Thoughts on the Budget

[Rusty Brookes]

What do people think of Peter Costello's budget? A really strange one for mine, which reeks of 50s style paranoia. Cutting disability pensions and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is going to hit the poorest and most needy people the hardest. The money saved is going primarily to the defence force. One to increase border patrols and two to finance the 'war on terrorism'. I don't know if this is money well spent: when was the last time there was a terrorist act in Australia? More importantly one that was instigated by a 'foreign power'?

The government has conceded it is not going to be a 'popular' budget. I must admit it does nothing for me and makes life hardest for those who can least afford it.

[Bloodstained Angel]

The electorate obviously thinks Australia is getting over run by the Taliban (or something like that :confused: ) so we need more guns and sh*t don't we ?

At least I think the government is still hoping that we really are that stupid.

Otherwise cutting subsidies on medicne to pay for guns could backfire on them quite badly.

But no - whilst 'the average Australian' still thinks locking up a handful of totally innocent people in an outback gulag is 'protecting Australia' then I guess the government is quite correct in its priorities ?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
The electorate obviously thinks Australia is getting over run by the Taliban (or something like that :confused: )


We are aren't we? Don't you know terrorists come to Australia on leaky boats:rolleyes:
That's why we have to spend billions on defending our borders at the expense of the sick and the disabled!

The budget was just as expected. Johnny and his cohorts are being led by the nose by the Yanks, so spending everything on defence and the "war against terrorism" was no real suprise.

[carlyp]

I think this budget may go down as the most tightest paranoid budget ever handed down

[Frodo]

The first budget after an election is usually tough because it is generally forgotten by the next election. I don't think this onme was that bad. The simplicity of saying pbs cuts are funding defence is media at it's best. The reality is that the extra tax collected this year could be used for defence or for extra subsidy of the burgeoning pbs cost. I don't like to see pbs costs go up but the percentage of subsidy would be better kept steady with annual increments rather than one off hikes. As we get to live longer then medicine costs will increase substantially.
My gripe, which is an annual one, is that tax brackets have not gone up in line with inflation. Wages are predicted to increase 4.5% so bracket creep will rake in $$Squillions. Mr Keating worked that clever move out and unfortunately Costello has continued the deceptive practice.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
The electorate obviously thinks Australia is getting over run by the Taliban (or something like that :confused: ) so we need more guns and sh*t don't we ?

At least I think the government is still hoping that we really are that stupid.

Otherwise cutting subsidies on medicne to pay for guns could backfire on them quite badly.

But no - whilst 'the average Australian' still thinks locking up a handful of totally innocent people in an outback gulag is 'protecting Australia' then I guess the government is quite correct in its priorities ?

Maybe we need a plane hitting the Rialto tower or a few suicide bombers to change a few minds............mmmm...even then I doubt if it would happen:confused:

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
The electorate obviously thinks Australia is getting over run by theBut no - whilst 'the average Australian' still thinks locking up a handful of totally innocent people in an outback gulag is 'protecting Australia' then I guess the government is quite correct in its priorities ?
Oops, I forgot the extra $430m in the budget for processing refugees on Christmas Island etc,. Hey, lets cut the defence initiatives and have thousands (a big handful) of refugees to process. That cost would then make the pbs increas look like pocket money. Or maybe we should do no processing..just let whoever wants to come here arrive and settle in niceley........oops, what about all the social security/medical/dole costs we would incurr? Ahhh...never mind, if we all pay a 90% tax rate we can handle it.

[Bloodstained Angel]

Bracket creep is the oldest trick in book Frodo.

At least with this mob we don't have the truly scary thought of Wage and Salary earners who pull in around 50K a year paying 47 cents in the dollar of that in income tax:(

Do you think this government is going to get serious about Trusts ?

Too politically sensitive I think

cheers

[Destructive]

Well I think it stinks. My wife and I are both on the pension, and we are just barely getting along as it is. Costello is down right arrogant to do what he has done I am looking for work at the moment, and I'll find something eventually, but being disabled makes it twice as hard. If I am put back to unemployment benefits we lose $104 a fortnight, and if this happens, we are screwed. I am seriously considering never voting Liberal again.

