Private Health loss of Rebate for some

[james4321]

And earn more FF points for many further years to come. Tony Abbott will not repeal these changes.

I agree - it is typical Abbott negativity just for the sake of it.

 

[straitman]

It's supposed to be private insurance so why should the government be involved at all?

Because the government was trying to reduce waiting lists in Public hospitals. Rightly or wrongly they decided that encouraging people to enter the private system would help.

To do this they used a carrot (rebate) and a stick Medicare Surcharge.

It is indeed good to hear that someone is actually talking the facts about how we ended up in this situation in the first place.

It was decided that to subsidise peoples PHI by 30% was cheaper than the extra cost to the public system when people dropped out of the PHI system. Pretty simple concept really though I have no idea if their maths was good or bad :!:

 

[Deleted member]

If you have huge negative gearing going on it could be worth it in theory...wouldn't uyou be unlikely to earn more than you expect? I was going to do this when considering an investment property. Worth chatting to a qualified person about.

Edit: I actually had the form at one point...seemed pretty straightforward. Had to quit being an employee due to lack of Ff points for tax bills. Priorities...

Not sure if it still applies. But I recall an IT221D tax variation When big deductions were inevitable. So they could be recouped weekly in your pay

 

[medhead]

It is indeed good to hear that someone is actually talking the facts about how we ended up in this situation in the first place.

It was decided that to subsidise peoples PHI by 30% was cheaper than the extra cost to the public system when people dropped out of the PHI system. Pretty simple concept really though I have no idea if their maths was good or bad :!:

There was a pretty decent write up in the Australian yesterday. The rebate added 2% (~30 to 32%) to the take up of PHI in the first 6 or 12 months. Medicare surcharge was introduced like a year later, the take up rate increase to ~44%. Stick was most effective, the rebate was trival.

 

[straitman]

Medicare surcharge was introduced like a year later, the take up rate increase to ~44%. Stick was most effective, the rebate was trival.

.... or they worked well combined :!:

 

[medhead]

.... or they worked well combined :!:

Or that.....

 

[Deleted member]

It occurs to me that income tax is inherently evil. What should be taxed is consumption. But it Won't happen. When you consider that joe average for example pays for his fuel ( big tax and excise) his car ( import duties and luxury tax if it's a Dear one) with after tax dollars. So unless you are fortunate enough to rely on yourself for income and security ( become self employed) and can get some tax relief for these commodities, it's pretty hard old world. I was anti GST, but frankly I reckon double it and make the first $100k income tax free. ( I have no treasury modelling to,support this)

 

[leemin]

It occurs to me that income tax is inherently evil. What should be taxed is consumption. But it Won't happen. When you consider that joe average for example pays for his fuel ( big tax and excise) his car ( import duties and luxury tax if it's a Dear one) with after tax dollars. So unless you are fortunate enough to rely on yourself for income and security ( become self employed) and can get some tax relief for these commodities, it's pretty hard old world. I was anti GST, but frankly I reckon double it and make the first $100k income tax free. ( I have no treasury modelling to,support this)

Notwithstanding the expenses you've mentioned, a consumption tax in the place of an income tax (of whatever sort) disproportionately affects low-income earners as they have lower levels of discretionary consumption. That is, a higher percentage of their income is spent on essentials.

Despite what people may think of low-income earners in respect of workforce participation rates; given that poverty is repeatedly found to be closely linked with poor health outcomes and low levels of education and aspiration goals in children (i.e. generational poverty); I would not be in favour of increasing the financial pressure on those that are relatively disadvantaged in our community.

 

[medhead]

Well if we're doing tax wish lists: income splitting with spouse, flat income tax rate (low), no rebates, deductions and no tax returns. Consumption and company taxes similarly flat rated with no complications. Massive reduction of paperwork for all involved removing the need for ATO staff. (sorry to all the accountants).

 

[drron]

Of course, it funds the community I was just sticking to drron's premise that someone is being subsidised. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

Sorry.Read it again.It is not my premise that someone is being subsidised.My gripe is with the Government's spin-they used that premise to justify the change.So we are really in agreement but you do enjoy having a go dont you.

 

[Simo]

IMO PHI should cover your medical bills and not just some gaps and we won't pay this and we won't pay for this.

