Medicare rebate cut by $20 - from $37.05 to $16.95 for under 10 min consult

We've had governments for the last 5 years talking about 'return to surplus', and Abbott was elected partly becuse Australia believed he could do it. The media bangs on about it, people debate how 'the economy is stuffed'. But now that the government is trying to actually implement some price signals and savings they are the worst in the world. The reality is that in Australia only about the top 20% really contribute (in economic terms). That, simply, isn't enough people.

It's very easy to protest and pontificate, but the reality is that we need fewer people consuming free services and less of a welfare mentality. It will probably make me unpopular, but I think the analogy of 'lifters and leaners' is very apt.
 
We've had governments for the last 5 years talking about 'return to surplus', and Abbott was elected partly becuse Australia believed he could do it. The media bangs on about it, people debate how 'the economy is stuffed'. But now that the government is trying to actually implement some price signals and savings they are the worst in the world. The reality is that in Australia only about the top 20% really contribute (in economic terms). That, simply, isn't enough people.

It's very easy to protest and pontificate, but the reality is that we need fewer people consuming free services and less of a welfare mentality. It will probably make me unpopular, but I think the analogy of 'lifters and leaners' is very apt.

yup.........
 
We've had governments for the last 5 years talking about 'return to surplus', and Abbott was elected partly becuse Australia believed he could do it. The media bangs on about it, people debate how 'the economy is stuffed'. But now that the government is trying to actually implement some price signals and savings they are the worst in the world. The reality is that in Australia only about the top 20% really contribute (in economic terms). That, simply, isn't enough people.

It's very easy to protest and pontificate, but the reality is that we need fewer people consuming free services and less of a welfare mentality. It will probably make me unpopular, but I think the analogy of 'lifters and leaners' is very apt.

Best post in many years on SS or anywhere for that matter !

Australia...have a go, get off your 4r5e and contribute, not trumpet!;)
 
We've had governments for the last 5 years talking about 'return to surplus', and Abbott was elected partly becuse Australia believed he could do it. The media bangs on about it, people debate how 'the economy is stuffed'. But now that the government is trying to actually implement some price signals and savings they are the worst in the world. The reality is that in Australia only about the top 20% really contribute (in economic terms). That, simply, isn't enough people.

It's very easy to protest and pontificate, but the reality is that we need fewer people consuming free services and less of a welfare mentality. It will probably make me unpopular, but I think the analogy of 'lifters and leaners' is very apt.

VYBerlina, I understand where you are coming from but could you clarify what you mean when you say that 'in Australia only about the top 20% really contribute (in economic terms).'
 
Thanks for the link and reference to the article in The Australian. I read most of it.
Just to clarify and summarise, is it saying that only households who earn an income of 200K a year are 'lifters' and those who earn below 200k a year are 'leaners'?
 
Thanks for the link and reference to the article in The Australian. I read most of it.
Just to clarify and summarise, is it saying that only households who earn an income of 200K a year are 'lifters' and those who earn below 200k a year are 'leaners'?

It did not say 'leaners' and 'lifters'. Someone in the forum said that and I believe some politicians say that but in a denying context. The article infers that the ABS statistics show that the Australian political economy is producing an outcome where the rich are net 'givers' despite constant griping from various quarters about the rich paying little or no tax.
 
I should add that in statistics there are always outliers ie exceptions. So, not all $200,000 income cases are net givers and not all under $200,000 income cases are net economic takers.

This does not deny the thrust of a reality as being true because it is statistically significant.
 
I have read the article carefully, Francesco.
The article is only analysing one part of the pie on its own - 45% of revenue that comes from personal income tax - therefore overstating the contribution of the top 20%

Quote
"The distribution of personal income tax - the federal government?s biggest source of revenue, raising about 45 per cent of the total ($165 billion this year)"

There is an entire chunk revenue - 55% of 165 billion - which probably comes mostly from corporate tax (which the middle class and working class contribute to in terms of working productivity) - that is missing from the analysis and not factored in

There is a disingenuousness about an article that disregards 55% of government of revenue in the analysis
So it only looks as if people on 200k a year are lifting the other 4/5ths of Australia
The amount of 'lifting' the top 20% do (those who earn 200k and more a year) therefore may not be as much as the article makes them out to be,
considering it left out 55% of revenue in the analysis
 
I have read the article carefully, Francesco.
The article is only analysing one part of the pie on its own - 45% of revenue that comes from personal income tax - therefore overstating the contribution of the top 20%

Quote
"The distribution of personal income tax - the federal government?s biggest source of revenue, raising about 45 per cent of the total ($165 billion this year)"

There is an entire chunk revenue - 55% of 165 billion - which probably comes mostly from corporate tax (which the middle class and working class contribute to in terms of working productivity) - that is missing from the analysis and not factored in

There is a disingenuousness about an article that disregards 55% of government of revenue in the analysis
So it only looks as if people on 200k a year are lifting the other 4/5ths of Australia
The amount of 'lifting' the top 20% do (those who earn 200k and more a year) therefore may not be as much as the article makes them out to be,
considering it left out 55% of revenue in the analysis

No it analyses the entire parts of the pie where individuals pay tax - personal income tax, gst and excises (accounting for vastly more than 45% of revenue) and finds that only the top 20% of income earners contribute net tax revenue. Nothing disingenuous about it at all, just simple facts available to anyone who cares to review ABS data.
 
