i am thankful i have had my previous beautiful children already, so i could get paid for them.

i feel sorry for future parents having to miss out on nice tvs.

how much do you get as a student these days from centrelink? i remember it use to be f*** all

$400 a fortnight. ~$530 with rent assistance.

Good news for people who work part time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-14/budget-2013-winners-and-losers/4689252

$300 million to support jobseekers, including allowing Newstart recipients to earn more from paid work – up to $100 a fortnight from the current $62 a fortnight, and indexed from July 2015

how much do you get as a student these days from centrelink? i remember it use to be f*** all

It's still f*** all. It's below the poverty line, that's for sure. For me, including rent assistance, it's like $485. It's barely enough to survive on. Being in my mid 20s, with only experience in s***** farming or factory jobs and not previous qualifications I'm having an incredibly difficult time finding work in the suburbs (north-east melb).

I wish the payments were higher, it's not much fun to live on.

the way centrelink works for students is completely retarded. it isn't realistic that you can live on $500 a fortnight without part time work but then if you earn more than $100 a fortnight it deducts from centrelink rendering the whole point useless. your option is to either survive right on the edge on that amount or work fulltime. the middle ground doesnt work whatsoever. not saying you shouldnt be able to work fulltime and study fulltime but why even give you the option if it doesnt encourage either scenario particularly well. the only people it really helps are those that can get the $500 a fortnight while also being supported by parents or someone else which, if you are in that situation, isn't really the people that need centrelink the most.

My roommate has the same problem, can barely live on what he gets after paying bills but luckily sharing a house with three others cuts the rent down a hefty amount. He had to actually dip into that yearly loan payment that they offer because his computer blew and desperately needed a working one for his Engineering degree.

I remember when I was on Youth Allowance it was just enough and I had to cut back on a fair few things like social life to actually live and study. Getting a job was actually rough like reload said, just because I had to actually decline hours because it would affect my pay and make it worse.

Obviously though if you are working a job that is giving you more than $500 a fortnight and studying you should be sweet, which is kind of the idea. Start on Youth Allowance and then work your way to a stable job that pays more.

good luck finding a house within 20minutes drive of the city for under 500 a week...

i share with 2 others, so rent is 600 a week.. which is completely normal and on the cheap side for my area. especially with a pool.

rent, loan and food would b in excess of 1000 a fornight for myself :/ cant really justify to myself that going back to uni would be beneficial when it will be difficult as f*** to make that + do uni

it isn't realistic that you can live on $500 a fortnight without part time work but then if you earn more than $100 a fortnight it deducts from centrelink

Really?

Looking at Youth Allowance for a Full time Student who is needs to live away from home to do their studies:

Payment is $407.50 per fortnight.
You can earn up to $405 pre-tax per fortnight before payment is affected.

So a student can have a total income of $812.50, after that their Centrelink payment is reduced 50c per extra $1 over 405, then 60c per $1 over $486.

For Austudy it is similar, you can earn up to $400 per fortnight before it affects your $407.50 payment.

Facts yo.

good luck finding a house within 20minutes drive of the city for under 500 a week...

i share with 2 others, so rent is 600 a week.. which is completely normal and on the cheap side for my area. especially with a pool.

rent, loan and food would b in excess of 1000 a fornight for myself :/ cant really justify to myself that going back to uni would be beneficial when it will be difficult as f*** to make that + do uni

My place is literally a minute from Taringa station, and we pay $480 week. Four rooms, water included and we pay elec/gas. It isn't that hard.

Yeah, they want to encourage uni as an option, but make it hard as f*** to survive. I have a feeling it's going to get worse with these cuts. Last years state cuts was devastating to my university and my gfs. It's caused 2 campuses to shut for me, my gfs uni lost a tonne of staff (her teachers this year commented on the fact that now it takes longer to mark because of lack of staff and the teachers load has increased), and reduced support for students at the campuses.

Tafe in my old hometown was gutted too, and for a lot of people in that area Tafe is a great way to get some skills under their belt to secure decent employment.

Houses in QLD are expensive. I'm in a 3BR two storey place that's like 20~mins from melb and only pay 350 a week (split 3 ways).

When was higher ed not just as important as primary and secondary?

If this is a serious question then they really need to work on primary and secondary education more. Education works from the ground up, if your early education was poor you won't have much chance later on.

I'd like to see them be more elegant with funding cuts to tertiary education, my sister for example is doing a degree in fine arts which IMO is a huge drain on tax payer dollars and is taking away funding from courses that will actually result in jobs. I get that having those sort of courses available is important but I don't think they should be given the same level of benefit as a skill based course that will result in a higher chance of employment.

Also, isn't a part of this budget making it easier for people to earn money while on centerlink? Dunno why people are complaining about something they are fixing.

If this is a serious question then they really need to work on primary and secondary education more. Education works from the ground up, if your early education was poor you won't have much chance later on.

I understand this, but for a government that is so pro education, it just seems strange that they would cut funding for something like higher ed too. I guess as a uni student I see higher ed funding as more important to me. :P

Question is, what would a Liberal government do to help get the budget in surplus? Would they continue these cuts to Youth Allowance and AusStudy?

That's the million dollar question. Probably just blame Labor for everything and claim there are no boat people. Being in a deficit isn't that bad anyway, it'll stimulate growth.

The current plan doesn't take too much directly away from the universities.

It averages out to be around $50 million, supposedly in 2 one off levies of 2% and 1.5% of something or other.

