make commitments that you have no intention of keeping, whatever it takes to justify meanness of spirit.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

This is what this mob of imbeciles stand for.

Hopefully the opposition will block supply so we can have a double dissolution and get rid of these repugnant cretins by Christmas.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

Which category above best describes your the consequenecs of the budget as applied to you?

rosscoact said :

Confect a crisis, tell lies, make commitments that you have no intention of keeping, whatever it takes to justify meanness of spirit.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

This is what this mob of imbeciles stand for.

Hopefully the opposition will block supply so we can have a double dissolution and get rid of these repugnant cretins by Christmas.

“The poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on”

Which category above best describes your situation and the consequenecs of the budget as applied to you?

Would you like to rewrite that question?

I disagree with you on welfare – it gets spent on goods and services, so everyone benefits indirectly. You’ve clearly thought about your position though

rosscoact said :

Confect a crisis, tell lies, make commitments that you have no intention of keeping, whatever it takes to justify meanness of spirit.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

This is what this mob of imbeciles stand for.

Hopefully the opposition will block supply so we can have a double dissolution and get rid of these repugnant cretins by Christmas.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

Which category above best describes your situation and the consequenecs of the budget as applied to you?

Codders111 said :

I disagree with you on welfare – it gets spent on goods and services, so everyone benefits indirectly. You’ve clearly thought about your position though, so it’s cool. What bugs me is when people unthinkingly repeat lines they’ve heard from the coalition or news ltd (eg comparing government debt to credit card debt – ridiculous!).

Welfare is wasted money. Sure it gets spent, but if it provided a net economic benefit then maybe we could all down tools and go on the dole.

Personally I think it’s better for people to work, earn and then spend.

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

Confect a crisis, tell lies, make commitments that you have no intention of keeping, whatever it takes to justify meanness of spirit.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

This is what this mob of imbeciles stand for.

Hopefully the opposition will block supply so we can have a double dissolution and get rid of these repugnant cretins by Christmas.

“The poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on”

Which category above best describes your situation and the consequenecs of the budget as applied to you?

Would you like to rewrite that question?

I disagree with you on welfare – it gets spent on goods and services, so everyone benefits indirectly. You’ve clearly thought about your position though.

Codders111 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Codders111 said :

farout said :

Gutsy and courageous in the most part. The other mob would have let the deficit blow out till it reached European levels.
Sad part is, after all the unpleasant work is done to bring the budget back into the black, a future Labor government will probably squander it on ill-advised and poorly managed projects, unsustainable welfare and other populist pork barreling for their vote bank.

I don’t get why people earning more than say $30,000 p.a. should expect to see a GP for free, or get blood tests done for free. These things cost money, and someone has to pay for them. At $7 a pop, its still just a small fraction of what it actually costs to deliver that service.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of government spending. A modest debt is not a bad thing – borrowing money is justifiable if can generate sufficient future growth to offset the debt. Growth = increased tax revenue = manageable debt. Look up keynesian multipliers if you feel inclined. I’m not advocating Greek-style recklessness, but it’s reductionist to treat government debt as undesirable per se.

2016 cannot come soon enough. In the meantime I only hope Abbott does not damage the country irreparably.

Having a debt growing faster that GDP is not desirable for any government in the longer term, and that’s exactly what we’ve had for a number of years. Far better to fix a structural issue now than before we have real problems.

I agree that governments running a managed debt is good, when that money is being used for measures that improve productivity. I’m not convinced, however, that handing out welfare is particularly productive.

There are things in this budget that seem quite odd to me, and some things that will hurt some people. But there’s no point bleating about how it’s unfair when the country is sliding deeper and deeper into debt which is not typically being used for productive purposes.

I disagree with you on welfare – it gets spent on goods and services, so everyone benefits indirectly. You’ve clearly thought about your position though, so it’s cool. What bugs me is when people unthinkingly repeat lines they’ve heard from the coalition or news ltd (eg comparing government debt to credit card debt – ridiculous!).

