Here's mine.

1. Abolish/ don't introduce all govt funded parental leave. They're your kids, look after them yourselves.
I realise this entails breaking an election policy but we all make mistakes.
2. Abolish child care rebates for family incomes above say $70,000. They're your kids, look after them yourselves.
3. Abolish family "tax" payments for family incomes above say $70,000. Government should only be there to top up income for the needy.
4. Significantly stiffen the income/assets test for age pension. If you have enough money to look after yourself, then do it.

We have had enough time now to see what happens to countries with welfare systems that are too generous. Govt should be there for the needy, not for those who just would like to have more.

There are probably more nasties I could add but that will do for now.

1. Abolish all middle class wealthfare
2. Put the dole up
3. Leave the pensioners alone
4. Make more education available for those that want it
5. Stop selling the money makers of the government (PO, electricity, medibank private, etc)
6. Leave the carbon tax alone since its already in there its gunna cost too much to get rid of it
7. Hire more nurses, doctors, teachers, police, and certerlink staff (public servants in other words)
8. Tax churches and religious institutions

SOB

You need to be more specific about what middle class wealthfare is.
And if you want to abolish that, why not do something about removing the age pension from people who don't need it?
The fed govt doesn't hire nurses, doctors, teachers or most police, so these are not fed budget matters.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:27am:

1. Abolish all middle class wealthfare 2. Put the dole up 3. Leave the pensioners alone 4. Make more education available for those that want it 5. Stop selling the money makers of the government (PO, electricity, medibank private, etc) 6. Leave the carbon tax alone since its already in there its gunna cost too much to get rid of it 7. Hire more nurses, doctors, teachers, police, and certerlink staff (public servants in other words) 8. Tax churches and religious institutions SOB

What he said......or

1. Wish for damage limitation (we all know the conservatives go hard on the poor and soft on the wealthy)

I thought you had more sense, your ladyship, to follow on with his suggestions which at the very least need some modification.
Added to what I said in response to SOB, the feds don't technically supply education either. It's a state matter.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:13am:

Here's mine. 1. Abolish/ don't introduce all govt funded parental leave. They're your kids, look after them yourselves. I realise this entails breaking an election policy but we all make mistakes. 2. Abolish child care rebates for family incomes above say $70,000. They're your kids, look after them yourselves. 3. Abolish family "tax" payments for family incomes above say $70,000. Government should only be there to top up income for the needy. 4. Significantly stiffen the income/assets test for age pension. If you have enough money to look after yourself, then do it. We have had enough time now to see what happens to countries with welfare systems that are too generous. Govt should be there for the needy, not for those who just would like to have more. There are probably more nasties I could add but that will do for now.

http://guyism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/applause-gif.gif

I knew we were peas of the same pod ;)

1) Pay going rate of taxation on super earnings over 100K
2) Abolish neg gearing
3) Require proof for business car write offs
4) Bring in Land tax, 1 exemption of occupied dwelling
5) Increase company back to 33% or raise GST to 17.5% & include all exemptons

You are aware GST is a regressive tax, so increasing it to 17.5 is going to hurt the poor more. That said, some increase, say to 12.5 is inevitable.
I thought business cars still had to be supported by log books? The trouble is, how many can the tATO look at.
Land tax has always been a state tax, As far as I know it still applies and does exempt owner occupied dwelling.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:42am:

I thought you had more sense, your ladyship, to follow on with his suggestions which at the very least need some modification. Added to what I said in response to SOB, the feds don't technically supply education either. It's a state matter.

They can give the states money for education and health. Also they can make policies that make education and health more accessible to poor ppl.

SOB

I always say what they give on the roundabout they take back on the swings....

so I will ask for

BETTER VALUE FOR MY TAX DOLLAR...

my greatest whinge is the gold passes they all get when they leave get the sack whatever... it should go.. once and for all..

along with all the overseas travel they feel they are entitled too..

For SOB:
As I understand it, the transfers to the states for education and health have already been determined by agreement at COAG or special meetings. The coming budget is not likely to change that.

Now, can you tell me what welfare measures you would like to see changed.

I missed one of your smithy.
The going rate for super income above $100K? That's overly generous I would say.
I'd like to see it at about the level at which pension entitlement ceases, which has got to be a lot less than $100K.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:46am:

Land tax has always been a state tax, As far as I know it still applies and does exempt owner occupied dwelling.

further thinking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqCZAfURIg

the full doco is worth a look to


bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:46am:

You are aware GST is a regressive tax, so increasing it to 17.5 is going to hurt the poor more. That said, some increase, say to 12.5 is inevitable.

I gave them a choice, they can choose GST or companies


bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:46am:

I thought business cars still had to be supported by log books? The trouble is, how many can the tATO look at.

Labor had the idea and the world was going to collapse so I would assume they already know how they were going to do it.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:00am:

I missed one of your smithy. The going rate for super income above $100K? That's overly generous I would say. I'd like to see it at about the level at which pension entitlement ceases, which has got to be a lot less than $100K.