My computer is insured and if it lost, stolen or damaged and will get another one exactly what i had and with all my programs loaded on it.

A few years ago when we had little Miss Simo she cost us a few thousand dollars that wasn't covered under PHI.

Why do we pay $300 or $400 dollars per month to then have to pay extra for stuff they don't cover, even though the Doctor says yes you have to have that test.

At the end of the day I just had to pay it and also had to pay a small excess as well.

Excess is normal practise as all our cars have an excess as long with our other house and business insurance.

 

[Deleted member]

Notwithstanding the expenses you've mentioned, a consumption tax in the place of an income tax (of whatever sort) disproportionately affects low-income earners as they have lower levels of discretionary consumption. That is, a higher percentage of their income is spent on essentials.

Despite what people may think of low-income earners in respect of workforce participation rates; given that poverty is repeatedly found to be closely linked with poor health outcomes and low levels of education and aspiration goals in children (i.e. generational poverty); I would not be in favour of increasing the financial pressure on those that are relatively disadvantaged in our community.

Hence my suggestion for a very high tax free limit. I did say no treasury modelling had been done. Just the concept.
Bear in mind those on low incomes pay the same tax as every one ( up to the limit of their income) so a higher threshold should in theory work well.
But I am probably oversimplifying things
At the risk of taking his off piste I also believe that home help ( cleaning, housekeeping in general ) should be a deductible expense. More employment would ensue and therefore tax paid. But who am I to give advice

 

[cove]

I feel sad that Ken Henry's tax review was not acted upon. All we get is hodge podge. Next is our salary sacrifice into super being attacked so our taxable incomes can rise to help more pay for running Australia's health system. That will get the numbers up from 2,400,000 to over 3,000,000 affected taxpayers by July 1st on losing the health insurance rebate (in part or in full).
Its only money after all .....they don't want an arm or a leg!

 

[froggerADL]

I do not work any overtime solely due to the fact that I only take home 43.5 cents in every dollar I earn (45% marginal tax + 1.5% Medicare + 1% flood levy + 9% super = 56.5% gone). So you have now met someone who stops working due to the tax rates in Australia. I would rather have the time off than work at such a reduced rate.

I don't believe the 9% Super is "gone". It is yours when you reach retirement age or die. It is not a tax and should not be represented as such. In fact it is a subsised form of saving as it attracts a lower tax rate in most cases.

I think it is good that you value time off, and if the tax system ecourages that, maybe that's a good thing.

 

[froggerADL]

Re: Private Heath loss of Rebate for some

I love the way the PM and her ministers gloat about how fair this will make the tax system as no longer will the low income earners subsidise the high income earners health costs.Julia just look at the rate of taxes starting on 1/7/12 when the health subsidy changes come in-those with taxable incomes less than $18200 have a tax rate of...........0%.They are not subsidising anyone.Pity that our journalists cant even pick up these simple facts.

No-one in Australia has a tax rate of 0%. We all pay tax or duty when we buy petrol, smokes, booze etc. or anything with GST added. So some of that tax, paid by people on low incomes, could be thought of as subsidising the health insurance rebate.

Those lucky people on very low incomes do have an income tax rate of 0%.

 

[rechoboam]

Private insurance is rubbish, so is the rebate. I pay lots in tax per week and then the government pays me a hundred bucks a month in a rebate. What's the **** point of that? recycling money- what a waste of time.

Then private insurance as currently managed- the insurers pay doctors for wisdom teeth extraction for example. That's not what "insurance" is for. It should be for rare unexpected events. Every second person has wisdom teeth out. That should just be treated like paying your gas bill or car service. Does car insurance pay for an oil change? And the result is that instead of the patient just writing me a check, piles of cash circulate through the insurance company, government rebate, etc etc, and the market is distorted. As are the costs. Basically the excess should be say an extra $1000 a year which the public can save in the bank and actual "insurance" premiums could be massively reduced by an equivalent amount. Gee insurance company thanks for taking my $300 and giving me back $250 for my contact lenses, great thinking.

I actually don't mind paying tax prevent living in a society like Sierra Leones or one where people mug me for money for food. But this stupid money-go-round annoys me.