“I disagree with you on welfare – it gets spent on goods and services, so everyone benefits indirectly”
Correct; even the unemployed are consumers.
This is why big business do not want immigration to Australia to slow down or stop because regardless if they get a job or go on welfare for life they still need to buy stuff to live on.
On a similar issue, what benefit (if any) accrued from the millions of $900 cheques Kevin Rudd sent during the time of the GFC in the Northern hemisphere?

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

Confect a crisis, tell lies, make commitments that you have no intention of keeping, whatever it takes to justify meanness of spirit.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

This is what this mob of imbeciles stand for.

Hopefully the opposition will block supply so we can have a double dissolution and get rid of these repugnant cretins by Christmas.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

Which category above best describes your the consequenecs of the budget as applied to you?

Would you like to rewrite that question?

rosscoact said :

Confect a crisis, tell lies, make commitments that you have no intention of keeping, whatever it takes to justify meanness of spirit.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

This is what this mob of imbeciles stand for.

Hopefully the opposition will block supply so we can have a double dissolution and get rid of these repugnant cretins by Christmas.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

Which category above best describes your the consequenecs of the budget as applied to you?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Codders111 said :

farout said :

Gutsy and courageous in the most part. The other mob would have let the deficit blow out till it reached European levels.
Sad part is, after all the unpleasant work is done to bring the budget back into the black, a future Labor government will probably squander it on ill-advised and poorly managed projects, unsustainable welfare and other populist pork barreling for their vote bank.

I don’t get why people earning more than say $30,000 p.a. should expect to see a GP for free, or get blood tests done for free. These things cost money, and someone has to pay for them. At $7 a pop, its still just a small fraction of what it actually costs to deliver that service.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of government spending. A modest debt is not a bad thing – borrowing money is justifiable if can generate sufficient future growth to offset the debt. Growth = increased tax revenue = manageable debt. Look up keynesian multipliers if you feel inclined. I’m not advocating Greek-style recklessness, but it’s reductionist to treat government debt as undesirable per se.

2016 cannot come soon enough. In the meantime I only hope Abbott does not damage the country irreparably.

Having a debt growing faster that GDP is not desirable for any government in the longer term, and that’s exactly what we’ve had for a number of years. Far better to fix a structural issue now than before we have real problems.

I agree that governments running a managed debt is good, when that money is being used for measures that improve productivity. I’m not convinced, however, that handing out welfare is particularly productive.

There are things in this budget that seem quite odd to me, and some things that will hurt some people. But there’s no point bleating about how it’s unfair when the country is sliding deeper and deeper into debt which is not typically being used for productive purposes.

I disagree with you on welfare – it gets spent on goods and services, so everyone benefits indirectly. You’ve clearly thought about your position though, so it’s cool. What bugs me is when people unthinkingly repeat lines they’ve heard from the coalition or news ltd (eg comparing government debt to credit card debt – ridiculous!).

davo101 said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

The wealthy already pay heaps of tax. In fact, the top 2% of earners pay 25% of the income tax.

Given that their average annual after-tax income is somewhere near $300,000 you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t shed a tear.

Absolutely. But if we’re talking about who is doing the ‘heavy lifting’, not many people are lifting more heavily than this group.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

The wealthy already pay heaps of tax. In fact, the top 2% of earners pay 25% of the income tax.

Given that their average annual after-tax income is somewhere near $300,000 you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t shed a tear.

farout said :

Kellamity said :

How can you support yourself for 6 months while you find a new job?

Having grown up in a country where there is no Youth Allowance, here are a few options (and is what I’d be willing to pay to help an out-of-work young person or a refugee/migrant kid that’s seeking honest work):
Ironing: $20 per load of washing – advertise at your local laundromat or by letter drop in the neighbourhood.
Car Washing: $30-50 per car, customer to supply bucket/soap/hose
Lawn mowing / weeding: $20-30 per hour, customer to supply lawn mower.
Help with relocating / spring cleaning / manual help around the house: $20 per hour. Advertise on gumtree/allhomes for casual work.
Pet minding / Doggie Poo Patrol / Wheelie Bin Cleaning / Weed Killer Spraying …… anything else that just needs an able bodied person, willing to work.