Yes personally I'd like to see it around the 52K
$1000 can be earned every week & you pay no tax on it.
If your over 65 & can't live on that well its the old grasshopper/ant tale & you've only got yourself to blame.
But it seems the richer you are the more you expect.
"Ive paid tax , I deserve X"

1. End Funding to private schools.
2. End funding to mining industry.

alevine,
Funding to private schools should be looked at as a return on the education component of tax, which the parents have already paid. Surely all parents are entitled to some return for that part of the tax dollar.
If you're going to say in response, let all the kids go to public schools, you're really making an idealogical argument.
Apart from that, there are not enough public schools to cope.
The same arguments can be put for the private health rebate.

As to mining, what handouts do you have in mind? You are surely not talking about the depreciation allowances on plant, to which all businesses are entitled as an operating cost.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:57am:

For SOB: As I understand it, the transfers to the states for education and health have already been determined by agreement at COAG or special meetings. The coming budget is not likely to change that. Now, can you tell me what welfare measures you would like to see changed.

I already told you - raise the dole and leave the pensioners alone

SOB

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 11:42am:

1. End Funding to private schools. 2. End funding to mining industry.

Yeah. That too. Also funding to anything else we shouldnt be funding like private hospitals.

SOB

SOB,
You originally said abolish all middle class welfare.
I'm simply asking you to be specific. Maybe you agree with me on the ones I mentioned?

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 1:06pm:

SOB, You originally said abolish all middle class welfare. I'm simply asking you to be specific. Maybe you agree with me on the ones I mentioned?

Nope i said wealthfare and you know what it is. Its all those policies (mostly started by howard) that give money to ppl that dont need it @ the expense of ppl that do.

SOB

If a business, whether it be a school or other enterprise is PRIVATE...  then it should be PRIVATE and not funded in any way by the PUBLIC.

The government can fund schooling of PUBLIC schools and all Australian students, but not PUBLIC schools...  btw that is not my budget wish just a comment of Private Schooling.

All I have to do now is sit back and wait for those RW slurs from the progs...  ::) ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 3:43pm:

If a business, whether it be a school or other enterprise is PRIVATE...  then it should be PRIVATE and not funded in any way by the PUBLIC. The government can fund schooling of PUBLIC schools and all Australian students, but not PUBLIC schools...  btw that is not my budget wish just a comment of Private Schooling. All I have to do now is sit back and wait for those RW slurs from the progs...  ::) ::) ::)

SHAME LABOR SHAME.

Raising the dole by $100 - $150/fortnight should be a number-one priority.

In fact, it should be mandatory. The option not to should not exist.

But they'll be ignored at best.

And, more likely, punished and persecuted even more..

Kat wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 4:13pm:

Raising the dole should be a number-one priority. The option not to should not exist. But they'll be ignored at best. And, more likely, punished and persecuted even more..

Yes, but what about flying our hardworking parliamentarians to their weddings and races and sporting events?

Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge, that's all I can say.

Grendel wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 3:43pm:

If a business, whether it be a school or other enterprise is PRIVATE...  then it should be PRIVATE and not funded in any way by the PUBLIC. The government can fund schooling of PUBLIC schools and all Australian students, but not PUBLIC schools...  btw that is not my budget wish just a comment of Private Schooling. All I have to do now is sit back and wait for those RW slurs from the progs...  ::) ::) ::)

the trouble is most of the pollies send their kids to private schools.... again we are not supposed to know that.   a few at the top in the unions do as well... shhhhhhh

.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:42am:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:13am: Here's mine. 1. Abolish/ don't introduce all govt funded parental leave. They're your kids, look after them yourselves. I realise this entails breaking an election policy but we all make mistakes. 2. Abolish child care rebates for family incomes above say $70,000. They're your kids, look after them yourselves. 3. Abolish family "tax" payments for family incomes above say $70,000. Government should only be there to top up income for the needy. 4. Significantly stiffen the income/assets test for age pension. If you have enough money to look after yourself, then do it. We have had enough time now to see what happens to countries with welfare systems that are too generous. Govt should be there for the needy, not for those who just would like to have more. There are probably more nasties I could add but that will do for now. http://guyism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/applause-gif.gif I knew we were peas of the same pod ;) 1) Pay going rate of taxation on super earnings over 100K 2) Abolish neg gearing 3) Require proof for business car write offs 4) Bring in Land tax, 1 exemption of occupied dwelling 5) Increase company back to 33% or raise GST to 17.5% & include all exemptons

How is increasing all these taxes a 'wish list'?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:51am:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:42am: I thought you had more sense, your ladyship, to follow on with his suggestions which at the very least need some modification. Added to what I said in response to SOB, the feds don't technically supply education either. It's a state matter. They can give the states money for education and health. Also they can make policies that make education and health more accessible to poor ppl. SOB

Health and education are already free.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 3:30pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 1:06pm: SOB, You originally said abolish all middle class welfare. I'm simply asking you to be specific. Maybe you agree with me on the ones I mentioned? Nope i said wealthfare and you know what it is. Its all those policies (mostly started by howard) that give money to ppl that dont need it @ the expense of ppl that do. SOB

Would I be right in guessing that that really means anything YOU don't get?

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 1:03pm:

alevine, Funding to private schools should be looked at as a return on the education component of tax, which the parents have already paid. Surely all parents are entitled to some return for that part of the tax dollar. If you're going to say in response, let all the kids go to public schools, you're really making an idealogical argument. Apart from that, there are not enough public schools to cope. The same arguments can be put for the private health rebate. As to mining, what handouts do you have in mind? You are surely not talking about the depreciation allowances on plant, to which all businesses are entitled as an operating cost.

