I see what you mean, tho most in that category would spend whatever they had if it was $10/ week or $1000/ week.
This way at lewst they have insurance to protect them.
Negative gearing costs other taxpayers $13b
- Thread starter MsAli
- Start date
I see what you mean, tho most in that category would spend whatever they had if it was $10/ week or $1000/ week.
This way at lewst they have insurance to protect them.
but "them" - assume this is average Joe and Joanne - already have Medicare, and if they choose to they can have Private Health Care.
Most will say they can't afford private care premiums of course, but if their budgets were audited I have no doubt the required amount could be found in wasted spending on other shoit.
The challenge is to get hold of these folk and educate them - and get them to act - more financially responsible for their families.
For eg; my BIL and his family are in this bracket, yet they both choof away a fortune, they all consume mountains of junk food, he drinks a slab or more per week, she's addicted to EBay always buying shoit they don't need, and so on.
The only thing missing from this scenario is a few grand's worth of tattoos....so far.
I’ll clarify I have no issues with increased levee amount, even a whole 1% to cover the entire scheme, I feel it is beneficial to the nation, as would be a tapered unemployment benefit like they have in the UK (eg. You don’t go straight to nothing, you slowly reduce your income over time).
I do have issues with subsidising the obese for instance, the notion that it is ok to be OVERLY overweight causes more harm than good IMO. Also as mentioned in another thread, chances are all medical expenses will go up with the levee as people try to gauge the system. Who will benefit from the scheme, how will they manage it.
Definitely agree with Bayview, fast food, alcohol and cigarettes should be taxed heavily (if not more so) to fund this instead.
I do have issues with subsidising the obese for instance, the notion that it is ok to be OVERLY overweight causes more harm than good IMO. Also as mentioned in another thread, chances are all medical expenses will go up with the levee as people try to gauge the system. Who will benefit from the scheme, how will they manage it.
Definitely agree with Bayview, fast food, alcohol and cigarettes should be taxed heavily (if not more so) to fund this instead.
1 in 7 taxpayers a property investor.. Really?
It's likely to be a needs based system with associated national bureaucracy which should replace or integrate existing state services.
National Assessment Tools
The development of a national assessment framework is a key foundation reform for a National Disability Insurance Scheme. This work is being undertaken as part of the National Assessment Tools Project (the Project).
The overarching objective of the Project is to select, refine and/or develop a suite of tested and validated tools that may be used by an NDIS to assess the support needs of people with a disability and allocate resources to meet those needs.
A mix of tools is likely to be required to cover a diverse range of client cohorts, disability types, and support needs.
The Project is being managed on behalf of the Select Council by a team of disability officials in Victoria and Queensland. The Project Team reports to the Project Board, composed of senior disability officials from Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Government.
The Project will research and evaluate existing national and international needs assessment tools, and propose an approach to developing a national assessment framework for an NDIS.
pollies love it - $1 a day seems so miniscule. the trouble is that applies to the average wage earner. anyone that's bothered to get a head will be up for $4 plus a day. load that on top of every other pollies dismissal of one of their new hair brained schemes and it becomes $100, $200 a day - and that's how someone on $200k being slugged a fortune in tax can be broke and wondering why it's all going wrong.
this first came to my recognition in the late 80's whn that carmen lawrence of the WA labor party started going on about the cost of her hair brained idea... maybe it was the PICL scandal or whatever it was I can't recall... I just know it was the equivalent of 1 hamburger a day. So we have her handburger from 1988, Julia's $1 from yesterday (more like $4) and a myriad of other petties that soon add up
Negative Gearing is Old news!
I reckon Negative nearing is old news....
http://blog.washingtonbrown.com.au/
What do you think?
I reckon Negative nearing is old news....
http://blog.washingtonbrown.com.au/
What do you think?
have to admit is is hard to be neg geared at the moment. kudos for that post
Thanks Ausprop
But dont get me wrong, it's better with NG being included alsoJust making the point that it covers all bases under all scenarios you have proposed.
You do make some good points Euro! But what happens if the entire NRAS scheme is abolished too along with negative gearing. This is government they love to change their minds. Nothing is guaranteed.
