government on a massive tax grab

[Ausprop]

this is getting ugly hey? 0.5% on earnings...that's a huge figure. Neg gearing and CGT discounts look like easy targets. Grief could these incompetents have stuffed thinsg up anymore? If it's not one distraction it's the next.

We have rolled form the plasma handouts, the pink bat debacle, a carbontax that would never be implemented, was there another plasma handout?, the mining tax, the flood tax, now medicare and tax grabs to fund an issue that i never knew existed.

Look over that chinese restaurant menu of items and see how many of them were actually real issues until they made them such. one distraction to the the next.

 

[HiEquity]

It is getting ugly from an overall POV but it's both sides. I see a pretty big risk for the Coalition here. To date they have agreed with nearly all of the new spending measures proposed by this government (Gonski excepted) and not committed to the new taxes to fund them. So for example we have the following commitments:

- No CT but promise to keep the income tax cuts the CT paid for. How will these now remain funded?
- No CT but commit to new spending to procure carbon emission reductions under the Direct Action Plan. How will this be funded?
- NDIS is kept but no levy to fund it. How will this be funded?
- Maternity leave policy funded by increasing tax on big business.

Playing this game means a requirement for tens of billions of dollars of other spending reductions, per year. Currently the school kids bonus is the only spending reduction I see them promising. The risk I see is that with the new Budget numbers the Coalition is going to have to find a large swag of other savings to keep these commitments, far in excess (by orders of magnitude) of the usual efficiency dividends / fewer public servants story.

Some of the obvious targets (thanks Alan Kohler) could be the income thresholds for FTB A & B ($20bn/yr), Baby Bonus (please!), Childcare assistance ($4.4bn/yr), Private Health Insurance subsidies ($4.5bn/yr), higher education support ($7bn/yr) and parents income support ($5.3bn/yr). Or one of the pension / dole / DSP / veterans support / etc in the Social Security system. Hard to find any further savings in a Dept like Defence for example (notwithstanding massive waste on non existent US jets).

More than one of these is going to have to be severely chopped in order to show a credible path back to surplus. The govt has let the Coalition go down this path without much comment because they know they will have to front up at some point with "where is the money coming from" before the election and I see that as the biggest risk to changing the govt out there. I just hope there is a good and detailed plan within the Coalition for that day when it comes.

BTW, in the NDIS Medicare levy you are effectively buying insurance for disability rather than being simply taxed. A subtle difference but you do get the benefit back (and some) in the event you become disabled.

 

[Ausprop]

BTW, in the NDIS Medicare levy you are effectively buying insurance for disability rather than being simply taxed. A subtle difference but you do get the benefit back (and some) in the event you become disabled.

yes, for my family it will be an incredibly expensive and non-deductible policy with very poor benefits. In other families it will be a freebie, so take what you can get I suppose... it's the way this country has always run, inefficient and excessive redistribution from the middle and top, to the extent it is a disincentive to grow and earn

 

[buzzlightyear]

Sure a number of things you can look at to raise revenue as even Tim Colebatch suggests, but who from any party has the testicular fortitude to actually pursue these options.

Yes, I hear crickets too......

 

[Ausprop]

Sure a number of things you can look at to raise revenue as even Tim Colebatch suggests, but who from any party has the testicular fortitude to actually pursue these options.

Yes, I hear crickets too......

this would have to rank as #1 on the list of unimaginitive and stupid ideas:

7. Raise the GST to 12.5 per cent and extend it to food, health and education.

 

[HiEquity]

yes, for my family it will be an incredibly expensive and non-deductible policy with very poor benefits. In other families it will be a freebie, so take what you can get I suppose... it's the way this country has always run, inefficient and excessive redistribution from the middle and top, to the extent it is a disincentive to grow and earn

I don't follow. This one is about disability - you have no idea whether your family will benefit or not as you have no idea whether one or more people in your family will get a disability? Particularly if your family drives a lot - one of the biggest risk factors around.

It's a comprehensive, nationwide insurance policy for disability services. Far more cost effective than individuals funding this insurance on their own and you get to keep whatever existing TPD cover you already have anyway. If you already have this you could consider reducing

Also, it's an increase to the Medicare Levy, not the Medicare Levy Surcharge. You can only avoid the levy itself if you earn less than $23k per year, so this will be paid for by nearly everyone.

Unless you are arguing people need a financial incentive to avoid disability? Are they going to start stepping in front of buses because they know there a decent wheelchair waiting for them when they wake up and can no longer control their bodily functions?

On the cost effectiveness of universal health care more generally for the nation, I find this chart helpful:

Speaks for itself... when viewed in the context of our cost of providing regional health services to a small population, we are doing pretty well.

 

[Aaron Sice]

ATO are certainly onto it - i forgot an instalment a few YEARS ago and they've brought it up, backdated GIC and demanding immediate payment.

 

[luckyone]

I'm all for the idea of a NDIS, however I'm worried that people will take advantage of it. For example, a lady I used to work with last year received a disabled parking sticker as she has been deemed disabled due to her being obese (wtf? She also has a back injury, however that wasn't listed as the cause of her disability). Does this mean that she will be entitled to get money from the NDIS? That's the part I don't understand. Who gets it? And how much do they get?

