Does the average person realise how much the Abbott Government is helping the wealthy?
In opposition and in government, the Coalition has moaned with frenetic monotony that Medicare is unsustainable. The fact is, it isn’t. But while they can maintain the rage and attempt to convince everybody that the country can’t afford to keep it in its present form, they’ll find one way or another to use it as an economic scapegoat.
The news that they had scrapped their planned cuts to the Medicare rebate was only a temporary reprieve as we’ve been warned that they are still committed to introducing price signals into the national icon. Why? This was summed up by Tony Abbott:
Mr Abbott has called on the opposition and the crossbenchers to come up with alternative savings measures to pay off the debt and deficit instead of obstructing the government’s attempts to repair the budget.
It’s the same-old same-old from Tony Abbott. Blame Labor, hit the poor. The budget must be in one hell of a mess if the country’s prosperity is at stake because of Medicare.
With the government’s back-down on the planned cuts to the rebate we can expect a ramp-up in their rhetoric. The attempts to convince us that Medicare is unsustainable will go into overdrive.
I agree with the government that the budget is in a shambles, but I disagree at where the fault lies. One good thing – for them – is that while they keep Medicare in the news the real culprits behind our budget woes remain out of sight. Or as Richard Denniss points out, the much talked about budget deficit gives the Treasurer the chance to keep his agenda in the public domain. Which is, of course, that the budget can’t be fixed because Medicare is the hole in the economic bucket.
With the help of the Murdoch media not only will the Medicare bashing be kept front and centre, but the ‘real’ culprits for the deficit will be kept hidden from public view. The average punter has been deluded into believing that Medicare is unsustainable and that the only way the budget can be fixed is if services to the less well-off (aka the ‘bludgers’) are trimmed. The government and the Murdoch media have managed to sustain both the delusions rather effectively.
I wonder if the mug punter is aware of how much the Abbott Government is actually helping the wealthy. At not only the poor’s expense, but at their’s too. The facts might shock them.
How can we accept that Medicare is the boil on the budget’s backside when being slipped into the hands of the wealthy is enough money that, if ceased, would go close to balancing social inequality? And the budget, of course.
Stop pandering to the wealthy, and Medicare becomes sustainable. It is the luxuries afforded to the well-off that are unsustainable. How much is it costing us? Too much. Here are some examples.
George Lekakis writes in The New Daily that:
Former Liberal Party leader John Hewson last year called on the Abbott government to slash the superannuation tax concessions available to high-income earners.
One of the effects of the changes introduced by Peter Costello in 2006 is that most multi-millionaires can structure their assets so that they pay no tax in retirement even though they might be reaping more than $150,000 a year.
In an opinion column for the Australian Financial Review last April, Mr Hewson made three salient observations about the existing superannuation tax arrangements:
• The tax breaks on super are costing the government in foregone revenue about $45 billion a year and this is roughly the same amount that is spent each year on the age pension.
• The dollar value of the tax breaks is growing faster than expenditure on the aged pension, making concessions on super contributions a much bigger threat to balancing government finances in the near-term.
• The super tax concessions are skewed to high-income earners: the top 10 per cent of income earners reap more than 36 per cent of the tax concession dollars, while the bottom 10 per cent are actually penalised for making super contributions.
Did you read that? $45 billion a year just on superannuation tax breaks. And who gets the bulk of that? Yes, the wealthy. (And it certainly makes the $7.5 billion spent on Newstart look paltry in comparison).
This year Medicare will cost us $20 billion. I’m happy to contribute towards the cost, but I sure do hate losing out because of the $45 billion tax breaks (alone) to the country’s well-off.
But it’s only the start.
Of the $18 billion in lost revenue over the next four years from the abolition of the ‘mining tax’, $1.6 billion of that was “purely a gift from Mr Abbott to the miners”.
Scrapping the mining tax will cost us $5.3 billion and who gets that? It will go mainly to the biggest mining companies:
The mining industry is clearly at the top of the government’s priority list. They sit far above concerns about the cost of living for working families.