[Bloodstained Angel]

Ok Frodo

point by point rebuttal time ...

1) 430mil on another gulag is just a appalling waste. If Australia did what every single other country in the entire world does and release Boat People into Community care whilst their applications are speedily expedited, then we would have no need to throw 430 million dollars at a so-called "Processing Centre"

2) Big hanful you say ? - its about 4000 people Frodo. Compared to the estimated 60,000 real illegal immigrants at large in Australia right at this moment, I think the money spent on turning Asylum seekers into pretend-Taliban is an absolute scandal. Also, there is no evidence at all - anywhere that even remotely suggests that Australia is getting 'over run'

Frodo, could you please explain to me how 4000 boat people constitute any risk whatsoever to Australia's national security ?

3) Of course we should process Asylum Seekers, but again I have to say - why are we the ONLY country that sees fit to lock up these people at great expense whilst we determine who are the refugees and who are not ?

Like I said - release this HANDFUL of people (You work it out Frodo - 4000 boat people verses 60,000 illegal immigrants - what is the bigger problem ?) into Community Care whilst their applications are quickly and efficiently expedited.

This would cost a pittance compared to the millions this government wants to spend on 'repelling' people who desperately want to come here and make a contribution to this nation.

If this policy is good enough for every single other country in the whole wide world why isn't it good enough for us ?

4)So Frodo, you still believe that great urban myth that migrants are bludgers who cost us money ?

Migration has an effect of NET increase in the economic wealth of the nation.

Migrants create jobs, migrants bring spending power, migrants create markets, migrants pay taxes, migrants hire workers, migrants consume goods and services.

Look at the research Frodo - Migration creates wealth, end of story.

We actually need more migrants, and as I have said before, I might be biased but I can't see what the p[roblem is - Let them ALL in, as many who want to come.

I don't care what they look like, how they dress, what god they worship, how they got here or what language they speak

At the end of the day its does not make a single scarp of difference - a migrant is a migrant full stop. And by definition alone, they are welcome in Australia - and they can bring as many relatioves with them as they want

because Frodo, you know as well as I do - Immigration made this country.

cheers

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Frodo
n. Wages are predicted to increase 4.5% so bracket creep will rake in $$Squillions. Mr Keating worked that clever move out and unfortunately Costello has continued the deceptive practice.

Yes but if you raise tax deduction levels to cover bracket creep it means that you will lose that money and therefore spending will have to be cut further.

Where should we cut???

[Satay Mat]

tend to agree with BSA's views on immigration.

The govt seems to add 2 & 2 and get 3.

Try this out:

a) Australia has an aging population. I think big points go the govt for at least thinking this through for the next 50 years. I am 29 and (if I were in Australia) would pay significant tax. The thought that my taxes now have to support say 4 non tax payers, and than in 20 years maybe 8 scares me. Tax revenue goes down with less employees and expenses go up.

b) Given (a), the govt decides to get tough on immigration. IMHO the immigration rate should be increased by a factor of 3. These people buy houses, get jobs, pay tax, open businesses, send thir kids to schools and have a great benefit for the economy. How do we cope with having ahigher proportion of people not paying as much tax ??? Bring in people who do !!!

instead the govt seems to be restricting immigration. We should be going out to countries and recruiting people to come and live here like we did post WWII

Satay Mat

[vanders]

not happy jan :mad:

[Bomber Spirit]

I don't see how increasing immigration is going to reverse the aging of the population, unless you're looking at reviving the old child migration scheme.
Increasing immigration would just add an increased number of age pensioners in the future, so you'd need to add an ever-spiralling further immigration number to pay for them. And I don't know where you'd put them - it's hard enough getting on a train at Wynyard or driving down Windsor Rd now.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Jars458


Yes but if you raise tax deduction levels to cover bracket creep it means that you will lose that money and therefore spending will have to be cut further.

Where should we cut???