The rest of the 'cuts to universities' is really just removing fee discounts for paying up front, converting a bunch of scholarships into loans and tax removals.


So it isn't really that bad to the Uni bottom line.

The State Government removal of funding was worse though, as they took it after promises where made and money spent....

How did Treasury sign off less than 6 months ago on the Budget moving into Surplus ?

I find it completely staggering that they could be so wrong.


http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/19b.png

There wasn't a thread for this, so what does everyone think of the budget?ABC has a good interactive map about where the funding is going.As a uni student I feel we got shafted and don't understand the push for education reform/funding yet cutting uni funding. When was higher ed not just as important as primary and secondary? State cuts last year from the Vic Liberal gov has seen the closure of two of my universities campuses, which is sad.Other than that, not much effects me. I still get my Obama fun bux and $1000 student grant at the start of each semester (which now gets added to HECS).

No point in having uni if the foundation of education is s***house

breeders are still going to breed regardless

basically this

so long bogan bonus

I've never needed to live on 1k a fortnight, even when I rented my own apartment. For a student to be saying they need to (rather than choose to) is not a very good argument for calling the student payments tiny... You don't need a pool, or car, or furniture which you can't afford to house, you're just choosing to live way beyond your means.

You need a car if you live in places with sub-par public transport.

St Lucia and suburbs around it have good public transport and looking at realestate.com I see many share accommodation for about $150-200/week. It has excellent transport to the city and nearby uni's (UQ and QUT at least).
As such, if you go to either of those uni's and are paying more than $200/week in rent perhaps it is time to think about moving.

I don't have any loans beyond HECS, I don't let myself go near what I can't guarantee that I can afford. If you can afford it then it's fine, I'm just criticizing the idea that the student payments aren't quite a bit because they don't pay for your way-beyond-required choices.

I don't get any of the f*****g bonuses, baby bonus, fhog, that building grant thing. One day in like 50 years I will get a good lawyer and sue the government for all the unfair s*** other people got that I never got.

Wont somebody think of the TVs ?

There goes JB HI FI's Shares.

But up over 100% since June last year..

I find it completely staggering that they could be so wrong.

...and if it was treasury who were advising your pet Liberal party what would you be saying?

"Gee they did a great job getting their estimate within $20bn"

Edit: I have been amused by the peanut gallery today with "this disastrous government" but not much more. It's fine to say Labor have screwed up but unless you can actually suggest that there's an alternative choice with sensible policy already detailed for scrutiny, you should probably stay quiet.

Edit #2: Budget deficit figures for other countries. US - 642 billion USD. UK - 120 billion pounds. Germany - 17 billion euro's.

Budget deficit figures for other countries. US - 642 billion USD. UK - 120 billion pounds. Germany - 17 billion euro's.

Australia Total Debt: 4.5 Trillion dollars.
Australia GDP: 1.4 trillion dollars.

America Total debt: 16.8 Trillion dollars
America GDP: 14.9 Trillion dollars.

Have a think about posting some relative figures. Like, what's the total budget for the US UK and Germany versus the deficit. Because if your point is "at least we're not as bad as them!" it's not exactly completely true..

America Total debt: 16.8 Trillion dollars
America GDP: 14.9 Trillion dollars.

Where do those numbers come from?

Don't click above image.

Treasurer Swan says we face second largest revenue write-down since the Great Depression

Where do those numbers come from?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Actually looking at it again i looked at the debt clock wrong *blush*

should be 59.5 trillion! lol. quite wrong.

Australia Total Debt: 4.5 Trillion dollars.

Where the hell did you get that figure? A quick peek over at the Australian Debt Clock shows our national debt at 457 billion.

Private debt, household debt, business debt etc is not a consideration of national debt.

I'm trying to point out that right now, other than China and maybe a few smaller economies the rest of the world is in an economic downturn like no other except probably the great depression.

Should the Liberals enter into power after the federal election this year they're really going to get a taste of what Labor have had to deal with since the GFC in 2007. There's no public assets left to sell off to balance the books. It's going to take real economic management skills from here on in.

Cut too deep and we risk going into a (triple dip) recession (like the UK) or riots in the streets (like Greece) because already it seems that austerity just isn't working.

I've been trying to point out to a lot of people that returning the budget to a surplus (while important) isn't a priority when your economy isn't immune to the same issues that a lot of European economies are having to deal with and that there's also a lot of important reform on the table (think NBN, Gonski, Disability Care, the Carbon Tax etc) which could potentially deliver a strong economic return through investment into green tech, better education outcomes, better assistance for the disabled which could even return them to work, a fibre network bringing us into line with the world leading countries in telecommunications etc.

I've even been fair in saying that should we have a Liberal government that I hope they'll review these policies on their merit in the hope that they can be even further improved and that the implementation (not the management) does not change for the worse.

So far, I've been disappointed by narrow minded individuals who find it easy to ride the MSM bandwagon, not think for themselves, and are seemingly happy with the idea of handing a political faction unbridled power at the next election.

Sure i could sell all my s*** and live in a shoe box off maggie noodles... but who the f*** wants to do that.

yeah so thats the government's problem and Newstart should be increased... nahhhh

In the last 12 months the Welfare bill has gone up $8b.

unemployment insurance in Denmark (oh that bastion of socialist paradise) lasts for 2 years. We should limit unemployment payments to 2 years for starts and tighten up heavily on the disability entitlement - anyone who can work should work. Welfare is the big bill on our budget and it is the big problem with Australia. Everyone has their hand out.

