Rebate debate has descended into a shoddy class war

acotrel says:

08:50am | 14/02/12

‘``The politics of envy. The politics of the class war,’’ Mr Abbott told parliament as he accused the Prime Minister of hating the rich. ``That belongs back in the 1970s ... and isn’t it interesting that it should be trotted out again by this prime minister who, when she is under pressure, she goes back to the days of the old socialist forum?’‘

Class warfare and commie phobia in the one statement by Abbott in parliament. The ghost of Mr B.A.Santamaria walks again !

john says:

09:01am | 14/02/12

Of course the poor should subsidise the rich.
It is of the utmost importance that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, for this is the essence of capitalism.

morrgo says:

09:05am | 14/02/12

Yep: an adult couple earning $159,000 will get full rebate, a couple earning $161,000 with dependents will not. 

Fairness, for sure.

Peter says:

09:22am | 14/02/12

Rich people need welfare.

Economist says:

09:32am | 14/02/12

The irony is though that you want to clobber the government about their debt, most of which is due to a reduction in actual revenue and anticipated revenue, and when they try and reign in spending you clobber them some more.

But as this article is about class warfare and it’s Valentines day I won’t to express my love for my fellow net tax payers. While you and I may be net taxpayers with different philosophical and political leanings I want to thank you for making this the greatest country in the world, that for the most part our taxes are used to create an egalitarian society that I indirectly benefit from rather than directly. That relative to the majority of HH I’m well off, but through my own choices, primarily living in an expensive neighbourhood, at times I struggle comparatively to others on the same income, or those who made their choces at different times. Thanks.

doug z says:

09:45am | 14/02/12

“It is of the utmost importance that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, for this is the essence of capitalism. “

Dumbest comment I’ve ever read!! The vast majority of people who pass as “poor” today are fabulously wealthy by the standards of the past.  This is due to economic growth, which occurs in countries that are capitalist, or at least substantially capitalist.  It occurs because “the rich” don’t consume all of their wealth - the unconsumed portion being reinvested and driving capital accumulation, ie. economic growth.
As far as the debate of the private health insurance goes - note also that “the rich” are forced to pay for medicare and they already pay more tax.  The business about the poor subsidising the rich is complete bs.

Monty says:

11:05am | 14/02/12

doug z, I see you’ve swallowed the “re-investment” myth of capitalist ideology. Are ANZ reinvesting their $1.44bn profit by sacking almost 1000 people? Is Qantas reinvesting its profits by giving Joyce a huge pay increase while trying to move aircraft maintenance offshore? 

Capitalism is a system of extracting wealth and eventually (without redistributive programs) you end up with concentrated wealth and an ecomonic collapse, because (to reverse a well known right-wing phrase) you eventually run out of other peoples money to accumulate and demand plummets.

As for being wealthy compared to times past…. well I’m sure the poor are just so thankful to their corporate masters that they’re not dying in their 30s and living in shanty towns.

Tony says:

11:38am | 14/02/12

Take the rebate off me, no problems ...... but if I stay in a private health fund (no burden on the public system) I don’t have to pay the medicare levy ,,,,,,, how about that .......... sounds fair to me.

Peter says:

11:51am | 14/02/12

Then don’t call an ambulance tony and go to a public hospital.
Don’t see a GP and bulk bill.
Don’t use medication on the PBS.

Do keep whining about the rich needing welfare.

gm says:

12:55pm | 14/02/12

Plibersek makes a comment about the cost going from $5billion to $100billion , I think she has been her getting economics advice from Wayne Swan.
And the other comment if she takes the health rebate of those earning $5 mill a year that should save the government a good $100,000.

Economist says:

01:59pm | 14/02/12

GM I agree, this figure is not in net present value terms. By then the economy will probably be worth $10 Trillion.

Basically premiums can’t increase without Minister approval.

iMitchy says:

02:18pm | 14/02/12

@ Monty,

I wasn’t aware that ANZ or Qantas had private healthcare or benefited from Medicare….

I’m all-for means testing but let’s get serious. If we want our country to see continued growth and living standards rise and computers and internet for everyone etc. and still play the rich vs poor game, then we need to start means testing kicking in at no less than $200K pa.

Means testing starting at $50K or $60K pa is rediculous. It might only be $20 per month or whatever, but all these means tested entitlements start adding up. On top of that, there is the rising cost of living far exceeding “general inflation”, bracket creep, and the fact that as we pass $50K we can start to borrow and have the privelege of paying interest (which is set at whatever the bank GD feels like apparently) meaning that we pay more for things than those who buy outright ie the top and bottom end of the payscale. Interest becomes income becomes wages and profit becomes tax via the banks and their employees - and everything we buy is partly GST. All paid for with net income.
It is not uncommon for people who earn $100K pa to still be living paycheque to paycheque.

It is the truly wealthy who, collectively, pay the most tax in Australia. It is also these folks who wouldn’t miss the assistance. But how do you balance that?
If the majority of taxpayers in Australia earn $50-100K pa, how can we possibly look to start means testing within that window? On the other hand, don’t you think that the highest earners already pay more in the Medicare Levy than they pay in Private Health Insurance premiums, let alone just the amount of the rebate they would receive? We don’t subsidise them.

Borderer says:

02:35pm | 14/02/12

If you give me a $1000 rebate on $1500 levy for a service i don’t use is not welfare. Its not welfare when I pay for it.
It is welfare when you receive more from the government than you contribute. The government can’t balance their budget and apparently that means I’m being greedy. They can’t do their jobs and I’m selfish because they can’t fund their pipe dream policies and bribe the greens to support them.

Fu says:

04:00pm | 14/02/12

@ Monty; how you re-invest your profits (or distribute to equity holders) and how you improve the efficiency of your organisation are two different things. Banks much like every other listed company are expected to make returns for the money that is invested into them. If the business decides that investing in a new opportunity is a good idea and yield more future returns to the shareholder then thats great but if there are no opportunities they could just pay it out as dividends.and the shareholders can re-invest it themselves or optionally consume with their income.

In regards to “sacking people”, as time goes on, there are smarter ways to do the same tasks, redundant tasks are removed and technology ever increases the ability to produce more with less. I am sure that when the banks first “sacked” there typing pool because computers came out and they now needed a few people skilled with computers rather than many people skilled with typewriters there would of been some upset people. However no one ever thinks back and says that the banks are evil because they don’t have 100,000 people operating typewriters today. The problem is that technology advancements today are not understood well by the average person; most people even back then understood the advantage computers had over typewriters. At the end of the day if your ignorant of the reasons behind a decision it doesn’t mean the decision’s wrong; it actually just means you’re ignorant.

The “realtively wealthy” concept is better conceptualised that most families 20 years ago would have considered having 2 small TV’s in their house a show of wealth but today people who have 2 x 50inch flat screens complain that they can’t afford to have 80 inch 3D TV with full suround sound as a sign that they are poor. No one complains when their living standards go up because the world is getting smarter and more efficient but complain when they are forced to get smarter or more efficient to keep up.

RyaN says:

04:31pm | 14/02/12

@morrgo: worse still, a single income family on $121 000 total family income will not get the rebate either.

iMitchy says:

06:07pm | 14/02/12

We should remember that the government started subsidising private health cover to encourage as many people as possible to take it up, as it was deemed to be the best way to take financial strain off of the public system.

Now, the government is trying to convince everyone that if you can afford to have private health cover, you must be rich enough not to need the rebate, despite numerous premium rises over and above the inflation rate since the plan was implemented.

They are trying to save money by undoing their plan to save money in the hope that people won’t cancel the cover that they were encouraged to purchase.