Then there’s the $2.4 billion a year the government gives back to property investors because of negative gearing. How many welfare recipients have investment properties? How many of the well-off do?
And while the price of fuel costs you a couple of dollars extra week due to Hockey’s new surcharge you might like to know that:
A new report finds exploration by coal and energy companies is subsidised by Australian taxpayers by as much as $US3.5 billion ($4 billion) every year in the form of direct spending and tax breaks.
Heard enough? There’s no doubt more, but this small handful of examples alone should be enough for the average person to realise how much the Abbott Government is helping the wealthy.
Medicare – I repeat – isn’t the problem. The government is. They’re giving too much money to the rich.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
88 comments
Login here Register here-
Peter F -
Harquebus -
2gravel -
captain51 -
Carol Taylor -
John Lord -
Michael Taylor -
eli nes -
diannaart -
Michael Taylor -
Michael Taylor -
Keitha Granville -
diannaart -
lawrencewinder -
John Kelly -
revolutionarycitizen -
Rossleigh -
Rossleigh -
Michael Taylor -
Roswell -
Blanik -
Michael Taylor -
rossleighbrisbane -
Michael Taylor -
Loz -
revolutionarycitizen -
Blanik -
Peter Naughton -
michaelattoowoomba -
Blanik -
rossleighbrisbane -
DanDark -
Peter Naughton -
Michael Taylor -
Carol Taylor -
Michael Taylor -
Blanik -
revolutionarycitizen -
Jexpat -
Jexpat -
Wun Farlung -
Michael Taylor -
revolutionarycitizen -
Michael Taylor -
Anomander -
jeffbrad07 -
Jexpat -
bobrafto -
Damo451 -
bobrafto -
John Fraser -
Wun Farlung -
Roswell -
Wun Farlung -
John Fraser -
Florence nee Fedup -
John Fraser -
Florence nee Fedup -
Florence nee Fedup -
Wun Farlung -
bobrafto -
Brian -
John Fraser -
Michael Taylor -
Matthew -
CMMC -
corvus boreus -
Kaye Lee -
jimhaz -
Harquebus -
corvus boreus -
Harquebus -
Paul G. Dellit -
-
paul walter -
corvus boreus -
Kerri -
paul walter -
David Bruce -
Simon -
Totaram -
Florence nee Fedup -
Blanik -
Win jeavons -
Florence nee Fedup -
Chris -
Michael Taylor -
Trevor
Return to home pageWith regard to negative gearing, we should also note that negative gearing inflates the price of property, meaning that it contributes to the situation where the poor are priced out of house ownership. This in turn also adds to rental charges.
Does the average person realise how much the wealthy is helping the Abbott government?
Today’s politicians are mere sock puppets mouthing the words of the extremely wealthy who, have their have their hands well truly up the politicians arses.
Resource depletion is making it hard for the wealthy to maintain their control and lifestyles. They will do anything to protect them including, destroying totally our environment.
In the inspired words of the late Gaylord Nelson, senator from Wisconsin and founder of Earth Day, “The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.”
Those at the top, they have the farthest to fall. There have been many suspicious banker deaths lately. Hmmm?
Miglo
I am in total agreement. It not just Murdoch media, it is most of the MSM that are letting these deceptions happen.
and during the mining boom, so much was handed to the wealthy by the Howard govt. Now that the boom is declining, it is the poor and the not so wealthy are being saddled with cuts to services.
Captain51, yes indeed..the Howard Years, the wasted years.
Salient points Michael. Unfortunately they won’t take any notice.
I know they won’t, John, but I want the electorate to take notice.
crap michael (or just anal) what happened in 2007, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13????? For all those years my national party friend paid $10000 a month to train his racehorses but he has a health card and concessions, pays no medicare levy nor tax?????
And that folks, is the real class war.
In those years, eli nes, we didn’t have a government trying to pull the wool over ours eyes telling us that Medicare was unsustainable.