PS despite believing strongly in social justice I actually work four days a week because at 50% tax it just isn't worth my while earning that extra dollar given I don't buy much and would rather stay at home and hang out with my kids given what my AFTER tax hourly income actually is. I have tomorrow off for this exact reason so this is NOT just a theoretical problem.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A person gets paid based on what other people value their time at; so if someone is paid more per hour its because others (not themselves) consider their services more valuable. So if other people consider a persons services more valuable why shouldn't they be rewarded? They were the ones that paid for an education or went the extra mile. Most of the rich (and I'm not rich) I know work insane hours in comparison to anyone else, because in our society you don't get something for nothing. Of course, you get the odd few who are rich through inheritence, but these are in the minority.

sorry but this is simply not true. there is a pay disparity between male and female workers... same job, but less pay.

the majority of workers are not paid according to how they are valued, they are paid according to the lowest possible the employer thinks they can get away with. have a look at australian airlines employing new Zealand or Thai or uk cabin crew. it's all about paying as little as you can get away with, not about the value that person contributes. the foreign crew are doing the same function as their Australian counterpart, but do you the ink they are less valued? does the airline expect the foreign cabin crew mamber to only do half the job during an evacuation?

 

[rechoboam]

sorry but this is simply not true. there is a pay disparity between male and female workers... same job, but less pay.

Fine. Give me a single example of an actual job where employers pay women one thing and men another. My award sure doesn't have a table for women and a table for men.
Women do earn less in general: due to gender stereotypes they do more jobs like social work which pay little, but the same little amount for women and men. And due to childbirth their career progression is stalled often. And due to again gender stereotypes saying women should be child-carers there is more chance of working part-time or in an interrupted fashion. This means two things, firstly that the average wage for women is less due to working less hours, secondly their progression to seniority is slowed. Also I suspect that men are frankly the ones ambitious (?foolish) enough to be more likely to do 12 hour days for years on end climbing up the greasy pole.

Check out Young women are now earning more than men which points out that due to societal changes young women in the UK are outstripping males in pay (and school performance).

As for "it's all about paying as little as you can get away with", we live in a market economy, the same workers whose pay is driven down by market forces go to the shops and would prefer to pay 50c for an apple than ten bucks. I guess if consumers were happy to pay unlimited amounts for their goods and services then employers would pay their employees much more as well. It's not just mean employers who are subject to this, I run my own services business and my product has to be produced as cheaply as possible. Actually I definitely don't pay my employees as little as possible, like many employees of good organisations their pay is benchmarked at a percentage significantly higher than the minimum possible, because we want good employees, not cheap ones.

And re foreign workers, do you know what the average wage is in Thailand? Minimum average annual earnings is $2,200. Annual earnings. Unless you want Qantas or subsidiary employees to basically own the economy, there is no reason for them to earn 10 or 20 times as much as service industry employees in Thailand.

edit: some ranting removed (the rest left in)

 

[drron]

I knew I would finally find the reterence I was seeking for unemployment-
[Roy Morgan Research] Morgan Poll

I

n January 2012 according to Roy Morgan:

• Unemployment was 10.3% (up 1.7% since December 2011) — an estimated 1,278,000 Australians were unemployed and looking for work. This is Australia’s highest ever number of unemployed as reported by Roy Morgan and is also Australia’s highest unemployment rate for a decade — since January 2002 (10.9% — 1,075,000).
  
  
• A further 7.5% of the workforce* were working part-time looking for more work (underemployed) — 934,000 Australians.
  
  
• In total a record 17.8% of the workforce, or 2.21 million Australians, were unemployed or underemployed.
  
  
• The Australian workforce* in January was at a record high 12,429,000, up 383,000 since January 2011 — comprising 7,681,000 full-time workers (up 106,000); 3,470,000 part-time workers (down 53,000) and 1,278,000 looking for work (up 330,000).
  
  
• The latest Roy Morgan unemployment estimate of 10.3% is now almost double the 5.2% currently quoted by the ABS for December 2011.

And if you go to the source you can see the historic levels according to Roy morgan and at the bottom of the page comparing how they and the ABS get their numbers.
Our economy really is strong.

 

[rechoboam]

And you would know drron how many people there are out there pushed by Centrelink into claiming "disability" benefits to shift out of unemployment rolls