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

[Francesco]

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 , 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.

Hoffy, you take the words right out of my mouth. It can be time consuming to response to any objection and so my response is delayed.

The writer of the article or analyst could get hold of sufficient data on income earners and so the author's conclusions could only be based on income earners. If segmented data is available on the other revenues then finer attribution can be made. Until then it is speculative to claim that the other revenues were due to the lower income earners or the higher income earners.

This ABS source gives a breakdown of the government income:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]&prodno=5506.0&issue=2012-13&num=&view=e

It can be seen that the 3 major incomes of the federal government are: personal income tax, company tax and GST.

Income tax can be easily attributed by income levels.

Company taxes on the other hand are generally owned and supported by shareholders. If there is any attribution by income levels, it may reasonably be attributed to the higher earning income levels, where people are likely to have surplus cash, experience, skill and drive, that go with age to found or manage companies. This is a guesstimate based on generalisations IMO. I believe a handful of the major corporations provide the lion's share of the company taxes. For lack of an uncontroversial process of attributing the company taxes, maybe it is best to exclude the group altogether.

When it comes to the GST, it was structured to minimise impact on a proportion of the lower income earners. It was biased to have a larger impact on the higher income earners. On absolute levels, collection of GST from lower income earners, because there are many, may exceed collection from higher income earners. However, the income has to be segmented to the individual basis to allow conclusions to be drawn when compared with government benefits.

 

[Intrinsic_Value]

People need to be very careful of oversimplifying things.

That Australian article:
Above $200k you are a lifter
Below you are a taker.

WRONG.

There have been several years in the last few that I have earned significantly less than $200k, yet I have not received $1 in any form of government rebate.

Yet taxes have been paid by me.

So am I a lifter or a taker?????

Yes some will get middle class welfare, but they will also pay taxes.
The key is to look at the cross over, how much tax? how much middle class welfare.

This is the issue that should be focussed on. The NET NET effect.

Who cares if someone got $100 in middle class welfare but paid $20k in personal taxes.

But this is not happening.

There are certain groups that are receiving more than others. This is because of POLITICS.

Governments want to be voted in so they give HHHHHHH for Y Group in benefits. XXXXX to Z group. Etc etc.

This creates a lot of distortion, and over time leads to the generalised 'middle class welfare'.

In regards to the commentary about personal income tax against total tax raised. Sure personal income tax cannot be the sole lifter of total government tax. But its a significant proportion. Therefore it needs adequate attention.

This is not rocket science. For those share investors out there, do you never go through the different divisions of a companies source of profit.
If you saw that a company was making 40% or 50% of its profit from a certain area, wouldn't you expect it to keep some focus on that area.

 

[Intrinsic_Value]

When it comes to the GST, it was structured to minimise impact on a proportion of the lower income earners. It was biased to have a larger impact on the higher income earners. On absolute levels, collection of GST from lower income earners, because there are many, may exceed collection from higher income earners. .

What the people in the ivory towers don't tell you, is that high rates of GST lead to a massive black market/cash market.

At 10% its manageable.

When it starts to hit 20% it becomes very profitable to operate in the black market/cash market.

Just think in basic terms:

Your local tradie:
You give him a 10% discount to do a cash job, yet no invoice.
You give him a 20% discount to do a cash job, yet no invoice.

At what point does the benefit of the discount offset the no invoice.

Cash type businesses:
Run two sets of books. One for the tax department, one for the owners.

At 10% GST, the cash business gets:
(a) that 10%
(b) the savings on whatever tax is paid on that component of the sales at either the company tax rate (if the business operates under a company), or the personal tax rate (if the business is a sole proprietory business)
(c) the ability to pay cash wages to its staff through the siphoning of cash sales to pay for cash wages. (Some staff will be happy to be paid cash wages so they can claim government benefits).

At 20% GST, the cash business gets
(a) that 20 %
(b) as above
(c) as above.

Now this might not seem like much of a difference. But what is the bottom line sales (revenue) to profit, for many businesses after tax.
This can range from only a few % to around 20%.

Yet on all these figures, siphoning that cash, results in an increase to business profitability of between several hundred % (for a low margin business) to maybe 50% (for a higher margin business).

For a business owner that's a good outcome.

 

[perthguy]

I missed this article on ABC on the weekend. Some interesting comments:

The Government's backdown over the Medicare rebate is evidence of decision-making that is as chaotic as it is confusing, and does not augur well for a Prime Minister who continues to fumble, writes Norman Abjorensen.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-16/abjorensen-abbott-in-trouble-after-medicare-fumble/6021208

 

[BayView]

So the doctors are upset...

does it mention anywhere about the average citizen being upset?

Again..the doctors are really only worried about their wallet.

I think this is fair enough though; they are not there to get a haircut; they are there to pursue their career (many see the dollars as secondary and do it out of passion) but at the end of the day, if doctors can't make a decent living, and have to put up with all kinds of grief and whining on an hourly basis, then they'll pull up stumps and go home.

Why would a doctor go through all the study and years at Uni, to come out at the other end earning basically average wage? We will lose them.

I go to the Doc probably once every few years, so my Medicare levy is expensive given my use of the system.

As many would know; my wife is a theater nurse of over 20 years, so we are at the coal face of the health industry.

One thing that seems to be conveniently overlooked in all this is the costs incurred by the medico's - specifically the malpractice insurance.

It's crippling and a fixed cost, as is staff and rent.

As for bulk-billing; I agree with Perp; folks overuse it because they can.

Even us (and we are not at poverty's door) take our kids to the bulk-bill clinic about 10 mins drive away, rather than to the local Medical Clinic which doesn't have it.

Sorry, but eventually we all have to start paying.

 

[kathryn d]

Hi Bayview.
Long time...no see.

I agree doctors need to be compensated.

The point I was trying to make, the doctors aren't getting compensated less...they are getting the same pay.

Just a larger portion is coming from the patient, up front.

Too many go to the doctor for minor things.

Employers require medical notes, because of employee abusing calling in sick.
I have never heard of doctor refusing to give a patient a 'note' they are paying for.
Has anyone?

 

[Of The Vultures]

I have never heard of doctor refusing to give a patient a 'note' they are paying for.
Has anyone?

I had one question why I needed a certificate "just because" I had laryngitis... apparently coughing your lungs up and losing your voice is not reason enough to stay at home. He begrudgingly relented though and wrote one. Cost me $50.