But I agree that Labor should have done something about negative gearing and cutting back the tax breaks introduced by Costello. I don’t think they had the guts.
But what is the solution ? no government ever wnats to touch it because the wealthy are the ones that keep them in power – either side to somedegree, LNP more than Labor. And the politicians themselves BECOME the wealthy when they retire so they are never going to do anything to burst their own bubble in retirement. Parliament is supposed to represent us, the people. It doesn’t, it hasn’t for so long. It represents itself and vested interests. How do we get it back ?
Keitha Granville
No government wanted to abolish slavery either – too many vested interests there as well.
“Parliament is supposed to represent us, the people. It doesn’t, it hasn’t for so long. It represents itself and vested interests. How do we get it back ?”
We Take it back!
A March on Canberra to throw them all out including the GG and declaring a Republic would be a start.
@eli nes, what an utterly useless piece of unverified evidence. So you think you know one person who “paid $10000 a month to train his racehorses but he has a health card and concessions, pays no medicare levy nor tax?????”
And on that, you stake your reputation that somehow things were worse under Labor for the other 23 million odd. I will guarantee you that there are others abusing the system right now as well. But, that means nothing other than that…one person.
Personally I think your claim is rubbish.
Show me systemic evidence of multiple rorting by hundreds of thousands and I’ll take your claims seriously. Short of that, don’t waste time typing.
Total Social Welfare Payments made by the Federal Government largely to the poor and lower middle class (Welfare, Health, Education, all that good stuff) is more than half the Federal Budget, and the majority of that money comes from the top 15% of income earners. The majority of Australians will never pay a dollar more in income taxes than the dollar amount received in return as services or direct welfare payments.
Medicare grew 40% under the last labor abomination, welfare grew by a similar amount, that isn’t a trend that can continue on forever.
As for super, money not collected isn’t an expense, it means precisely nothing to the budget, nothing. And even Treasury have admitted that even if the rules were changed there were no guarantees it would lead to an increase in revenue to government.
Maybe the problem is the 85% of Australians who get the free ride?
This “the rich aren’t paying enough” nonsense is pathetic lazy quasi-intellectualism, the kind of thinking that will make sure Australia resorts to a second rate banana republic the moment the Chinese stop buying our rocks.
In the interest of balance, I feel that I must point out that they’re helping out a lot of people who would have trouble getting jobs anywhere that required any sort of skill or intelligence.
I mean, you only have to look at Hockey’s “somebody will live till 150”, or Abbott’s comments on just about anything to see that surely, surely this couldn’t be the best that the Liberals could do. Clearly it’s some sort of “help out the unfortunate” campaign.
As for Campbell Newman…
Perhaps, revolutionary citizen may be their next Treasurer. He seems to have the same sort of grasp on things that the Cabinet have…
Of course revolutionarycitizen would jump in with ‘it’s all the fault of the poor’.
You obviously have no issue with the unnecessary tax concessions while the less well-off will have cuts to life’s essentials. That’s sad. You disgust me.
He disgusts me too
Perhaps Michael can explain why he thinks that the budget “is in a shambles”. It’s been the same for more governments than I can remember in the seventy five years I have been here.
Where did I say that, by the way? And where was it suggested?
Perhaps you should read the posts before jumping in here with your right-wing rubbish.
From revolutionary citizen
“The majority of Australians will never pay a dollar more in income taxes than the dollar amount received in return as services or direct welfare payments.”
I’m not sure why he sees this as a bad thing.
Is he arguing for more income tax?
It certainly is the rhetoric used by the government to fiddle with Medicare.
I wrote: “I agree with the government that the budget is in a shambles”
Tell me what’s good about it. Also tell me if you like what they’re doing.
What else can you expect from the very right wing revoutionarycitizen. No vision, no creativity, no moral compass.
“You obviously have no issue with the unnecessary tax concessions while the less well-off will have cuts to life’s essentials. That’s sad. You disgust me.”