Actually this has nothing to do with wanting all kids to go to public.  But simply that the proposal to fund pirate schools was on the basis that it would reduce private school fees and give access to more disadvantaged kids.  Yet, study after study has shown this to have been a miserable failure and 70% of under privileged kids still, like before, go to public schooling.

So, given the result aimed at was not achieved, the only appropriate course of action is to stop the program, ie the funding.  And the very idea you think people should get something for their tax dollar, well bad luck.  You get the services the government funds.  But if you want to use a private service, you are welcome to do that but should not expect this to somehow be funded by the government. 

As for funding to mining companies, I mean these
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-25/nrn-dist-mining-subsidies/4778042

The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at.

The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug.

EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff.

cods wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:54am:

I always say what they give on the roundabout they take back on the swings.... so I will ask for BETTER VALUE FOR MY TAX DOLLAR... my greatest whinge is the gold passes they all get when they leave get the sack whatever... it should go.. once and for all.. along with all the overseas travel they feel they are entitled too..

So cods is concerned about a few mill out of a 300odd billion dollar budget.

Ok.  I expect you will stop crying about debt and deficit then?

Neferti wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:23pm:

The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at. The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug. EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff.

Id agree with you if we are talking about the minority of those who actually are "dole bludger". But for those who have temporarily fallen on tough times, don't you think it's important to support them in today's economic climate, and not with a fortnightly amount from the early 2000s? 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:31pm:

Neferti wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:23pm: The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at. The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug. EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff. Id agree with you if we are talking about the minority of those who actually are "dole bludger". But for those who have temporarily fallen on tough times, don't you think it's important to support them in today's economic climate, and not with a fortnightly amount from the early 2000s?

UNEMPLOYED = unemployable. Sad but true.

If you find yourself out of work due to no fault of your own, go and DO SOMETHING to prove you still want to get up and go "out" in the morning.  IF you get an interview for what you are qualified for and state that you have been spending ALL your time putting in applications (and still not getting placed) the Interviewers will think YOU are at fault.  Tell them that you are "between jobs" but working at the local Charity Shop, collecting trolleys from the local supermarket, or sweeping floors .... anything and they will think that you are a SELF STARTER, not a drain on society.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 3:30pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 1:06pm: SOB, You originally said abolish all middle class welfare. I'm simply asking you to be specific. Maybe you agree with me on the ones I mentioned? Nope i said wealthfare and you know what it is. Its all those policies (mostly started by howard) that give money to ppl that dont need it @ the expense of ppl that do. SOB Would I be right in guessing that that really means anything YOU don't get?

Almost certainly not.

Neferti wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:40pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:31pm: Neferti wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:23pm: The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at. The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug. EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff. Id agree with you if we are talking about the minority of those who actually are "dole bludger". But for those who have temporarily fallen on tough times, don't you think it's important to support them in today's economic climate, and not with a fortnightly amount from the early 2000s?  UNEMPLOYED = unemployable. Sad but true. If you find yourself out of work due to no fault of your own, go and DO SOMETHING to prove you still want to get up and go "out" in the morning.  IF you get an interview for what you are qualified for and state that you have been spending ALL your time putting in applications (and still not getting placed) the Interviewers will think YOU are at fault.  Tell them that you are "between jobs" but working at the local Charity Shop, collecting trolleys from the local supermarket, or sweeping floors .... anything and they will think that you are a SELF STARTER, not a drain on society.

NOTHING you have to say on this subject has any credibility whatsoever, after that little outburst of bullsh1t.

Neferti wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:40pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:31pm: Neferti wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:23pm: The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at. The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug. EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff. Id agree with you if we are talking about the minority of those who actually are "dole bludger". But for those who have temporarily fallen on tough times, don't you think it's important to support them in today's economic climate, and not with a fortnightly amount from the early 2000s?  UNEMPLOYED = unemployable. Sad but true. If you find yourself out of work due to no fault of your own, go and DO SOMETHING to prove you still want to get up and go "out" in the morning.  IF you get an interview for what you are qualified for and state that you have been spending ALL your time putting in applications (and still not getting placed) the Interviewers will think YOU are at fault.  Tell them that you are "between jobs" but working at the local Charity Shop, collecting trolleys from the local supermarket, or sweeping floors .... anything and they will think that you are a SELF STARTER, not a drain on society.

You seem to have a very warped view of why unemployed means.

Go look at stats for long term unemployed vs unemployed then come back to us.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:29pm:

cods wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:54am: I always say what they give on the roundabout they take back on the swings.... so I will ask for BETTER VALUE FOR MY TAX DOLLAR... my greatest whinge is the gold passes they all get when they leave get the sack whatever... it should go.. once and for all.. along with all the overseas travel they feel they are entitled too.. So cods is concerned about a few mill out of a 300odd billion dollar budget. Ok.  I expect you will stop crying about debt and deficit then?

really... at least it would be a start... so far all I hear is what they can take away from the tax payers... or charge the tax payers...

as per usual you think a few millions dollars isnt worth the trouble  OF COURSE..

even a few bill aint worth the trouble either..looking at the waste with BER.. which all lefties seem to think was value for money.. ::) ::)

I just happen to think the pollies SHOULD LEAD THE WAY>..

