Hockey blasts attitude of 'entitlement'

[11sjw]

Hockey has a point to an extent. Using HKG as an example was an extremely poor choice given how poor the lowest income earners have it.

Let's see entitlements stripped from the top down, ie politicians go first:

1. The same "standard" superannuation that we do;
2. Lose the flight perks;
3. Lose the admin staff for ex PM's etc.

None of these are big money savers but a do as we're doing mentality will enable the middle class welfare to be trimmed.

In saying that I have no problem with the healthcare subsidy as it was the carrot to the medicare levy's stick in trying to get people into Private health as this was seen as a way of reducing Public health waiting times.

 

[mick ryan]

All right for fat arse bumbling Joe and his fellow Politicians, he'll never have to worry about his future gross and unwarranted entitlements and benefits and what they are costing the country.

 

[PottSie2]

Even simpler would be that if you decide to have kids, then you pay for that pleasure, not the rest of us.

I do. Income splitting is just a great idea to encourage mums to stay at home to discourage the feral factory childcare output centers.

 

[medusala]

It was your party that eroded the tax base so much that we're in a structural deficit!

Put down The Age ....

 

[Pessimistic]

Worth noting that liberal heavyweights invested heavily in child care industry....

 

[mick ryan]

I do. Income splitting is just a great idea to encourage mums to stay at home to discourage the feral factory childcare output centers.

Exactly

 

[Hill2Pav]

I do. Income splitting is just a great idea to encourage mums to stay at home to discourage the feral factory childcare output centers.

They can fund/part fund income splitting by the removal of the FTB system.

 

[ReservoirDog]

Ok, so we now know who's going to pay for the 70 billion dollar coalition black hole, pensioners and dole bludgers. Nice one Joe. How much of the saving would then be thrust upon private charity, mental health services and the criminal justice system? Yeah, well thought out Joe.

 

[Old Skool]

Fine by me.

They take their hand out of my pocket, and I won't hold my hand out any more.

 

[tandino]

On the same day that Bob Brown stepped down, there was something else in the news that slipped under the radar.

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert is pushing for an increase in the "Newstart Allowance". She's trying to live off the money others would recieve from centrelink.

A tried and true political stunt.

Anyway, there was something that caught my eye in the news coverage of this.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...y-for-many-greens-senator-20120413-1wxgz.html

The Greens say the fact the scheme is designed as a temporary payment while people get a job is problematic as government statistics show 60 per cent are on it for more than 12 months, with 21 per cent on the dole for more than 5 years.


''[The project] is to reverse the stigma of people living on the Newstart are bludgers, people need a more realistic understanding of just how hard it is,'' Senator Siewert said.

If you are able bodied and of sound mind, how can you justify being on Newstart for 5 years? And there's so many of them.

Surely after 5 years you can be considered out of the workforce and not actively seeking work.

 

[medusala]

Hockey has a point to an extent. Using HKG as an example was an extremely poor choice given how poor the lowest income earners have it.

So poor that they migrated from China in droves.

Look at tax havens per capita GDP. Consistently extremely high.

It is ridiculous to suggest that you cant extrapolate that out to larger economies. Lower taxes and lower spending will create higher growth (and incomes).

Everyone knows it, unfortunately the feckless get to vote on stealing other peoples cash.

 

[Cap]

I'm happy to pay for my own child(ren) - but how about the government stop taking 2 1/2 days wages every week to prop up other people? I'm happy to pay for roads, defence hospitals etc, but I'm starting to get tired of paying for all sorts of government services which aren't relevant to me.

it is a circular argument, no one wants to pay for something they don't use, and the loser in these arguements is always the middle class.


Before you start cutting any welfare, give us flat tax regime with no allowances.

 

[Hill2Pav]

I'm happy to pay for my own child(ren) - but how about the government stop taking 2 1/2 days wages every week to prop up other people? I'm happy to pay for roads, defence hospitals etc, but I'm starting to get tired of paying for all sorts of government services which aren't relevant to me.

it is a circular argument, no one wants to pay for something they don't use, and the loser in these arguements is always the middle class.


Before you start cutting any welfare, give us flat tax regime with no allowances.