Always the mantra of the left, there is no wealth like that confiscated by the government by FIAT is there?
It is not an unnecessary anything, it is a taxation deference, not a concession, the money is still taxed on exit, the earnings on those accounts are taxed and so on, all it does is take the tax liability of now and move to later. Which is why Mr Revenue Neutral P Costello allowed the changes to take place.
As for the poor not getting enough. When will it ever be enough? When the government is spending 50% of the economy like they do in France? Or higher? Last time I checked there were plenty of poor people in France who still wanted and needed more.
You can’t even say this government is not spending, it is spending more than Howard did and you all called him profligate, and Hockey is spending at the same rate as Swan, so, how much more do you want?
I dare say you people won’t be happy until they hoist the hammer and sickle over Canberra and start burning churches because the poor needs it more, or some such nonsense.
Your only answer to everything is have someone else pay for it, and that’s why you disgust me.
I hate and despise everything that this fascist government is doing in the name of a budget shambles. You Michael are agreeing with their rhetoric and lies. I’m simply asking you why are you saying that?
Do you think that it’s wrong to have a budget deficit? If so tell me how many times in the last fifty years has it been any other way, and the nation has managed to survive.
From memory Menzies always had a deficit.
Why do you say that it’s a shambles now?
Revolutionarycitizen is either a delusional fool or a paid political troll. Enough said!
Another great article Michael. At least one report ,that points out that the government backdown on medicare $20.00 as reported by in media,disgustingly the ABC and SBS as well,that the policy was scrapped,but in reallity,was just put on hold.The liarbrials have just put it aside FOR NOW,they for once,listened.When the AMA comes out against liberals even this bunch of certicifiable idiots had to backdown.But as I am sure you know,the destruction of Medicare is still front and centre for liberal policy,and don’t forget,that includes the PBS.I will be curious to see what they come up with to blackmail or coerce any dissenters,when they CONSULT and LISTEN to doctors and voters [ pigs have just flown by my window ]. what’s the bet any discussions will be muffled at least until after Qld elections. M Feeney.
What an extraordinary coincidence, revolutionarycitizen.
He still hasn’t explained why he thinks most people should pay more tax!
So smokin’ Joe lies again, he needs to keep that cigar in his gob 24/7 might shut him up for a bit….
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/19/joe-hockey-repeats-incorrect-claim-that-half-of-peoples-income-goes-on-taxes
As a proportion of GDP per capita Australians pay among the lowest rates of tax in the OECD. Australia’s budget has a revenue deficit problem as government expenditure as a proportion of GDP is also comparatively low. I think that Michael has explained that the problem lies at the top level of wealth earners/ asset owners and he has also provided suggestions on how this can be addressed. For a start tax restore the 15 percent tax on superannuants receiving $100,000 plus a year. So I think the argument is that collectively Australians should pay more tax and that this should be more equitably distributed.
I don’t recall saying that a deficit is a bad thing. I think deficits aren’t the ugly beast they are made out to be.
Funny how people have been putting words in my mouth.
I was somewhat amused at Joe Hockey’s anedote, of how his son suffered a broken leg. This of course is no fun whatsoever for the child…
This is wrong Hockey exclaimed, attempting to use this personal experience as a reason why it’s imperative that he introduce a co-payment. However, then contradicting himself Hockey went on: “That is wrong,” Mr Hockey said, noting he is a high income earner who could afford to contribute more.
Well good for you Joe, I await the moment when you address this issue – that high income earners should pay more. Of course this isn’t what Joe meant at all, but that ‘somehow’ the co-payment would be paid only by those who could afford to do so, completely forgetting that Australia’s employment situation means that there are many many families just scraping by.
The big difference between you and me, RC, is that I don’t have a problem with my taxes going towards helping fellow countrymen in need.
Michael, I simply asked you to explain why you agree that the budget is a shambles. I’m not trying to put words into your mouth. I can only guess that I’m not as smart as you are. I shan’t ask again.
