Private Health loss of Rebate for some

[dfcatch]

How stupid are we? Well, people voted for those two.

Not me.

And as for Tasmanians.....well that explains Bob Brown.

 

[kristophe]

arg. i need health insurance rises like a hole in the head. my wife and i are upping our premium for IVF this year. That in addition to government enforced rises is going to hurt. We're already paying about 60K combined tax a year. The govt just keeps gouging.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It is pretty divisive when the current Government trots out the line that couples or singles are "wealthy" at these modest income levels like they have.
I believe Bob Brown and Bob Katter have both qualified for double pensions which I would outlaw.....a State and then a Federal Government pension....how stupid are we that this is allowed??

hmmm... I think someone wrote above that if you put in the extra hours and do the study and make the sacrifices then you should be able to benefit??

the thing to remember with politicians is that if nothing else, they are very smart in being able to do one thing... get elected every 4 years. the prime minister, if nothing else, is very smart just to have been able to make it to the top job... you/we may not like her policies, but she has still managed to play the game and get to where she has, and the rewards for that are great. (and remember, not all politicians manage to get elected long enough to receive generous pensions).

it is open to anyone of us that wants to get generous pensions afforded to parliamentarians to become one if we want to!

 

[drron]

hmmm... I think someone wrote above that if you put in the extra hours and do the study and make the sacrifices then you should be able to benefit??

the thing to remember with politicians is that if nothing else, they are very smart in being able to do one thing... get elected every 4 years. the prime minister, if nothing else, is very smart just to have been able to make it to the top job... you/we may not like her policies, but she has still managed to play the game and get to where she has, and the rewards for that are great. (and remember, not all politicians manage to get elected long enough to receive generous pensions).

it is open to anyone of us that wants to get generous pensions afforded to parliamentarians to become one if we want to!

Sure it is open to anyone but it is not that easy.
From one who has tried.

 

[rechoboam]

hmmm... I think someone wrote above that if you put in the extra hours and do the study and make the sacrifices then you should be able to benefit??

the thing to remember with politicians is that if nothing else, they are very smart in being able to do one thing... get elected every 4 years. the prime minister, if nothing else, is very smart just to have been able to make it to the top job... you/we may not like her policies, but she has still managed to play the game and get to where she has, and the rewards for that are great. (and remember, not all politicians manage to get elected long enough to receive generous pensions).

it is open to anyone of us that wants to get generous pensions afforded to parliamentarians to become one if we want to!

I'm sorry but I have not seen any evidence that she is very smart. Like many of her colleagues she seems devoid of any loyalty or dedication to anything except reelection. She has a certain skill, like anyone who has learnt a craft, trade or profession, but ruthlessness is what you need to lead the labour party, not intelligence.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sure it is open to anyone but it is not that easy.
From one who has tried.

that's my whole point! if anyone can manage the process of getting elected, and then re-elected every four years, with no job certainty, then perhaps they deserve the rewards they are getting!!

I'm sorry but I have not seen any evidence that she is very smart. Like many of her colleagues she seems devoid of any loyalty or dedication to anything except reelection. She has a certain skill, like anyone who has learnt a craft, trade or profession, but ruthlessness is what you need to lead the labour party, not intelligence.

again, that's my whole point. she is the smartest person, man or woman, at playing the game!! the reward for being the smartest person at playing the game is to be prime minister. some of them just happen to be ok at leading too. some aren't. but for anyone polly bashing, you have to remember that they are the smartest people at doing what they do (getting elected). if they weren't the smartest they would be out of office.

so while I don't always agree with what any one of them is doing, I certainly give them the credit for being smart enough to get elected.

 

[dfcatch]

that's my whole point! if anyone can manage the process of getting elected, and then re-elected every four years, with no job certainty, then perhaps they deserve the rewards they are getting!!



again, that's my whole point. she is the smartest person, man or woman, at playing the game!! the reward for being the smartest person at playing the game is to be prime minister. some of them just happen to be ok at leading too. some aren't. but for anyone polly bashing, you have to remember that they are the smartest people at doing what they do (getting elected). if they weren't the smartest they would be out of office.

so while I don't always agree with what any one of them is doing, I certainly give them the credit for being smart enough to get elected.

