Quote:

The 2014-15 Federal Budget’s widespread cuts to welfare, health, education and foreign aid have drawn sharp criticism from Catholic agencies. The cuts include changes to family benefits, resuming fuel excise increases, a $7 health care co-payment for GP visits and an estimated $7.6 billion decrease in foreign aid funding over the next five years. Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey, announcing his first budget on May 13, told parliament the Government’s economic action strategy was about “spending less on consumption and more on investment so we can keep making decent, compassionate choices in the future”. Australian business welcomed the proposed 1.5 percentage point cut to the company tax rate.  The Business Council of Australia said the budget would “lay the foundations for a stronger future”. St Vincent de Paul Society chief executive Dr John Falzon said the budget contained measures “that rip the guts out of what remains of a fair and egalitarian Australia.  These measures will not help people into jobs but they will force people into deeper poverty,” he said. National Catholic Education Commission executive director Ross Fox welcomed funding certainty contained in the budget through to the end of the 2017 school year.  “However, based on recent experience, the school funding assumptions contained in the Federal Budget for 2018 and beyond will not meet the needs of schools and students,” he said. Queensland Catholic Education Commission executive director Mike Byrne said the Catholic sector had serious concerns about the decision to use the Consumer Price Index as the basis for school funding indexation after 2017. Catholic Health Australia chief executive officer Martin Laverty said ongoing monitoring of the new $7 health care co-payments for GP visits, pathology and diagnostic imaging would be needed to avoid a drop in health care outcomes.  “Those with capacity to contribute to their health care costs should do so,” he said.  “Those less able to contribute must be guaranteed high-quality access to health care when needed, with the support of a robust, publicly funded social safety net.” Caritas Australia chief executive officer Paul O’Callahan said the Federal Government’s decision last year to cut $4 billion from the aid budget followed up by additional cuts “is a reminder the Government sees no political cost in using the aid program as the principal source of cost saving.  Twenty per cent of savings in this budget are from aid spending,” he said. Reforms to the pension have been delayed until the next parliamentary term, to keep Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s election promise of no change to pensions. Labor said the 2014-15 Federal Budget broke election promises by introducing co-payments on GP visits and pathology services, resuming fuel excise increases and “tinkering with assistance payments”. Tens of thousands of protesters angered by the announced budget cuts to Government services – including health and education – gathered in Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Hobart as part of the nationwide March in May rallies on May 18.  In Sydney, the crowd was estimated at up to 10,000 people.  In Brisbane, hundreds attended a rally in Queens Park in the CBD. Meanwhile, polling has found more than 60 per cent of Australians do not believe the budget is fair. The question on the fairness of the budget has been asked about eight budgets since 1996. This is the first time a majority have said it was unfair.

http://catholicleader.com.au/news/budget-dismay

"Effective 1 July 2014,the Dependant Spouse Tax Offset(DSTO) and the Mature Age Workers Tax Offset(MAWTO will be abolished"

Nasty Ba*stards!

Quote:

This is the first time a majority have said it was unfair.

Looks like everyone (for once) has to pitch in to pay off the money Labor irresponsibly peed up the wall.

You Truebelievers should be happy with that.  Everyone 'collectively' contributing to the welfare of the State?

It's smoke and mirrors though. It's still acutely skewed to the one in five that pay net tax to do the hard yards to pay off debt...

That's life in an Ochlocracy.

Quote:

It's smoke and mirrors though. It's now acutely skewed so that the needy do the hard yards to pay off debt...

Error corrected......

Frances wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 9:46am:

Quote: It's smoke and mirrors though. It's now acutely skewed so that the needy do the hard yards to pay off debt... Error corrected......

Good use of smoke and mirrors Fran, but regardless it is still one in five that pay net tax.

That tax burden is going to stretch to around one in ten in twenty years.

Those paying 30% marginal tax today will be paying 60% in 20 years just to maintain the status quo.  :(

Bit akin to having one income and both your in-laws retire and move into your household and not contribute.

Your income declines by 50% and your expenses double... :o

From Clive Palmer's Twitter page.

Liberal voters deserting @tonyabbottmhr. @PalmerUtdParty receiving many new memberships from ex- Lib voters angry about budget #auspol

I wonder will Clive take to twitter when it all comes crashing down around him.
Watch for it.

Swagman wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 9:37am:

Quote: This is the first time a majority have said it was unfair. Looks like everyone for once has to pitch in to pay off the money Labor irresponsibly peed up the wall. You Truebelievers should be happy with that.  Everyone 'collectively' contributing to the welfare of the State? It's smoke and mirrors though. It's still acutely skewed to the one in five that pay net tax to do the hard yards to pay off debt... That's life in an Ochlocracy.

