What is the real state of the economy?

[Power Raid]

It might be Labor's next policy that your workplace pay for the GP visit to get the doctors note they require for you to have a sick day.

That is what happens in Indonesia

It makes sense there though

 

[Showbags]

Price elasticity of demand. If you charge less people will consume and as per the article the system is overloaded with people who don't actually need help.

You completely missed my point. Yes less people will go to the GP (though going to a GP is an inelastic service for a lot of people so they have no ability to avoid this, as Noddy said a lot of GP visits are just to renew a script) but as said, with people not encouraged to go to the GP even for so called minor issues (which could develop into something major if not treated) they are more likely to be sick and more likely to be off work.

 

[Taylor]

Huh? Surely you know someone with a job??? How could you think this was the case?

I can only speak for my workplace where they want a doctors slip for every sick day as policy.

That's why I asked, I didn't want to generalise based off only my own context.

 

[madmug]

You completely missed my point. Yes less people will go to the GP (though going to a GP is an inelastic service for a lot of people so they have no ability to avoid this, as Noddy said a lot of GP visits are just to renew a script) but as said, with people not encouraged to go to the GP even for so called minor issues (which could develop into something major if not treated) they are more likely to be sick and more likely to be off work.

Correct.
Having such an open medical system has major benefits for all of us. The USA had some 40million people with no health coverage. Obama care is an attempt at bridging the gap.
Consequent to that are things like Tuberculosis. It occurs in the USA at 3/100,000 so is always about. Its almost unheard of here, a few cases come from PNG. Hep B has a chronic rate of 5% in the USA & 1% here. The list goes on.
Health is 9.1% of GDP, New Zealand 10.1, USA 17.9. I think we do ok!
I understand the need to control our health costs, but money spent early save a shyte full of economic & social costs later on. The current push on Diabetes awareness & checks & with the various cancers will have huge cost saving potential.

So Maybe the economic guru's can understand this. Spend Early, Save Later. Is that simple enough? Its called an investment. In this case it has proven benefits. I see them every day.

 

[Power Raid]

You completely missed my point. Yes less people will go to the GP (though going to a GP is an inelastic service for a lot of people so they have no ability to avoid this, as Noddy said a lot of GP visits are just to renew a script) but as said, with people not encouraged to go to the GP even for so called minor issues (which could develop into something major if not treated) they are more likely to be sick and more likely to be off work.

For some services it is inelastic but the $7 charge is designed to deter the unnecessary visits and doctors inefficient practices of having to see them many times when one visit will do.


The big issue here is how poorly the Libs have sold this.

I don't think anyone disagrees with seeking efficiencies in our healthcare system. No one disagrees we should seek to reduce the abuse of the medicare system by the doctors.

What people are frustrated by is the feeling of a vital service being charged $7 which was once free. Most of us would say $7, that is super cheap for a vital service but for our unemployed and pensioners it is just another burden. If the $7 charge was capped at $70pa (which it is) and a $70 increase pa was given the the unemployed and pensioners then the debate is settled.

 

[Taylor]

It costs $65-$75 to see a GP for me, I get a $37 cheque in the post from Medicare.

That seems like poor efficiency.

 

[Maggie5]

Apparently the medicare levy was increased to 2% in July 2014, why not increase it another .25% to 2.25% to cover increase costs and demand on our medical resources?

I don't think people would object to this as those on lower incomes (less than $32,279) would not pay anything, those on $37,975 would only pay a part of 2.25%, pensioners and unemployed wouldn't be affected.

Seems fairer to me as those earning $100,000 would only pay $250 more per year.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Apparently the medicare levy was increased to 2% in July 2014, why not increase it another .25% to 2.25% to cover increase costs and demand on our medical resources?

I don't think people would object to this...

Have you met people?

They 0.5% increase for the NDIS was a HUGE deal for many people. It's extra taxation, and people generally don't like that without it being for a very good reason (structural deficit should be one of those very good reasons).

 

[Power Raid]

Apparently the medicare levy was increased to 2% in July 2014, why not increase it another .25% to 2.25% to cover increase costs and demand on our medical resources?

I don't think people would object to this as those on lower incomes (less than $32,279) would not pay anything, those on $37,975 would only pay a part of 2.25%, pensioners and unemployed wouldn't be affected.

Seems fairer to me as those earning $100,000 would only pay $250 more per year.