2 year unemployment benefit
Stricter tests on disability
Scrap family tax benefit A and B
Scrap baby bonus
Scrap paid maternity leave
Small Co-payments for all public health services
Contestability on all public health services as a condition off state funding (screw state funding down)
Scrap Gonski
Take Superannuation laws back to pre-Rudd (Max $100,000 employer contribution per year).
Return to Temporary Protection Visas
Scrap 0.5 increase on medicare levy
Scrap Carbon Tax
Scrap Mining Tax
Scrap First Home Owner's Grant
Offload 12,000 public servants (mostly the fat cats earning more than $135,000)
Retain NDIS

We would be in surplus to the tune of $20b, we could all have a tax cut and be living free of refugees sucking on the government tit, and still have some money spare each year to pay back Labor's debt.

We would return to an era of personal responsibility, where people are encouraged to try harder and not have to think about what government benefits they may be missing out on by going for that promotion.

it's so simple! It's just the neither party has the guts to stop handing out the free money to everyone with their hand out.

Treasurer Swan says we face second largest revenue write-down since the Great Depression

So why is revenue up 7.5% from last year?

thank god no one of infi's ilk could ever be elected to anything relating to a position of power in this country.

its so easy when you get handed everything on a plate bro (parents/liberal politicians etc)

you are so out of touch with how tough some people do it

Spook, you do realize that 20 years ago we had none of the social programs or taxes on the list I just mentioned? Unemployment rules must be good for us if they are good for Denmark.

that has been the growth of our socialist state under Howard and now Rudd and Gillard. It seems each successive government wants us to become more reliant on government hand outs. I know you sure do enjoy them...

I fully accept that and am highly critical of it.

people need a hand bro.

C'mon, Spook.

I don't think anyone in this thread would argue that there is no role for government to provide assistance to the needy, the disagreements arise when trying to define who meets this criterion.

Infi obviously believes there is a role for government to do this otherwise he wouldn't support the NDIS (note you can support a policy without supporting the underlying funding arrangements).

So the real question is where would you draw the line. Infi has staked out his position. You might not agree with it but I don't see you offering any alternative policy suggestions.

For example, would you say a family with one child and a single bread-winner who earns $145,000 per year needs monetary assistance from the government to help raise their kids?

We should include this rule in monopoly. First and second place must give 30% of their income to third and fourth place.

I know you're making a flippant analogy, but it was odd compared to the previous statements.
House rules like that tend to prolong a game of Monopoly disproportionately because it becomes harder for the winner to emerge and crush their opponents. That's bad in the game context (because you want an outcome) but good in a social context.

I'd hate for society to resemble a game of Monopoly any more than it already does. Is that last statement an inadvertent argument of wealth redistribution in favour of economic and social sustainability? :)

That is private property Nerfy which people can do what they wish with. Now I know Nerfy is a private property champion who is for some reason obsessed with death duties and wiping the slate clean for each successive generation so I don't know how he reconciles those two. Taxation is the forced redistribution of wealth. There is absolutely no comparison. So why should the government be in business of taking what people have earned and giving it to people who have not earned it?

I thought government was for building roads and hospitals doing community stuff, and taxes are needed for that. Now the taxes are being used to dole that money back out to other people. People who already have jobs and are not on the bones of their arse. People who don't need the money but have been judged as "more deserving" of the money than the original earner of the money.

it's amazing how capitalism is considered a philosophy of greed, when socialism is far more greed oriented. It's all about the individuals asking how much unearned money they can get from their government. Everyone competing to get a bit of someone else's money not by trade but by government intervention.

So you confirm that when you say "Why do they get money they did not earn?" you don't actually mean that you have a problem with people getting money which they didn't earn, it just sounded nice at the time?

I think, and you probably know, he means "Why do they get money they did not earn?" outside context of gifts and charity.

I don't think he is querying why his Mum gave him 20$ for his birthday back when he was 12, for example. Likewise once you have earned (and paid tax) or built/made something, why shouldn't you be able to give it to someone without the government asking for another piece of it, be it a family member, a stranger or an organisation/charity.

Huh? There's a difference between the government taking in the form of taxation, and a benefactor bequeathing their property of their own free will. I don't see how being in favour of welfare yet being against middle class welfare is a conflicting position.

He argued his case with "Why do they get money they did not earn?". Charged language which when looked at closely, isn't part of any consistent position. The reality is that he's completely and absolutely fine with people "getting money which they did not earn", that's not really his criticism. He just tried to throw out something which was morally "bad sounding".

For someone so fond of accusing others of having poor reading comprehension or deliberately misinterpreting your comments I'd be wary of declaring what someone else "really meant" by their remarks.

I was right about him not meaning what he said at least, he defended people getting money for free when I pressed him on it in a different context, so his argument isn't really that "people shouldn't get money which they did not earn", or else he'd be a raging anti-inheritance and anti-unequal-advantage advocate.

Huh? There's a difference between the government taking in the form of taxation, and a benefactor bequeathing their property of their own free will. I don't see how being in favour of welfare yet being against middle class welfare is a conflicting position.

Its not, at all.

In my opinion middle-class welfare is a bad idea, because its just a transfer of money via an inefficient bureaucracy. It should be phased out as much as possible.

I do think that there is genuine need in the community though, and that the wealthiest should bear the lion's share of the burden for the poorest's welfare. Because people are c**** this must be obligatory. No person is an island and those who have done well should give back and I'd vehemently argue against reduction of progressive taxation.