That is not quite correct, as everyone is not carry their fair share of the load & I re-post the following, as it is relevant!


perceptions_now wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 11:19am:

stryder wrote on May 21st, 2014 at 11:30pm: If you have noticed the negative reaction to this so called tough budget, anymore than that would produce anarchy  now i believe it didnt go far enough in terms of cutting to spending, in fact it was redistribution of spending and some trimming to many government departments to programs, but just the small cuts themselves and extra taxes that was pledged not to come in has put abbott in a bit of a hole at the moment but i believe his policy is right on reform of the entitlement culture Unfortunately Stryder, you are doing what many Liberal/Labor supporters do, you are only looking at issues from the one perspective, which is from the perspective of the Political Party you support. That mono perspective is part of the problem and it will certainly make finding solutions much more difficult, for what are actually a once in history set of problems! For the record, I repeat again, this is not a matter of Labor is right and Liberal are wrong, in fact both are at fault. We need a total review, but fair, with all sectors bearing their fair share of the load. That is not happening at present, it didn't happen under Labor past and I strongly suspect it won't happen under Labor future!

In addition, more can be found at -
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377342710

perceptions_now wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 12:20pm:

That is not quite correct, as everyone is not carry their fair share of the load & I re-post the following, as it is relevant!

You bet your Rs that 'everyone is not carry[ing] their fair share of the load'

1. If 10 people collectively owe $10 to another party and they all payback $1 to repay the debt.  That is fair.

2. If the same 10 people collectively owe $10 to another party and 2 people pay $5 and the rest pay zero that is clearly unfair. 

Our 'Democracy' is represented by point 2

In our 'democracy' the 8 people have the majority, so they can force the 2 people to pay more because they rule the Govt.  This is not democracy but ochlocracy. (Rule by Mob)

The mob thinks it's fair to force the minority to pay their way when in reality it is clearly unfair on the 2 payers.

:(

Swagman wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 1:21pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 12:20pm: That is not quite correct, as everyone is not carry their fair share of the load & I re-post the following, as it is relevant! You bet your Rs that 'everyone is not carry[ing] their fair share of the load' 1 2. If the same 10 people collectively owe $10 to another party and 2 people pay $5 and the rest pay zero that is clearly unfair.  Our 'Democracy' is represented by point 2 . If 10 people collectively owe $10 to another party and they all payback $1 to repay the debt.  That is fair. In our 'democracy' the 8 people have the majority, so they can force the 2 people to pay more because they rule the Govt.  This is not democracy but ochlocracy. (Rule by Mob) The mob thinks it's fair to force the minority to pay their way when in reality it is clearly unfair on the 2 payers. :(

but that is not how govt. works now it it  .... We don't collectively owe anything, the govt. is a seperate entity in and off itself.

Just like a shareholder cannot be held responsible for the debts of a company, the citizens of a country cannot be held responsible for the debts of the government.

Swagman wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 9:37am:

Quote: This is the first time a majority have said it was unfair. Looks like everyone (for once) has to pitch in to pay off the money Labor irresponsibly peed up the wall. You Truebelievers should be happy with that.  Everyone 'collectively' contributing to the welfare of the State? It's smoke and mirrors though. It's still acutely skewed to the one in five that pay net tax to do the hard yards to pay off debt... That's life in an Ochlocracy.

This is Hockey's budget brought down by a self described " no blame" government.

The conga line, of course, follows very different rules.

;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Swagman wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 1:21pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 12:20pm: That is not quite correct, as everyone is not carry their fair share of the load & I re-post the following, as it is relevant! You bet your Rs that 'everyone is not carry[ing] their fair share of the load' 1. If 10 people collectively owe $10 to another party and they all payback $1 to repay the debt.  That is fair. 2. If the same 10 people collectively owe $10 to another party and 2 people pay $5 and the rest pay zero that is clearly unfair.  Our 'Democracy' is represented by point 2 In our 'democracy' the 8 people have the majority, so they can force the 2 people to pay more because they rule the Govt.  This is not democracy but ochlocracy. (Rule by Mob) The mob thinks it's fair to force the minority to pay their way when in reality it is clearly unfair on the 2 payers. :(

So the fact I paid taxes all life to support government commitments count for naught huh?

The fact that my taxes not only covered my parents pension but substantially more counts for naught?

The fact that previous governments made no provision for future commitments count for naught.

Previous governments spent the tax they received in their 3-4 year cycle.  They never 'saved' for payment of the pension in the future, and so my hard earned was used towards the current pension bill.

So why can't I expect to get some back now that I am retired?

Swagman wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 1:21pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 12:20pm: That is not quite correct, as everyone is not carry their fair share of the load & I re-post the following, as it is relevant! You bet your Rs that 'everyone is not carry[ing] their fair share of the load'

You're right - after the "levy" expires, the top 20% will be contributing NOTHING to budget repair, while everyone else will be carrying the can for the past largesse on the wealthy. See: Poorest families pay most in budget

The top quintile are contributing only half - in raw dollars - towards the budget repair when compared to the bottom quintile. The top quintile will contribute a minuscule 0.2% of their incomes, while the bottom 20% lose 2.2% of their incomes.