The genuinely incapable, though, should receive DSP.

Work at one of the many, many businesses that need unskilled/semi-skilled labour, such as:
McDonalds
Pizza Hut
KFC
Local takeaway
Service station attendent
Retail shops
Target
KMart
Big W
Woolworths
Coles
etc
etc
etc

These places are always looking for fresh meat. Apply at a few, get a couple of jobs at least and you’ll be making more than the dole anyway if you work 40 hours each week.

Kellamity said :

How can you support yourself for 6 months while you find a new job?

Having grown up in a country where there is no Youth Allowance, here are a few options (and is what I’d be willing to pay to help an out-of-work young person or a refugee/migrant kid that’s seeking honest work):
Ironing: $20 per load of washing – advertise at your local laundromat or by letter drop in the neighbourhood.
Car Washing: $30-50 per car, customer to supply bucket/soap/hose
Lawn mowing / weeding: $20-30 per hour, customer to supply lawn mower.
Help with relocating / spring cleaning / manual help around the house: $20 per hour. Advertise on gumtree/allhomes for casual work.
Pet minding / Doggie Poo Patrol / Wheelie Bin Cleaning / Weed Killer Spraying …… anything else that just needs an able bodied person, willing to work.

The genuinely incapable, though, should receive DSP.

I think a fair portion of it is tough but fair, and some things were too good to be true for a little while, like the study start up bonus.

However the thing that really scares me is the 6 month wait on Newstart for unemployed under 30, even though it no longer affects me.

When I was 28 I became unemployed, and when I applied for Newstart I had to wait for about 6 weeks while they processed everything, which they back payed, but I still had to live for those 6 weeks with no income, and only just made it without having to start putting my rent on my credit card. It took me 4 months to find a job (GFC) and living on centerlink sucked, but I was able to eat, pay rent, put petrol in my car and keep some credit on my phone.

So, what would have happened I’d have had to wait 6 months? Sell everything I owned and call a homeless shelter for a place to stay after that money ran out? It gives me anxiety just imagining it! What are people supposed to do?

Young people have entry level and lower paying jobs, most live paycheck to paycheck. How can you support yourself for 6 months while you find a new job?

watto23 said :

My concerns are more about the alarmism from the coalition. It seems many people have swallowed that pill. There was definately no budget crisis. did the budget need some cutbacks? Yes definitely. Do we need to return to surplus anytime soon? No not at all. In fact Australia would function quite fine if the budget was balanced and the current debt took 10 years to pay off. P

The problem is each party had ideological beliefs that gets in the way of actually providing a balanced well thought out budget. The coalition doesn’t spend enough and Labor Spends too much and neither is good for the country in large doses. 2-3 terms in a row maximum before the country needs a change IMO.

That said there is structural problems from Howards years, because cutting taxes then meant a lower income now and we’ve seen how difficult it is to raise taxes! The country is far better off to have Labor in power when the money is flowing and liberal in power when times are tight. We should spend when times are prosperous rather than cut revenue and vice versa.

That said there are many things that could be done, but never will happen. For example, getting rid of all the tax deductions people claim and replacing it with lower tax rates would ensure the wealthy pay taxes, but benefit all those to are not good at tax avoidance with lower taxes in general. It would take time for people and businesses to get used to, but make the tax system much simpler. The fact that their is incentives by making something tax deductible, just drives the lust of people to reduce their taxable income. Instead just tax everyone less with no deductions allowed.

Interesting points, but I’d add the following to the discussion.

The budget isn’t yet balanced and the debt won’t be paid back in 10 years (because there’s far too much of it).

Ideally the government spends more when times are hard and less when times are good, as this ‘smooths out’ the economic peaks and troughs.

The wealthy already pay heaps of tax. In fact, the top 2% of earners pay 25% of the income tax.