With all dues respect Jars if wages rise by the forecast 4.5% and tax brackets were increased in line with inflation at the forecast 2.75% then there would still be more tax raised than the previous year so there would be no need for any cuts, in fact there would be more to spend!

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Ok Frodo

point by point rebuttal time ...

1) 430mil on another gulag is just a appalling waste. If Australia did what every single other country in the entire world does and release Boat People into Community care whilst their applications are speedily expedited, then we would have no need to throw 430 million dollars at a so-called "Processing Centre"

2) Big hanful you say ? - its about 4000 people Frodo. Compared to the estimated 60,000 real illegal immigrants at large in Australia right at this moment, I think the money spent on turning Asylum seekers into pretend-Taliban is an absolute scandal. Also, there is no evidence at all - anywhere that even remotely suggests that Australia is getting 'over run'

Frodo, could you please explain to me how 4000 boat people constitute any risk whatsoever to Australia's national security ?

3) Of course we should process Asylum Seekers, but again I have to say - why are we the ONLY country that sees fit to lock up these people at great expense whilst we determine who are the refugees and who are not ?

Like I said - release this HANDFUL of people (You work it out Frodo - 4000 boat people verses 60,000 illegal immigrants - what is the bigger problem ?) into Community Care whilst their applications are quickly and efficiently expedited.

This would cost a pittance compared to the millions this government wants to spend on 'repelling' people who desperately want to come here and make a contribution to this nation.

If this policy is good enough for every single other country in the whole wide world why isn't it good enough for us ?

4)So Frodo, you still believe that great urban myth that migrants are bludgers who cost us money ?

Migration has an effect of NET increase in the economic wealth of the nation.

Migrants create jobs, migrants bring spending power, migrants create markets, migrants pay taxes, migrants hire workers, migrants consume goods and services.

Look at the research Frodo - Migration creates wealth, end of story.

We actually need more migrants, and as I have said before, I might be biased but I can't see what the p[roblem is - Let them ALL in, as many who want to come.

I don't care what they look like, how they dress, what god they worship, how they got here or what language they speak

At the end of the day its does not make a single scarp of difference - a migrant is a migrant full stop. And by definition alone, they are welcome in Australia - and they can bring as many relatioves with them as they want

because Frodo, you know as well as I do - Immigration made this country.

cheers

Nice work BSA but here goes :-

1) I don't care what other countries do, I don't want these people in the country without due process

2) 4000 people is a BIG hand. A handful usually refers to the number 5, the digits on one hand.
The 60,000 you mention are those that have been processed for Visas but have overstayed them. You can't get the original Visa with a police record.
Never mind 4000, one person with semtex strapped to their body is a threat. We can'y take that risk willy-nilly.

3) Again, sod what other countries do. We don't have race riots and cultural problems like many other places in the world and I think it is partly due to our good immigration policies of many years. Yes, your solution would save money but at the cost of how many lives? What value do you put on our society?

4) Controlled immigration is wealth creating but just look at how it is achieved. A points system based upon skills, education , and wealth of the appplicant combined with the skill needs of the country. Add in 10% for refugees.

Now do you really think that immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan who can't speak a word of English are going to be wealth creating?
And even those qualified people who get in often can't get a job because Australia doesn't recognise qualifications or you have to have a license which means sitting an exam....in English!!!
I know a Hungarian engineer who is brilliant and with a doctorate that works as a scaffolder because of this.


And As for :

We actually need more migrants, and as I have said before, I might be biased but I can't see what the p[roblem is - Let them ALL in, as many who want to come

Your message as prime minister would be well received by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, PLO, Ethiopean starving, white farmers in Zimbabwe and many other over the world.

Australia...........the future land of Armageddon :eek:

[Joe Mama]

What's happened, oh god i'm starting to agree with some of Frodo's arguments :eek: :confused: .