Fence, did you actually read the article from The Australian?
It is effectively demonizing anyone on less than 200k a year, (80% of Australia) and saying that these 'bottom' 6.9 million households received more in cash welfare and services than they paid in. :eek:

Implication: -
200K and above - lifters
Below 200K - LEANERS

The premise of the article - analysing only 45% of revenue (personal income tax) and excluding 55% of revenue (Govt total revenue = 165 billion) thus artificially magnifying the % of the contribution of personal income tax paid by the top 20%. The writer is taking the total amount those on 200K plus contributed and dividing it by a smaller denominator (45% of revenue - personal income tax) rather than the whole pie (45% + 55%). 55% of revenue received by the govt is the whole chunk missing from the denominator.

Goes back to old adage - "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...841174461?nk=79687ac51d0bef70b98c564a2bdcfc93

"Only the top fifth of households ranked by their income - those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year in the financial year ending June 2012 - pay anything into the system net of the value of social security in cash and kind received, according to data from the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of household income....

The bottom 6.9 million households, while often incurring income tax liabilities and regularly paying GST, received more in cash welfare and services than they paid in."
 
How does a person with a $200K+ per annum income receive any social security? Would that be putting university fees on hecs and using public hospitals?
 
And it's over... at least this will save lives ;)

The government is looking silly. They have backed off reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act, backing off the PPL they took to the election, backing down on indexing HECS etc. They are starting too look like Rudd backing down on action on climate change after claiming that climate change is the biggest moral issue of our time.

It seems as though the electorate tossed out Kevin Rudd and installed his coalition equivalent in Tony Abbott. So much political capital has been burned with little to show for it.
 
If you are contributing more than you take (in both $$ and services) then yes, you are a leaner.

Let's be clear, there will be times when people lift, and times when they lean. I am making this point, however, within the context of the assertion that often comes out that 'the rich' aren't paying their fair share. The reality is that 'the rich' pay the most, and pay for the most, typically in larger proportion to everyone else. In Australia, this generally isn't 'family money' either, it's first generation hard work and sacrifice.

To declare my self-interest here, I'm now in the category of the top couple of percent in terms of income. I sure didn't start that way, though, nor was my family - they were leaners. I don't generally mind paying more tax than others, though, because of the benefits I have received from living here. But don't tell me that I have to pay for everything: there are plenty of ways to collect tax and I firmly believe all should contribute something.
 
It seems as though the electorate tossed out Kevin Rudd and installed his coalition equivalent in Tony Abbott. So much political capital has been burned with little to show for it.

Since 2007 there's been way too much concern for what the other side would do or say. Neither party has followed through on their own visions and values.
Opposition has largely been about bullying and/or slogans.
Labor has been too self-conscious and toxic, Liberal too base.
Time for an intelligent, modern, flexible but persistent leader with values to stand. Male, female, working class or stuck-up. Either side. Or left-field.
 
Fence, did you actually read the article from The Australian?
It is effectively demonizing anyone on less than 200k a year, (80% of Australia) and saying that these 'bottom' 6.9 million households received more in cash welfare and services than they paid in. :eek:

Implication: -
200K and above - lifters
Below 200K - LEANERS

The premise of the article - analysing only 45% of revenue (personal income tax) and excluding 55% of revenue (Govt total revenue = 165 billion) thus artificially magnifying the % of the contribution of personal income tax paid by the top 20%. The writer is taking the total amount those on 200K plus contributed and dividing it by a smaller denominator (45% of revenue - personal income tax) rather than the whole pie (45% + 55%). 55% of revenue received by the govt is the whole chunk missing from the denominator.

Goes back to old adage - "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...841174461?nk=79687ac51d0bef70b98c564a2bdcfc93

"Only the top fifth of households ranked by their income - those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year in the financial year ending June 2012 - pay anything into the system net of the value of social security in cash and kind received, according to data from the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of household income....

The bottom 6.9 million households, while often incurring income tax liabilities and regularly paying GST, received more in cash welfare and services than they paid in."

As I already pointed out, it doesn't exclude 55% of revenue. In fact it covers the vast majority of revenue (personal income tax, GST and excises). I'll assume you know how to use google and can easily look up treasury papers on sources of revenue to determine for yourself that this is the massive majority of government taxation income, but if you want me to provide a link, let me know.

The only major source of revenue it excludes is company tax (22% of tax revenue) and you try to claim some exclusive attribution to working/middle class on that one :rolleyes:, but ignore the disproportionately large contribution on that by high income earners too.

Sorry Beanie, there are lifters and leaners. It's just the way it is and lifters are able to leave whenever tney want, but there is more than these matters to consider when determining whether to stay in Australia.
 
Back
Top