When the government whines about lower income earners “subsidising” the living costs of higher income earners via tax rebates etc. in order to attract attention to their cause, we should remember that they are the ones who implemented the schemes which allowed this to happen. It’s all just noise.

Jane2 says:

01:07pm | 14/02/12

I dont think there will be a drop as the people who lose the 30% rebate have to pay the extra surcharge and for most you are paying the amount of your health insurance premium to the government if you dont have insurance.

It’s individual choice but I think most people would rather potentially get something for their money than make a large donation to the treasuiry.

DeanR says:

07:13am | 14/02/12

Normally I would agree with you but not with health care. Public subsidies are generally retarded but subsidising private health care system takes an unbelievable amount of money and strain of the public system. The money spent by the government on the health care rebate would be easily consumed by the public sector if it was removed.

It also encourages people to stay on top of health problems and gives them less of a disincentive to stay healthy, due to cost.

Fiona says:

08:54am | 14/02/12

Everyone pays a basic Medicare levy, thqts where you get the “cleaners are propping up the politicians ” arguement. If an ambulance is called for you for any reason, you’ll get taken to your nearest public hospital, so you could well end up using the system anyway. Some patients in public hospitals are private patients as well.  If you have private health insurance, then you don’t pay extra Medicare levy, then the “wealthy” save paying extra Medicare levy.

acotrel says:

09:32am | 14/02/12

@Fiona
If you have private health insurance, never admit that you have it, if you go to a public hospital.  A heart op costs about $150 if you are a public patient, that’s the pharmacy bill.  If you have private cover, you will be charged the gap - about $4000.  If I had private cover I would only ever use it for elective surgery, in a crisis keep schtum !

Zaf says:

09:35am | 14/02/12

[the distinction between singles and couples falls apart when you consider plenty of single income earners are part of a family, with a partner and children, but because the partner stays at home, they are classified as single and lose their benefits much earlier than a two income family earning much more than them. ]

Actually I don’t think that’s true.

Liz says:

09:54am | 14/02/12

Fiona, from what I understand from my accountant is that EVERYONE earning over a certain threshold pays a medicare levy, no matter what. If you earn over the threshold, and don’t have private health insurance, then you pay even more.
I have no problem with paying a levy commiserate to my earnings - but why can I then not use the system I support? It’s double dipping in my eyes!!

Economist says:

11:30am | 14/02/12

I agree with Zaf, I’m not convinced that they don’t take into account the type of cover, i.e. your a single income HH with Family private health insurance cover so the cutoff is $160,000 not $80,000. Though it would depend on how you do your tax return. My wife and I have separate tax returns but link into the same family private health insurance cover so we don’t have to pay the surcharge.

Economist says:

11:33am | 14/02/12

I agree with Zaf, I’m not convinced that they don’t take into account the type of cover, i.e. your a single income HH with Family private health insurance cover so the cutoff is $160,000 not $80,000. Though it would depend on how you do your tax return. My wife and I have separate tax returns but link into the same family private health insurance cover so we don’t have to pay the surcharge.

Sarah says:

04:15pm | 14/02/12

@Liz

I couldn’t agree more. I earn a good income and I pay the Levy - quite a chunk of cash every year - and I stay on the public system. This is the system that I’ve paid for - so I will be damned if I’m going to feel guilty for using it.

Bertrand says:

06:16pm | 14/02/12

I’m happy to stand corrected on the singles versus couple issue.

I was basing this off a debate I had on here a week or so back with another poster who claimed this was his biggest issue with the healthcare rebate- as the sole income earner in his family he was claiming he lost the rebate when it cut in for singles. I probably should have looked into it more before repeating it.

With regards to the private health users still using public health and therefore needing to pay the levy… it doesn’t necessarily have to be this way. If you are private and end up in a public hospital, why couldn’t they bill the insurer in all cases?

Finally, I understand the argument about helping keep the public health system costs lower by having people go private. However, I wonder how much of the rebate is simply help increase the charges coming from the health funds and, in turn, private health care costs. Without a rebate we might see costs drop in those areas as the companies seek to maintain their client bases.

Also, how many people who choose not to go private actually end up costing the healthcare system anything?I got sick of paying private healthcare premiums and never seeing any return, so I left. I’m yet to have set foot in a public hospital, save for the birth of my kids, and I went public for all of them, even when I was in private, as the extra cost of having maternity coverage and the gap on top of that, simply wasn’t worth it. I would wager that a lot of people who drop private health insurance wouldn’t end up being too much of a burden on the public health system.

RyaN says:

10:10pm | 14/02/12

@Bertrand: That was possibly me and I will tell you that it is the case, a single income family earning more than $80k will lose the rebate, whereas a dual income family earning $159k will still receive it.
Fair ?

The same applies to the flood levy, as does taxes, single income families are being screwed left right and center period.

Zaf & Economist don’t think it is true however if you look into the facts it is in fact true.

Brian says:

03:04pm | 15/02/12

Having not read the actual proposed legislation, I can’t specifically state whether the ‘single/couple’ issue will treat a single income earner of a family as a single. That said, it IS the case for the medicare levy and income tax. Family tax benefit A (although not B), child care rebate and a few others consider you as a couple - but have very low thresholds (as they reasonably should). The government has a tendency to treat you as a single when that’s in their favour, and as a couple when not.

Catching up says:

07:42am | 14/02/12

Macca, it is just that the voices of the powerful are louder.

Catching up says:

07:42am | 14/02/12

Macca, it is just that the voices of the powerful are louder.

acotrel says:

08:04am | 14/02/12

Since when has it been acceptable for insurance companies to dictate policy through funding political parties ?

I hate pies says:

08:40am | 14/02/12

Since when has it been acceptable for unions to dictate policy through funding political parties?

Steve says:

08:47am | 14/02/12

@Acotrel’s question

About as long as it has been acceptable for the ALP to be the wholly owned subsidary of the Australian union movement.

acotrel says:

09:12am | 14/02/12

Unions are democratic !  Insurance companies are not !

Economist says:

09:21am | 14/02/12

Since when is it acceptable for the arguably the two most powerful unions in the country, the AMA and Pharmacy Guild, to create a monopsony and restrict supply?

St. Michael says:

10:56am | 14/02/12

@ acotrel:

“Unions are democratic !  Insurance companies are not !”

Unions are democratic in the same way that the ALP is democratic: so long as you have the right people on your side, you can get things done, even get appointed to lead one.  But at the end of the day you are still beholden to those powerbrokers and the majority voice, rather than holding sway, is led like sheep.

At least with an insurance company you know, because they are bound by law, that they will attempt to maximise their profits and limit their exposure to risk as far as they legally can.  Everything you can or can’t get out of an insurance company is right there in the initial contract of insurance that you sign up for.  The same cannot be said of a union.

Hugo says:

11:53am | 14/02/12

acotrel says: “Unions are democratic !...”. Try telling that to Kathy Jackson.

TommyP says:

12:16pm | 14/02/12

Spot on @catching up.    When the corner store owner says he is doing it tough, no one hears him.  When Mr Harvey, or Mr Lowy complain they only made a $billion profit, every “journo” in the land wants a piece of the ‘scoop’.

acotrel says:

08:09am | 14/02/12

@ATM
‘The government must know this is unpopular policy’‘
Unpopular with whom? A minority ?

Gordon says:

08:36am | 14/02/12

How can this be unpopular policy when 90 percent of the population are not affected? Obvious that the wealthy have an advantage of lobbying and influencing both government and the media.

acotrel says:

09:27am | 14/02/12

@Gordon
Stop being perceptive.  You are not supposed to notice that the argument had that flaw in it !  Some of these guys really make me laugh.  They beg the question, draw conclusions from a flawed premise - and all that other stuff we learned in HSC English Expression - clear thinking !