One of the best things that the current Government has done is raise the tax-free threshold imo. Much better to relieve the tax burden of the poor than inefficiently redistribute wealth via dopey allowances and rebates.

Also is it just me or do lots of posts of Nerfy's turn the topic back to inheritance hatred? Rather than steering topics onto this why not create a dedicated thread on the subject Nerf?

I was right about him not meaning what he said at least, he defended people getting money for free when I pressed him on it in a different context, so his argument isn't really that "people shouldn't get money which they did not earn", or else he'd be a raging anti-inheritance and anti-unequal-advantage advocate.

Given that the exchange took place within the context of a discussion about middle-class welfare I thought it was pretty obvious that he wasn't referring to any and every instance where people receive something they didn't earn like gifts or winning the genetic lottery.

Its not, at all.

???

It's mostly because infi keeps going on about people not earning the money they get.

Yep, just calling out these people's double standards. Infi will passionately defend people getting money they didn't earn in one instance, then hold it up as a giant moral boogyman in another. I hope that it dawns on him after he got himself into the position by using the literal words "Why do they get money they did not earn?" - he could be a soviet revolutionary through and through and use the exact same sentence.

what a hypocritical c***bag for assuming people could apply context to a statement~!

entitled douchebaggery aside, there's a an obvious difference between public money and your parent's money. unless you're a ward of the state that is.

Being in favour of welfare yet being against middle-class welfare is not a conflicting position to take? Is this a quadruple negative problem or am I not missing nothing? :)

Oh, I thought you were referring the the preceding sentence (which upon rereading wouldn't really make much sense anyway).

My mistake.

tl;dr
i'm going to assume it says, 'of course! this should be an implicit truth but autists such as nerfy like to nitpick every single word rather than garner the meaning behind them.'

earned means the money came from the payer's hand to the payee's hand via a consensual relationship.

Huh? You said earned, then defined given, which is what you were raging against in the first place. Can't believe the mental acrobats you'll go to to avoid admitting that your moral-outrage is only applied when it suits your ideology, and has no consistency.

Not to mention that being part of a nation with payee rules and returns is a largely consensual relationship, which the population has control over in a democracy (you keep throwing around the word 'government' as if we live in the age of priests proclaiming that monarchs were ordained by god, as if it's not now a communal business).

IMAGINE GETTING ANOTHER PAYMENT OF FREE MONEY FOR JUST EXISTING. Free money i.e. unearned

Such a Soviet thing to say. :P Fight the Bourgeoisie leeches etc.

Naturally that rage doesn't extends to 'payments just for existing' when born to the right heritage. Whether or not 'free stuff' will make people lazy (rather than say motivate them with a taste of money) for some reason doesn't apply to things such as inheritance of money and family jobs.

Anyway. The actual unemployed and ill component of the government's spending is about 2% of the budget, about half of which comes from income tax. Let's say that we rule out all the ill, transitional, etc, cases, and say that half of them are so scummy that they'd exploit the system to get a pretty rubbish free ride. That's like 0.5% of somebody's income tax (not of income, but as a percentage of tax paid) which keeps those people from probably becoming a pretty dangerous element in society, and comes with all the benefits that having transitional unemployment financial protection brings.

But you've got your head stuck so far up the right wing ideology ass that you've convinced yourself that everybody who isn't wealthy is just lazy and out to suck money from people, instead of desperately hoping to move up and likely fighting a battle with much less advantage than others.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with the baby bonus and so on, though they could perhaps be seen as a targeted investment/tax return.

Are you able to comprehend that what private people do with their money is their free choice?

That's not what you were raging about though, you were raging about "people getting money they didn't earn", inevitably becoming lazy, etc.

The issue in public policy debate here is the entitlement of individuals to money forcibly taken from other individuals by the State.

You mean paying the membership fees for living in a fantastic country? Honestly, why don't you just emigrate to Somalia or somewhere if you're so upset that maybe half a percent of people's income taxes might be going to the transitionally employed or intentionally unemployed?

who earned it fair and square

There is pretty much no such thing in reality. You getting a job at your dad's company isn't "fair and square", I don't get why you of all people go on about this. It's not possible and is like somebody talking about Santa or fairies.

Do you think people who are already employed with their sitiuation in life are entitled to expect a slice of the action from their neighbour just cos he is doing better for himself?

I think that a country should be run pragmatically, not on some hypocritical inconsistent ideological froth.

This guy is full retard. Forget it.

do you legitimately believe there is no difference between receiving the dole and infi getting a job at the family business? I know you're deliberately obtuse but f*****g seriously?

His raging was about how people getting money/things that they didn't earn would make them lazy etc, and the immorality of it if they didn't earn it themselves. For some reason the rules of the universe change if you call that "private" (a legal term, doesn't actually change what he predicts should happen if people get given money).

You guys keep hoping that he's saying something that he's not.

I think it is pretty obvious what infi means. He is saying that the government taxing people/companies then giving that money to people who don't really need it instill a level non-productivity in a section of society who come to rely on receiving this money instead of looking to fund their own lifestyle assistance free.


Now what you both should be debating is who really needs the money. At what point do you make the cut off where someone is just milking the system, or they truly do need the assistance?