I guess you dont..

maybe because there are more lefties with their snouts in the trough than righties.

Neferti wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:23pm:

The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at. The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug. EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff.

You, son, are a terminal fracking idiot with no fracking idea at ALL!

You're a biased, ignorant frack-wit.

I've almost certainly worked harder and for longer than you EVER will.

And I will STILL stand up for a fair deal for the unemployed, despite you assholes.

And no, I don't care if I get a suspension, but the point and sentiment remains.

Neferti wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:23pm:

The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at. The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug. EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff.

things are getting tougher nef....and the jobs like picking up the rubbish in the gutter is now a SKILLED JOB..the unions have stopped all those people from doing jobs... that onc e upon a time no one wanted...

so it isnt so easy to walk into a place and say can I sweep the floor..also casual work has become very prevalent..and casual is not what people want they want security.

there are of course dodgers out there...but I dont agree we judge them all the same.. because that just isnt true..

if they do have to work for the dole.. that will of course sort the men from the boys.. I remember clearing tables in Joe Lyons Corner House.. it was a terrible job but if you wanted the money you did it..

:-?
cods wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:48pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:29pm: cods wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:54am: I always say what they give on the roundabout they take back on the swings.... so I will ask for BETTER VALUE FOR MY TAX DOLLAR... my greatest whinge is the gold passes they all get when they leave get the sack whatever... it should go.. once and for all.. along with all the overseas travel they feel they are entitled too.. So cods is concerned about a few mill out of a 300odd billion dollar budget. Ok.  I expect you will stop crying about debt and deficit then? really... at least it would be a start... so far all I hear is what they can take away from the tax payers... or charge the tax payers... as per usual you think a few millions dollars isnt worth the trouble  OF COURSE.. even a few bill aint worth the trouble either..looking at the waste with BER.. which all lefties seem to think was value for money.. ::) ::) I just happen to think the pollies SHOULD LEAD THE WAY>.. I guess you dont.. maybe because there are more lefties with their snouts in the trough than righties.

Actually the reason I think pollies should get some perks is because despite my dislike of many of them, they work pretty hard.  Who gets the gold card?  Tony will, and any mp who's done long service to parliament. Don't you think a PM, a person working probably 20hrs a day 7 days a week, plus any member who the public keeps reelecting, deserve some perk?

And anyway, I thought boges was asking for some serious contributions with some depth,  not just a pet hate you misunderstand.

Neferti wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:40pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:31pm: Neferti wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:23pm: The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at. The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug. EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff. Id agree with you if we are talking about the minority of those who actually are "dole bludger". But for those who have temporarily fallen on tough times, don't you think it's important to support them in today's economic climate, and not with a fortnightly amount from the early 2000s?  UNEMPLOYED = unemployable. Sad but true. If you find yourself out of work due to no fault of your own, go and DO SOMETHING to prove you still want to get up and go "out" in the morning.  IF you get an interview for what you are qualified for and state that you have been spending ALL your time putting in applications (and still not getting placed) the Interviewers will think YOU are at fault.  Tell them that you are "between jobs" but working at the local Charity Shop, collecting trolleys from the local supermarket, or sweeping floors .... anything and they will think that you are a SELF STARTER, not a drain on society.

All of that is just bullshyt Nef.  Most of the unemployed want work, most aren't bludgers.  When I got turfed due to global restructuring, I took a part time job loading and unloading trucks, cleaning floors, stacking shelves etc etc, etc...  didn't help me get a job one little bit.  In fact adding it to your cv just confuses people, mainly the HR juniors who refuse to employ anyone over 50.
You can't live on newstart, part time work means your newstart gets cut, you can't live on part time wages either, unless you own your car and house, then you might just get by if you are healthy and don't eat much.  ::)
if you are lucky you might survive till the pension cuts in or if your health deteriorates (and it will) you might get the DSP.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:58pm:

:-? cods wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:29pm: cods wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:54am: I always say what they give on the roundabout they take back on the swings.... so I will ask for BETTER VALUE FOR MY TAX DOLLAR... my greatest whinge is the gold passes they all get when they leave get the sack whatever... it should go.. once and for all.. along with all the overseas travel they feel they are entitled too.. So cods is concerned about a few mill out of a 300odd billion dollar budget. Ok.  I expect you will stop crying about debt and deficit then? really... at least it would be a start... so far all I hear is what they can take away from the tax payers... or charge the tax payers... as per usual you think a few millions dollars isnt worth the trouble  OF COURSE.. even a few bill aint worth the trouble either..looking at the waste with BER.. which all lefties seem to think was value for money.. ::) ::) I just happen to think the pollies SHOULD LEAD THE WAY>.. I guess you dont.. maybe because there are more lefties with their snouts in the trough than righties. Actually the reason I think pollies should get some perks is because despite my dislike of many of them, they work pretty hard.  Who gets the gold card?  Tony will, and any mp who's done long service to parliament. Don't you think a PM, a person working probably 20hrs a day 7 days a week, plus any member who the public keeps reelecting, deserve some perk? And anyway, I thought boges was asking for some serious contributions with some depth,  not just a pet hate you misunderstand.