Against the Man says:

09:30am | 14/02/12

Give it up acotrel, hehehehehehe you trying to spin this like the carbon tax. You are the minority

PsychoHyena says:

09:43am | 14/02/12

Against the Man, but your hero JH bought in many unpopular policies that were more unpopular than this. So shouldn’t be a problem.

Dan says:

09:57am | 14/02/12

Unpopular with whom? There’s been no polling on this issue.

On the contrary, I’d expect the policy to enjoy the support of a considerable majority of voters. It’s hardly scientific, but the vast majority of friends I’ve spoken to on the matter - all Liberal voters - agreed it’s a timely measure.

The legislation is well-timed too. The start of a new year, shifting the agenda back into Labor heartland, and a fresh-faced new Minister to sell it.

It’s set to pass through Parliament comfortably. I imagine this will be a policy they’ll refer back to right into 2013.

Justan Oz says:

12:53pm | 14/02/12

All Gov. handouts should be means tested;full stop!! Why should poorer workers who cannot afford private health cover,be subsidising heath care for the wealthy?  It is definately time for it..Way past time for it..

TommyP says:

01:43pm | 14/02/12

@Dan —-  Don’t worry.  NEWSPOLL are already on the case.  By the end of the week, they would have contacted all those on Andrew Bolt’s mailing list, and come up with a poll showing “most Australians” are against this.  They manage a poll a week.  Andrew Bolt’s friends are sure kept busy.  I bet though, they are subsidies for their time.  After all, most of them would be used to charging in the vicinity of $600 per hour for their services, the poor misfortunate sods….

Borderer says:

04:10pm | 14/02/12

Dan,
According to treasury modelling only about 27,000 policy holders will switch back to the public system, about 0.7% according to them. So about 3.86 million people in all will be effected by their figures, last count that’s over 15% of the population.
Of course their model for people switching is a load of bunk.
Presently I get about $1000 rebated to me because I have private cover yet I contribute $1500 into the levy that I don’t use. Now if I pull out of private and go public I pay $2500 instead of $3000, if I earn less then the gap widens till I reach the threshold, the government’s plan is staggeringly stupid but then I don’t expect any better now do I?
Welfare isn’t welfare when I pay for it.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

07:05am | 14/02/12

I’m with you on this one - we already pay more than our fair share. If this journalist was doing her job, she wouldn’t isolate the health care rebate; she’d show across the board exactly who is subsidising whom. The ALP seem to be all about taking it off those who earn it and giving it to those who don’t.

stevem says:

08:23am | 14/02/12

Who is subsidising whom? Let’s take two imaginary cases. One a person on $50k, one a person on $150k. The both pay $7 on private insurance. The person on 50k pays $2 Medicare Levy, the person on $150 pays $6. Neither will use the public system, saving the government $2.

After the $3 rebate, the end result is that the government is $1 out of pocket with the person on $50k and $5 ahead for the person on $150k.

This scheme is based on the theory they will be $8 ahead if the person on $150k stays in private insurance. As always, it is the wealthy that subsidise the less well off. To present it any other way is clearly a lie.

Figures are an approximation of my experience of the relative cost of private insurance vs medicare levy and a belief that the Medicare levy only raises about 50% of what is required.

I hate pies says:

08:56am | 14/02/12

That’s the big lie with this debate. The government know it, and they’re quite happy to mislead the public into thinking they are somehow propping up the wealthy. Means testing the rebate does not reduce the amount by which the “poor” are subsidising the “rich”; it actually increases the amount by which the “rich” are subsidising the “poor”.
What pisses me off the most is how this government continually refers to these attacks on the “wealthy” as “modest”. A once off may be modest, but when you do it over and over again (increasing tax scale; carbon tax; flood levy; medicare levy; medicare surcharge; now means testing private health rebate) it becomes much more substantial than “modest”.
Let’s not forget that the vast majority of the moderately wealthy are those that have invested money in their careers, work the hardest, copped years of low or no pay (apprentices and students), and made the most sacrifices. These people don’t deserve to be punished for having the smarts and the will to succeed. They are the backbone of our nations prosperity; and should be lauded, not derided. These people didn’t just acquire their money through luck; they earned it.
This is an issue of equity, and should be treated as such.

PsychoHyena says:

09:49am | 14/02/12

@Fred, I’m not sure how you work the “don’t pay tax if they have kids”. I manage to claw back a refund through donations and the like, but I can’t get anything back for the kids as I’m not the primary carer because I work.

TommyP says:

02:09pm | 14/02/12

@olicana —-  dejavu!    Now, where have I heard this before….....?????    Oh. Thats right.  Ray Hadly opens up his program with that same comment, EVERYDAY.  Its true what they say about propaganda.  You repeat it often enough, and even the donkeys will start to believe it.

Tigger says:

08:31am | 14/02/12

I agree. The SAME people are hit for 3 new taxes simultaneously whilst others (read labor voters0 are burdened with none.

Denny says:

08:32am | 14/02/12

Next on the list will be funding for private schools. The greens hate it and we all know that they are driving a lot of the political agenda these days as Gillard does not have the political courage to stand up to them.

This is a government consumed with the politics of envy. They are determined to crush the middle class and relegate everybody to drones who will be controlled by the unions.

james says:

09:28am | 14/02/12

Welfare for the upper class is a complete waste of government spending.
The rich can afford it, and 90% of Australians are not in the income brackets that will be affected.

TommyP says:

02:23pm | 14/02/12

This blasted Gov doesn’t realise that Welfare is only bad when handed out to those on less than $100K, the poor people, who are also the ugly people, like my gardener, and my buttler!

Borderer says:

04:23pm | 14/02/12

@James
I love how you label it welfare for the upper class, you have no idea.
If the government give a high income earner $1000 for whatever reason and they paid $33,000 in tax and you only pay $15,000 in tax, who is is contributing more to our society? It’s a twisted logic that allows people who contribute little or nothing to our society to complain about those who contribute most getting somethng back. You say they rich should contrbute more, but they already do…..
This issue arose because the government can’t balance their books and need to fund their excessive borrowing, why else would you run the risk of further burdening the public system?

acotrel says:

08:01am | 14/02/12

The ‘class war’ aspect of the means test on the health care rebate, was mentioned in Parliament by Abbott yesterday.
I don’t remember anybody else mentioning it in this context !
It is 1950s politicking ! - We’ll be back to commiephobia in a minute !

C1 says:

08:55am | 14/02/12

@ Acotrel,

What do you mean going back to ‘Commiephobia’? We are already there!!! You have a Prime Minister who is a Fabian, a good part of her Cabinet have Socialist tendencies and Green Senators who can’t fully explain why senior KGB officers meet with her prior to travelling to Eastern Europe when she was younger (least of all she is part of a family that are unreconstructed Marxists).
You would have thought when the wall went down most of them would have realised things had changed.

Stephen T says:

08:58am | 16/02/12

I’m not sure that your opinions stand up, just analysing the Bills Passed against the Bills Negatived for 2011 and the stats show 188: 4.  Also from what I’ve read most current reporting shows the majority of government legislation has been supported by the opposition. But as you have intimated its your problem, I don’t see it as a problem for Abbott.

Tubesteak says:

07:42am | 14/02/12

You’re wrong on a number of accounts.

60% of the revenue take comes from the top 10% of income earners. This is generally companies in this bracket. Up to 90% of the revenue take comes from the top 30% of income earners. “The poor” don’t contribute at all and this is mostly people earning the average salary.