I think you chose the wrong word.

"skilled" would be a better choice than "smart".

"smart" implies intelligence - which for any given politician there would be people who disagree.

"skilled" meets the point you are trying to make - to which I would agree.

She is a skilled politician - although not as skilled as she thinks she is.

Smart???? IMHO - as demonstrated by the topic of this thread - no, not very.

 

[rechoboam]

I think you chose the wrong word.

"skilled" would be a better choice than "smart".

"smart" implies intelligence - which for any given politician there would be people who disagree.

"skilled" meets the point you are trying to make - to which I would agree.

She is a skilled politician - although not as skilled as she thinks she is.

Smart???? IMHO - as demonstrated by the topic of this thread - no, not very.

She is the embodiment of Peters principle. She was obviously somewhat skilled at getting what she wanted but has a political tin ear and walks from an morass into another (like her colleagues).

 

[wmetz]

Over the last 20 years the largest tax rate reductions have been at the higher level of the tax scale. Even people on high income also get any reduction given at the lower tax rate end. Why do you think other countries have gone broke? To many people at high income levels also getting the benefits of higher tax cuts, are also receiving welfare benefits. i.e baby bonus, family allowance etc. This becomes a double dipping mess. The government gives up direct tax inputs, and then pays extra bonus on top. Do the math, in the end it will be impossible to balance the budget. Unless the government, as it has, sources new indirect revenue inputs. The good thing about the resource tax, as the minerals are exported, the tax is paid by the overseas purchaser. This becomes an input into the whole economy. Strange thing, as the tax is about to start in few months times, haven't heard the opposition talk about it recently. Even no complaints from industry about it. Why would they complain, as the government is paying upfront the external infrastructure cost for them. Therefore, someone has to pay a little more, if you cant afford on 255k to pay yourself, don't worry you still can go to a free hospital and bulk billing doc for medical treatment. Try to find that in other places in the world. So stop complaining.....

 

[drron]

that's my whole point! if anyone can manage the process of getting elected, and then re-elected every four years, with no job certainty, then perhaps they deserve the rewards they are getting!!



again, that's my whole point. she is the smartest person, man or woman, at playing the game!! the reward for being the smartest person at playing the game is to be prime minister. some of them just happen to be ok at leading too. some aren't. but for anyone polly bashing, you have to remember that they are the smartest people at doing what they do (getting elected). if they weren't the smartest they would be out of office.

so while I don't always agree with what any one of them is doing, I certainly give them the credit for being smart enough to get elected.

The"skills"you need to be a politician are not necessarily skills to be admired.
There is also more than 1 way of getting into politics-eg Peter Garrett who has demonstrated that he doesn't have all the 'skills" of those arriving via more common means.
Also the 'skills"you need in Australia depend on which party you choose or are chosen by.
And I agree with dfcatch-these "skills"do not necessarily mean you are smart just not stupid.

 

[simongr]

OK - just to challenge a few points

Why do you think other countries have gone broke? To many people at high income levels also getting the benefits of higher tax cuts, are also receiving welfare benefits. i.e baby bonus, family allowance etc.

Or it could have been not enough people paying the taxes that they owed, excessive public sector pension schemes, people borrowing money that they couldn't afford leading to govts supporting banks with money they didnt have, large EU infrastructure projects that were paid for on borrowed money.

The good thing about the resource tax, as the minerals are exported, the tax is paid by the overseas purchaser. This becomes an input into the whole economy.

Apart from the fact that the tax paid by the oversees purchaser then becomes and increased cost of importing from Australia thus making us less competitive leading to not only no tax but no resources jobs.

you still can go to a free hospital and bulk billing doc for medical treatment. Try to find that in other places in the world. So stop complaining.....

Like the UK, France, Germany and other EU countries who have better public care but are also bankrupt?