It was looked at by Costello but he decided to not go ahead with a flat tax;

http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2005/10/australias_flat.html

Australia's flat tax that never was

Australia nearly adopted a flat tax this year - until common sense prevailed. David Uren of The Australian today reports on Costello's secret 30pc flat tax:

When Peter Costello left Canberra for his Christmas break last year, he had before him modelling for the most radical reform to income tax in 60 years. The ambitious plan, prepared for this year's budget, would have replaced all the existing tax scales with a single flat rate of tax of 30 per cent.
The current tax-free threshold of $6000 would have been abolished and replaced with a rebate to ensure low-income earners were no worse off. Treasury modelled a number of tax plans, including proposals from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, accounting body CPA Australia and the Government's backbench tax ginger group.
The most detailed work, however, was completed on the proposal for a flat tax. It included an analysis of winners and losers and an outline of legislation, covering other tax rebates and pensions, that would need to be amended.
The plan was clearly affordable without pushing the budget into deficit, with the cost rising from $7.7 billion in 2005-06 to $10.1 billion in 2008-09. ...Treasury projects that the budget will be in surplus by $8.5 billion in that year, so the pot from which tax cuts could be drawn totalled $15.2 billion.
​

The proposal was still live after the Christmas break. In January, Treasury considered an option for eliminating workplace deductions for high-income earners. That would reduce the cost by the fourth year to $9.6 billion. People earning more than $101,280 a year would be denied tax deductions for expenses such as motor vehicles, study and home offices. The plan was tailored so there would be no losers.
The key to this was the rebate for low-income earners that would replace the current tax-free threshold. The idea was that the rebate would be phased in for low-income earners up to incomes of $21,600, where it would be worth $3828 a year.
​

But instead Australian taxpayers got this in the 2005 Budget:

By contrast, the tax plan Mr Costello eventually announced on budget day in May - including a $6-a-week tax cut for low-income earners and the increases in the thresholds for the top two tax rates - was phased in, with the annual cost rising increasing from an initial $3.1 billion to $6.7 billion by 2008-09.
​

So why the backdown?

Only those privy to the Treasurer's thinking know why the plan was dropped, but it may have been because of an analysis Treasury prepared on who would be the winners. Although nobody would be worse off as a result of the changes, only 20 per cent of taxpayers would be better off. The gains were biggest for high-income earners.
​

In other words, to introduce a flat tax in with no losers, Australian Treasury ended up proposing a scheme which (1) was not revenue neutral - it would have costs billions in lost tax revenue - and (2) most of the winners would be the rich. This is hardly a politically savvy nor fiscally responsible strategy. Plus the proposed variable rebate hardly sounds like much of a simplification! (Stephen Kirchner has another explanation: "Costello is rationing tax cuts to fit with his leadership timetable").
I defy any of the vocal British flat tax advocates to come up with a system which is both broadly revenue neutral and does not give the rich substantial tax cuts at the expense of low and middle income earners. I have yet to see such a scheme - and until I do, I will continue to oppose a flat tax in the UK.

