Private Health loss of Rebate for some

[straitman]

Classic Liberal distraction to pretend that they are the same.

Why does it frequently have to be brought back to an irrelevant party political discussion?

 

[Stephen65]

It's really just a disguised tax increase. If we had a free choice whether to take out private cover or instead rely on the public system (which all of us do pay for via taxes and the medicare levy) then it wouldn't be so objectionable to me because the government would simply be removing a benefit or bonus it had previously offered via the rebate. If you didn't choose to take out private cover the removal of the rebate would be irrelevant.

But...because you are hit with the levy surcharge if you don't take out private cover you are effectively forced to get it or pay more than it costs in tax. In those circumstances reducing the rebate has exactly the same economic effect as a tax increase on those on higher incomes.

Of course that's not how its being described, instead the justification is some nonsense about the poor supposedly subsidising the health cover of billionaires.

 

[eastwest101]

I beleive with all the tax churn built into the system with the confusing array of benefits and the progressive tax scales there is a point where people cease to be a net government recepient and start to become a net tax payer, the GST makes this a bit difficult to nail as the GST is a consumption tax on some consumer staples and the no. of children would also make a difference - but I would expect that crossover point for a single taxpayer the figure would be close to $35K and for a single income + 2 kids would be around $40K-$45K somewhere.

The quoted example of an apprentice on say $20K subsidizing PHI rebate for millionaires is a total fallacy as someone on an income of $25K would typically be a nett tax recipient and not a nett tax payer.

 

[medhead]

I don't know about you Medhead, but if i'm working harder, then generally speaking I'd like to be earning more for it

But yes - you are technically correct

True. But then I also remember that I now earn in an hour what I used to earn in a day when I was a lot younger. I also worked a damn side harder back then. Maybe working smarter is better phraseology.

Why does it frequently have to be brought back to an irrelevant party political discussion?

It doesn't have to be brought back to political parties, and in this case that is not the best descriptor. I couldn't think of anything better that wouldn't sound like the politics of envy But on the point of relevance. Howard/Costello first used the "working harder" incantation (as I recall) and a large number of their supporters like to repeat it whenever they get a chance. NB I'm not saying all people who use the term are their supporters.


Sent from the Throne

 

[Isochronous]

It is quite disturbing what is happening to Australia under this Labor-Greens Government. They want to censor what newspapers write and have declared jihad on people who dare to aspire to succeed and earn high incomes. I am very pessimistic about our future given the silence of the media in the face of this extremism and incompetence from these socialist morons. The well has been poisoned with the media and the education system working as one to promote socialist objectives.

 

[medhead]

That's a massive load of unsubstantiated generalisations. Media working as one? how do you explain the Australian then? School system? Why are there still young Liberals then? Socialism? You need look no further that some Liberal policies to see rampant socialism, which just had to be contrary to government policy.


Sent from the Throne

 

[cove]

I think we would need a Medicare tax levy of more than 5% of everyone's taxable incomes to go anywhere towards covering the health system annual costs. With 3 year elections in the Federal system and polls driven Governments we probably won't get such a hit!

 

[Moody]

I think we would need a Medicare tax levy of more than 5% of everyone's taxable incomes to go anywhere towards covering the health system annual costs. With 3 year elections in the Federal system and polls driven Governments we probably won't get such a hit!

Unfortunately true on both counts - and the same can be said of the $5B needed in the education sector. All these investment in health and education must be sacrificed in the name of producing a government surplus. Apparently that is the litmus test for credibility in the eyes of the public ... or is that just what the media tell us?

 

[Stephen65]

The government should aim to run a balanced budget across the economic cycle so that surpluses are saved in good times to allow extra spending in bad.

However, I doubt that its a good idea to be borrowing to fund recurrent expenditure like health and education in any economic climate.

 

[JohnK]

I think we would need a Medicare tax levy of more than 5% of everyone's taxable incomes to go anywhere towards covering the health system annual costs. With 3 year elections in the Federal system and polls driven Governments we probably won't get such a hit!

Does this have anything to do with the fact there are now more people than ever receiving "free" health care. And is it also true that a lot of these people have never, and will never, contribute anything back into the tax system?

Or am I totally off the mark?

And not that it matters but I used to work for the Department of Social Security back in the 80's and I know times have changed but the people have not....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It is quite disturbing what is happening to Australia under this Labor-Greens Government. They want to censor what newspapers write and have declared jihad on people who dare to aspire to succeed and earn high incomes.

Well - this is the government elected by a majority of the people under our voting system.

There is no 'jihad' on people wanting to succeed and earn high incomes. You are free to make the decision as to how much you earn, knowing the tax scales and laws that are in place should you earn over a certain amount.

If anything, it should aspire you to earn even more to cover the cost of the loss of the rebate

Not having private health if you can afford it is like not taking out travel insurance if you have an overseas trip. If you can't afford the travel insurance you really can't afford to be travelling. If you can't afford private health insurance then you really can't afford whatever else it is that is over extending your current income.