OK. now youve had your pet hate call for the day... byeeeeeeeee

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:27am:

8. Tax churches and religious institutions

Fair enough, but allow charitable works to count as tax paid. Some religious institutions spend considerable amounts of money providing aid to the poor and this should be recognised.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:20pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 1:03pm: alevine, Funding to private schools should be looked at as a return on the education component of tax, which the parents have already paid. Surely all parents are entitled to some return for that part of the tax dollar. If you're going to say in response, let all the kids go to public schools, you're really making an idealogical argument. Apart from that, there are not enough public schools to cope. The same arguments can be put for the private health rebate. As to mining, what handouts do you have in mind? You are surely not talking about the depreciation allowances on plant, to which all businesses are entitled as an operating cost. Actually this has nothing to do with wanting all kids to go to public.  But simply that the proposal to fund pirate schools was on the basis that it would reduce private school fees and give access to more disadvantaged kids.  Yet, study after study has shown this to have been a miserable failure and 70% of under privileged kids still, like before, go to public schooling. So, given the result aimed at was not achieved, the only appropriate course of action is to stop the program, ie the funding.  And the very idea you think people should get something for their tax dollar, well bad luck.  You get the services the government funds.  But if you want to use a private service, you are welcome to do that but should not expect this to somehow be funded by the government.  As for funding to mining companies, I mean these http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-25/nrn-dist-mining-subsidies/4778042

These so-called 'disadvantaged' kids will never go to private schools and no amount of changes will ever do that.  These are the lazy sods that get newspaper articles written about them complaining they have to pay $23 A YEAR for stationery at a public school 'that is supposed to be free'.

How could anyone ever make private school accessible to them?

• Abolish negative gearing
  
• Abolish health insurance rebate
  
• All superannuation contributions to be taxed at a rate that is 15% below top marginal tax rate for that taxpayer. Anyone that makes superannuation contributions but does not earn enough to pay tax gets a government-funded 15% co-contribution.
  
• Tax-free threshold raised to $30,000. Next tax bracket is 30%.
  
• Index income tax brackets to CPI.
  
• Raise unemployment benefits by $50 per week.
  
• Index all income support payments using the same method as the aged pension.
  
• Abolish diesel fuel subsidy
  
• Increase PPL to 26 weeks but do not raise the payment rate.
  
• Increase funding for child care.
  
• Restore parenting payment for parents with youngest children aged from 8 to 15.
  
• Pay subsidies to employers who employ anyone who is long-term unemployed.
  
• Abolish concessional rate of capital gains tax.
  
• Abolish stamp duty on property transfers except for the cost of processing the property transfer.
  
• Introduce annual land tax for all properties except land under primary production, such that it raises the same
• amount of money overall as the abolished stamp duty.
  
• Reduce payroll tax.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 7:40pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 5:20pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 1:03pm: alevine, Funding to private schools should be looked at as a return on the education component of tax, which the parents have already paid. Surely all parents are entitled to some return for that part of the tax dollar. If you're going to say in response, let all the kids go to public schools, you're really making an idealogical argument. Apart from that, there are not enough public schools to cope. The same arguments can be put for the private health rebate. As to mining, what handouts do you have in mind? You are surely not talking about the depreciation allowances on plant, to which all businesses are entitled as an operating cost. Actually this has nothing to do with wanting all kids to go to public.  But simply that the proposal to fund pirate schools was on the basis that it would reduce private school fees and give access to more disadvantaged kids.  Yet, study after study has shown this to have been a miserable failure and 70% of under privileged kids still, like before, go to public schooling. So, given the result aimed at was not achieved, the only appropriate course of action is to stop the program, ie the funding.  And the very idea you think people should get something for their tax dollar, well bad luck.  You get the services the government funds.  But if you want to use a private service, you are welcome to do that but should not expect this to somehow be funded by the government.  As for funding to mining companies, I mean these http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-25/nrn-dist-mining-subsidies/4778042 These so-called 'disadvantaged' kids will never go to private schools and no amount of changes will ever do that.  These are the lazy sods that get newspaper articles written about them complaining they have to pay $23 A YEAR for stationery at a public school 'that is supposed to be free'. How could anyone ever make private school accessible to them?

So then you agree this funding is a waste of time based on its purpose.

Bam wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 7:46pm:

Abolish negative gearing Abolish health insurance rebate All superannuation contributions to be taxed at a rate that is 15% below top marginal tax rate for that taxpayer. Anyone that makes superannuation contributions but does not earn enough to pay tax gets a government-funded 15% co-contribution. Tax-free threshold raised to $30,000. Next tax bracket is 30%. Index income tax brackets to CPI. Raise unemployment benefits by $50 per week. Index all income support payments using the same method as the aged pension. Abolish diesel fuel subsidy Increase PPL to 26 weeks but do not raise the payment rate. Increase funding for child care. Restore parenting payment for parents with youngest children aged from 8 to 15. Pay subsidies to employers who employ anyone who is long-term unemployed. Abolish concessional rate of capital gains tax. Abolish stamp duty on property transfers except for the cost of processing the property transfer. Introduce annual land tax for all properties except land under primary production, such that it raises the same amount of money overall as the abolished stamp duty. Reduce payroll tax.