My concerns are more about the alarmism from the coalition. It seems many people have swallowed that pill. There was definately no budget crisis. did the budget need some cutbacks? Yes definitely. Do we need to return to surplus anytime soon? No not at all. In fact Australia would function quite fine if the budget was balanced and the current debt took 10 years to pay off. P

The problem is each party had ideological beliefs that gets in the way of actually providing a balanced well thought out budget. The coalition doesn’t spend enough and Labor Spends too much and neither is good for the country in large doses. 2-3 terms in a row maximum before the country needs a change IMO.

That said there is structural problems from Howards years, because cutting taxes then meant a lower income now and we’ve seen how difficult it is to raise taxes! The country is far better off to have Labor in power when the money is flowing and liberal in power when times are tight. We should spend when times are prosperous rather than cut revenue and vice versa.

That said there are many things that could be done, but never will happen. For example, getting rid of all the tax deductions people claim and replacing it with lower tax rates would ensure the wealthy pay taxes, but benefit all those to are not good at tax avoidance with lower taxes in general. It would take time for people and businesses to get used to, but make the tax system much simpler. The fact that their is incentives by making something tax deductible, just drives the lust of people to reduce their taxable income. Instead just tax everyone less with no deductions allowed.

bigfeet said :

I know it’s not in the budget…but $90 million to find a lost plane? Surely the company that owns the plane should fund that?

I’m all for Search and Rescue… But this is well past that stage.

There are better thing Australia could be spending money on.

I’d be surprised if Australia is left with a hefty bill for search of MH370. There are global agreements covering all of these things and who pays for what. If a Qantas plane landed off the coast of China, they’d be doing the search and rescue. Logistically is easier for the country nearby to do it with support from other countries.

Codders111 said :

farout said :

Gutsy and courageous in the most part. The other mob would have let the deficit blow out till it reached European levels.
Sad part is, after all the unpleasant work is done to bring the budget back into the black, a future Labor government will probably squander it on ill-advised and poorly managed projects, unsustainable welfare and other populist pork barreling for their vote bank.

I don’t get why people earning more than say $30,000 p.a. should expect to see a GP for free, or get blood tests done for free. These things cost money, and someone has to pay for them. At $7 a pop, its still just a small fraction of what it actually costs to deliver that service.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of government spending. A modest debt is not a bad thing – borrowing money is justifiable if can generate sufficient future growth to offset the debt. Growth = increased tax revenue = manageable debt. Look up keynesian multipliers if you feel inclined. I’m not advocating Greek-style recklessness, but it’s reductionist to treat government debt as undesirable per se.

2016 cannot come soon enough. In the meantime I only hope Abbott does not damage the country irreparably.

Having a debt growing faster that GDP is not desirable for any government in the longer term, and that’s exactly what we’ve had for a number of years. Far better to fix a structural issue now than before we have real problems.

I agree that governments running a managed debt is good, when that money is being used for measures that improve productivity. I’m not convinced, however, that handing out welfare is particularly productive.

There are things in this budget that seem quite odd to me, and some things that will hurt some people. But there’s no point bleating about how it’s unfair when the country is sliding deeper and deeper into debt which is not typically being used for productive purposes.

bigfeet said :

I know it’s not in the budget…but $90 million to find a lost plane? Surely the company that owns the plane should fund that?

I’m all for Search and Rescue… But this is well past that stage.

There are better thing Australia could be spending money on.

Actually, it is in the Budget:

http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-18.htm

although it might more appropriately have been placed under Foreign Affairs……

joingler said :

I don’t drive so not even petrol increase will affect me.

Yes but you buy food and other goods and services that require petrol somewhere along the supply chain, therefore it will effect you and everyone else.

No one is uneffected by this budget!! (oh, except for big business)

I know it’s not in the budget…but $90 million to find a lost plane? Surely the company that owns the plane should fund that?

I’m all for Search and Rescue… But this is well past that stage.

There are better thing Australia could be spending money on.

Madam Cholet said :

magiccar9 said :

Tenpoints said :

Reducing medicare rebates. Dental should be COVERED under medicare. People need fillings almost as much as they get the cold and flu.

Two things…

1. You don’t need to be going to the doctor for a cold. Only mild-severe flu needs attendance to the doctor – in which you should be paying for yourself anyway.