But, don't worry BSA, I haven't ventured into the dark side yet, I do agree with your points about having more people in Australia (eg bigger domestic market for our goods, creating jobs for our retailers, and other members of our service industries), but as with a lot of issues, we must find the middle ground that combines the benefits of an increased population, but not to the detriment of living standards, quality of life, our environment (you may think that just because I live on the land, that I couldn't give a stuff about conservation, but I want our property to be profitable now, and into the future, and we've taken proactive measures to ensure that, like any farmer and small businessperson worth thier salt), and the relative cohesion of Australian society.

There are only so many people that Australia can support, BSA. (our population can never be as large as, for example, the United States, simply because of the fact that most of our land is uninhabitable, and the relative unavailability of water), and to say things like "....Let them all in, as many as who want to come", is extremly naive for someone so intelligent.

[Phil Doyle]

truly we live in conservative times

[dreamkillers]

It's a typical post election budget.........hit people hard to save biccies for the pre election budget where they give back to the groups that will influence the result and have hopefully forgotten about the hardship caused by the earlier budget.

Maybe oneday we might get a govt that releases a budget that really look at the future in respect to the issues that matter for the long term good of the country.......environment, health, education and ensuring all Australians are better off - not just the groups that will influence in 4 years time..........

Somehow I don't see anything changing that would bring about this...........our pollies just can't see further into the future than trying to get themselves re-elected...............

[Eagle_Fan]

Not impressed with the raise in Prescription costs. I work in the area, and with a concession raise of a dollar per script, our main concern is that pensioners will just not take their medications, rather than pay the extra. One dollar doesn't sound like much, but when you consider that some of these people are taking up to 10 or 12 medications a day, it all adds up to them. We had several of our 'regulars' complain about the 10c increase from $3.50 in January, and put off filling their scripts, so I can only dread what the next few months will be like.

If they're that desperate to cut the PBS bill, how about looking at the over-prescribers?

Oh, and $28 per general script? We're losing our health system. They'll all be full price before too long....

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Wayde Petersen
What's happened, oh god i'm starting to agree with some of Frodo's arguments :eek: :confused: .



'Tis a good sign. There is hope for everyone :D

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Frodo


With all dues respect Jars if wages rise by the forecast 4.5% and tax brackets were increased in line with inflation at the forecast 2.75% then there would still be more tax raised than the previous year so there would be no need for any cuts, in fact there would be more to spend!

True

But the bracket creep is included in the budget forecast as revenue I would imagine

So in simple terms, they would have less to spend if the adjustments to the tax brackets were made.

So something currently being spent in the budget would have to be saved to adjust the marginal tax rates

Cost of providing the same amount of health care for example may well be more than 2.75% more expensive, this year than last.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Jars458


True

But the bracket creep is included in the budget forecast as revenue I would imagine

So in simple terms, they would have less to spend if the adjustments to the tax brackets were made.

So something currently being spent in the budget would have to be saved to adjust the marginal tax rates

Cost of providing the same amount of health care for example may well be more than 2.75% more expensive, this year than last.

Yes, but you then have to accept that we are in effect having a tax increase by stealth, which is IMO dishonest. ie we will be paying more tax from our wages to fund health care in your example.
I'm not saying that such a move is unwarranted. Maybe we do need to pay more tax to pay for health, but I'd rather is be an up front rise. Index the tax brackets (which effect the less well off ) and then perhaps add 1% to all the tax rates to cover the health costs. Don't forget that when you are on $60K a year you pay top tax and bracket creep has no further effect but everyone below that wage ends up potentially paying extra tax if they get a raise.

[Frodo]

Not impressed with the raise in Prescription costs. I work in the area, and with a concession raise of a dollar per script, our main concern is that pensioners will just not take their medications, rather than pay the extra. One dollar doesn't sound like much, but when you consider that some of these people are taking up to 10 or 12 medications a day, it all adds up to them. We had several of our 'regulars' complain about the 10c increase from $3.50 in January, and put off filling their scripts, so I can only dread what the next few months will be like.

If they're that desperate to cut the PBS bill, how about looking at the over-prescribers?

Oh, and $28 per general script? We're losing our health system. They'll all be full price before too long....