The $7 charge is designed to cut out inefficiencies in heath care and abuse of the system by doctors. How would giving doctors a bigger bucket of money help?

 

[Power Raid]

Have you met people?

They 0.5% increase for the NDIS was a HUGE deal for many people. It's extra taxation, and people generally don't like that without it being for a very good reason (structural deficit should be one of those very good reasons).

I didn't see to much push back on the 0.5% for NDIS. The only concern I heard repeatedly from those in disabilities commissions was the duplication of service between the federal government and the existing state service. Especially when the state system was providing a better standard of care to NDIS, had the systems and experience in place and operated in-conjunction with other important agencies such as centrelink and NGOs.

NDIS should close and simply hand the money to the state organisations.

 

[Taylor]

Because the "rich people" will pay for it.

I'd like to see a graph of the amount earned compared to the costs the government picks up across the income spectrum, obviously broken into singles/couples/families with school aged children.

When I was punching in the numbers earlier this year the magic number was above the average income, under that the taxpayer was a net drain. I can't see how that is sustainable.

 

[clogged]

Because the "rich people" will pay for it.

I'd like to see a graph of the amount earned compared to the costs the government picks up across the income spectrum, obviously broken into singles/couples/families with school aged children.

When I was punching in the numbers earlier this year the magic number was above the average income, under that the taxpayer was a net drain. I can't see how that is sustainable.

Income follows a power law.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

When I was punching in the numbers earlier this year the magic number was above the average income, under that the taxpayer was a net drain. I can't see how that is sustainable.

The inability to see how that is sustainable is your failing, not the system's.

 

[Xsess]

Departing Treasury secretary said this:

And Joe Hockey has come out and basically repeated the warning to 'own' it. No word on actually changing the tax structure, of course.

Why is Labor blocking spending cuts with such a crisis in train?

 

[Taylor]

The inability to see how that is sustainable is your failing, not the system's.

No doubt.

I don't pretend to have all the answers.

 

[Taylor]

Income follows a power law.

It does but whenever we try and build new efficiency processes at work they get shot down by those who point out that it won't work for 1% of the business, even if it makes it better for 99%.

I know this is pie in the sky stuff but I feel that if we can make Australia's books balanced off the overwhelming majority of the population then the upper echelons can be the cream that pays for the really nice stuff. From what I've gathered the higher up the income chain you go the more able you are to minimise your tax liability, so the "burden" for paying for the spending falls to the majority anyway.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Why is Labor blocking spending cuts with such a crisis in train?

Because they (along with the majority of Australians) think that they are the incorrect cuts.

You do realise all cuts aren't the same, right?

I was going to say that 'the detail of what the cuts are is important', but I don't think that even counts as 'detail'. If you're that slack with your analysis, I guess it explains your other extreme positions too.

 

[Taylor]

Because they (along with the majority of Australians) think that they are the incorrect cuts.

You do realise all cuts aren't the same, right?

I was going to say that 'the detail of what the cuts are is important', but I don't think that even counts as 'detail'. If you're that slack with your analysis, I guess it explains your other extreme positions too.

If you can find the time please elaborate on which cuts you feel are most sensible.

 

[Maggie5]

Have you met people?

They 0.5% increase for the NDIS was a HUGE deal for many people. It's extra taxation, and people generally don't like that without it being for a very good reason (structural deficit should be one of those very good reasons).

Agree to a point but I think that the NDIS contribution has been forgotten to a large extent as the public knew where it was going and I don't think that they minded so much? Perhaps I don't know any of those who did?

 

[Xsess]

Agree with the treasury secretary 100% - urgent spending cuts and tax cuts needed to regenerate our economy.

Outgoing Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson has issued an urgent call for corporate and personal tax cuts, warning that our tax system is stuck in the 1950s and that Australians’ standard of living will collapse without reform… “ ... (U)nless we tackle structural reform, including fixing our fundamental budget problem, we will not be able to guarantee rising income and living standards for Australians."… High corporate and personal tax rates are the key priorities for reform, he said, as inflation pulls the average wage earner into Australia’s second-highest tax bracket over the next decade and corporate tax rates fall globally.