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2005/s1483229.htm

BARRIE CASSIDY: OK. On taxation, what is the status of the Treasury costings into a 30 per cent top marginal rate? You wouldn't ask for this work to be done if you didn't at least give this option some consideration.
PETER COSTELLO: Oh, Barrie, we probably modelled 10s, 20s, you know, probably more options since 2000. We modelled a lot of them before 2000 because we were changing the whole tax system, with the new tax system. We always keep them under review. You always make sure that in the circumstances, you're on full top of the options. When we looked at that particular option, from memory, it cost $12 billion and 80 per cent of Australians didn't get a benefit, so you can imagine why that never went anywhere.
BARRIE CASSIDY: But what Treasury did say about the 20 per cent rate, the flat tax: it would be fairer, simpler, more transparent and a stronger reward for effort. What's holding you back?
PETER COSTELLO: Only one problem. It costs $12 billion a year, would drive the budget into deficit, put pressure on interest rates and wouldn't benefit 80 per cent of Australians. How do you think that would go?
BARRIE CASSIDY: But it just seems, as it stands, and put aside the 30 per cent rate - but you are the one person resisting a reduction to the top 47 per cent rate, while all those around you are clamouring for it.
PETER COSTELLO: Oh, common on, Barrie. We cut income tax by $22 billion in May of this year. What's that? Five or six months ago? $22 billion. We cut tax the year before, and we cut tax the year before. And as I've said, if you can balance your budget, if you can pay for health and security, if you can keep pressure off interest rates, of course you want to keep taxes as low as possible. I've always said that. Here's the proof: When we started reforming the taxation system in 2000, people on average wages used to face a 34 per cent rate, a 43 per cent rate. These rates don't even exist anymore. The average Australian - in fact, 80 per cent of Australians don't pay more than 30 per cent, and you don't pay top rates, or you're not going to pay top rates, until you go one dollar above $125,000. An enormous amount of work has been done. Is there one fix once and for all for the tax system? No, there isn't.
BARRIE CASSIDY: But you don't accept that there are a lot of people on your side of politics wanting a reduction from the 47 per cent?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, you pay 47 per cent on your first dollar over $125,000, OK, which affects 3 per cent of Australians. Now, am I against cutting taxes for 3 per cent of Australians? No, of course not. I would love to cut taxes for 3 per cent of Australians, but I'm just as interested in the 97 per cent who don't pay top rates. If all you did was have a cut for the top rate for each dollar over $125,000, you would improve things, but 97 per cent of Australians would say to you, "Well, what about me? I don't get anywhere near $125,000. What about me?" And the art of taxation is to keep the burden as low as possible and when you're cutting taxes, to bear in mind the whole of the public, not just a proportion of it.
BARRIE CASSIDY: Well, Malcolm Turnbull says that the costings prove that the kind of tax relief that he has been talking about is affordable in the Budget context. Is he wrong about that?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, the document is released under freedom of information, I think, from memory, had a one-year cost of $12 billion, enough to drive the budget into deficit, but 80 per cent of Australians wouldn't get a benefit.
BARRIE CASSIDY: So he is wrong, they're not affordable?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'm not commenting on anything other than that option, which is why that option wasn't attractive. And let me make this point: what the Government did in the budget, was it cut tax, kept the budget in surplus for this year and next year - and that's what we're talking about, not the year gone by - this year and next year - and every Australian got a tax cut. 100 per cent. Not 20 per cent, 100 per cent.
BARRIE CASSIDY: Is Malcolm Turnbull making a worthwhile and constructive contribution from the back bench?
PETER COSTELLO: Oh, look, people are entitled to put forward proposals all the time, and they do. Many backbenchers put forward proposals and when I'm asked to discuss them at backbench committees, I do. I welcome them all. There are many people that put forward useful ideas.

 

[Old Skool]

Are the Libs going to be giving me my tax back?

 

[King Elvis]

All right for fat arse bumbling Joe and his fellow Politicians, he'll never have to worry about his future gross and unwarranted entitlements and benefits and what they are costing the country.

While I agree with you that they are over the top, the consequences of their actions when it comes to policy making dwarf any financial impact of their renumeration.

I'd happily pay our PM and Treasurer $10M a year if they weren't ****ing morons who stuffed everything up.

Worth noting that liberal heavyweights invested heavily in child care industry....

And Therese Rein in the employment services industry.

There are so many examples, on both sides, of politically connected people clearly exploiting their positions, but nobody cares.

 

[Pessimistic]

In all the praise of coalition governments, its hardly ever mentioned that for them, ecomomics is all about winning elections. Howard Costello were extreme in this regard.

its now being revealed that a coalition govt next year would be much worse than the current one.

Bloody Hell, they cant even agree on anything for a start

 

[King Elvis]

its now being revealed that a coalition govt next year would be much worse than the current one.

Impossible.

 

[Pessimistic]

They ony sound acceptable when they say nothing. When they speak up, they cant even agree on basic policy

Bob Hawke would have had them for breakfast (for their inconsistency)

 

[King Elvis]

Julia Gillard isn't Bob Hawke mate.

 

[Pessimistic]

I Know - still a better and more measured manager of the economy though

 

[Old Skool]

Hockey has definitely won my vote.

I need a couple of questions answered.

1) What date is the next election?
2) Can anyone inform me of the name of the Liberal member for Coliban?
3) What day will Joe Hockey be sending me a cheque covering all of my taxable income?

 

[Pessimistic]

4. When will Joe pay back the governement for his own Higher education like students today have to ?

 

[11sjw]

A well written article. If al the facts are correct we have one of the lowest levels of upper and middle class welfare in the OECD. Not much Joe or anyone can play around with. To make the cuts he's suggesting would have the governing party booted at the very next opportunity and kept in the wilderness for a while.

http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/20...romised-the-end-of-the-australian-safety-net/

 

[PottSie2]

Even simpler would be that if you decide to have kids, then you pay for that pleasure, not the rest of us.

You haven't paid a cent for my kids. But trust me, you should be encouraging people like me to breed.

 

[Parker100]

He does know that if he tried to implement these policies in government that the government would be out on its arse at the next election.