A different opinion comes from my pharmacist who says that judging by the other things pensioners buy in his shop the $1.00 is not going to have an effect on 99% of them.
I think the working family will be harder hit. We are being prescribed drugs for diabetes, cholestorol and high blood pressure more and more from the mid forties. My wife and I have nine scripts a month between us monthly. The tendency may be to try and do it by diet and excercise instead and that usually fails, but $250 a month in scripts is a huge amount. On the positive side it will only last 8 months, then we hit the ceiling and only pay $4.50 a script for the rest of the year.
Two things I disagree with. Firstly, my niece works in th NHS in UK on drug costing. Generic drugs are very low cost. I think that it is ten years that a new drug has a monopoly and then anyone can produce it. So for ten years a drug costs $200 and then maybe $5 forever afterwards. Take Valium. Gereric diazepam costs around 5 cents per tablet, so 28 has a cost of $1.40, yet we pay $28 for those tablets. So some medicines are being subsidised by others being overcharged.
Secondly, there are far too many pharmacies in our cities and far too many extemely wealthy pharmacists. This suggests that the margins paid to pharmacists are way too high. A balance is needed so that costs are controlled so that there is an adequate but not oversupply of pharmacies. I like it in Singapore where there is a low cost pharmacist in each medical centre, just one room and a hatch to get your medicine straight after seeing the doctor. And those medicines are cheaper than our scripts in my experience even as a foreigner not in their health system.

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

$2 billion surplus hey?

$200 each. When can I expect my cheque from Herr Costello?

[Dave]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
When can I expect my cheque from Herr Costello?

When politicians start treating us like intelligent peop....er on second thoughts, when hell freezes over, that'll be much much sooner.

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Frodo


Yes, but you then have to accept that we are in effect having a tax increase by stealth, which is IMO dishonest. ie we will be paying more tax from our wages to fund health care in your example.
I'm not saying that such a move is unwarranted. Maybe we do need to pay more tax to pay for health, but I'd rather is be an up front rise. Index the tax brackets (which effect the less well off ) and then perhaps add 1% to all the tax rates to cover the health costs. Don't forget that when you are on $60K a year you pay top tax and bracket creep has no further effect but everyone below that wage ends up potentially paying extra tax if they get a raise.

There is some sense in what you say but from my own personal view I would rather not be aware I was paying more tax!!

Not that I mind anyway, being a right wing socialist* and all!;)


*on the right wing of socialism.

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Frodo


A different opinion comes from my pharmacist who says that judging by the other things pensioners buy in his shop the $1.00 is not going to have an effect on 99% of them.
I think the working family will be harder hit. We are being prescribed drugs for diabetes, cholestorol and high blood pressure more and more from the mid forties. My wife and I have nine scripts a month between us monthly. The tendency may be to try and do it by diet and excercise instead and that usually fails, but $250 a month in scripts is a huge amount. On the positive side it will only last 8 months, then we hit the ceiling and only pay $4.50 a script for the rest of the year.
Two things I disagree with. Firstly, my niece works in th NHS in UK on drug costing. Generic drugs are very low cost. I think that it is ten years that a new drug has a monopoly and then anyone can produce it. So for ten years a drug costs $200 and then maybe $5 forever afterwards. Take Valium. Gereric diazepam costs around 5 cents per tablet, so 28 has a cost of $1.40, yet we pay $28 for those tablets. So some medicines are being subsidised by others being overcharged.
Secondly, there are far too many pharmacies in our cities and far too many extemely wealthy pharmacists. This suggests that the margins paid to pharmacists are way too high. A balance is needed so that costs are controlled so that there is an adequate but not oversupply of pharmacies. I like it in Singapore where there is a low cost pharmacist in each medical centre, just one room and a hatch to get your medicine straight after seeing the doctor. And those medicines are cheaper than our scripts in my experience even as a foreigner not in their health system.


Are these margins going to the producer of the drugs or the pharmacist?

I suppose if you spend millions of dollars and many years on developing a drug you want to see some profit from it.