I enjoy lurk reading through these infi / Nerfy exchanges. I think Nerf is one of very few that can give infi a good challenge to his ideals. I've had a good friend like infi, and at times he's proven time and time again to be one of the biggest and most miserable a******* I've ever known and will probably ever know.

It's not that he's so self centered as to not give a s*** about anyone other than himself, but you must conform to his ideals of how money works share his general opinion of how scum people that weren't born into it are (he also has rich parents that have bought him his way out of any trouble he's gotten himself into) and who until recently employed him in a high paying role simply because of being family for over a decade.

He has left the country now because he got sick of not getting his way with things even though he earned well above the scums that do not.

But it's ok for him to do these things, because when he comes back if he ever does he might still get a job working for his rich Dad doing whatever it is he's told to do.

I sure don't miss being included as fodder for his vitriolic opinions as circumstances have changed over the years.

Haven't read the thread yet (omg), but why is social security and welfare the largest slice? Bloated wellfare state!?

That whole 'aging population' thing is a real pain.

MEN with strong upper body strength are more likely to vote conservatively while physically weaker males have a greater tendency towards left-leaning views.
And stronger men are more likely to protect their resources while weaker males favour more socialist views such as wealth distribution, researchers claim.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/strong-men-more-likely-to-have-right-wing-views-study-reveals/story-fneuzle5-1226644975491#ixzz2TVaKKYeU

Just a quick point Nerf Lord,

I don't know how long ago you studied but in Melbourne I'm currently getting ~700-800 per month to study. If I live further out I have to spend more on public transport and let me tell you it adds up quickly.

After rent which is about 750 per month leaving 80 or so per week for food, electricity, internet, etc. I live on about 1200 and I don't think there could be a huge saving made.

Meanwhile if I have no job, and am not being educated I get 1400-1600 per month.

I have no problem working and I do but frankly to say that 1000 a month should be more than enough is not super realistic.

As far as students complaining about the money they get, I think its fair. Taking a look at what student assistance actually costs, its about 0.9% of the budget. Meanwhile things that definitely have a large element of middle class welfare take up more like 50% of the budget (age care and baby bonus and families with kiddies, I might add I find incomprehensible that you would have children with out a job).

Couple that with every man and his dog saying "I worked while I was an uni and they are a bunch of layabouts", well y'all can toss my salad.

Are you getting the full rate for allowance/rental assistance Pete? I thought that it was about a grand a month.

On the if you had no job thing, at least from the experience of what I heard from a friend who was trying to get into the field which she spent a decade studying for (and thankfully eventually did), they don't let you just sit at home for long on centrelink, where it ends up with having to go in for something like 30 hours a week to do job applications, which is less fun and lower paying than an actual job. Even when I went on it briefly, it was oddly stressful for how constantly they were harassing me (and they said that I was the lowest risk type of job seeker they get, I was actually just on it to get some address work sorted out and apply for a business grant which annoyingly required me to do that first). It seems that the system is heavily geared towards preventing people from 'just not having a job and claim centrelink', making it half as annoying as a job which would pay better anyway.

There's an interesting quiz and answers here -

http://newmatilda.com/2013/05/17/chin-swanny-its-not-all-bad

It might be worth checking out whether you're getting the maximum rate, you sound like I was early on. For two and a half years after I left home with nothing but a grand and a computer that I'd sunk my highschool business's s***** profits into, I thought that $60 a week was the normal centrelink rate, because that's what I was getting. I signed up to join the air force as a way out in my 3rd year, when centrelink mysteriously called and said that they just realised that I qualified for the full rate, but couldn't backpay etc (not that I cared, it basically saved me from having to drop out of uni over late compulsory union fees of all things, which just got more expensive after I'd forgotten about them).

TL;DR Definitely check it out, I'm fairly sure that it's meant to be something like $390 before rent assistance, which is about $85 (per fortnight). There's also lump sum payments these days I think, start of year expenses etc.

Hope ya have top private health cover if liberal get in.
Say bye bye public hospitals.

Babies are already dying because of Campbell Newman's cuts to health. They won't take it away, but you'd be stupid to rely on it.

I thought the cuts to health were due to the big payroll screw up?

Eorl Stop,

All problems are the result of the current government no matter what. Got it.

Just look at NSW transport problems. After 12 years of rubbish public transport under the last government, the leader of the opposition (who actually wasn't even a politician before the election that saw the majority of his party kicked out) asked why the current government hadn't fixed all the transport problems.

Rightly so i say! Rightly so!

Have a read of some of the Qld government's media releases. Although that is their spin obviously you may wish to also check the sources of their figures which are irrefutable. The Commonwealth government cut funding to Qld (and other states) for health retrospectively by changing the statistical method by which they calculate each state's population (and thus average demand for health care). So what's a state government meant to do? Keep on spending?

Trillion, one day you will have property and wealth of your own and appreciate not having a do-gooder government shaving off bits and pieces for their fancies of the day. I know it feels good getting free money that someone else paid for but how anyone can say that is "fair" is beyond me.

Id like to know how this Disability Scheme is going to be paid for.
Id like both Partys to ...

http://vivavisibilityblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/show-me-the-money.jpg

...as long as we don't do anything idiotic, like rewarding people for pumping out babies, it is a relatively short term problem that will inevitably vanish once the baby-spammed generation die off.

Yeh because a shrinking population (or one propped up with massive migration) poses no problems at all!

Yeh because a shrinking population (or one propped up with massive migration) poses no problems at all!