Quote:

1. If 10 people collectively owe $10 to another party and they all payback $1 to repay the debt.  That is fair. 2. If the same 10 people collectively owe $10 to another party and 2 people pay $5 and the rest pay zero that is clearly unfair. Our 'Democracy' is represented by point 2 In our 'democracy' the 8 people have the majority, so they can force the 2 people to pay more because they rule the Govt.  This is not democracy but ochlocracy. (Rule by Mob) The mob thinks it's fair to force the minority to pay their way when in reality it is clearly unfair on the 2 payers.

Tell the whole story.

If ten people each get paid $10, that is fair.

If two people get paid $40 each and eight get $2.50, that is clearly unfair.

This is yet another of your troll posts that either (1) whinge about "net tax" without a shred of proof, or (2) demands to cut people's take home pay by abolishing penalty rates etc. If you want people to pay equal taxes yet demand they not have the means to do so, how will they afford the necessities of life?

If your dystopian ideals came to pass, it will end badly.

Swagman wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 9:37am:

Quote: This is the first time a majority have said it was unfair. Looks like everyone (for once) has to pitch in to pay off the money Labor irresponsibly peed up the wall. You Truebelievers should be happy with that.  Everyone 'collectively' contributing to the welfare of the State? It's smoke and mirrors though. It's still acutely skewed to the one in five that pay net tax to do the hard yards to pay off debt... That's life in an Ochlocracy.

Actually, we are still paying for the money, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax revenue, pissed up against the wall by Howard & Costello.

Good article on it here.

bam

Quote:

demands to cut people's take home pay by abolishing penalty rates etc

Penalty rates are the single biggest source of income to improve the lot of a casual worker - I know, I was one for several years.

The increase in income also meant (for me) that I didn't qualify for any partial newstart allowance.

The increase in income meant I was paying income tax.

The increase in income meant I was prepared to work in the kitchen on Christmas Day so that families could have a hassle free day (for $120  each for lunch x 180 people) the penalty rates were well and truly covered - of course, Christmas with my family was the sacrifice.  Sounds fair to me.

Bam wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 1:46pm:

This is yet another of your troll posts that either (1) whinge about "net tax" without a shred of proof, or (2) demands to cut people's take home pay by abolishing penalty rates etc. If you want people to pay equal taxes yet demand they not have the means to do so, how will they afford the necessities of life?

The whole "net tax" bollocks comes from an opinion article which does a horrible job at fudging the figure. 

The biggest blatant error is that the data simply judged income tax against benefits, without taking into consideration a whole bunch of other taxes which literally everybody pays and can't avoid.

Smoke and mirrors indeed.

Stratos wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 2:06pm:

Bam wrote on May 22nd, 2014 at 1:46pm: This is yet another of your troll posts that either (1) whinge about "net tax" without a shred of proof, or (2) demands to cut people's take home pay by abolishing penalty rates etc. If you want people to pay equal taxes yet demand they not have the means to do so, how will they afford the necessities of life? The whole "net tax" bollocks comes from an opinion article which does a horrible job at fudging the figure.  The biggest blatant error is that the data simply judged income tax against benefits, without taking into consideration a whole bunch of other taxes which literally everybody pays and can't avoid. Smoke and mirrors indeed.

I know my smokes are taxed but I didn't know about my mirrors  :(

I'd smash all my mirrors but I wouldn't want 7 years bad luck of Abbott still being there :)

Not included in Joes Budget is his $2 Million payment for Tony Shepherd to write the Budget for him. Not included in Joes Budget is the good wicket he's on, paid to be Treasurer and write a Budget, but only needs to smoke cigars while Tony Shepherd does it for him. Joe's joke and its a beauty!

Vic wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 8:52am:

"Effective 1 July 2014,the Dependant Spouse Tax Offset(DSTO) and the Mature Age Workers Tax Offset(MAWTO will be abolished" Nasty Ba*stards!

Very nasty - we olde bustards have carried the can for every dog damned 'social revolution' and every dumbass policy all our lives and many have suffered for it - with zero chance to set up for retirement due to paying the way of all this stupidity.

The MAWTO is/was supposed to offer a chance to those old buggars willing to work on to get a few bucks....

Obviously not to ToJo and The Toecutters...

The poorest 20 per cent of Australian families will pay $1.1 billion more into government coffers than the richest households as a result of the budget, highlighting the huge inequity in the government's four-year blueprint for fiscal repair.
New analysis from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling has underlined how heavily the burden of budget consolidation has fallen on those less well-off, especially if they have school-age children.
NATSEM divides the community into five segments or quintiles, each with a little over 2.5 million families. It finds the poorest 20 per cent - those with $35,000 or less in disposable annual income - will forgo $2.9 billion over four years thanks to changes to family benefits, pensions and other payments.
By contrast, the wealthiest 20 per cent of households - earning $88,000 or more after tax and benefits - will suffer a $1.78 billion hit, some 40 per cent less than the lowest income families.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/natsem-analysis-confirms-the-burden-of-the-budget-will-fall-most-heavily-on-the-poorest-families-20140521-38p4i.html#ixzz32QLMa6Yw

I believe the following tables are the ones Joe left out of the Budget Papers.

---