2. Why should tax payers be funding your trip to the dentist for fillings? It’s your responsibility to ensure you look after you teeth. Maybe if people weren’t such high consumers of everything sugar based we wouldn’t “need” so many (if any) fillings.

I have no fillings. Yay me at the ripe old age of 41, but I still baulk at the huge cost of going to the dentist, and we are on good salaries. Now I have a child I’m taking him to the relatively cheap government provided dentist.

I agree wholeheartedly with user pays, or at least contributes if they can, but sometimes the cost really is just considered too much for the overall benefit of the service. I apparently need a splint from the dentist as a grind or clench my teeth. Having seen how much these cost when getting one for Monsieur Cholet, I can say that it’s not top priority. And that’s what happens, people delay seeing a medical provider as they need their money for other things, but whatever affliction they have gets worse and they end up costing the tax payer more if they can’t pay themselves.

Whole-heartedly agree. We have two up and coming teens who need braces, not just because the dentist says so, but because it is visually obvious. Apart from the self esteem issues of our kids, the financial burden is paramount to purchasing a car for each of them and that is a ridiculous idea considering it’s just teeth. God forbid any of them or us might need expensive life saving medications.
We have just turned into America with it’s user pays system and if you can’t afford medical help, you die. Thanks again Turncoat Tony.

magiccar9 said :

Tenpoints said :

Reducing medicare rebates. Dental should be COVERED under medicare. People need fillings almost as much as they get the cold and flu.

Two things…

1. You don’t need to be going to the doctor for a cold. Only mild-severe flu needs attendance to the doctor – in which you should be paying for yourself anyway.

2. Why should tax payers be funding your trip to the dentist for fillings? It’s your responsibility to ensure you look after you teeth. Maybe if people weren’t such high consumers of everything sugar based we wouldn’t “need” so many (if any) fillings.

I have no fillings. Yay me at the ripe old age of 41, but I still baulk at the huge cost of going to the dentist, and we are on good salaries. Now I have a child I’m taking him to the relatively cheap government provided dentist.

I agree wholeheartedly with user pays, or at least contributes if they can, but sometimes the cost really is just considered too much for the overall benefit of the service. I apparently need a splint from the dentist as a grind or clench my teeth. Having seen how much these cost when getting one for Monsieur Cholet, I can say that it’s not top priority. And that’s what happens, people delay seeing a medical provider as they need their money for other things, but whatever affliction they have gets worse and they end up costing the tax payer more if they can’t pay themselves.

farout said :

Gutsy and courageous in the most part. The other mob would have let the deficit blow out till it reached European levels.
Sad part is, after all the unpleasant work is done to bring the budget back into the black, a future Labor government will probably squander it on ill-advised and poorly managed projects, unsustainable welfare and other populist pork barreling for their vote bank.

I don’t get why people earning more than say $30,000 p.a. should expect to see a GP for free, or get blood tests done for free. These things cost money, and someone has to pay for them. At $7 a pop, its still just a small fraction of what it actually costs to deliver that service.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of government spending. A modest debt is not a bad thing – borrowing money is justifiable if can generate sufficient future growth to offset the debt. Growth = increased tax revenue = manageable debt. Look up keynesian multipliers if you feel inclined. I’m not advocating Greek-style recklessness, but it’s reductionist to treat government debt as undesirable per se.

2016 cannot come soon enough. In the meantime I only hope Abbott does not damage the country irreparably.

farout said :

Gutsy and courageous in the most part. The other mob would have let the deficit blow out till it reached European levels.
Sad part is, after all the unpleasant work is done to bring the budget back into the black, a future Labor government will probably squander it on ill-advised and poorly managed projects, unsustainable welfare and other populist pork barreling for their vote bank.

I don’t get why people earning more than say $30,000 p.a. should expect to see a GP for free, or get blood tests done for free. These things cost money, and someone has to pay for them. At $7 a pop, its still just a small fraction of what it actually costs to deliver that service.

As if there’s only one way to fix the budget?! They haven’t touched the superannuation tax breaks. And unemployment benefits only make up a relatively small proportion of the total social security spending, so why attack them so severely?