Last time we hashed out this boring discussion I thought your arguments basically all were around "oh if we don't have a continually larger population they won't be able to support the rest of the population", which even a halfwit like me knows is mathematically unsustainable.

What else is wrong with a shrinking population "propped up" (nice negative term there btw) by careful selective immigration of the best talent the world has to offer (see, I can do it too!)

Increase mining royalties from 4% to 45%. All problems solved and never ever have a deficit.

Pfft, what would that ever accomplish

For those too lazy to click:

The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund is the largest in the world, currently around $660 billion has been siphoned off by 78 per cent tax on revenue, invested in 7,000 companies around the world, including in Australia.

Of course Norway is a socialist hellhole though

By all means increase the royalties tax. Just remember every tax impacts on the viability of a project and each new impost increases the likelihood the project (and jobs) will be shelved. A high royalty environment means a lot if the resources will just stay in the ground.

it's amazing how taxes are seen as something that improves the chances of successful business. How does business get a return on investment when 78% of their revenue is taken in tax.

Labor has not contributed a red cent to the future fund and their solution to extracting more money from miners was an absolute failure. They fail even at taxing, and that's their strongest talent!

edit: a few footnotes for the Fabians because the article trog referenced is misleading. Norway's petroleum sector is dominated by state owned producers so there is limited private investment and High regulation. Furthermore the Norwegian economy is highly dependent on its petroleum revenue so it supplants its budget by petroleum revenue and saves the rest of it. Norway can tax its petroleum producers at high rates BECAUSE THEY ARE STATE OWNED.

Furthermore the Norwegian economy is highly dependent on its petroleum revenue so it supplants its budget by petroleum revenue and saves the rest of it. Norway can tax its petroleum producers at high rates BECAUSE THEY ARE STATE OWNED.

Sounds to me like you are supporting the idea of kicking out the fat cat mining leaches and creating STATE OWNED enterprises to get out the coal so the money stays with the country like it should.

I mean it obviously works in Norway.

I mean it obviously works in Norway.

F*** no, I don't want the state near anything that's not essential services. Like we need more public servants lol. We're just hacking back the current lot.

F*** no, I don't want the state near anything that's not essential services. Like we need more public servants lol. We're just hacking back the current lot.

I tend to agree, but looking at Norway's $600b future fund derived largely from their natural resources, derived largely (?) from their natural resources...

Any mining activities ultimately are going to get seriously smashed by the government, whether it is selling mining rights or taxation or whatever. The only question is by how much - on the capitalist hand I think the government should sell or lease those rights on reasonable terms and take some cut like they do with every business. But on the other hand I like the idea of the mineral wealth of our country being exploited in a way that is ultimately and mostly beneficial to all citizens of the state - so I am not terrified by the idea of massive mining taxes or significantly state-owned mines.

I'm in hospital right now and i've overheard heaps of talk between nurses talking about what they're going to do and s***. It is definitely beyond admin staff etc

Slightly relatedSome researcher reckons we should replace medicare with a superannuation type scheme where you save for your own healthhttp://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/health-costs/4681906seems like there are plot holes but I'll listen to the audio

There are huge plot holes, notably being that nobody but the very rich could save enough to cover treatment for s*** like cancer.

Medicare is fine, leave it the f*** alone imo.

Does a 20+ year retirement cost more than cancer treatment? Just sayin'

Retirement comes at the end of your life. Cancer isn't so considerate.

How would mav have paid for his treatment? Kids with leukaemia? My MS treatment would already have exhausted my super savings 3x over, and I'm still working.

Just sayin.

1. Only seven of the 34 OECD countries (wealthy, developed democracies) have triple A credit rating and positive outlooks with all three major credit rating agencies.

They are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

Only one has the distinction of interest rates in the optimum range between 1.6 per cent and 5 per cent. Only one has government borrowings as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) below 28 per cent. Only one has taxation as a percentage of GDP below 28 per cent. And only one has an economy growing more than 3 per cent per year. The same one.

Which nation?

(a) Canada. Powering ahead.
(b) Switzerland. Alps, clocks and impeccable financial credentials.
(c) Australia. World’s best treasurer?
(d) Norway. Flying under the radar?
(e) None of the above. Impossible during the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

2. Australia’s unemployment level is one of the lowest in the developed world, at less than half the rate in the Euro Area.

It is also one of the most stable – despite global upheavals.

Australia’s jobless rate has fluctuated within the narrow band 4.9 per cent to 5.8 per cent for the last?

(a) 4 months
(b) 14 months
(c) 24 months
(d) 40 months

3. There have been two periods of disastrous "fiscal profligacy" in Australia’s history. That’s according to an International Monetary Fund study by Harvard economist Paolo Mauro and others, published in January.

Those two periods were?

(a) during the Hughes government and the McMahon government
(b) during the Chifley government and the Whitlam government
(c) both during John Howard’s government
(d) during the Whitlam government and the Rudd government

4. According to Barry Jones, Canada fared second best in the world through the global financial crisis. Australia fared best.

On how many of these 20 indicators are Canadians now better placed than Australians?

1. economic growth
2. gross national income per person
3. unemployment
4. debt as a percentage of GDP
5. balance of trade now
6. balance of trade recent history
7. international credit rating
8. income tax rates
9. indirect tax rates
10. interest rates
11. productivity
12. household savings
13. retail sales growth rate
14. superannuation
15. economic freedom
16. government 10 year bond rate
17. value of the local currency relative to other currencies
18. industrial production growth
19. home ownership
20. overall quality of life

(a) only half — 10 of the 20
(b) five
(c) one
(d) none

5. Former treasurer Peter Costello expressed anxiety in April about “a lot of uncertainty at the moment about foreign investment rules and that is creating a lot of worries in the minds of potential investors”.