Let's get serious though, the level of political courage that this government has already shown all we will see is the same old rhetoric that disabled abuse the pension and our public service is bloated.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:27am:

1. Abolish all middle class wealthfare 2. Put the dole up 3. Leave the pensioners alone 4. Make more education available for those that want it 5. Stop selling the money makers of the government (PO, electricity, medibank private, etc) 6. Leave the carbon tax alone since its already in there its gunna cost too much to get rid of it 7. Hire more nurses, doctors, teachers, police, and certerlink staff (public servants in other words) 8. Tax churches and religious institutions SOB

I would add Remove Negative Gearing to this list and it's perfect.

Imagine how much would be saved by getting rid of all the largesse introduced under Howard and continued under rudd/gillard - got to be 40+ billion a year.

Taxing churches would also be a good start.

I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact?

Grendel wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:14pm:

I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact?

Keating did abolish negative gearing but brought it back after the bleating of the housing lobby. Bringing it back was a mistake.

Bam wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Grendel wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:14pm: I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact? Keating did abolish negative gearing but brought it back after the bleating of the housing lobby. Bringing it back was a mistake.

Yes, Keating re-introduced it because the removal killed the rental market as people divested themselves of investment properties. There is no reason to remove it now. It seems a fair claim to offset costs against accrued income tax wise. The one that skews the market in a rather bad way ( unless you happen to be holding housing stock as an investment ) is the 50% concession on capital gains tax after 1 year.

There are two sides to Budget outcomes -
1) Revenues
2) Expenditures

Both will need to be addressed!

Revenues will require the raising of Tax levels, in many areas & the tightening of many Tax loopholes, including those currently available to large corporations, the top end of income/asset rich & institutions such as the churches!

Expenditures will require the lowering of some payments, the deletion of others & the realization that a great many things must now be done differently, because everything has limitations and we are now at the cross-roads of history where some of those limitations will require us to take different approaches!

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:16pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:51am: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:42am: I thought you had more sense, your ladyship, to follow on with his suggestions which at the very least need some modification. Added to what I said in response to SOB, the feds don't technically supply education either. It's a state matter. They can give the states money for education and health. Also they can make policies that make education and health more accessible to poor ppl. SOB Health and education are already free.

Nope. HECS and bills from the hospital for any medication they give you is not "free". I said "accessible" by the way.Do you have a reading problem? Should i use smaller words?

SOB

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 3:30pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 1:06pm: SOB, You originally said abolish all middle class welfare. I'm simply asking you to be specific. Maybe you agree with me on the ones I mentioned? Nope i said wealthfare and you know what it is. Its all those policies (mostly started by howard) that give money to ppl that dont need it @ the expense of ppl that do. SOB Would I be right in guessing that that really means anything YOU don't get?

Not sure what you mean by that. I am on no government money and havent tried to get any?

SOB

Neferti wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:23pm:

The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at. The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug. EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff.

Volunteering @ an op shop isnt going to pay the rent is it. Neither is the dole going to pay the rent. There are 800k ppl looking for work and 200k jobs. You prolly should take a look @ reality.

SOB

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 11:01pm:

There are two sides to Budget outcomes - 1) Revenues 2) Expenditures Both will need to be addressed! Revenues will require the raising of Tax levels, in many areas & the tightening of many Tax loopholes, including those currently available to large corporations, the top end of income/asset rich & institutions such as the churches! Expenditures will require the lowering of some payments, the deletion of others & the realization that a great many things must now be done differently, because everything has limitations and we are now at the cross-roads of history where some of those limitations will require us to take different approaches!

Quite so re both sides. Simply raising taxes does not always generate more revenue. Often, the opposite happens. This thread is quite a few pages long yet no mention of the big elephant in the room. A decade and a half of falling productivity growth needs far more attention than anything else so far mentioned.

Bam wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Grendel wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:14pm: I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact? Keating did abolish negative gearing but brought it back after the bleating of the housing lobby. Bringing it back was a mistake.

I think you will find it was more the people who couldnt find rental property but dont let facts get in the way will you..

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:48pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:27am: 1. Abolish all middle class wealthfare 2. Put the dole up 3. Leave the pensioners alone 4. Make more education available for those that want it 5. Stop selling the money makers of the government (PO, electricity, medibank private, etc) 6. Leave the carbon tax alone since its already in there its gunna cost too much to get rid of it 7. Hire more nurses, doctors, teachers, police, and certerlink staff (public servants in other words) 8. Tax churches and religious institutions SOB I would add Remove Negative Gearing to this list and it's perfect. Imagine how much would be saved by getting rid of all the largesse introduced under Howard and continued under rudd/gillard - got to be 40+ billion a year. Taxing churches would also be a good start.

No. I dont share your obsession with negative gearing. I think it serves a purpose and you have to be LOSING money to clai9m it anyway.

SOB

crocodile wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:50pm:

Bam wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:36pm: Grendel wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:14pm: I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact? Keating did abolish negative gearing but brought it back after the bleating of the housing lobby. Bringing it back was a mistake. Yes, Keating re-introduced it because the removal killed the rental market as people divested themselves of investment properties. There is no reason to remove it now.