“The big difference between you and me, RC, is that I don’t have a problem with my taxes going towards helping fellow countrymen in need.”
Except that it isn’t, the trillion plus dollars we’ve paid in direct welfare payments in the last decade have done precisely nothing in diminishing the level of poverty and homelessness.
The vast bulk of your taxes you get back in services of one type or another. Because our welfare system is a giant money-go-round that is intended to buy votes, not help the poor.
Want to help the poor? Easy, cut the welfare budget in half and dedicate the half that remains to the bottom 15% of the economy, not the middle 50% where much of it is being spent today. With the savings increase the tax free threshold. Then, Introduce means tested education and health mechanisms, with those savings, raise the tax free threshold some more.
You’ll find that the cost to government in collecting taxes just to give them back is quite high, and when those costs reduce, raise the tax free threshold some more.
This “the rich have to pay” is completely infantile and neglects the reality of just how much the government pumps back into the system for the sake of having a system.
If welfare worked, we wouldn’t need to pay it anymore, and Centrelink wouldn’t have 7.1 Million customers.
I am not against money going to the needy, but I am against 85% being the needy and needing ever more from remaining 15%.
So called “revolutionary citizen” -a laughably juvenile moniker if there ever was one, is carrying on delusionally on about “wealth confiscation” on the very day that the report comes out that 50% plus (and growing) of the world’s wealth is being hoarded by 1% of the population.
And then pulling arbitrary numbers out of his arse in the post above.
That’s as asinine as Hockey’s we have to gur Medicare because “we’ll live to 150 years” old bit.
Better trolls, please.
Oops…
Blew the link to the story on the referenced report:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland
I can always count on comrade revoloutary citizen for a good old fact twist.
Even with a very basic web search I came up with France spending ( from 1st to 6th on the results for the 1st page) about 33% on welfare.
Even that hotbed of communist propaganda The Washington Post cites about 30%
RC are you using the same RWNJ brand calculator Tony and Joe use? If you are I am pretty sure it’s broken
Blanik, to answer your question I feel that the government – in getting rid of carbon pricing and the mining tax – have cut off their nose to spite their face. They chopped off a good source of income. Not a world-beating amount, but enough to make a difference.
Total French Government Spending (is what I said) is now 56.1% of GDP, and they’re still broke.
More government spending is not the answer.
Australia has spend over $1,000,000,000,000 in direct welfare payments in the past decade for no meaningful decline in poverty, or for any great reduction in the numbers of people who dwell in the lower socio-economic brackets.
We’ve also invested many billions of dollars in all sorts of skills and education programs, and today like always about 1/3 of the work force earns minimum wage, and almost a quarter of the workforce works directly for government.
So, please, tell me how more of the same is going to make it any better…
RC, if you think that the “trillion plus dollars” paid in welfare payments has done nothing to reduce poverty and homelessness, just wait until the welfare stops.
This government can only get away with this outrage because of all the aspirational idiots who believe the lie that they too will be rich one day – and when they are they should also be in a position to avoid taxes.
Wake-up you fools – you’re never gonna be rich, because those who have all the money are going to make damn sure you stay firmly in your place, while they live high on the hog, enjoying all the services and benefits your taxes supply them.
Keep going. The message will get through. Truth will prevail.
Wun Farlung wrote: “Even that hotbed of communist propaganda The Washington Post cites about 30%”
Pravda on the Potomac.
Trouble is that some can’t even live up to Mark Twain’s simple admonishment: “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”
I got it!
The reason Abbott doubled his woman’s ministers has just become crystal clear to me.
Appointing Sussan as Health Minister was the reason for my revelation. Selling the GP Tax was a harder sell than Hockey had bargained for and (please excuse my boganess,) Abbott brought in some pussy to soften up the punters.
Sussan’s interview especially at the end was another revelation, put her in some leather and she could have passed as a bikies moll.
It’s not the full moon, is it?
Just something i was wondering about.