He said the mining tax and “tinkering with superannuation” were the main cause of that uncertainty.

Since Costello left the job in 2007, has net international investment in Australia?

(a) stayed at the same level at about $615.5 billion
(b) dropped 4.13 per cent to $590 billion
(c) increased 4.13 per cent to $641 billion
(d) increased 41.3 per cent to $870 billion

Bonus point: Just in the last quarter – now the mining tax is in place – was there a $6.2 billion increase or decrease in foreign investment? Yes

6. The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has just released figures on taxation around the world.

Which of the following is true for Australia?

(a) total taxes on wages in Australia are among the lowest in the developed world, with only five small countries taking less
(b) almost all households are paying less in tax now than they were during the Howard government years
(c) the tax cuts introduced by the Rudd Government between 2008 and 2010, along with the Gillard Government’s carbon tax reforms, have lowered average tax rates by 3.6 per cent
(d) the biggest tax breaks have gone to the lowest paid
(e) all of the above

7. The Liberal Party website condemns the Gillard government because Australians are now sourcing products more cheaply overseas, thanks to the high Aussie dollar.

A media release headed "Labor hypocrisy on local content as jobs sent overseas" notes that manufacturing jobs have declined since 2007.

In how many of these 13 sectors – which the release ignores – have job numbers risen since 2007:

1. mining
2. electricity, gas, water and waste services
3. construction
4. wholesale trade
5. accommodation and food services
6. transport, postal and warehousing
7. financial and insurance services
8. professional, scientific and technical services
9. administrative and support services
10. public administration and safety
11. education and training
12. health care and social assistance
13. arts and recreation services

(a) six
(b) eight
(c) 10
(d) all 13

Bonus question (on hypocrisy): Over the 11 years of the Howard government (before the GFC), was there an increase or a decrease in manufacturing jobs?

Durning the Howard years manufacturing jobs decreased.

8. In one devastating assault on the universities in post-war history, an Australian treasurer announced:

1. cuts of 5 per cent of all funding previously budgeted
2. introduction of full fee-paying places for undergraduates
3. compulsory staff redundancies
4. dramatic increases in HECS payments, and
5. reducing the starting salary for repayments to $21,000 a year.

The magnitude of the cuts has not been matched before or since.

The treasurer was:

(a) John Howard
(b) Paul Keating
(c) Peter Costello
(d) Wayne Swan

9. Unemployment in Australia rose during March 2013, but not evenly across the nation.

The increase was significantly greater in two states or territories. Which ones?

(a) Queensland and Victoria
(b) The Northern Territory and the ACT
(c) New South Wales and Queensland
(d) Tasmania and South Australia

10. The Australian newspaper attacked the Gillard Government in April with another scare campaign on government borrowings.

“Australian governments are facing a budget black hole so large that politically painful cuts to growth in public health and education spending are all but unavoidable ...”

Australia’s borrowings today, as a percentage of GDP, are:

(a) three times as high as in the Great Depression
(b) twice as high
(c) the same
(d) half the size
(e) only one third the size

11. Government debt figures for 2012 for most of the world are now available.

How many of these 11 robust, developed economies achieved lower debt (as a percentage of GDP) in 2012 compared with 2011:

Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Taiwan and the United Kingdom:

(a) all 11
(b) six
(c) two
(d) one, Australia

Other countries to do so, not on the list, are Canada, Mexico, and New Zealand

12. Since the Labor Government has managed Australia’s economy, taxes on personal income have dropped to the third lowest among wealthy developed countries.

In other words, of the 34 member nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development only two nations have lower rates of income tax than Australia has now. This includes personal income tax, social security taxes and payroll tax as a per cent of GDP.

Which are the other two countries?

(a) Singapore and Switzerland
(b) Norway and Canada
(c) South Korea and Turkey
(d) The USA and Mexico

We are paying less tax now because of the tax cuts INTRODUCED by Howard. When he lost in 2007 they were already announced and factored into the forward estimates. Rudd had no option but to keep them. But nice try Nerfy... Labor would never suggest tax cuts lol. They are big taxing big spending social program obsessed, and definitely cannot balance their books.

That's what I pointed out in the previous thread, but your claim that people are struggling under high taxes under labor, when they have been lower under labor than under Howard's entire term (which also explains much of the lack of surplus, where it's just as much about changes in revenue as it is spending), is pretty much flat out wrong. Taxes have been lower (and, Howard did not introduce the upcoming tax cuts).

Labor would never suggest tax cuts lol.

Well, Labor did http://www.futuretax.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=FactSheets/personal_tax_system.htm . And the tax-and-handout libs are the ones wanting to move it back.

Hell, they wanted to cut it even further: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/beware-of-taxes-to-fix-behaviour-warns-gary-banks/story-fnab4up0-1226159495647

Except they suggested higher, and intend to go higher, and you said that they didn't. You lied. Next year the tax free threshold is expected to be $18,200.
http://www.futuretax.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=FactSheets/personal_tax_system.htm

the new "tax cuts" introduced by labor are compensation for the increased costs associated with the Carbon Tax.