Interest rates are a lot lower now than they were when Keating removed negative gearing. Anyone who is negatively geared year after year with interest rates this low is rorting the system for personal gain.

Unrestricted negative gearing is bad policy and the rules need to be tightened. It need not be an all-or-nothing proposition, though. Other options are possible. Negative gearing could be restricted, either only allowing it to be claimed on a property within five years of purchase, or claiming it pro-rata for that time when the property is let or available for rent and advertised at market value. It would stop the rorters who are claiming negative gearing on a holiday home but not the landlords.


Quote:

It seems a fair claim to offset costs against accrued income tax wise. The one that skews the market in a rather bad way ( unless you happen to be holding housing stock as an investment ) is the 50% concession on capital gains tax after 1 year.

I have also listed the concession on capital gains as something else that needs to be abolished. When expenses can be claimed at full value, it's nonsensical to tax only half the profits.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 6:54am:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 8:48pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:27am: 1. Abolish all middle class wealthfare 2. Put the dole up 3. Leave the pensioners alone 4. Make more education available for those that want it 5. Stop selling the money makers of the government (PO, electricity, medibank private, etc) 6. Leave the carbon tax alone since its already in there its gunna cost too much to get rid of it 7. Hire more nurses, doctors, teachers, police, and certerlink staff (public servants in other words) 8. Tax churches and religious institutions SOB I would add Remove Negative Gearing to this list and it's perfect. Imagine how much would be saved by getting rid of all the largesse introduced under Howard and continued under rudd/gillard - got to be 40+ billion a year. Taxing churches would also be a good start. No. I dont share your obsession with negative gearing. I think it serves a purpose and you have to be LOSING money to clai9m it anyway. SOB

Any policy that allows tax deductions for holiday homes is bad policy.

Neferti wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 5:23pm:

The unemployed always want more dole money, rather than get a J*O*B*.  They are so traumatised that they actually think they can get a NEW job at the same level and income that they left/got made redundant at. The thing is to GET A BLOODY JOB .... anything, volunteering at the local Op Shop .... DO SOMETHING. Mow lawns for cash, weed gardens, etcetera.  Then, when you have a bit of cash in your pocket, apply for every job you can. Add the fact that you are volunteering or lawn mowing, etc as that indicates that you are a "self starter"and willing to W*O*R*K* and not a slug. EVENTUALLY you will strike it rich.  The people who whine about "wanting more money on the dole" are the UNEMPLOYABLE riff raff.

Your post demonstrates how little you really know about the topic, being riddled with right-wing mythology.

A few FACTS to refute your MYTHS:

1. The current level of the dole is among the lowest unemployment payments in relation to average incomes for any country in the developed world. It is so low that a diverse range of groups including the ACTU and Business Council of Australia are all calling for it to be increased by at least $50 per week and have been since at least 2011. (It's rare that the ACTU and BCA agree on anything.)
2. If all available job openings were filled, there would still be over 750,000 people without any work.
3. Volunteer work does not pay anything.
4. Most employers actively discriminate against the unemployed when hiring. It is a lot harder to get a job - any job - if you don't have one.
5. The rest of the community also discriminates against the unemployed.

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 11:01pm:

There are two sides to Budget outcomes - 1) Revenues 2) Expenditures Both will need to be addressed! Revenues will require the raising of Tax levels, in many areas & the tightening of many Tax loopholes, including those currently available to large corporations, the top end of income/asset rich & institutions such as the churches! Expenditures will require the lowering of some payments, the deletion of others & the realization that a great many things must now be done differently, because everything has limitations and we are now at the cross-roads of history where some of those limitations will require us to take different approaches!

Agreed. Governments of both sides of politics have messed up the budget badly by reducing revenue and to a lesser extent through wasteful spending. After cutting revenue, the Coalition's solution isn't increasing revenue - they are silent on this - but just cuts.

Both sides of the equation need to be addressed, not just spending. The budget can be in surplus now if a government has the political fortitude to increase revenue. Closing loopholes is a very good place to start. We don't need to raise tax levels - bracket creep will see to that, as it did during the Howard years for low income earners who suffered a decade of rising taxes due to bracket creep.

Bam wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Grendel wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:14pm: I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact? Keating did abolish negative gearing but brought it back after the bleating of the housing lobby. Bringing it back was a mistake.

I don't recall it was a mistake...  and I'd trust Keating's judgement over yours.

crocodile wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:50pm:

Bam wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:36pm: Grendel wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:14pm: I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact? Keating did abolish negative gearing but brought it back after the bleating of the housing lobby. Bringing it back was a mistake. Yes, Keating re-introduced it because the removal killed the rental market as people divested themselves of investment properties. There is no reason to remove it now. It seems a fair claim to offset costs against accrued income tax wise. The one that skews the market in a rather bad way ( unless you happen to be holding housing stock as an investment ) is the 50% concession on capital gains tax after 1 year.

Thank You....

Grendel wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 8:52am:

Bam wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:36pm: Grendel wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:14pm: I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact? Keating did abolish negative gearing but brought it back after the bleating of the housing lobby. Bringing it back was a mistake. I don't recall it was a mistake...  and I'd trust Keating's judgement over yours.