It’s ill thought out and in parts downright vindictive. Why cut that many Aboriginal services when they hardly cost a thing in the big picture? There’s quite a few cuts like that in this budget. Does SFA to change the bottom line but severely affects some communities and population groups and some that have been proven to deliver good outcomes too.

Also, cutting $7.8 billion from foreign aid while we spend $8 billion on locking refugees up for no good reason whatsoever?!

It’s a toddlers budget. My cat could’ve done better than that and she’s not even the brightest feline I’ve owned.

Watson said :

One thing: I am not allowed to attend work if I have a severe cold either. And Miss 9’s school will call me to pick her up if she has as much as a sniffle. People don’t like others spreading their germs everywhere, even if they’re not debilitating. For me to stay home from work, even if it is my supervisor who sends me home, I need a doctor’s certificate or won’t get paid.

Should’ve read the rest of the comments first. Is already covered. And I will start using the stat dec too, I think. If HR agrees, I’ll check.

magiccar9 said :

Tenpoints said :

Reducing medicare rebates. Dental should be COVERED under medicare. People need fillings almost as much as they get the cold and flu.

Two things…

1. You don’t need to be going to the doctor for a cold. Only mild-severe flu needs attendance to the doctor – in which you should be paying for yourself anyway.

2. Why should tax payers be funding your trip to the dentist for fillings? It’s your responsibility to ensure you look after you teeth. Maybe if people weren’t such high consumers of everything sugar based we wouldn’t “need” so many (if any) fillings.

One thing: I am not allowed to attend work if I have a severe cold either. And Miss 9’s school will call me to pick her up if she has as much as a sniffle. People don’t like others spreading their germs everywhere, even if they’re not debilitating. For me to stay home from work, even if it is my supervisor who sends me home, I need a doctor’s certificate or won’t get paid.

dtc said :

I’m pretty sure a job I dont want is telling people at Emergency that they will have to pay because its been diagnosed that they could have gone to a GP

GPs can stich people up, GPs can remove embedded glass and lots of things like that – where is the line?

I don’t know about your GP experiences, but the ones I generally see – and that I pay $40 out of my own pocket for, only allow 15 minutes per consultation. And try to get you out of their consultation room in less than that so they can catch up on lost time. Hardly enough time to be stitching wounds etc.

Gutsy and courageous in the most part. The other mob would have let the deficit blow out till it reached European levels.
Sad part is, after all the unpleasant work is done to bring the budget back into the black, a future Labor government will probably squander it on ill-advised and poorly managed projects, unsustainable welfare and other populist pork barreling for their vote bank.

I don’t get why people earning more than say $30,000 p.a. should expect to see a GP for free, or get blood tests done for free. These things cost money, and someone has to pay for them. At $7 a pop, its still just a small fraction of what it actually costs to deliver that service.

Confect a crisis, tell lies, make commitments that you have no intention of keeping, whatever it takes to justify meanness of spirit.

Punish the poor, the sick, the elderly, the homeless, the intelligent, the public servants and people without jobs. In fact anybody who they look down on.

This is what this mob of imbeciles stand for.

Hopefully the opposition will block supply so we can have a double dissolution and get rid of these repugnant cretins by Christmas.

magiccar9 said :

Tenpoints said :

Reducing medicare rebates. Dental should be COVERED under medicare. People need fillings almost as much as they get the cold and flu.

Two things…

1. You don’t need to be going to the doctor for a cold. Only mild-severe flu needs attendance to the doctor – in which you should be paying for yourself anyway.

2. Why should tax payers be funding your trip to the dentist for fillings? It’s your responsibility to ensure you look after you teeth. Maybe if people weren’t such high consumers of everything sugar based we wouldn’t “need” so many (if any) fillings.