Problem with prescription drugs is that many people NEED these drugs and are willing to pay far more than it costs to make them due to their need.

This is obviously why Govt regulation has to step in to some extent and make up for the defficiencies in the free market.

The question is to what extent.

I personally hardly ever use drugs or see the doctor so the changes don't affect me, but I just can't see that its fair for the sick in our society to pay more just to be healthy

Especially when we are paying more money to fund Howards blind following of the USA's war on terrorism

[Shinboners]

Nice boost to defence spending. Now, send the invoice to the US Treasury, and with the cheque we will hopefully get back, let's subsidise our own farmers. While we back the Americans with their foreign policy, they're happy enough to screw us over on trade policy.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Shinboners
Nice boost to defence spending. Now, send the invoice to the US Treasury, and with the cheque we will hopefully get back, let's subsidise our own farmers. While we back the Americans with their foreign policy, they're happy enough to screw us over on trade policy.

At a tangent to the main thread but a good point. If terrorism is about causing fear and distress in the minds of others then what USA are doing with their farm subsidies is terrorism too because it is an unfair attack on farmers livelyhoods in other countries.

Mind you I do believe that there is a form of subsidy going on in Australia that is not so visible. Apart from farm rebates such as fuel, a lot of other neccessities such as telephone and power services are heavily subsidised to country people at the expense of the rest of the public.

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Frodo


At a tangent to the main thread but a good point. If terrorism is about causing fear and distress in the minds of others then what USA are doing with their farm subsidies is terrorism too because it is an unfair attack on farmers livelyhoods in other countries.

What makes the US position particularly hard to take is that they expect other countries to engage in free trade, but they won't do it themselves due to their own domestic political situation.


Mind you I do believe that there is a form of subsidy going on in Australia that is not so visible. Apart from farm rebates such as fuel, a lot of other neccessities such as telephone and power services are heavily subsidised to country people at the expense of the rest of the public.

Other countries consider our strict quarantine laws to be a trade barrier.

But onto your point about the public subsidising services to the country, I don't have problem with that. On a strict user pays policy (ie. pay for the infrastructure), I don't think that people living in the country could afford to pay to have a telephone/electrical/gas line built to their properties. As you have described them, these things are neccessities, so I think that the government should ensure that everyone can access them.

[Joe Mama]

About the US agricultural subsidies Shinboners, most of the dough doesn't go to the ordinary farmers (a dairy farmer from Winsconsin told me, that for what you get, it's hardly worth filling in the paper work), it goes to the big boys like Ted Turner (who's the owns the largest pastoral company in the USA, possibly the world, and he's the largest private land owner in America), so it's hardly a leg up to those struggling on the land, it's more of a kick back for George dubya's mates.


Basically US farm subsidies are like the "baby bonus", that costello's brought out in his budget, it's only really beneficial for those who are well off.

I can rant and rave about the hypocrasy of the US and the EU, when it comes to "free trade" (now there's an ironic statement), but i'm pleased that someone here has thoughts similar to mine about trade issues, thanks Shinboners:D .

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Frodo

Mind you I do believe that there is a form of subsidy going on in Australia that is not so visible. Apart from farm rebates such as fuel, a lot of other neccessities such as telephone and power services are heavily subsidised to country people at the expense of the rest of the public.

I work for the Power & Water Authority in the NT and yes there is a subsidy but it goes to us not the farmer/remote living folks. We have to provide services at the same charge throughout the NT and the subsidy covers most of the extra cost in providing this service in remote areas.

Similar companies across the country would be under the same obligation and are subsidised by each state/territory govt. These subsidies came into effect when legislation was tabled to enable privatisation of utilities otherwise the country folk would have been screwed.......

