Low and middle-income families and singles pensioners and other welfare recipients are the biggest winners from the carbon price while those on generous incomes will bear almost the full brunt with next-to-no assistance.   :)

Unveiled at midday today by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, a package of $15 billion in tax cuts and increased benefits mean 4 million households will receive more in compensation that the carbon tax will add to their cost of living.   :)

A further 2 million households will be no worse off by being fully compensated, while another 2 million will receive something.   :)

The Prime Minister Julia Gillard chaired today's meeting of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee with, from left, Ross Garnaut, Wayne Swan, Greg Combet and Mark Dreyfus.



Of the nation's 8.8 million households, only 700,000 receive nothing.

The scheme will operate as a fixed carbon price of $23 from July 1 next year, and move to a full emissions trading scheme on July 1, 2015, when the market will set the carbon price.

It excludes petrol and is not revenue neutral as first forecast. It will cost the budget $4.2 billion over four years and will erode the forecast $3.5 billion return to surplus in 2012-13 by $530 million

The increases to the cost of living, estimated to be 0.7 per cent, will result from the nation's top 500 polluters passing on their costs of having to pay for the carbon dioxide they emit.

Figures released today show the average hits to households will be $9.90 a week, or $515 a year, whereas average assistance will be $10.10 a week, or $525 a year.

Electricity will rise by $3.30 a week, gas by $1.50 a week and food bills by an average 0.80c a week.

The tax cuts, worth $8 billion, will result in 60 per cent of earners receiving an annual tax cut of at least $300, or about $6 a week.

The tax cuts will operate by lifting the tax-free threshold from $600 to $18,200 on July 1, 2012, and to $19,400 in 2015.

This will remove 1 million people from the tax system and be worth $600 a year from somebody on $20,000, and $303 for somebody on $65,000.

On incomes over $80,000 the tax cuts disappears to $3 a year, or 6c a week.

For example, a single earning $85,000 will receive $3 a year from the tax cuts but face a $463 increase in the cost of living.

Family circumstances vary widely depending on the number of children, whether thee are one or two salary earners, how much each earns and total income earned.

For example, couples on dual incomes of up to $95,000 a year with one child aged five and another 12, will be better off. The family will receive $759 a year in assistance – combined tax cuts ad family benefit supplements - whereas the impact of the carbon price will be $615.

The same couple earning $100,000 will be fully compensated.

Families on combined incomes of up to $200,000 can still receive compensation if one of the income earners earns less than $80,000 and qualifies for the tax cut.

However, a family on $180,000 combined or more, and not eligible for either tax cuts or family benefits, receives only between $3 and $6 a year and faces an average increase in the cost of living of around $1000.

Pensions, family tax payments, the dole, student allowances and other benefits will increase by 1.7 percent a year.   :)

The first-full year benefit will be paid as a lump sum in May and June next year, before the carbon price starts and then in fortnightly instalments from 2013 onwards..

This will amount to $338 for a single pensioner, $110 per child for a family which receives Family Tax Benefit Part A, $69 for a family which receives benefit Part B

As promised, fuel used by motorists, small business vehicles and tradespeople will be exempt for good.

So too, will be diesel and other transport fuels used in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry.

Other heavy on-road transport – vehicles weighing over 4.5 tones - will not be exempt and will pay a effective carbon tax on fuel by having the reductions in excise it currently receives being clawed back. But this clawback will not start until July 1, 2014, providing temporary reprieve for truckies.

Off-road heavy vehicles, predominantly those used in the mining sector, will have their excise clawed back by about 6c a litre when the scheme starts on July 1, 2012.

Excise on aviation fuels will be increased to reflect the impact of a carbon price. These increases will add $930 million to aviation fuel bills over the first four years of the scheme. The clawback of excise reductions will save another $1.9 billion, meaning the total savings on fuel will be $2.8 billion.

This will help offset the cost to the budget which will still be a hit of $4.3 billion over four years.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/15-billion-in-tax-cuts-for-low-and-middle-income-earners-under-carbon-deal-20110710-1h8in.html#ixzz1RgfVu0hm

Looks like Labor and the Australian Greens, with the independents have kicked a goal.  Well done.   :)  

I don't get why those on higher incomes recieve no benefit. If they increase the tax free threshhold surely everyone would pay less tax?

It sounds like this is actually a net tax cut, which is good, though there are plenty of handouts mixed in so it is hard to tell.

It's a shame they excluded petrol. It doesn't really help anyone to put all the pressure on the electricity sector and truckies. We are missing opportunities to easily reduce emissions.

Do you have a job Imcrook?

Hence, do you pay ANY tax at all in the first place?

I do not answer personal questions, sorry Andrei.  Those on higher incomes, do not need compensation.   :)  

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 6:22pm:

I do not answer personal questions, sorry Andrei.  Those on higher incomes, do not need compensation.   :)

I budget. I suggest you do the same.
You need no more than I do.