 

[drron]

Over the last 20 years the largest tax rate reductions have been at the higher level of the tax scale. Even people on high income also get any reduction given at the lower tax rate end. Why do you think other countries have gone broke? To many people at high income levels also getting the benefits of higher tax cuts, are also receiving welfare benefits. i.e baby bonus, family allowance etc. This becomes a double dipping mess. The government gives up direct tax inputs, and then pays extra bonus on top. Do the math, in the end it will be impossible to balance the budget. Unless the government, as it has, sources new indirect revenue inputs. The good thing about the resource tax, as the minerals are exported, the tax is paid by the overseas purchaser. This becomes an input into the whole economy. Strange thing, as the tax is about to start in few months times, haven't heard the opposition talk about it recently. Even no complaints from industry about it. Why would they complain, as the government is paying upfront the external infrastructure cost for them. Therefore, someone has to pay a little more, if you cant afford on 255k to pay yourself, don't worry you still can go to a free hospital and bulk billing doc for medical treatment. Try to find that in other places in the world. So stop complaining.....

Countries go broke not because of too low tax rates but too high a spending.Every government in Australia over the last 40 years has increased government spending no matter what their rhetoric.
It is what has happened in Greece,the USA and the UK.The latter 2 survive because they can print money.

 

[rechoboam]

Over the last 20 years the largest tax rate reductions have been at the higher level of the tax scale. Even people on high income also get any reduction given at the lower tax rate end. Why do you think other countries have gone broke? To many people at high income levels also getting the benefits of higher tax cuts, are also receiving welfare benefits. i.e baby bonus, family allowance etc. This becomes a double dipping mess. The government gives up direct tax inputs, and then pays extra bonus on top. Do the math, in the end it will be impossible to balance the budget. Unless the government, as it has, sources new indirect revenue inputs. The good thing about the resource tax, as the minerals are exported, the tax is paid by the overseas purchaser. This becomes an input into the whole economy. Strange thing, as the tax is about to start in few months times, haven't heard the opposition talk about it recently. Even no complaints from industry about it. Why would they complain, as the government is paying upfront the external infrastructure cost for them. Therefore, someone has to pay a little more, if you cant afford on 255k to pay yourself, don't worry you still can go to a free hospital and bulk billing doc for medical treatment. Try to find that in other places in the world. So stop complaining.....

The hospital isn't free, I'm paying for it, and it offers a bad service to its patients unless they come in in a helicopter. If I were a shareholder I'd be jumping up and down. But of course the unhappier the customers are, the more likely they are go to elsewhere and save the government money.

 

[MatF]

To many people at high income levels also getting the benefits of higher tax cuts, are also receiving welfare benefits. i.e baby bonus, family allowance etc.

I believe these are means tested here as well - I don't have kids, so I'm not 100% sure (I therefore wouldn't get any of these benefits anyway).

Don't even get me started on where the incentive lies for different socio-economic groups in this country to have kids.

 

[simongr]

Baby bonus was means tested just before we had the baby. Thankfully we had the baby also before the govt reduced the amount it would pay Obstetricians as well - otherwise that would have cost us an extra $4 - $6K. Family allowance (do you mean family tax benefit?) is means tested.

The next thing to be means tested will be the child care rebate which might mean that wife ceases work.

 

[eastwest101]

As simongr said - Child care rebate is the only one not means tested now. Hardly qualifies as a massive "middle class" welfare system.

 

[Simo]

Baby bonus was means tested just before we had the baby. Thankfully we had the baby also before the govt reduced the amount it would pay Obstetricians as well - otherwise that would have cost us an extra $4 - $6K. Family allowance (do you mean family tax benefit?) is means tested.

The next thing to be means tested will be the child care rebate which might mean that wife ceases work.

My partner doesn't work and that is because we are better off financially if she doesn't work.

No paying money for child care.

We don't get any govt rebates but not paying insane amount of money for child care and then having to run around and dropping kids off and stuffing around.

Worth the small amount of financial loss that has now given us a lot more personal freedom.