[Eagle_Fan]

Originally posted by Frodo
A different opinion comes from my pharmacist who says that judging by the other things pensioners buy in his shop the $1.00 is not going to have an effect on 99% of them.
I think the working family will be harder hit. We are being prescribed drugs for diabetes, cholestorol and high blood pressure more and more from the mid forties. My wife and I have nine scripts a month between us monthly. The tendency may be to try and do it by diet and excercise instead and that usually fails, but $250 a month in scripts is a huge amount. On the positive side it will only last 8 months, then we hit the ceiling and only pay $4.50 a script for the rest of the year.
Two things I disagree with. Firstly, my niece works in th NHS in UK on drug costing. Generic drugs are very low cost. I think that it is ten years that a new drug has a monopoly and then anyone can produce it. So for ten years a drug costs $200 and then maybe $5 forever afterwards. Take Valium. Gereric diazepam costs around 5 cents per tablet, so 28 has a cost of $1.40, yet we pay $28 for those tablets. So some medicines are being subsidised by others being overcharged.


Completely agree, but there are many drugs that are under the $22.40 now, and even more which will be under the ~$28 price. But pensioners will have that extra charge on every script. The Safety Net is a great initiative, and is the saviour of many (as I'm sure you know) but with the threshholds rising at the same time it's still going to cost them a lot more than it does now. Your Pharmacist is lucky if that's not true for his demographic, but I know that a number of out patients are going to be slugged pretty heavily..... Already had the usually panic 'stocking up' start...

It is ten years before a generic medicine can be produced, and yeah, usually the originals do miraculously come down in price (to us anyway, they'd have been $22.40 for you all along, but would actually go up when the generic was intoduced), but anything that costs say $5 won't be charged at $22.40, it will be charged at the standard of ~75% markup plus ~$2 dispensing fee... not sure where you go, but our diazepam's less that $22.40! Come see me & I'll do ya a good deal ;)

Secondly, there are far too many pharmacies in our cities and far too many extemely wealthy pharmacists. This suggests that the margins paid to pharmacists are way too high. A balance is needed so that costs are controlled so that there is an adequate but not oversupply of pharmacies. I like it in Singapore where there is a low cost pharmacist in each medical centre, just one room and a hatch to get your medicine straight after seeing the doctor. And those medicines are cheaper than our scripts in my experience even as a foreigner not in their health system

Not sure I agree there. There are tight regulations on just where & when a Pharmacy can open, depending on the population, nearest other pharmacies and the number of surrounding shops. People choosing to open pharmacies that aren't approved by the Government are non-NHS and have to charge privately for all scripts...

"...far too many extemely wealthy pharmacists..." Good :D ;) Not sure if you're interested, but as I said before, there is a maximum of 75% markup on pharmacueticals, which while sounding alot really isn't. If a script is rejected in the monthly claim, we bare the cost of that. One box of your cholesterol or arthitis pills can cost us up to say, $150.... some subsidised drugs have list cost in the thousands.... and if there is a problem with the claim at all, then we aren't reimbursed by the government, yet the patient has still only paid $22.40 or $3.60.... and a claim can be rejected for any number of reasons not necessarily our fault. The markup rarely affects the customer.

Anyway, if Senator Nat & co. get their way the price rise won't happen anyway :)

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Frodo

Mind you I do believe that there is a form of subsidy going on in Australia that is not so visible. Apart from farm rebates such as fuel, a lot of other neccessities such as telephone and power services are heavily subsidised to country people at the expense of the rest of the public.

But foreign farmers don't pay phone bill here!!:)

The farming loby is one of the strongest politically loby groups in the country

I work for the State Government and farmers get a very good deal vis a vis concessions and the like.

I am not really sure this country wants or needs to be riding on the sheeps back anymore, so to speak.

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Frodo


Maybe we need a plane hitting the Rialto tower or a few suicide bombers to change a few minds............mmmm...even then I doubt if it would happen:confused:

Excuse me but you do need exactly that. There is no evidence of a threat to australians in australian soil. Those overseas is a different thing.

People who have lived through real terrorist threats think johnny and Peets are laughable.

[Bloodstained Angel]

exactly Jars458

I find it quite unfair for this government to be cutting the PBs and getting tough on Disability Pensions when Farmers still enjoy their Diesel Rebate, their cheap phone calls, their subsidised services and of course they still continue to avoid tax through Trusts.