Just suppose i was one of the 1% and i did realized that our resources were finite ,especially with population growth the way it is.
And just suppose that i realized that if the rest of the worlds living standards rose fast enough to consume the resources at a greatly increasing rate ,then my wealth would diminish rapidly as the resources became scarcer and scarcer pushing prices higher and higher.
Thinking as a sociopath ,ie one of the 1% ,wouldn’t i be far better off ensuring that economic conditions for the rest of the population stayed pretty much as they are at the moment ,in effect guaranteeing that i could continue to buy my gold plated BMW each month ,and swim in my pool filled with diamonds without having to compromise my lifestyle.
Another good read !
<
Ironic that the "revolutionarycoward" would complain about welfare payments.
ha ha ha
Can't wait for his next installment of navel gazing posing as philosophical debate.
Yes revoluntionarycomrade you just keep deluding yourself. Never mind mate we understand
He certainly is a strange one.
You gotta give him credit, he can make a sentence containing more than 3 words. I just wish he’d bring some of his RWNJ mates with him although the chances are pretty slim
Those French are spending like Johnny Howards drunken sailors from 50% to 56% in 2 posts
He must be using an enhanced Neo-Con search engine
<
Probably DuckDuckGo so that he mother doesn't see his wanking posts.
Michael, they are very selective in the rich and powerful they give it too. Yes to mining, especially to those of the past, with little future. At the same time they have deliberately kill off the industry of the future. that is CEF and all that in contains. Yes Solar. wind and other forms of what in the longer run be clean, cheaper and more efficient source of energy.
One of Hockey’s first action was to kill off the auto and like industry. Yes, no government assistance there.
Just a coincidence, that doing so, also removed barriers that was holding up so called and fraudulent free trade agreements with Japan and South Korea. Abbott not satisfied with cutting the auto industry off at the knees, in a brain fart tried to hand them the submarine industry as a gift. Having problems here, as they seem unable to deliver the subs we need.
One can only wonder what they have against industry, that happened to be unionised an in many ways efficient. Could not be a part of their war against organised labour. Of course that could not be true.
Abbott led when he said Australia is open for business. What he meant, was open for plunder.
<
Martin Luther King, Jr.
from "A Christmas Sermon on Peace," 1967
"It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny.
Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality.
"Did you ever stop to think that you can't leave for your job in the morning without being dependent on most of the world? You get up in the morning and go to the bathroom and reach over for the sponge, and that's handed to you by a Pacific islander. You reach for a bar of soap, and that's given to you at the hands of a Frenchman. And then you go into the kitchen to drink your coffee for the morning, and that's poured into your cup by a South American. And maybe you want tea: that's poured into your cup by a Chinese. Or maybe you're desirous of having cocoa for breakfast, and that's poured into your cup by a West African. And then you reach over for your toast, and that's given to you at the hands of an English-speaking farmer, not to mention the baker. And before you finish eating breakfast in the morning, you've depended on more than half the world.
"This is the way our universe is structured, this is its interrelated quality. We aren't going to have peace on Earth until we recognize this basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality."
The uber rich forget this.
I believe that Gillard and Swan did attempt to pull back many of Howard’s handout. Was fought all the way. First thing Abbott did was reverse and repeal some of the action taken.
As for some getting Health card, along with benefits, that was a Howard gift. Yes, many working, earning good money qualified. At the same time, most refused to recognise Pension card as in the past. Something about it was not fair, that those who amassed enough not to have rely on the Old Age pension deserved a reward for being prudent.
Yes, I know I could have apply for Seniors Card, but refused on principal., Also avoided any business that would no longer give discounts to genuine pensioners.
True, many will never earn enough to contribute to the benefits they get in income tax. They will pay more than their fair share in indirect and regressive taxes such as the GST. The user pay policies of Howard and revived by Abbott makes their lives nearly impossible.
Over the last few decades, world wide, we have seen income taxation decrease with more emphasis place on regressive indirect taxes.