The greater tragedy is that the benefits of private health insurance are not available to everyone in this wealthy country we live in.

 

[Stephen65]

Does this have anything to do with the fact there are now more people than ever receiving "free" health care. And is it also true that a lot of these people have never, and will never, contribute anything back into the tax system?

Everybody contributes at least a little bit of GST. That's one of the virtues of that tax. I'd be happy with a GST of 20% if we cut income tax correspondingly.

 

[JohnK]

Well - this is the government elected by a majority of the people under our voting system.

Did the governent actually get majority vote and power without "buying" the 3 indepenedents?

They are surely not going to go down as one of the most popular goverments in Australian history without a popular victory. Bring back Beasley or even Latham. At least they had some idea....

 

[Stephen65]

You are free to make the decision as to how much you earn, knowing the tax scales and laws that are in place should you earn over a certain amount.

Most people do not have the flexibility to adjust their incomes up or down to account for increases or decrease in tax.

Not having private health if you can afford it is like not taking out travel insurance if you have an overseas trip. If you can't afford the travel insurance you really can't afford to be travelling. If you can't afford private health insurance then you really can't afford whatever else it is that is over extending your current income.

It never ceases to amaze me how many forum experts there are on how other people can or should spend their money.

 

[oz_mark]

The greater tragedy is that the benefits of private health insurance are not available to everyone in this wealthy country we live in.

Indeed. Dental health in this country is going backwards....

 

[JohnK]

If anything, it should aspire you to earn even more to cover the cost of the loss of the rebate

Cannot earn any more. Trying to scale back the hours of current job.

Not having private health if you can afford it is like not taking out travel insurance if you have an overseas trip. If you can't afford the travel insurance you really can't afford to be travelling. If you can't afford private health insurance then you really can't afford whatever else it is that is over extending your current income.

The greater tragedy is that the benefits of private health insurance are not available to everyone in this wealthy country we live in.

I pay both Medicare and private health insurance since 1998. I have just receive an increase of $2.70 per month effective 1 April 2012.

This is not going to kill me but I cannot afford to keep paying extra taxes as my money is spoken for with overseas trips. I should not have to scale back my flying just because I am asked to pay more tax.

What ever happened to an equal system for all?

 

[Stephen65]

Indeed. Dental health in this country is going backwards....

I've never understood the arbitrary distinction between dentistry and the rest of medicine. What is so special about medical care of the teeth that there has to be a whole separate profession to care for them? Why isn't dentistry just a medical specialty? This distinction extends through to the medicare system whereby you are covered for every part of your body except your teeth.

 

[wafliron]

It is quite disturbing what is happening to Australia under this Labor-Greens Government. They want to censor what newspapers write and have declared jihad on people who dare to aspire to succeed and earn high incomes. I am very pessimistic about our future given the silence of the media in the face of this extremism and incompetence from these socialist morons. The well has been poisoned with the media and the education system working as one to promote socialist objectives.

I'm sorry, but what a load of BS. Regardless of whether you support or don't support the policies of the current government (and I'll add that I'm not a fan of some), calling them "socialist morons" and saying they've "declared jihad on people who dare to aspire to succeed and earn high incomes" is just ridiculous. Of course they're a left leaning government and have introduced some policies which lean that way, but they haven't done anything to justify such extreme labels. And need I remind you it's the government which is currently trying to reduce the company tax rate, and the coalition which is working to oppose this?

And the media working to promote socialist objectives?? The media is more right-leaning now than at any time in recent history, at least as far back as I've been old enough to pay attention to the media / politics (10 or so years).

All these investment in health and education must be sacrificed in the name of producing a government surplus. Apparently that is the litmus test for credibility in the eyes of the public ... or is that just what the media tell us?

The government should aim to run a balanced budget across the economic cycle so that surpluses are saved in good times to allow extra spending in bad.

+1000. When did running any sort of deficit become a bad thing?

Governments should be delivering surpluses in good economic times, but when things turn sour (GFC, and still today) they should be leveraging their previously-built-up solid financial position to support the economy. Running sensible deficits to support investments in infrastructure is one way of doing this - and assuming said investments are well planned they should boost the economy and nation's productivity in the future too.

 

[rechoboam]

I've never understood the arbitrary distinction between dentistry and the rest of medicine. What is so special about medical care of the teeth that there has to be a whole separate profession to care for them? Why isn't dentistry just a medical specialty? This distinction extends through to the medicare system whereby you are covered for every part of your body except your teeth.

Dentists aren't idiots and they would never sign up to a never ending decline in real incomes like many bulk billing GPs endured for 30 years. It will never happen for this reason.

 

[froggerADL]

Dentists aren't idiots and they would never sign up to a never ending decline in real incomes like many bulk billing GPs endured for 30 years. It will never happen for this reason.

Not like those idiots in the hospitality industry who signed up for Workchoices!