 

[awilcockson]

As simongr said - Child care rebate is the only one not means tested now. Hardly qualifies as a massive "middle class" welfare system.

Correct. This is the only "welfare" that my family qualifies for. Although we aren't poor, I wouldn't say that we are rich. And we will be hit by the reduction in the PHI rebate.

Thankfully my kids are in school now, so we are only paying for before and after school care. If the CCR were to be means tested, it is quite possible that my wife would have to give up work. If the kids were still in full time day care, there is absolutely no doubt that she would have to.

The biggest problem with the way that the welfare economy works in this country is the massive amount of churning of cash that goes on. We tax everyone, low to high, and then employ am massive amount of bureaucrats to work out how to hand the money back as low income tax offsets, Family Tax Benefit-A, Family Tax Benefit-B, Family Tax Benefit Supplement etc, etc.

Sack the bureaucrats, lower the tax rates (I wouldn't go so far as to say a flat rate, but definitely flatten it out a bit), get rid of all the "cash churning" welfare/rebates, increase the GST, allow income splitting for families and the world would be a happier place for everyone

 

[awilcockson]

My partner doesn't work and that is because we are better off financially if she doesn't work.

No paying money for child care.

We don't get any govt rebates but not paying insane amount of money for child care and then having to run around and dropping kids off and stuffing around.

Worth the small amount of financial loss that has now given us a lot more personal freedom.

We had the same decision to make when my first child was born. It actually cost us a small amount for my wife to return to work as opposed to staying home and getting the FTB. However we decided that it was better for her sanity if she returned to work, also gave the kids a chance to socialise with other kids. This is in no way a dig at yourself and your choices. One thing I am happy about is that I live in a country where I can still make these choices for myself (for the time being, anyway).

 

[dfcatch]

Over the last 20 years the largest tax rate reductions have been at the higher level of the tax scale. Even people on high income also get any reduction given at the lower tax rate end. Why do you think other countries have gone broke? To many people at high income levels also getting the benefits of higher tax cuts, are also receiving welfare benefits. i.e baby bonus, family allowance etc. This becomes a double dipping mess. The government gives up direct tax inputs, and then pays extra bonus on top. Do the math, in the end it will be impossible to balance the budget. Unless the government, as it has, sources new indirect revenue inputs. The good thing about the resource tax, as the minerals are exported, the tax is paid by the overseas purchaser. This becomes an input into the whole economy. Strange thing, as the tax is about to start in few months times, haven't heard the opposition talk about it recently. Even no complaints from industry about it. Why would they complain, as the government is paying upfront the external infrastructure cost for them. Therefore, someone has to pay a little more, if you cant afford on 255k to pay yourself, don't worry you still can go to a free hospital and bulk billing doc for medical treatment. Try to find that in other places in the world. So stop complaining.....

Actually no - but you do a good job of swallowing the politics of envy propaganda.

Unfortunately it is hard for a lot of people to understand - but here goes....

Lowering tax rates actually results in higher tax receipts. Sounds counter-intuitive - yep, but true.

By reducing higher marginal tax rates you actually incentivize people to work harder. Some examples:

1/ Wife decides to go back to work full time - this means she's paying tax . The alternative means that she's staying home, not paying tax, and possibly receiving a family tax benefit.

2/ No more incentive to minimize tax, whether avoiding bracket creep, negative gearing, family trusts, companies etc.

When the company tax rate is significantly lower than the personal tax rate, it encourages tax minimization techniques.

Whereas - with a relatively flat tax scale (or at least flat to a VERY high income level), then you simplify it and encourage income earners to stay within the income tax system.

Most importantly, if you over tax at the high end, you remove the reward for effort....the incentive to work harder, to make more money (which in turn means paying more tax).

Remember - a high income earner is already paying significantly more tax than a lower income earner - even if they are both on the same rate.

Penalizing the high-income (high tax paying) earner more through regressive tax scales is a disincentive to effort.

As to private health insurance - again - it costs the government less to subsidize a person's private cover, than it does to provide public cover.

It's got nothing to do with whinging.... Simply economics.