Yes, I've had to explain this to you lot every time that you've whinged that Labor is taxing carbon as part of the 'socialist science conspiracy' to make the government richer, when it's actually being reimbursed to the consumer. I'm glad that you're finally admitting the truth on that one.

dammnit why do I keep coming back to personal responsibility.

I really don't know, because whenever you do I think of the time you blamed the government for your poor property management and said they were the reason for the vacant properties you own.

Health care can easily send people who aren't super rich completely broke. It's not just cancer either. It's things like car accidents that can make people paraplegics, or cause serious brain injuries. It's numerous things that could ruin people's entire lives which I could just bullet point here.

Being against public health care amongst other things is why you are a bit of a laughing stock infi.

No it doesn't, it says that the low income tax offset is being reduced, not removed, meaning that bringing the tax free threshold up to the old effective threshold, along with a reduced low income offset, means a tax free threshold $4000 higher than before ($20,542).

All taxpayers below $80,000 receive a tax cut from 1 July 2012, with most getting a cut of at least $300. This means around 60 per cent of all taxpayers will receive a tax cut of at least $300 and no one will be required to pay more income tax.

In 2015-16, the tax free threshold will increase by a further $1,200 to $19,400 so that those earning up to $68,000 will receive a tax cut of around $385 per year from 2015-16 compared to 2011-12.

Afaik they're not considering that last part any more, due to the fall in revenue, but your claim that Labor would never propose a tax cut is just flat out political malarky.

Do you admit that the tax cuts which came in after Howard's term substantially reduced the revenue which the government had to pay its obligations with, and are a large part of why Howard was able to maintain a surplus in boom times, when the previous two governments have not been able to in global recession? (though came within a hairline of balancing it this year, with lower tax rates and no asset sales at that).

Do you admit that the tax cuts which came in after Howard's term substantially reduced the revenue which the government had to pay its obligations

i do accept that in 2008 and 2009 where real income fell, but in 2012 with an increase of 7.5% in income there is no excuse. Show a bit of restraint - deferring social spending (especially new programs) is a great idea. it's not to say it won't be done in 5 or 10 years but not right now. And anyone who suggests every federal public servant is essential must be high as a kite. Thousands of public servants in Canberra not attending to a single patient or student.... i went to meet some boffins in February this year and your mind would spin if you saw the hordes of very highly paid assistant secretaries milling around the food courts with their lanyards on.

Furthermore just as Rudd was able to wheel cash out instantly he could also have easily tapped the brakes and kept the budget in balance too.

OH NOES
THE GREENS ARE IMPLODING

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/greens-hit-by-rising-internal-strife-20130518-2jtl6.html

Never said I was against public health care, I am against people expecting every single problem of theirs to be solved by their government.

You do realise that those of us who rely on public healthcare do so because we can't afford private health care. I think you're a bit delusional if you think that people who rely on public healthcare do so because they expect the government to fix all their problems and do so because of a sense of entitlement.

if a family is saving for their personal health all times, which is pretty much what Private health insurance is, then there would always be plenty of cash there to deal with all but the most expensive treatments.

That's all well and good if you have extra money to save for such stuff. If you are living paycheck to paycheck there is no such chance.

We are lucky enough to live in a country where people who are less fortunate or come from families without much money (such as myself, my mum was a single mum who worked her arse off in s***** jobs and we never had much money) wont be sent bankrupt because of accidents of falling ill. I just don't understand why you think that people who are less off and are helped by the government are somehow free loaders who just need to stop depending on the government. It's not that simple.

Parmigiana Army or what luls

Doesn't have a single policy. Sounds like a great party.

They are not policies, they are platitudes.

it's not to say it won't be done in 5 or 10 years but not right now.

Are we talking abut the NDIS there with those 'social programs'?

5 or 10 years is a long time to people deeply in need just to make the numbers look good faster. It can be done now, so it should.

That doesn't seem to be an answer to the question.

Abbott budget reply a series of stumbles

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4700796.html

Do you mean Stable Population Party? Kinda funny you dont even know the proper name.

No, those guys left around the same time as the Popular Sustainable People's Population Party.
Splitters.

was interesting that i did a market survey group last nite on people who voted labor previously but arent sure who they are going to vote for this time.

every single member in the group said that they wanted a change, but were severely concerned about tony abbott being the leader of the liberals (several said they thought the liberals will depose him after they win the election)

it was also interesting that we all pretty much agreed that malcolm turnbull would be a much more attractive leader.

haha, i said that tony was labors best chance of winning and we all laughed (and agreed)

I know they make too much sense to have a chance in the retard s*** fight that is aussie politics but it's better than being forced to donkey vote.

Don't forget the Pirate Party and the Sex Party!

Don't forget the Pirate Party and the Sex Party!

Those two are tiny though, to become a stronger political force they should merge together to form the Pirate Sex Party.

At those odds Swan just needs to have a ~2.5 billion dollar punt on the ALP and then come out with an election slogan: 'Vote for us and the deficit problem disappears'

Atleast a mortgage is doing something productive(You have bought a house)

The governments debt is like borrowing $12000 on a $100000 salary to put into the pokies. Ok you can afford it, but it's an absolute waste.

Money kind of is unlimited, since it's a made up thing invented by the Government. The idea of unlimited money can be hard to understand from the perspective of someone to whom money is a thing to work towards obtaining. The concept that the Government cannot afford something doesn't make sense. If the Government wants a thing, it has the power to posses that thing.

If the Government wants a thing, it has the power to posses that thing.

except for public confidence.... Which money relies on.