A very narrow view there. Using your argument, everybody should have to exercise four times a week, only buy heart foundation approved meats, remove salt from their diets, not work in severe weather conditions, disown their parents for genetic conditions, wear hats, sunglasses, apply sunscreen, not engage in dangerous pursuits like hot air ballooning, sky-diving, driving, walking across the street or breathing air adjacent cars and building sites. My sister had a genetic defect that caused her teeth to have weak enamel. She took out loans worth tens of thousands to compensate and I don’t believe for a minute that our government helped her in any way at all. Me on the other hand, mortally scared of dentist drills will need thousands spent in the future and according to you deserve nothing!

magiccar9 said :

joingler said :

Overall there is no difference at all for me apart from not being able to retire until I am 70 which was unlikely to happen to me.

I don’t own a home, have no children, am in the second lowest tax bracket but am able to get by just fine financially as I have no debts. I don’t drive so not even petrol increase will affect me.

The budget wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be (although every government always makes it sounds worse prior to the day to prepare people for the worst). Most things in the budget I am supportive of. We need to be a country that does not rely on borrowing to give its citizens the best chance of a successful life.

Still undecided on the carbon tax though.

+1 (minus the car part – but let’s face it, petrol companies move their prices by double this week-to-week anyway)

I haven’t seen the price of fuel change since Christmas, where do you buy? It’s always the same here out west.

qbngeek said :

Mothy said :

magiccar9 said :

1. You don’t need to be going to the doctor for a cold. Only mild-severe flu needs attendance to the doctor – in which you should be paying for yourself anyway.

Yes, you don’t need to from a health perspective, but you still HAVE TO to get the doctors certificate to satisfy your employer.

I was thinking the same thing….ohh well looks like I will just go to work sick as I can barely afford the current $75 to go to the doctors

You can also provide a statutory declaration instead of a doctors certificate. I started doing this after we had kids and they started bringing home every illness under the sun and infecting my wife and I.

Mothy said :

magiccar9 said :

1. You don’t need to be going to the doctor for a cold. Only mild-severe flu needs attendance to the doctor – in which you should be paying for yourself anyway.

Yes, you don’t need to from a health perspective, but you still HAVE TO to get the doctors certificate to satisfy your employer.

I was thinking the same thing….ohh well looks like I will just go to work sick as I can barely afford the current $75 to go to the doctors and at the rate prices on everything currently go up (not counting that prices will now go up again because of this budget, especially the fuel excise), plus a new fee I definatly can’t afford to go in case my kids get sick and I need to take them. If it comes to a choice between take them to the doctor or go myself, they always win.

I came out fine as well, but that’s hardly the point. These sorts of infantile, self-centred outlooks are precisely why we ended up with a conservative nutcase as PM. There’s a lot in the budget I’m uncomfortable with, but the changes to newstart are the worst. Finding a job takes time. What are recent graduates or young workers who were laid off supposed to do while they search for work? Sleep on the street and rummage through dumpsters for food??? Not everyone has family to mooch off. I’m ashamed to live in a country that thinks this is fair.

magiccar9 said :

1. You don’t need to be going to the doctor for a cold. Only mild-severe flu needs attendance to the doctor – in which you should be paying for yourself anyway.

Yes, you don’t need to from a health perspective, but you still HAVE TO to get the doctors certificate to satisfy your employer.

magiccar9 said :

That seems fair. I’ll withdraw that comment.

Actually those are my words, oops.

Tenpoints said :

Reducing medicare rebates. Dental should be COVERED under medicare. People need fillings almost as much as they get the cold and flu.

Two things…

1. You don’t need to be going to the doctor for a cold. Only mild-severe flu needs attendance to the doctor – in which you should be paying for yourself anyway.

2. Why should tax payers be funding your trip to the dentist for fillings? It’s your responsibility to ensure you look after you teeth. Maybe if people weren’t such high consumers of everything sugar based we wouldn’t “need” so many (if any) fillings.

joingler said :

Overall there is no difference at all for me apart from not being able to retire until I am 70 which was unlikely to happen to me.

I don’t own a home, have no children, am in the second lowest tax bracket but am able to get by just fine financially as I have no debts. I don’t drive so not even petrol increase will affect me.

The budget wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be (although every government always makes it sounds worse prior to the day to prepare people for the worst). Most things in the budget I am supportive of. We need to be a country that does not rely on borrowing to give its citizens the best chance of a successful life.