Its not the same for the unemployed, the low income workers.  They don't have anywhere near the same saving capacity, as those on higher incomes, for them its very hard to save and budget.   :(  

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:

Its not the same for the unemployed

How does tax cuts help this lot?
They pay bugger all in the first place....

Pensions, family tax payments, the dole, student allowances and other benefits will increase by 1.7 percent a year.   :)

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:

Its not the same for the unemployed, the low income workers.  They don't have anywhere near the same saving capacity, as those on higher incomes, for them its very hard to save and budget.   :(

Are you suggesting that the unemployed should be given tax cuts now lol ??

If you're going to have a Carbon Tax it's probably best to do it properly and skip the compensation component entirely (okay, perhaps compensate pensioners).

I dunno, but the whole compensation thing seems to defeat the purpose of having the tax in the first place.

I have been saying for years that the unemployed ( And still do )  should have an immediate increase in their benefits.   ;)

Life_goes_on wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 6:50pm:

If you're going to have a Carbon Tax it's probably best to do it properly and skip the compensation component entirely (okay, perhaps compensate pensioners). I dunno, but the whole compensation thing seems to defeat the purpose of having the tax in the first place.

In an ideal world in an ideal socio-econo-political climate, this would be how things would go...

Unfortunately, harsh real-world realities dictate that compensation is part and parcel of overcoming the misleading scare campaigns of those with vested interests in politicising and trashing the Gillard Govt's worthwhile efforts to take Carbon Pricing steps in long-overdue transition arrangements...

If only...there was responsible bi-partisan support for this, eh!?

As for forcing change, the Govt's efforts need to be directed at 'incentivising' (in this case, taxing) those entities are the biggest high-carbon pollution culprits and therefore those entities who are most in a position to make significant changes in the way they do things...

It's not like consumers are in a position to readily identify and boycott many of the 500-odd biggest polluters!?

BTW, does anyone have a link that shows which polluters are on the list?

Life_goes_on wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 6:50pm:

If you're going to have a Carbon Tax it's probably best to do it properly and skip the compensation component entirely (okay, perhaps compensate pensioners). I dunno, but the whole compensation thing seems to defeat the purpose of having the tax in the first place.

The relative price changes. Most things will become more affordable. Some things will become a lot less affordable. People could buy the same things in the same quantities, but they won't. Money talks.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 6:06pm:

Low and middle-income families and singles pensioners and other welfare recipients are the biggest winners from the carbon price while those on generous incomes will bear almost the full brunt with next-to-no assistance.   :) [...] Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/15-billion-in-tax-cuts-for-low-and-middle-income-earners-under-carbon-deal-20110710-1h8in.html#ixzz1RgfVu0hm

But when Howard was doing this (handing out dosh) the ALP said it was vote buying.

The Howard government was for the already well off, and the big end of town.   :(

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 7:22pm:

The Howard government was for the already well off, and the big end of town.   :(

That's a bit odd considering that the scribes and ALP backroom boys and girls said that Howard had successfully wooed workers and a group known as Howard's battlers.

salad in wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 7:19pm:

wrote on Jul 10th, 2011 at 6:06pm: Low and middle-income families and singles pensioners and other welfare recipients are the biggest winners from the carbon price while those on generous incomes will bear almost the full brunt with next-to-no assistance.   :) [...] Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/15-billion-in-tax-cuts-for-low-and-middle-income-earners-under-carbon-deal-20110710-1h8in.html#ixzz1RgfVu0hm But when Howard was doing this (handing out dosh) the ALP said it was vote buying.

LOL, Bill...qs Macca was at pains to point out recently, Tony Abbott has put a new spin on these sorts of measures, declaring them:  "wage justice for families with children".



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1308985609/0


Maqqa wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 5:06pm:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/9707589/abbott-offers-tax-cuts-to-rally-troops/ Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott has laid out a plan to retake government, promising tax cuts for middle-income families and a "priority attack" on federal debt. Standing before a sky-blue screen that promised hope, reward and opportunity, Mr Abbott told the Liberals' federal council on Saturday that momentum was swinging the opposition's way as Labor deals with historically low polls. "Tax cuts are in our DNA," Mr Abbott said. "At the next election, the coalition will deliver tax cuts that are not just compensation," he said, referring to Labor's planned carbon tax. Turning to family tax benefits, Mr Abbott declared them "wage justice for families with children". "The next coalition government will further simplify the family payments system," he said. While he did not offer details on how far the simplification would go, Mr Abbott did declare it a "policy priority for the coalition" that he would "have more to say about closer to the election". The need for better urban transport and the improvement of highways on the east coast was also highlighted by Mr Abbott, but he made no promises about what a coalition government would do. In a lengthy speech, Mr Abbott also referenced policies he took to the 2010 election regarding a so-called green army, the creation of independent boards for schools and hospitals, and a direct-action approach to tackling climate change. Before Mr Abbott spoke, the opposition's treasury spokesman Joe Hockey delivered a rallying cry to the faithful. "We have a duty to ensure we do everything we can possibly do to get rid of a bad government," Mr Hockey said. Earlier in the day, Liberal Party president Alan Stockdale was re-elected by one vote - 57-56 - after a week of infighting over who should hold what is largely a backroom position. Howard government frontbencher Peter Reith, who was supported by the party's four vice-presidents and NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell, lost the vote. The ballot had highlighted the strife within the party after the four vice-presidents - Alexander Downer, Tom Harley, David Russell and Danielle Blain - sent an open letter to Mr Stockdale, taking issue with his stewardship of the party's finances and stating they had confidence Mr Reith could turn things around. Mr Reith is a controversial figure who made headlines in the maritime dispute and the "children overboard" scandal. Just how Mr Stockdale will work with four vice-presidents who openly opposed his re-election remains to be seen . http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/9708158/gillard-flags-tax-cuts-in-carbon-tax-compo/ Tax cuts and increased family payments will form part of the federal government's carbon price compensation package, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced. Speaking at Western Australia's Labor Party conference in Perth, Ms Gillard said plans for the tax cuts and increased household assistance payments would be finalised in coming weeks. "I really understand that many people are anxious about the impact of a price on carbon," she said. "I understand they expect to hear from me what that is going to be all about, and I'm going to do that." Tax cuts and payments would be targeted at "those who need it most", Ms Gillard said. "I want to make sure that families can make a difference and help tackle climate change," she said. "We will act fairly, we will not let Australians down."