 

[Ausprop]

I don't follow. This one is about disability - you have no idea whether your family will benefit or not as you have no idea whether one or more people in your family will get a disability?

isn't it as simple as what will the medicare cost be and how does that compare to my existing policy?

 

[Ausprop]

Also, it's an increase to the Medicare Levy, not the Medicare Levy Surcharge. You can only avoid the levy itself if you earn less than $23k per year, so this will be paid for by nearly everyone.

it's a percentage right?... the bill should be divided by 23 million and there is your cost - plain simple and easy

 

[INXS]

Get rid of all other taxes, duties and levies and increase GST to 20%.

 

[Ausprop]

I'm all for the idea of a NDIS, however I'm worried that people will take advantage of it.

absolutely - this is a bonanza for every lay about that suddenly has (or always seems to have) a sore back

 

[HiEquity]

I'm all for the idea of a NDIS, however I'm worried that people will take advantage of it. For example, a lady I used to work with last year received a disabled parking sticker as she has been deemed disabled due to her being obese (wtf? She also has a back injury, however that wasn't listed as the cause of her disability). Does this mean that she will be entitled to get money from the NDIS? That's the part I don't understand. Who gets it? And how much do they get?

From the legislation which has already been passed (the funding through the levy increase is yet to be brought to Parliament):

(1) A person meets the disability requirements if:
(a) the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments or to one or more impairments attributable to a psychiatric condition; and
(b) the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and
(c) the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake, or psychosocial functioning in undertaking, one or more of the following activities:
(i) communication;
(ii) social interaction;
(iii) learning;
(iv) mobility;
(v) self care;
(vi) self management; and
(d) the impairment or impairments affect the person’s capacity for social and economic participation; and
(e) the person is likely to require support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an impairment or impairments that vary in intensity may be permanent, and the person is likely to require support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for the person’s lifetime, despite the variation.

From this, the (currently draft) Rules (Draft NDIS rules for becoming a participant linked on this page) go on to further define thresholds under each point which establish the criteria from which ultimately, doctors will make the assessment. It's worthwhile reading the draft Rules to get an idea of this risk - they're not long. Back ache would not qualify - paralysis would.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

Sure a number of things you can look at to raise revenue as even Tim Colebatch suggests, but who from any party has the testicular fortitude to actually pursue these options.

Yes, I hear crickets too......

I'd suggest the current government should just go for it. Odd are they'll loose in a landslide anyway, so they might as well rewrite taxation on their way out anyway.

I even agree with a few of the proposals...

 

[HiEquity]

isn't it as simple as what will the medicare cost be and how does that compare to my existing policy?

Yes - it's a bargain when you look at cost vs benefits - only because everyone is in it of course.

it's a percentage right?... the bill should be divided by 23 million and there is your cost - plain simple and easy

OK - I see where you're coming from now. There are two extremes to that argument - the first being as you outline that everyone should pay the same amount regardless of their earnings. The second that those with higher capacity to pay should pay higher percentages of their income (like the progressive income tax scale).

I sit in the middle - I completely disagree with progressive income taxation for example but I do think fixed amounts regardless of income are unworkable in reality for extremely low and high income earners in particular. To that extent, the use of a flat levy like this is better than how income taxation currently works. To me, progressive income taxation is the real enemy.

 

[HotRod]

Get rid of all other taxes, duties and levies and increase GST to 20%.

Pauline Hanson in disguise????

 

[HiEquity]

Get rid of all other taxes, duties and levies and increase GST to 20%.

Pauline Hanson in disguise????

While I like the idea I suspect it would require a bit more than 20%... and the GST would have to be changed to allow the Feds to get their hands on some of it.

Just think of all the unemployed accountants though - 'twould be a beautiful thing!

Australian Tax Law is only good for keeping accountants employed.

 

[tambourineman]

Some of the obvious targets (thanks Alan Kohler) could be the income thresholds for FTB A & B ($20bn/yr), Baby Bonus (please!), Childcare assistance ($4.4bn/yr), Private Health Insurance subsidies ($4.5bn/yr), higher education support ($7bn/yr) and parents income support ($5.3bn/yr). Or one of the pension / dole / DSP / veterans support / etc in the Social Security system. Hard to find any further savings in a Dept like Defence for example (notwithstanding massive waste on non existent US jets).
QUOTE]

Or save billions in tightening rules of negative gearing and restricting it in some way to new supply only. if it is truely intended to encourse investment in housing stock to provide places 'for the renters' then offering it as an incentive on existing stock is pointless and wasteful.

rather than take money out of something like child care assistance, which allows people to go to work and (omg pay taxes!) and possibly have enough money to pay off a home.

 

[INXS]

Pauline Hanson in disguise????

Is that one of her ideas??. Maybe she did have some good ones.

I also think Australia may follow NZ's recent changes where depreciation cannot be claimed on buildings. This would have a desired affect on government revenue without getting rid of negative gearing.

 

[Scott No Mates]

Time for a no confidence motion against the pm. Bring on the election as these incompetents can't forecast or make a policy which works. How much as that mining tax raised yet they keep on spending.