People on incomes of over $100k did get there through hard work. They went to uni, didn’t do the soft degrees (eg arts or generic business degrees) and have spent years in the workforce working their way up the ladder. They are the ones contributing to the bottom line of a company and are rewarded appropriately for that.

If the government is going to dish out things then it should be going to those who are actually contributing. Not to the bludgers. But if it is going to the bludgers then it should also be going to the ones that contribute the most.

The bottom end of the scale aren’t paying for the “crimes” of the wealthy and powerful. The GFC was caused by government forcing banks to lend money to people who couldn’t afford it. The government then also turned around and told everyone to “go shopping” on cheap credit that the government was artificially created. This created a perfect storm. It was never the “crimes” of the rich but the government trying to buy votes from the lazy and indolent.

Paring this back is a good thing for everyone.

In the US the disparity between population distribution and revenue generation is even more pronounced than in Australia. It’s not Main St that’s bailing out Wall St but Wall St that’s bailing out Wall St.

acotrel says:

08:28am | 14/02/12

@Tubesteak
‘People on incomes of over $100k did get there through hard work. They went to uni, didn’t do the soft degrees (eg arts or generic business degrees) and have spent years in the workforce working their way up the ladder. ‘

Where do you get these weird ideas?  Sounds like you haven’t actually tried it yourself.  It’s very difficult to get over $100k by being an engineer or scientist, and working your way up.  Most get there either by nepotism, or bullshit and exploitation. You might also explain how people get off salaries and start their own businesses with out help from mummy and daddy ?

acotrel says:

08:33am | 14/02/12

@Tubesteak
The only non-medical uni degree which returns a good income, through ‘working your way up’,  is an MBA - become a ‘toecutter’ ! The system runs on bullshit - you might as well learn it early in your career !

Miles says:

09:02am | 14/02/12

Acotrel, the fact that you can’t think of any other non-medical uni degrees that lead to $100k plus is probably the reason why you (obviously) don’t earn that much.  Thinking that people only get there through nepotism or BS is a total cop out and a poor attempt to excuse your own failings.  Be careful, your envy is showing…

I hate pies says:

09:09am | 14/02/12

That’s a very cynic and broadbrush view of the world Acotrel. What basis do you have for this statement? I’m on over $100k a year, and I’ve done none of that; neither have all the people I work with.
Engineering graduates get about $70k a year - how hard do you think it is for them to get over $100k in a few years?
Catching up - why do people on low incomes “deserve’ hand-outs?

Number Cruncher says:

09:24am | 14/02/12

Jesus @ acotrel, what world do you live in?  Bitter and twisted much?  Didn’t get that high paying job you always dreamed of because it was too much hard work?  In my social circle, made up of a lawyer (uni degree), a couple of doctors (uni degree), recruitment agent (no degree), insurance account manager (no uni degree), landscape gardeners x 2 (no degree), web designer (degree) and myself an accountant (uni degree).  None of us are ass kissers, tell things as they are, have no time for bullshit or bullshitters, work hard, all earn in excess of $100k and not all have uni degrees.  The landscape gardeners and web designer started their own businesses without assistance from mummy or daddy.  They worked their butts off for the first 18 months to build a client base and reputation, occasionally had to tighten belts to make ends meet, and have been extremely successful because they are good at what they do.  I am 31 years old and am CFO at a chemical company.  You don’t get into positions like that based on bullshit mate.  Hard work and putting in that extra bit, and just being god at what you do, gets you there.  Bullshitters usually crumble under pressure at some stage and get caught out. 
I, personally, am sick of the extra taxes being thown my way.  Flood levy, carbon tax, now my health insurance just got more expensive.  Most people under $50k pay very little tax and have services, such a medical, subsidised by those on higher salaries.  The whole point of the rebate was to keep higher income earners out of the public system.  They already pay the medicare levy at a much higher contribution ($ amount)than lower income earners.  Why the hell should we also have to pay extra for our provate cover? 
You, sir, need to spend a day away from your computer and get out into the real world amd see what really goes on.

Tim says:

09:33am | 14/02/12

Acotrel,
that’s complete bulls$$t

Any engineer worth his (or her) salt is on over $100K within 5 years of graduating. And I’m actually being generous saying 5 years, most can do it within 2 years.

Muttley says:

12:42pm | 14/02/12

I Hate Pies, You want to know why there need to be handouts? Look at the US. A country clings for grim death to their free market mantras. Result? A huge underclass and rapidly widening gap between the haves and have nots. Free market? Fine. But to create a humane society, how about we have a bit of a safety net for those with less. Ahh, but that conflicts with your motto, “Me, me, me” doesnt it? Well this country wasnt built by the “i’m alright, screw you jack line of thinking”. We’ve always at least tried to have some assistance for those without. But i’m ashamed to say that we have a growing class of people with the attitude of the good ole US of A. Why should i contribute to those less fortunate? Whine whine whine. You do it because you can. If you cant understand that, nothing i am going to add will enlighten you.

I hate pies says:

01:59pm | 14/02/12

Muttley, there’s a difference between needing hand-outs, expecting hand-outs and deserving hand-outs. I’m not suggesting we scrap our social security system for those in need. But, people on low incomes don’t all “deserve” hand-outs. Not all people on no income (other than government income) deserve hand-outs.
The me, me, me mantra seems to be well intrenched in those who want to sponge of others hard work and sacrifice. I’m quite happy to pay my fair share, but I refuse to be a cash cow for the lazy.
You know how there’s people who are in need; the ones who have mental illness, domestic violence, genuine disabilities etc. - I’m happy to help them out. But, just because you’re on a low income (eg. factory worker) doesn’t mean you deserve some of my hard earned. If you want what I’ve got, go and study or find a job that pays more. If it’s too hard, then too bad.
Need and deserve have differenct meanings.

Tubesteak says:

03:08pm | 14/02/12

acotrel
I earn well over $100k. It is through hard work and climbing the ladder. Work smart and hard and you’ll get there. I’m not surprised you didn’t. A friend of mine was a geologist and he was told at uni that if he wasn’t earning over $500k after working for 5 years then he wasn’t worth his salt. He’s on good money now!

Lawyers, bankers and accountants all earn well over $100k. Your ignorance is astounding.

jay-ded says:

08:12am | 14/02/12

Especially when they’re closing the hospitals down Ian1.  The Royal Childrens hospital in Brissie is goneski and a lot of the other hospitals just don’t the time or people to look at ear / nose / throat problems in kids.

seanr says:

08:19am | 14/02/12

I feel for you Ange. Unfortunately the Health Ministers argument is that “if you can afford to pay then you should AND you should subsidise those who ‘can’t’ afford to pay”. If it was really about fairness then the Govt would take away the rebate and also reduce the tax rate on those individuals affected.

josh says:

08:22am | 14/02/12

Mind you people who vote for Labor are more likely to be dole people, pensioners or public servants. It’s a class warfare. Countries like China and Singapore are buying our assets because they know we need money and Australia will soon be ‘economic colony’ of China anywa, just wait and see.

TommyP says:

08:27am | 14/02/12

Well done Ange (or is it Julie Bishop)?????????  And, WHAT is it that you will be getting from the Coallition????????? 
Your recital from the Liberal’s Propaganda handbook was outstanding.  Now, how about you go and source some FACTUAL evidence to support your tripe and rhetoric! 
There will be a lot of your front benhj colleagues who will come to your support, claiming I should discredit your garbage with facts, but the way I see it, when you post such utter nonsence, then, it is up to YOU to back it up, not have someone else provide you with details as to why you need to be stripped from the right to vote! 
So, back on your silver broom, and, do some research.  btw, the Abbott Book of Slogans is not your best source for a balanced representation…...

