Thoughts on the Budget

[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 .

 

[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 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

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 ?

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

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Frodo


Only Paul Keating would be capable of such a feat

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

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

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