It would be interesting to see how much the NRAS is costing the government with the almost 10K back on each NRAS property not including gearing.
So here is a way to abolish nras, save the government money... and most importantly not impact those renters on the scheme!
5000 properties under NRAS = 50 Mil a year the gov hands back in tax rebates.
The government is giving back $10 000 per year per property. divide this by 52.2 weeks = $191 p/w. Round off to $190 for ease.
The scheme is only providing 20% discount to those properties that are rented, so a $700 property say in gladstone, with 20% discount is only a $140 discount to the renter.
In order to get above the $190pw mark you would need to be paying rent of $950 per week or above.
How many properties in australia have a medium rent above 950 pw.
You would probably find the majority of places having a medium rent of less then 500 a week, and at 500 pw is $100p/w at 20 percent discount.
(The medium rent in australia from 2011 census was $285. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0 )
If the government abolished NRAS they could still make those who are renters that are eligible for the scheme get their 20% back either as a rebate through tax, or being paid via centrelink per fortnight. They would still need to go through the same checks of the scheme which is what happens when they apply for a property, but it would mean they could apply for any property. So say if they need to stay in a certain area because of family, but there aren't any current NRAS properties being offered because the land has all been built out so therefore nothing available, under this idea they could stay there and not have to move away.
The landlord is getting market rent, it wont limit availability of houses, because it is the renter that is eligible not the property and it would save the government well over 23 million a year per 5000 properties!. Remembering I was taking the medium of $500 per week. You could say the threshold maxes out to $190 per week, however in the mining areas (just like the zone offset in tax) you could give these areas a threshold of say $250 or $300 a week.
There i just saved the gov 23 million a year. I probably just annoyed all the + NRAS investors... sorry euro!
But as i said.. its government, nothing is guaranteed.. There are always going to be some new hair brained schemes that come up and change everything!
I guess we wait for the budget to come out, and then we as investors will adapt to change the way we invest to maximize the new tax system to our best interests! whether it be positive or negative, we will look at what the individual needs for our own interests are, and adjust accordingly.
and even then you can't lose what you never had
You need to consider the construction work, accounting work, finance work etc that is generated from INV property ( whether NRAS or not) and you have to consider what it would cost Govt to sustain a grants system like you are suggesting, including all the Govt infrastructure and beauracracy required to administer it, and you aren't accounting for the stress that INV property owners take off future age pension costs.
NRAS specifically requires new construction, so that creates employment of itself. The cost to Govt across 10 years is less than a quarter of what it would cost to provide this accommodation in 1 year, if they had to pay 350-450K to build each of the 50,000 dwellings, and no one would get anything out of it except Govt and tenants, so no reduction on future age pension costs would be created.
Like all things, its the bigger picture where these policies make significant sense, rather than considering them in isolation
I should rephrase. Money better spent on education. The so called 'healthy alternatives' are still bad for us. If we eat what our grandparents use to eat, we will be much closer to what healthy food really is rather than these diets and food advertised on tv.
A lot of people genuinly dont seem to understand the impact these unbalanced lifestyles are having on them.
I sorta concur. Not sure what a Dinosaur diet is, but I think it sounds something like this:
My view on what you eat is very simplistic, but I think a good yardstick for deciding what you eat - if you think about how our body was designed, and think about what a human would normally be trying to eat if they had no mod cons, it would be pretty close to this;
1. Wandering around, eating mostly fruit and various grains, grasses, flowers etc that you could find. (SALADS AND FRUIT).
2. Drinking whatever was around found naturally (WATER AND FRUIT JUICES).
3. Humans in this environment would only be able to catch small animals, insects, lizards and occasionally bigger animals for meat (MEAT).
So, your diet is mostly fruit and vegetables, lots of water, occasional animal milk, a little bit of meat, and lots of exercise (from walking all the time).....
Whoda thunk that one? It's earthshattering, groundbreaking news, I know.
No oils, no excessive carbs or fats, no sitting on yer arze and pretending you do some exercise and getting to 40 and finding out you're a fat pig who everyone these days reckons is normal (sadly; it is normal).
Similar threads