Roll on Election says:

08:54am | 14/02/12

I’m just over the threshold for disability assistance for my wife - nowhere near the $100k someone mentioned above. We are struggling, but I can’t afford $4k for the courses my wife needs to get work formal in the industry she desperately wants (industry is crying out for people with her skills…she needs the credentials to support).

It’s a sad day when the disability placement agency suggest either:

1) I quit my job, sell some assets and go on the dole. Then my wife will get all the courses for free, funded through them by the Government. They’ll even buy her clothes, pay for transport to/from interviews, pay for parking etc.

2) Me move out for a few months and we tell all and sundry we’re separated. Then the Government will support my wife. Then, once all is done, I move back.

The representative is appalled. He can’t help my wife, who wants work - yet he can fully fund dole bludgers who don’t want to work. Go figure…

Like many, I’m getting sick to death of being slugged by this damn Government, to fund others who have no interest in contributing positively to society.

acotrel says:

08:55am | 14/02/12

How many people have you sacked this week Ange ? Isn’t that how MBAs achieve productivity gains, rather than improving process and product ?

Ange says:

09:07am | 14/02/12

@ TommyP.  Wow, you really are a horrid troll.  I’m not Julie Bishop, I’m not a Liberal member (or any political party, by the way), I don’t know what the “Liberal’s Propaganda handbook” is (?), and I don’t have the faintest idea what a “front benhj” is (???).  I haven’t posted nonsense.  I have told you MY story, and why I feel this government cares little for people in my situation.  Am I allowed to have and share my own opinion under this government or not?  You seem to passionately despise anyone who dares to criticize Julia Gillard or her decisions, yet ironically you are the person to drag every discussion into Labor versus Liberal, presuming that anyone who doesn’t blindly back Gillard on each and every decision is now the enemy and must be ridiculed and vilified with the most venemous attacks. 

I’m sure people like you believe you are doing the Labor party a massive favour with your stinging attacks on honest hard working people like myself, but in honesty you are probably just driving many people further and further away from ever supporting your point of view.

LeonT says:

09:30am | 14/02/12

I didn’t realise they paid MBA graduates $24 an hour.

TJ says:

09:44am | 14/02/12

Why all the hate on poor Ange here! Jealousy? She is but a hard worker.  I myself am now a high-income earner by Labor’s standards.  I worked my way up through hard work and now own a small business.  I spent 7 years full time study while working full time.  Full time consists of up to 80hrs and never the 38hrs we are told.  Over 15 years of working my way up to ownership half of that was under $50k with early years as low as $20k. 

I give a handful of Australians jobs and focus efficiency to compete in a competitive market place with the stress of no guarantee on my income.

It is unfair to comment not on someone’s hard work to further themselves but on their ethics in which they treat others.  Have a look at yourselves and Ange here has not given out baseless facts but really only commented on her own situation and feelings.

As far as this debate goes, I have insurance to pay for my new family and this measure is going to cost me a further $1k, I already pay $3k in Medicare on top of this and won’t speak of the other taxes.  I accept taxes are a way of distributing wealth, my only gripe is the current government would rather keep coming up with new ones then look at their own spending and efficiency, coming from someone whose livelihood is based on efficiency. 

It seems logical to me to increase existing taxes rather than add new.  Increase the GST rate (the ‘rich’ consume more don’t they?) rather than come up with a new tax and a new infrastructure to support and administer it.

RayM says:

10:20am | 14/02/12

Wether I agree with your post entirely or not does not matter.
I too had a similar experience. I studied my MBA part time on weekends whilst I worked full time during the week in my first full time job as a graduate engineer. Granted it was not 80 hours a week, but none the less I gave up on social life for two years as I did additional units to finish quicker. During this time I pissed of a lot of people because of me taking out my frustration of not being able to do stuff on them. When I finally finished my engineering degree and MBA, I was left with a $45,000 debt. I was happy to pay that as I knew that in the end my hard work would lead to great rewards.
Unfortunately that was not the case in reality. My first year of working I had to get private healthcare, otherwise I would have to pay an additional 1% medicare levy on top of the standard rate because I earned too much. Now five years into my working career, I now have to pay flood levy and soon a carbon tax. On top of that because past and present governments let the housing market get out of control with foreign investors and negative gearing I cannot even afford a house within reasonable distance to work (i.e. 1 hour each way).
Then on the other hand you have people who are on the dole who keep having children just so they can get the baby bonus. Australia is quickly become a nation where there is a class of people who do not want to work. I feel sorry for these children as they learn from their parents. They get into a cycle and find it hard to leave. If you look at the birth trends, very few professionals are having children because they are too expensive to raise. They do not get the benefits that people on the dole do for their children. Wouldn’t it make more sense to discourage people who can’t afford them not to have them and those who can love and support them, encourage having them? Example, offer tax breaks if you have a young child and want to send them to child care so you can go back to work quicker and continue to be a contributing tax payer. This way Australia would be growing the next generation of tax payer instead of the next generation of dole bludger.
Conclusion, there is no incentive in this country to work harder because as I have quickly learned you get penalised for it the more you try to better your life through hard work.

andrew says:

10:53am | 14/02/12

Ange, i feel for you.  i am single late 30s, work good hours and get paid well.

You have studied hard, well done, many of us have as well you, are not unique.  Now you work at least 80 hours a week and only bring in $91k a years even with a MBA? 

Sorry, but something is wrong here.  Seriously, you probably should take a look at how you are working.  I know this might hit a nerve with you, but seriously, 80 hours a week for $91k is just plan crazy - you cant blame any government for this either, but i am sure you probably worked similiar hours under a coalition government.

If you are working 80 hours a week, where do you find the time to post comments online?

If you earned 91k in 2007 (when the coalition were in power), you would have paid $25,615 in tax and medicare.  if you earned 91k in 2011, you would have paid $22,985 in tax and medicare.  That looks like you are paying around $2,630 less in tax over four years.  Yes some of these tax breaks were introduced by the outgoing coalition government, but i dont see an increase by the current government - other then the flood levy which is a separate issue per your comment.

anyway, i hope you find the balance in your life soon.

patsy says:

10:56am | 14/02/12

@Ange-I don’t want to spoil you day but, this is a true story. A hard working, self made man gets married (he had to work hard to catch her, too) had a child and had private health cover. He is then diagnosed with an agressive brain tumor and in his last weeks his neuosrgeon told his wife to take him to a public hospital as there are more nurses around to care for him as he couldn’t do anything for himself or even communicate what he needed.
So, all the money in the world can’t save you from a stay in a public hospital.
I do agree with everything you are saying, though. You get punished for working hard.

RayM says:

10:57am | 14/02/12

Wether I agree with your post entirely or not does not matter.
I too had a similar experience. I studied my MBA part time on weekends whilst I worked full time during the week in my first full time job as a graduate engineer. Granted it was not 80 hours a week, but none the less I gave up on social life for two years as I did additional units to finish quicker. During this time I pissed of a lot of people because of me taking out my frustration of not being able to do stuff on them. When I finally finished my engineering degree and MBA, I was left with a $45,000 debt. I was happy to pay that as I knew that in the end my hard work would lead to great rewards.

Unfortunately that was not the case in reality. My first year of working I had to get private healthcare, otherwise I would have to pay an additional 1% medicare levy on top of the standard rate because I earned too much. Now five years into my working career, I now have to pay flood levy and soon a carbon tax. On top of that because past and present governments let the housing market get out of control with foreign investors and negative gearing I cannot even afford a house within reasonable distance to work (i.e. 1 hour each way).