It was a mistake because it has no restrictions. What other country in the world has unrestricted negative gearing? NONE!

My wish list with negative gearing: abolish it. Replace it with a scheme where any losses on a rental property can be carried forward and applied against any future profits including the sale of the property. It must be a rental property, either currently let, advertised for rent at market rates, or being maintained while vacant.

The current system of negative gearing is subject to widespread abuse and that is why it has to go. Nowhere have I said that landlords shouldn't have tax deductions.

Grendel wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 8:52am:

Bam wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:36pm: Grendel wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:14pm: I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact? Keating did abolish negative gearing but brought it back after the bleating of the housing lobby. Bringing it back was a mistake. I don't recall it was a mistake...  and I'd trust Keating's judgement over yours.

I have every right to point out that Keating made a policy error here. If you don't like it that's your problem.

Abuse of negative gearing costs the budget $5 billion a year (The Age, 1 May 2013, p.5).

For Bam:

•Abolish concessional rate of capital gains tax.
•Abolish stamp duty on property transfers except for the cost of processing the property transfer.
•Introduce annual land tax for all properties except land under primary production, such that it raises the same
•amount of money overall as the abolished stamp duty.
•Reduce payroll tax.


Agree with you on the CGT, but stamp duty, land tax and payroll tax are state taxes and are not relevant to the coming budget.
Except that it would be a good idea to revisit GST so as to make any increase subject to eliminating these taxes. On the other hand, GST is regressive and therefore affects the poor more, while those state taxes I would think impact more on the better off, especially land tax and stamp duty.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 9:17am:

For Bam: •Abolish concessional rate of capital gains tax. •Abolish stamp duty on property transfers except for the cost of processing the property transfer. •Introduce annual land tax for all properties except land under primary production, such that it raises the same •amount of money overall as the abolished stamp duty. •Reduce payroll tax. Agree with you on the CGT, but stamp duty, land tax and payroll tax are state taxes and are not relevant to the coming budget.

You are correct here. These are state taxes. The discussion did not specifically state that the budget measures had to be in the Federal budget.


Quote:

Except that it would be a good idea to revisit GST so as to make any increase subject to eliminating these taxes. On the other hand, GST is regressive and therefore affects the poor more, while those state taxes I would think impact more on the better off, especially land tax and stamp duty.

Let's include GST in this discussion in conjunction with these state taxes, and take a holistic approach. Here's what we can do.

Increase the GST to 15%. = More money for the states (especially Western Australia and Victoria, the two states that subsidise the others the most).
Reduce payroll tax or abolish it (depending on whether it is affordable). This is paid for by the GST revenue.
Raise the tax free threshold to $32,000. Next tier is 30% to $80,000. Needed to balance the increase in the GST.
Increase all income support payments. Needed to balance the increase in the GST.

Reduce stamp duty on real estate property transfers to a more reasonable $250 + 0.1% of the value of the property over $250,000. = saving of 95% or more.
Introduce land tax (primary production being exempt) at a rate that replaces the revenue lost as a result of the abolition of stamp duty. These two measures must be implemented together. Doing this broadens the tax base and provides increased stability for state budgets.

Was land tax already abolished? I can't remember but I thought it still existed.
Raising the tax threshold doesn't help those people - pensioners, unemployed, casual workers -  who don't pay tax, but who will suffer the increase in GST, especially if it's put on food and medical expenses.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 10:49am:

Was land tax already abolished? I can't remember but I thought it still existed. Raising the tax threshold doesn't help those people - pensioners, unemployed, casual workers -  who don't pay tax, but who will suffer the increase in GST, especially if it's put on food and medical expenses.

That's why I also mentioned raising income support payments.

The effect of increasing the tax free threshold is more subtle. If anyone is receiving income support and earning some employment income on the side, the extra income causes income support to be reduced by up to 60 cents for each dollar earned. When this is reducing income while 19 cents in the dollar tax is also paid, the net effect is an effective tax rate of 67.6 cents in the dollar (ignoring the Medicare levy) - leaving 32.4 cents in the dollar. If the tax free threshold is increased, it increases the available income from employment from 32.4 cents in the dollar to 40 cents in the dollar.

Bam wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 9:17am:

Grendel wrote on Apr 3rd, 2014 at 8:52am: Bam wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:36pm: Grendel wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:14pm: I may be wrong but didn't Paul Keating try to abolish negative gearing and didn't it have worse effects on housing etc, than when it was left in tact? Keating did abolish negative gearing but brought it back after the bleating of the housing lobby. Bringing it back was a mistake. I don't recall it was a mistake...  and I'd trust Keating's judgement over yours. I have every right to point out that Keating made a policy error here. If you don't like it that's your problem.   Never said you didn't.  Doesn't mean your original idea here was right though and now you've change it.  ::) Abuse of negative gearing costs the budget $5 billion a year (The Age, 1 May 2013, p.5).  So you say...  many people now don't negatively gear...  it's lazy and unnecessary, but can advantage some for a while. Like I said fiddling with it, did have a big negative impact on the housing market.

Quote:

Increase the GST to 15%. = More money for the states (especially Western Australia and Victoria, the two states that subsidise the others the most).

How soon we've forgotten NSW eh.  ::) ::) ::)