I personally found the Australian tax system and the ATO in particular to be quite amiable and pleasant for me.

:)

The Howard government have had their time.  They will be remembered for Workchoices.   The very thing that destroyed them, and cost them the 2007 election.   :)

You do spend a lot of your time defending the losers and deadbeats of Australia Imcrook.

People end up earning a low income for a reason - they never bothered or tried when they could.
It's their own fault.

You do spend a lot of your time defending the losers and deadbeats of Australia Imcrook.    I never thought the unemployed, or low income workers were losers or deadbeats.   :(

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 6:48pm:

wrote on Jul 10th, 2011 at 6:28pm: Its not the same for the unemployed, the low income workers.  They don't have anywhere near the same saving capacity, as those on higher incomes, for them its very hard to save and budget.   :(   Are you suggesting that the unemployed should be given tax cuts now lol ??

No, but they SHOULD have been given a decent raise by now.

ABOVE and BEYOND this paltry 'compensation'.

Which works out to an insulting $5 (approx) a week, if that. And
means that they will come out EVEN FURTHER BEHIND the
pensioners and the rest of society.

They SHOULD have got the full $50 a week increase that ACOSS
and others have been calling for for far too long.

Disgraceful treatment of our most vulnerable
and marginalised YET AGAIN.

Why am I not surprised?




**UPDATE**

Research shows that the MAXIMUM a single unemployed person
would receive is a MASSIVE $4.20 p/w.

That won't even cover CURRENT cost increases, never mind
the effing carbon-tax.

A disgrace, and an insult. I can't BEGIN to articulate the
comtempt in which I hold this incompetent pack of clowns.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 7:50pm:

You do spend a lot of your time defending the losers and deadbeats of Australia Imcrook.    I never thought the unemployed, or low income workers were losers or deadbeats.   :(

Me either, Imcrook.

Doesn't make you popular in some circles, but DOES make you
RIGHT, which is far more important in my book.

[quote author=Andrei.Hicks link=1310285194/15#20 People end up earning a low income for a reason - they never bothered or tried when they could.
It's their own fault.[/quote]

People can end up on low incomes for all sorts of reasons that are beyond their control.   What about people that have a mental, or physical illness which impairs their ability to work full time?  Others might care for a sick family member.  You cannot just lump everyone into one simplistic generalisation like that.  

Rwil wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 8:39pm:

[quote author=Andrei.Hicks link=1310285194/15#20 People end up earning a low income for a reason - they never bothered or tried when they could. It's their own fault.

People can end up on low incomes for all sorts of reasons that are beyond their control.   What about people that have a mental, or physical illness which impairs their ability to work full time?  Others might care for a sick family member.  You cannot just lump everyone into one simplistic generalisation like that.  [/quote]


new member rwil.....the id known as andreihicks is very simplistic. He's probably a low achiever that likes to wind people up ha ha

We liken him to Walter Mitty:

Quote:

Mitty is a meek, mild man with a vivid fantasy life: in a few dozen paragraphs he imagines himself a wartime pilot, an emergency-room surgeon, and a devil-may-care killer. The character's name has come into more general use to refer to an ineffectual dreamer, appearing in several dictionaries. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a Walter Mitty as "an ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams of personal triumphs
Although the story has humorous elements, there is a darker and more significant message underlying the text, leading to a more tragic interpretation of the Mitty character. Even in his heroic daydreams, Mitty does not triumph, several fantasies being interrupted before the final one sees Mitty dying bravely in front of a firing squad. In the brief snatches of reality that punctuate Mitty's fantasies we meet well-meaning but insensitive strangers who inadvertently rob Mitty of some of his remaining dignity.