Then on the other hand you have people who are on the dole who keep having children just so they can get the baby bonus. Australia is quickly become a nation where there is a class of people who do not want to work. I feel sorry for these children as they learn from their parents. They get into a cycle and find it hard to leave. If you look at the birth trends, very few professionals are having children because they are too expensive to raise. They do not get the benefits that people on the dole do for their children. Wouldn’t it make more sense to discourage people who can’t afford them not to have them and those who can love and support them, encourage having them? Example, offer tax breaks if you have a young child and want to send them to child care so you can go back to work quicker and continue to be a contributing tax payer. This way Australia would be growing the next generation of tax payer instead of the next generation of dole bludger.

Conclusion, there is no incentive in this country to work harder because as I have quickly learned you get penalised for it the more you try to better your life through hard work.

patsy says:

10:59am | 14/02/12

@Ange-I don’t want to spoil you day but, this is a true story. A hard working, self made man gets married (he had to work hard to catch her, too) had a child and had private health cover. He is then diagnosed with an agressive brain tumor and in his last weeks his neuosrgeon told his wife to take him to a public hospital as there are more nurses around to care for him as he couldn’t do anything for himself or even communicate what he needed.
So, all the money in the world can’t save you from a stay in a public hospital.
I do agree with everything you are saying, though. There is no incentive to work hard.

patsy says:

11:33am | 14/02/12

@Ange-I don’t want to spoil your day, but this is a true story. A hard working, self made wealthy man gets married. He had to work hard to catch her, too:) They had a child and they had private medical cover. He is then diagnosed with an agressive brain tumor and in his last weeks his neurosurgeon tells his wife to transfer him to the public hospital as they have more nurses around to care for him. He couldn’t do anything for himself or even comminicate his needs. So, (hopefully not), you might have to use a public hospital one day.
I also agree with what you are saying. Hard work should be rewarded, not punished.

patsy says:

12:38pm | 14/02/12

Please exsqueeze me. My laptop has the hiccups today so I reposted it. It was even making a musical chiming sound that I’ve never heard before? Hope it’s not going to beexpensive.

sandra says:

08:24am | 14/02/12

sooo good—thanks for this one!!

Tony of Poorakistan says:

03:00pm | 14/02/12

A gem indeed ....

NicK says:

09:33am | 14/02/12

My husband and I are on a combined income of approx $110-120,000.  I work one day a week and the rest of the time I am a stay at home mum with a toddler, and one on the way.  Apparently this is not going to effect us.  However it will, because when I’m finished having children it will not be worth me going back to work full time.  With the cost of child care, and loss of the private health rebate we really have to look closely if it’s worth working at all.

Shane says:

09:37am | 14/02/12

- How many people does James Packer employ?
- How much money do his companies contribute to government coffers each year?
- Would Australia be better off without him?

St. Michael says:

11:00am | 14/02/12

@ nankypoo: your argument would be better if everyone in Australia paid the same rate of tax.

Susan says:

08:30am | 14/02/12

Jimbo - self insurance is good in theory, but most people would never save enough for a basic operation such as knee or hip replacement, let alone something major like heart surgery. The average cost of a basic knee replacement with no complications is in the vicinity of $20k, a trip to the hospital for an uncomplicated birth is somewhere between $5k and $10k and heart surgery, well you’re looking at more than $50k, and sometimes $100k. So those who self insure may think it is a good option, but it takes years to save that kind of cash.

James says:

09:20am | 14/02/12

Why should the moderate - high income earners bail out the encumbent governments’ incompetence.  The budget defecit is the governments fault, not the tax payers.

Peter says:

09:46am | 14/02/12

@James

Why doesn’t the liberal party come out and say that they will re-instate the “status quo” if elected. Tony has been asked this many times already and dodged the question.

Ando says:

11:42am | 14/02/12

I dont agree with the policy. But who actually said those earning over the $160k threshold or even the $250k threshold are rich? Ive only heard this language from those opposing this policy.

I hate pies says:

09:23am | 14/02/12

The may pay as precious little tax as possible, but they stll pay much, much more than people on low incomes. What’s hard to understand about that?

gaz says:

11:00am | 14/02/12

Yes, isn’t it a great world we live in where people actually feel ENTITLED to someone else’s hard earned money. What you are saying is that it’s okay that people on high incomes essentially work half their day to pay subsidies to everyone else.

It’s easy to sit on a forum and call everyone on an income of 100k+ a lazy 9 to 5er but believe it or not the majority of us worked hard to get here and we’ll be damned if we have to pay for someone else’s health-care but then have no rebate of our own.

TommyP says:

08:46am | 14/02/12

First of all Tim, It is quite easy to see that you work in J Hockey’s team, as you have NO IDEA what the tax rates even are!  $50K = $8,600 tax.  $150K = $46400 tax.    That is not 8 times more tax.  Furthermore, $41K disposable income vs $108K disposable income…....    And, the logic in providing a rebate to those on $108K AFTER TAX INCOME is?????????????????????????    The only LOGIC is GREED!

I hate pies says:

09:31am | 14/02/12

So it’s only 5.4 times, that all? Only $37,800 a year more tax. Only 42% of your disposable income taken by the government, compared to 17%. Yes, those greedy “rich” people just don’t pay their fair share.
Tommy, given that the person on $150k doesn’t consume any more public resources than the person on $50k, how is it equitable for them to give $37,800 a year more to the government? That’s $726 a week - how would you like to give the government an extra $726 out of your pocket every week?

Liz says:

10:52am | 14/02/12

TommyP - you don’t live in Sydney do you.. 108k after tax, when paying a mortgage, children and cars, plus the flood levey, medicare levy etc etc etc…it doesn’t really go very far!

Tim says:

11:37am | 14/02/12

@TommyP, my apologies, my arithmetical skills aren’t as good as yours. But regardless, when person A pays more in tax than person B even earns, how can they be described as greedy??

TommyP says:

12:07pm | 14/02/12

Exscuse me, but I think that for Person B on $108K to want the same benefits as person A on $41K, is nothing more than greed.  For the record, I fall into Person B’s earning bracket, and I am all for the means testing of rebates.  As a conservative, this has ALWAYS been the policy of the Coalition - the minimising of welfare.  However, now all of a sudden, a Labor Gov is doing this, so naturally, the Coalition will oppose it…...    See how this just makes the Coalition look stupid, together with ALL of you who don’t seem to understand the vary beast you support.

james says:

12:07pm | 14/02/12

Move somewhere else Liz if you cannot afford to live there.

james says:

12:18pm | 14/02/12

Person a earns 3 times than person b before tax
Person a takes home 2.65 times as much as person b after tax.

Hardly a big deal.

JT says:

12:37pm | 14/02/12

@TommyP

‘‘Exscuse me, but I think that for Person B on $108K to want the same benefits as person A on $41K, is nothing more than greed.’‘

Can you really be this obtuse? Person B pays the bill for the services provided not just for themselves but for Person A as well and you think Person B expecting to use the services they paid for is greed? What kind of twisted reality do you live in?

What do you think would happen if all the ‘‘rich’’ people left TommyP? Who would pay for the services you demand for yourself?

TommyP says:

12:58pm | 14/02/12

Thankfully JT, not all those on $108K take home pay have the same attitude as you.  some of us actually consider ourselves fortunate to have had the opportunities that a lot of others don’t.  therefore, some of us don’t feel the need for the Gov to subsidise us to the same level as those less fortunate.  some of us are prepared to pay a little extra.  My only gripe in all this though is how all you conservatives who cry against welfare, now want that same very welfare.  Or, is it only BAD welfare, when given to thos on far less than yourselves??????    And, you want to tell me it ISN’T greed??????  Gee, you must really think that people are stupid, don’t you?  Another fantastic trait of the more fortunate, their belief of superiority!