Still undecided on the carbon tax though.

+1 (minus the car part – but let’s face it, petrol companies move their prices by double this week-to-week anyway)

Not keen on:
Cuts to environmental conservation initiatives.
Scrapping of the Gonski scheme.
Reducing medicare rebates. Dental should be COVERED under medicare. People need fillings almost as much as they get the cold and flu.

6 months on/ 6 months off unemployment benefits. Why not just make it 50% for the whole 12 months? How can anyone survive for half a year without an income? Sometimes it takes that long to get a job, especially with youth unemployment so high.

Ah well, end of the day, this is a drop in the pool. Future predictions:
Overpopulation
Increased pollution.
Increased refugees.
More natural disasters
Increased cost of living due to gradual scarcity of resources.
And all the socioeconomic flow-on effects that arise from more and more people not being able to earn a living.

Keep on floating in your bubble of self-centredness chaps :-).

I came out fine, and feel almost a bit guilty. I feel for families with kids where one parent stays home.

A pity the old Daily Mirror isn’t still publishing with its classic “Beer, Cigs Up” banner headline the day after the Budget.

Aside from the squeeze on federal public service spending in the ACT (with more of that likely to come due to the federalism and other reviews), the big issue for us, as a community, is the reduction in Commonwealth funding in the “out years” for health and education.

As I understand it, it’s a reduction in the rate of increase of such funding – with indexation still provided for inflation as measured by the CPI, and population growth – not a cut in nominal terms, but the shortfall compared to earlier funding projections will be large. The NSW and Victorian Treasurers were interviewed this morning, and both acknowledged this to be a major change, with big implications for State budgets. Given the ACT’s puny (not just proportionately smaller, but very shallow) revenue base, the problems for us will surely be that much greater, particularly against the relatively high cost of running our health and education systems. So unless there is extra revenue from an increased or broadened GST, future ACT Governments are going to have to face some highly unpalatable options about service cuts or further very large rates/taxes/charges increases.

Overall there is no difference at all for me apart from not being able to retire until I am 70 which was unlikely to happen to me.

I don’t own a home, have no children, am in the second lowest tax bracket but am able to get by just fine financially as I have no debts. I don’t drive so not even petrol increase will affect me.

The budget wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be (although every government always makes it sounds worse prior to the day to prepare people for the worst). Most things in the budget I am supportive of. We need to be a country that does not rely on borrowing to give its citizens the best chance of a successful life.

Still undecided on the carbon tax though.

I’m pretty sure a job I dont want is telling people at Emergency that they will have to pay because its been diagnosed that they could have gone to a GP

GPs can stich people up, GPs can remove embedded glass and lots of things like that – where is the line?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Well, I fared pretty poorly and will be around $60/week worse off. That doesn’t include any increase in petrol prices or doctor’s visits. That is roughly a 6% cut to our total income, not much for most people but it has halved our “budgeted” grocery money from $120 to $60 per week. Not much to live on for a family of five. I guess we are putting the house on the market and looking for a cheap rental, if there are any out there. No, I am not kidding either. Without a job and with even worse prospect of finding one after this budget, we are going to have to sell up in the near future. It’s a soul-crushing thought.

The sad thing is that if more people do sell their house there will be more competition for rental properties and this will drive the rent up. But with more houses on the market it will drive down what people can hope to get for their house when selling it.

Budget winner. Buy a house when the market crashes and ramp up selling services to govt now they’re planning to get rid of all the public servants in my industry.

It’s a bit like interest rates – you never see the headline, “Rates increase, elderly cheer.”

Well, I fared pretty poorly and will be around $60/week worse off. That doesn’t include any increase in petrol prices or doctor’s visits. That is roughly a 6% cut to our total income, not much for most people but it has halved our “budgeted” grocery money from $120 to $60 per week. Not much to live on for a family of five. I guess we are putting the house on the market and looking for a cheap rental, if there are any out there. No, I am not kidding either. Without a job and with even worse prospect of finding one after this budget, we are going to have to sell up in the near future. It’s a soul-crushing thought.