 

[madmug]

Outgoing Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson has issued an urgent call for corporate and personal tax cuts, warning that our tax system is stuck in the 1950s and that Australians’ standard of living will collapse without reform… “ ... (U)nless we tackle structural reform, including fixing our fundamental budget problem, we will not be able to guarantee rising income and living standards for Australians."… High corporate and personal tax rates are the key priorities for reform, he said, as inflation pulls the average wage earner into Australia’s second-highest tax bracket over the next decade and corporate tax rates fall globally.

Sure, but cut middle class welfare & quite clearly we should have a tax summit ASAP.
Just vilifying & blaming the lowest socioeconomic groups in the nation via this nasty vexatious budget is not what people expect in our Egalitarian society. That is unless you represent the Nasty extremist Tea Party view of the world.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

If you can find the time please elaborate on which cuts you feel are most sensible.

I was going to reply to Xsess' Andrew Bolt quote too, but it disappeared, perhaps because it was simply an unattributed copy-and-paste from Bolt's blog. And that Bolt post itself was also just a copy-and-paste of an AFR article with the addition of snide references to Labor and a massive, wishful exaggeration in Parkinson's references to 'personal tax cuts' [EDIT: I see it has now come back, but I'll post the relevant bit here, and include the link which Xsess oddly doesn't do]:

This is too serious for Labor’s denials
Dr Parkinson acknowledged the difficulty in winning the “hearts and minds” of Australians in arguing for corporate tax cuts, but said that work done by Treasury showed “about half of all the benefit of a corporate income tax cut flow back relatively seamlessly towards employees ...
Good luck with that argument. It simply cannot be won unless Labor acknowledges the truth of it and fights to save Australia, rather than to destroy Tony Abbott. Attack the Abbott Government all you like - and I have - but Labor is the true barrier to saving this country from the crash to come.

Basically it is amusing that the story has seemingly become 'what is the alternative answer?' after the govt has only managed to pass half a budget. This is the whole point of people saying the Coalition are still acting like an Opposition. Labor are no longer in power, yet the Coalition and their supporters are looking for Labor to generate the policy ideas, years out from an election. Abbott's priority was destroying Labor at the expense of the nation, and now Labor are being accused of doing the same, simply because they agree with the majority of Australians that the proposed policies are unfair. Which they are. I've always said their policy ideas are woeful.

The alternatives proposed by Labor have basically been 'don't spend money on your poor policy ideas' (i.e. less planes, no PPL, etc) rather than proposing different cuts, but when they were in power they used efficiency dividends and asset/income-testing widely and also cut back the public service (even heralded institutions like the CSIRO) so it's not hard to imagine they would maintain that approach if they were still in power.

If you wanted my personal cut proposals, I haven't been exposed to many public institutions, or to the recommendations of the independent civil servants who are paid to recommend savings, so can't tell you which parts are the most bloated. I think the majority of large institutions are inefficient and I think Australian management practices are poor in a lot of large private companies and the public service. The initial temptation is to give management more flexibility through employment contracts, but management don't really use their current options and just bleat about it being hard to sack someone when I don't think that is really true. Maybe we should respect the battles and experiences that have gone on before us and say that the current balance is about right, and there isn't enough management talent in the world to get effective and efficient organisations everywhere. The easiest solution of course, is efficiency dividends and increasing revenue (broadening the GST could simplify it and save us all time and cash), with compensation for the poor who will be the most effected.

 

[Xsess]

Sure, but cut middle class welfare & quite clearly we should have a tax summit ASAP. Just vilifying & blaming the lowest socioeconomic groups in the nation via this nasty vexatious budget is not what people expect in our Egalitarian society. That is unless you represent the Nasty extremist Tea Party view of the world.

Did you read the treasury secretary's statement? The middle class is getting smashed through taxation bracket creep which drastically effects their discretionary spend and company tax rates are too high to compete in a global market. That effects employment and causes a reduction PAYG and company taxes. Its the great lol of Howard critics who call Howard the highest taxing PM. What they are referring to is actually total tax reciepts, not the rate of taxation of individuals and companies.

 

[Xsess]

Andrew Bolt quote too

You were called out for engaging in double alinsky in your anti Murdoch thread rot.

I quoted the treasury secretary.

 

[Xsess]

If you wanted my personal cut proposals, I haven't been exposed to many public institutions, or to the recommendations of the independent civil servants who are paid to recommend savings, so can't tell you

No matter how you slice or dice it you cant seriously talk spending cuts without including the highest spend elements - Health, Education and Welfare.

Labor has blocked proposed minor cuts to all of them.