JT says:

01:22pm | 14/02/12

@TommyP

‘‘not all those on $108K take home pay have the same attitude as you.  some of us actually consider ourselves fortunate to have had the opportunities that a lot of others don’t.  therefore, some of us don’t feel the need for the Gov to subsidise us to the same level as those less fortunate.  some of us are prepared to pay a little extra. ‘’

Why are you lying mate? You are not currently on 108K per year and if you were, you would understand that the government is not subsidising you; you are subsidising the government and through them people on a lower income.

So you’re prepared to pay a little extra are you, in that case please send me $100 per week from now on because I currently earn less than your mythical 108K and you have just said you’re happy to pay a little extra. I’m waiting.

TommyP says:

01:38pm | 14/02/12

JT —  How do I respond to your mindless, idiotic, childish comments??????    I really don’t know.  Just because I am not a selfish greedy prick, then it is impossible for me to earn a decent living???????   
What-EVER!

I hate pies says:

02:05pm | 14/02/12

TommyP - it’s not welfare if you give more to the government if you take. It’s merely reducing the governments dependence on you. Quite simply, we could significantly reduce the amount of tax every has to pay if governments of all persuasions stopped wasting vast amounts of money in their bid for re-election, and focussed their attention on governing.

JT says:

02:10pm | 14/02/12

@TommyP

I hit a nerve I see. Ironic after that little temper tantrum of yours you accuse me of being childish.

Liz says:

02:18pm | 14/02/12

TommyP - I think the issue here is that whilst higher income earners are happy to pay a bit ore (ie. extra tax), we are basically subsidizing a system WE CAN’T USE as we are FORCED into getting private health insurance. Even more annoying is the fact that this private health insurance doesn’t even cover us 100%!
I have no problem in forking out nearly 25k per annum in tax (not including all of my lovely “levy’s) however I do get annoyed at being forced into a system that doesn’t cover us completely, whilst ALSO subsidizing a system I can’t use. Go the UK - The NHS system is fantastic. Higher earners pay more however EVERYONE is entitled to use the public system. And that is how it should be.
I feel like the middle class have become the governments debit card - when they run out of funds, they just hit us with another tax. And I am sick of it.

TommyP says:

03:06pm | 14/02/12

“Temper Tantrum”??????    hahahahahaha  
That’s why I said whatever!  You obviously are quite prepared to shoot down any opposing view point to that of yours.  So, good luck to you!  What more do you want me to say?    I will never be like you, thank God!

Ando says:

03:23pm | 14/02/12

Tommy p,
You really don’t get this at all do you. If people start pulling out of private health care maybe you will understand.

metallicahead says:

08:48am | 14/02/12

Can you cut out the “JuLiar” crap. Fair dinkum it looks stupid. It’s as dumb as “HoWARd”. Both make me cringe.

Karl says:

09:21am | 14/02/12

You know what is really dumb and makes me cringe?  The fact that anyone under the age of 90 uses the term “fair dinkum”.

acotrel says:

09:22am | 14/02/12

@Metallica
I agree about the ‘Juliar’ crap.  It was bullshit anyway, we rarely ever hear her full statement about the ‘carbon tax’ in which she expresses preference for an ETRS.  All the Youtube clips have been neatly edited, and deliberaly cut short to create a deceit. If anyone wants to persist with ‘Juliar’, they should find a news report which shows her complete statement , then they might have some credibility !

AdamC says:

09:23am | 14/02/12

Metallicahead, JuLiar is just my pet name for our adored leader!

Kirk H. says:

01:59pm | 14/02/12

@metallicahead ——  WHY do you even bother with these mindless, ignorant children?

Jenny says:

08:26am | 14/02/12

Bingo Tim! We’ve all become so accustomed to getting rebates or returns or whatever for free that it’s horrifying that something may be taken away. It’s definitely time to cut the rebate (and probably a few other things too) and start living within not only our individual means, but also within our means as a country. Or do people like the look of Greece’s current situation?

acotrel says:

08:45am | 14/02/12

Downwards envy is really piss poor ! This is NOT about ‘class warfare ‘.  That’s just Abbott being bloody stupid, and divisive in his quest for power !

Miles says:

09:18am | 14/02/12

+ 1

This is exactly what is happening.

AdamC says:

09:55am | 14/02/12

Bruce, that is a good analogy. Of course, this has nothing to do with health and everything to do with dressing up a middle-class tax hike. Getting Tanya Plibersek, rather than Swan or Wong, to sell the idea doesn’t mean it is anything approaching a health measure. Not that journos can be expected to understand that. After all, they are only professsionals getting paid to report stuff!

james says:

11:42am | 14/02/12

Its a means test for a rebate adamC not a tax increase.

AdamC says:

12:49pm | 14/02/12

Removing a conditional tax deduction is the same as raising taxes, James. That is the objective of the measure. What do you think this is about?

james says:

01:13pm | 14/02/12

No it inst adam, it is reducing a government rebate.

AdamC says:

02:53pm | 14/02/12

James, you don’t do a lot of thinking for youself, do you?

I can take a horse to water, etc ...

james says:

03:28pm | 14/02/12

Please show me how taking away a government handout is tax increase.

Maria says:

09:54am | 14/02/12

Fully agree, I’ll be doing the same, will switch to to the lowest possible hospital only cover just to avoid tax.
BTW mean testingof any benefits is fundamentally wrong, same said about any government handouts. People who earn more already paying higher taxes and they earn more because they study more and work more, work harder. Anybody on government subsidies apart from disabled and pensioneers should be ashamed for not being able to support themselves, but they prefer to vote Labour…

I Laugh At You says:

03:37pm | 14/02/12

Love it.  The first link, to Herald Sun, the second, News.com…...    And, in either case, ZERO credibility.    As news ltd have shown, in the UK, here, and all over the world, they are nothing more than ‘ambulance chasers’ relying on a paper cut, so as to make up a story…..  I suppose, with suckers like you to lap it up, why not.  Its easy money!!!    You keep quoting these “credible” sources on numerous sites, therefore one can only conclude you lack all credibility also.  In fact, judging by your comments, one can also conclude that you are either Abbott, Pyne, Hockey, an editor of one of these sad excuses for a news providor, or, just a mindless hack being led by the nose like a prized bull!

Who are you????? says:

03:55pm | 14/02/12

hahahaha ATM —— You Gronk!    Is that a reference to my favourite activity?  Your comments resemble how it it looks, all messed up?????

Against the Man says:

09:29pm | 14/02/12

Guys…...all of Australia saw the Four Corners Gillard interview. You have Gillard at constantly low record polling. Credibility? Gillard and her minority twits like you that need the credibility boost

Keep it up 12 steppers, the end is almost here for you guys!

Ando says:

11:55am | 14/02/12

They are already paying for the majority of their own health care plus paying for other peoples health care through taxes. This helps everyone who uses the public system. Be thankful some people pay for themselves through the private system so the public can care for others.

Australian's R Bunnies says:

12:49pm | 14/02/12

“instead of being put into the pockets of insurance companies. ” Like the London based Bupa?  Shhhhh. I don’t think Australia’s head office (i.e. London) would like such talk.

james says:

02:30pm | 14/02/12

It should be kept in place for those that need a helping hand with cost of living, not rich families or singles.

stevem says:

11:13am | 14/02/12

If you’re on $250k, you’re paying abut 4 times the average Medicare levy and are currently getting what is effectively a small discount on the private health for not using the public system. The end result is that you’re paying 5-6 times as much for health care as somebody on $65k. The government want you to increase that to 6-7 times as much - while still not using the public system you’re paying for!