All it has achieve is a growing gap between rich and poor. It is not helped that labour, where productivity has occurred ahs lost out to capital, when it comes to distribution of the nations wealth.
We all pay taxes. There are many more, than personal income tax.
It’s a sad old world we live in Florence or should that be ye ollde worlde. I was just reading elsewhere that (according to Oxfam) that 1% of the worlds population will hold more wealth than the other 99% by next year-2016. 85 wealthiest people have the same wealth as 50% of the worlds population, that should please the LNP cheer squad. It is probable those 50% are dole bludging illegal immigrants prone to rioting at The Manus Island Resort
In the land of fairies and flying pigs
The LNP reign supreme.
Can I state the obvious in regards to budgetary welfare costs heading towards 50% as RC claims?? If the rich people, rich companies paid their dues in taxes, and, for example, mining companies had their corporate welfare removed in the form of tax concessions, then more income would be recieved by the government. Mathematics says the percentage of the budget spent on welfare programs would reduce, payments may not but the percentage would.
The other thing RC fails to understand is that, YES, rich people pay more in tax by virtue of the fact they earn more. But as a percentage of their income, poor people pay way more. Cost of living as a percentage of income is way more for the poor.
<
@Brian
Go to the top of the class …. here's an Apple.
I got it via Ireland.
Absolutely no tax paid on it !
Spot on, Brian.
Revolutionarycitizen did make me chuckle.
I’m guessing they watch a lot of Murdoch media while reading some Ayn Rand.
April 1, Newsagents to lose their monopoly on Lottery ticket sales, supermarkets to step in, and quickly dominate the market.
Not sure if this is NSW only.
CMMC,
Pretty sure that was just the NSW gov.
That particular enactment was the last nail in the coffin for the newsagents nearest me, who told me they decided they will close their business after hearing that news. Already lost most of their print sales to supermarket promotions.
RIP Diversity and specialisation. Enter the generic homogenocene.
“It is not an unnecessary anything, it is a taxation deference, not a concession, the money is still taxed on exit, the earnings on those accounts are taxed and so on, all it does is take the tax liability of now and move to later.”
Yes. And if you are in the top tax bracket and decide to invest in superannuation you will pay 15% tax instead of 43% – a considerable saving. Of course if you earn under $18,200 and decide to invest in superannuation you will pay 15% tax instead of nothing – hardly an incentive. The benefits of the tax concessions are very much skewed towards the wealthy which is why, when John Howard allowed people to put $1 million into superannuation one year, private contributions outstripped employer contributions. Do you think the wealthy poured their spare million in because they were worried about having to live on the pension or because it was an unbelievably good tax minimisation opportunity?
Revolutionarycitizen has a point about the non-effectiveness of welfare payments over the long term.
The question really is though – how do we create more employment opportunities, so that long term welfare can be minimised.
A retreat from unchecked US style capitalism and non-distribution of income at the top end would clear off our growing unemployment in a few years.
I’ve come to the conclusion tariffs would be a godsend to Australia. Unfortunately we have dumb dumb, dumb politicians who follow the trends of past winners. These past winners are now using massive levels of propaganda to ensure they keep winning.
Yes, unlike cutting tax rates, cutting tariffs WAS quite good for Australia, but the pendulum has swung too far, and both the legit politicians, the ALP, and of course the non-legit politicians, the LNP still both firmly believe that this is a good thing, when it is clearly not. It is the jobs that tariffs would create (or would not have lost in the first place) that would mean unemployment could fall to 3-4%.
Greater distribution via a super profits tax (as a start) would have meant a lower Australian dollar and thus far fewer manufacturing companies killed off by the rising dollar.
[Newsagents to lose their monopoly on Lottery ticket sale]
For this policy I would guess at the possibility of political corruption causing the advent of the policy being at 100%.
With the billions of tonnes of ores, minerals and fossil fuels that we have extracted and exported for even more billions of dollars, none of us should have to pay tax. Something ain’t right.