But of course it is political dynamite to tax Trusts like Companies isn't it ?

I gree with what Costello is saying - we have to start reigning in cotsts and boosting revenue NOW while most Baby Boomers are still working and still paying taxes - otherwise its the rest of us that have to pick up the bill in the future.

BUT - 'boosting revenue' should also include the prickly subject of tax minimisation by use of Trusts.

The last time the Tax Office looked at this was in 1994 - they estimated there was 890million a year that could be gained from taxing trusts in the same way as companies.

a pretty tidy sum in 1994, probably worth twice that now.

Yet the Government doesn't want to touch this - I wonder why ?:rolleyes:

The future burden of providing for Baby Boomers in Retirement has to shared equally and fairly amongst all groups in the community.

Its not fair to cut back the PBS and cut back Disability Pensions when wealthy individuals can still get away with Blue Murder when it comes to paying their fair share of tax.

cheers

[Pessimistic]

Just want to add that all the claptrap about protecting borders is such a waste of dosh unless we have a reasonable relationship with Indonesia.

A strong Indonesia + good relationship with Australia = Absolute security for Australia.

Anothe country would need to tak ove indonesia before australia and with over 100M people that is no mean feat.

Johnny should do what it takes to patch it up without losing too much 'face'.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Just want to add that all the claptrap about protecting borders is such a waste of dosh unless we have a reasonable relationship with Indonesia.

A strong Indonesia + good relationship with Australia = Absolute security for Australia.

Anothe country would need to tak ove indonesia before australia and with over 100M people that is no mean feat.

Johnny should do what it takes to patch it up without losing too much 'face'.

What it takes is either the conversion of Australians to Islam or the conversion of Indonesians to Christianity..then you'd be half way there. The other half is the removal of all fish and oil/gas reserves from the seas and ocean between the two countries...then there would be nothing to argue over

Only Paul Keating would be capable of such a feat:p

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Frodo


Only Paul Keating would be capable of such a feat:p



mmm....might be in the Labour party manifesto :)

[Goldenblue]

Good to read others views on this subject. I thought it was a bad budget for the poor and disabled while the top 3% get a tax cut......does not seem fair......still, we know the Libs wont bite the hand that feeds their mouths......

It's a bad budget, a cruel budget and personally I am sick and tired of these pollies, insurance companies and so forth who are still using the Sept 11th attacks to consume their greed.....

I was wondering what anyones thoughts were on Simon Crean's reply to the budget......

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Frodo


What it takes is either the conversion of Australians to Islam or the conversion of Indonesians to Christianity..then you'd be half way there. The other half is the removal of all fish and oil/gas reserves from the seas and ocean between the two countries...then there would be nothing to argue over

Only Paul Keating would be capable of such a feat:p

I think it's funny that the Indonesians don't have a problem dealing with NT Govt's past and future but have no interest in the current mob down in Canberra........

Indonesia probably contributes more to our local economy than Canberra ever has and the ties get stronger each year......

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Goldenblue
Good to read others views on this subject. I thought it was a bad budget for the poor and disabled while the top 3% get a tax cut......does not seem fair......still, we know the Libs wont bite the hand that feeds their mouths......

It's a bad budget, a cruel budget and personally I am sick and tired of these pollies, insurance companies and so forth who are still using the Sept 11th attacks to consume their greed.....

I was wondering what anyones thoughts were on Simon Crean's reply to the budget......

Tax cut!!!!!!!! I'd love to see it but how do I get my 3% ?

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Frodo


What it takes is either the conversion of Australians to Islam or the conversion of Indonesians to Christianity..then you'd be half way there. The other half is the removal of all fish and oil/gas reserves from the seas and ocean between the two countries...then there would be nothing to argue over

Only Paul Keating would be capable of such a feat:p

Hey... anything's possible. The current behaviour of essendon has people like me barracking for Carlton when they play !

They used to say the english getting on with the french was impossible but mutual security means even they do it from time to time