Care to elaborate??
OK, I may be missing something here as I have no knowledge of the FTBs, but are you really saying that a high income earner who chooses to negatively gear their investments, chooses to sacrifice $25k a year into super, thereby choosing to have less net income, should be subsidised by the welfare system?
I don't think that they would see it as adding it back twice, so much as looking at your income from a different point in time.
I guess at some stage you were paid $100k.
I would prefer to be paid $100k and have the choice to negatively gear than to have zero income. I understand that from your viewpoint the end result is the same (if they were, in fact, all cash losses) - but the person with zero income is more entitled to payments because they did not have the luxury of the choice that you had. MHO, obviously.
I know where you are coming from Ausprop.
We are in the same boat.
The Government gives NO reward for trying to get ahead.
Even more so since Labor took the reigns.
It's not so much about not receiving anything, it's more the frustration that we know there are so many irresponsible people out there who get handouts for doing absolutely nothing to contribute to this society.
The only comfort you may take from this is none of your hard earned money is going to lazy bludgers who rely on Governemnt Welfare. It's all completely yours.
Childcare payments have also been messed up and made more complicated. It has been made more difficult for not only parents, but the actual Centres are in a mountain of paperwork.
It now takes three months to receive any part payment.
it doesn't make a scrap of sense...
Guy 1... has no income - he gets the benefit
Guy 2... has no income PLUS he has lost $100k - he doesn't get the benefit because for some bizarro reason they say the income is positive $100k?!