Harquebus,
You might like this one.
An entertaining simple explanation of the parasitic drain inherent in the current financial system(US oriented but near-universally applicable).
@corvus boreus
Thanks. You might like this one.
http://hiddensecretsofmoney.com/videos/episode-1
Inequity favouring the rich over the not-rich is part of the LNP DNA. The seeds of the current Budget’s troubles were sown when Howard/Costello used the previous mining boom proceeds to buy votes with middle class welfare instead of investing in infrastructure to benefit the whole nation over the longer term.
The current Budget is in a mess because it was framed so inequitably that it can’t get its major provisions through Parliament and they won’t be passed when the next Budget has to be framed. And all of this is because the current LNP frontbench are not only avaricious but crassly incompetent. We are going through the perfect storm of greedy, bloated bumblers who can’t get out of their own way as they progressively trash the joint.
Pingback: Abbott *is* good at one thing: DECEPTION – and you are falling for it. | SOULILOQUY
I doubt whether the average aussie knows an awful lot about all manner of things. Some of this comes from laziness or lack of brightness, some from endless spin and misrepresentation of things from politicians and big business through media.
100 years of Soviet history in a 6 minute song.
Revolutionary citizen.
You are hardly revolutionary as all you seem capable of is misquotes and the same old sameold right wing rubbish. There is nothing Revolutionary in your grumbling mutterings. You disgust me too. Go back under your bridge and stay there.
Noting Michael Taylor’s comment re, “Chopping Off” valuable revenues, it could be an ideologically driven move. Rightist theory in the US is the origin of the “small government” notion and cutting off revenue and redirecting elsewhere (eg Murdoch?) is par for the course as to that, to weaken responsible government.
It’s not indeed about just making the rich pay, it’s the whole system. Even Labor has squeamishly adopted chunks of neo liberal lines of thinking, particularly in places like NSW and QLD..it’s been giving up the fight too early, for fear of retaliation from Murdoch etc.
Carol Taylor’s observation re Hockey is a sharp one and I though Kaye Lee’s mentioning of tax “deference” was a very shrewd comment, indeed.
I wonder where the money came from for this? “In addition, two ships, one from Australia and one from Canada docked in the Odessa port in the past week or two. Each was full of winter uniforms for the Ukraine army.” Why is Australia supporting the puppet Ukraine government in Kiev, to launch a winter offensive against the current residents of East Ukraine? Is it intended to remove these inhabitants, and replace them with ashkenazi immigrants?
talking of medicare the Liberals could try scrapping the 30% private health rebate, that would free up 6 Billion or so
RC: “It is not an unnecessary anything, it is a taxation deference, not a concession, the money is still taxed on exit, the earnings on those accounts are taxed and so on, all it does is take the tax liability of now and move to later.”
This is just nonsense. As a self-funded retiree, I can assure you that once you convert the super from accumulation mode to a pension (which you can do after the age of 60) both the earnings of the capital and the pension derived from that are completely tax free. I know this because I file a tax return every year (for other reasons). This means that if I have 10million in my super-pension, I can earn 500,000 a year (at a modest 5% average return) and take it as a pension without paying any tax on it at all.
I believe the Gillard govt. wanted (quite rightly) to means test this concession, but the Coalition and others did not agree. Michael can set us right on that one.
Really, I don’t know what RC is on about. The only thing I agree with is that if we could put all the unemployed to work everyone would be better off (although it’s not clear if this is what he means).
Why are we buying into the Ukraine civil war. A country noted for corrupt governments.
I suspect that you have answered you own question, Florence.
Why do they worry about old folk in 100 yrs. time, when they won’t consider climate and poverty issues and environmental damage happening now? A balanced budget in 2015 won’t address these issues in even 10 years time .
Yes, one corrupt government assisting another.
This is a great Article. Thanks, Michael.
Thank Chris.
Scumlord Abbott and his rabble of Libtard Liarberals know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Sack the Pricks and Prickesses.