There was a little winging when the mandatory insurance was introduced, but far more this time. There is only so much people are willing to give before they begin feeling they are being taken advantage of. This government has passed that point.

During the term of this government you’ve already watched them give $900 to the rest of the population, take an extra 1% for Queensland’s negligence in being uninsured, rebate the rest of the population for a carbon tax they promised not to introduce. On top of this you are constantly denigrated as somehow oppressing the masses.

I pay my way, in abundance, and resent paying through the nose as part of Labor’s class war. They clearly (and very correctly) believe I will never vote for them in a pink fit and therefore am a cash cow.

Monty says:

11:49am | 14/02/12

“Labors class war”... Funny how its ever only class war when the rich are asked to stop sponging off government welfare. When it comes to welfare for the poor its always “stop bludging and get a job!”.

For all the whinging from those on higher incomes, how much is it really going to affect their life? Have to go for the lower spec Range Rover? Get the 300cm plasma TV instead of the 500cm? Take one less weekend trip to the south coast this year?

People need to get real about how much they’re already getting from the government. The rebate is welfare, full stop. When the upper-middle and upper class stop being bludging welfare queens this country will be a whole lot better off.

stevem says:

12:33pm | 14/02/12

No, it’s Labor’s class war when they keep bringing up the misguided notion that the poor are subsidising the rich. Labor are the ones who call their legislation “Fairer Private Health Insurance”. Labor are the ones who claim cleaners are subsidising politicians.

The fact that those on higher incomes are expected to pay several times the amount of the Medicare Levy in dollar terms is accepted by all. The fact that they are then asked to forgo the benefits of that payment at a small discount is not appreciated, but accepted. To be then asked to pay full price for a private service even though you have already paid for three times over for the public version is galling.

It is not the few extra dollars that sticks so much as the fact that this government has hit the same portion of the population over and over again - each time with snide remarks that it’s not that much, or that we deserve to pay more or that it’s only fair we pay more.

How working hard for years to get into a good job and getting a discount for the privilege of being forced out of the system I have funded since its inception makes me a “bludging welfare queen” eludes me.

I have no heavy artillery or sharp stick. In this war I have been relegated to the sidelines with a nerf gun.

Sarahh says:

03:04pm | 14/02/12

Monty what is it you want?  The people who work hard for their money and are therefore “rich” to pay the difference in tax until they have to live under the same circumstances as someone who has never put in the effort in their entire life?  It seems there’s no reward for effort under this government, in fact it’s like people are punished for wanting to spend their hard-earned on themselves.

Monty says:

12:22pm | 14/02/12

Yeah, life sure is a bitch when you can afford to pay a cleaner , a gardener, a business adviser, a financial planner and an accountant instead of having to do all that stuff yourself on top of working. Margaret, you’re a true Aussie Battler doing it tough.

james says:

12:22pm | 14/02/12

What is your takehome after tax margaret?

Anubis says:

12:44pm | 14/02/12

Sales Tax?  There is no sales tax. Other than that I agree with you wholeheartedly

Monty says:

12:50pm | 14/02/12

Anubis, Margaret most likely listed “sales tax” in there because none of her post is true and she just copied and modified a chain email from the USA complaining about taxes.

andrew says:

02:43pm | 14/02/12

Margarat

You said it best, you made the choice to do all these things.  So why are you complaining about your choice?

Anyway, let me dig out the holes in your comment:

(+ a ‘rich’ levy) you said you pay this twice on PHI and medicare.  There is no such thing as a rich levy in Australia.  If you are paying it twice, can i send you an invoice for services so you can pay me?

fire levy - how do you pay a fire levy?  My understanding, i admit i am no expert, you pay this to your local council on your rates notice.  Would you rather not pay this?  So when your house is burning down or a family or a friend, who should pay for the cost of the fire brigade to turn up?  Perhaps in your world when you call 000, you give them your credit card details first before the emergency services turn up?

You made the choice to pay Private School Fees for your children, congratulations.  dont have a whinge about it, if you worried that your neighbour is going to state funded schools, send your prince and princesses to the state school as well.

I pay payroll tax. What state do you employee in?  As PRT is only payable in 4 states and has different thresholds.  i would be surprised if you are actually paying payroll tax at all.
I pay company tax.  so? every other company that makes money pays income tax as well, so dont play the victim card.  At the end of the day, if you are paying tax, you are making money – cry me a river.
I pay sales tax.  Sorry dear, there isnt anything called sales tax anymore here in Australia.
I pay import and duties taxes.  Really?  I am no expert on this matter, but when you import something these days, you pay GST on the import value.  Do you really import stuff from overseas?  If you are paying GST and you run a business, you get that GST back when you lodge your BAS.  So no harm done really is there?
I pay stamp duty.  Why and where?  We all do on insurance and if you buy real property.  Again stop playing the victim here.
I pay capital gains tax.  Do you know what capital gains tax is? 
I pay fringe benefits tax.  Do you know what FBT is?  Do you know the rate?

I would be very surprised if you are actually running a business or perhaps as Monty said, you have simply cut and paste a chain email from another country that complains about paying taxes.

Margaret Gray says:

02:48pm | 14/02/12

GST is a sales tax by any other name.

Predictably, under-achievers like Monty still carry around their crushing envy like a badge of honour.

My hard work has bought me success, wealth and happiness.

That that pisses off you and your kind provides me with an endless source of satisfaction.

Thankfully my kids have inherited my work ethic so their futures are assured too.

They also share my intolerance and disdain for lazy leeches who - with hands permanently outstretched awaiting my taxed largesse - blame all but themselves for their failure at the game of life.

I guess the ‘truth’ hurts.

Margaret Gray says:

04:02pm | 14/02/12

@andrew

With such ineptitude in basic understanding of the Australian taxation system I’m glad you’re not an accountant.

Or maybe you are?

It’s quite clear that on your low income you are not troubled by the higher income imposts mandated by the ATO.

Then again if you had bothered to do any homework on the subject you would have avoided dribbling out such rubbish.

Australians R Bunnies says:

04:27pm | 14/02/12

The other doosey is State Pay Roll tax. The so called experts class this as a business cost.  I.e. not a tax on labour.  What an absurdity.

When Bluescope Steel or Alcoa move production to their overseas plants OR ANZ & Telstra move their call centres to India OR Qantas shifts maintenance to Singapore their Payroll Tax for those staff immediately vanishes. True business costs like offices, heating, lighting, sewerage, desks, chairs, computers for all those staff don’t vanish.

andrew says:

04:32pm | 14/02/12

Maggy,

hmm, do you know monty?  how do you know that she or he is an under-achiever?  sounds like you have a bit of a chip on shoulder and anybody that disagrees with your or finds holes in your theory is an under-achiever.

i dont see from this persons comment that they are envies of your life at all either.

and i didnt read into their comment that they are pissed off at you because you “work hard”.  the only thing they pointed out was the lies and errors in your gibberish.

you claim to be happy, but you spit and cry and complain and whine in both of your comments, i would hate to see you unhappy. 

the truth does hurt doesnt it.  happiness isnt success or wealth by the way.

andrew says:

04:47pm | 14/02/12

Maggy

so instead of actually answering my questions, you insult me?  you have not attempted to deny what i typed other then telling me to do homework.  how about you show some evidence that you actually understood what you typed in the first instance.  or even proove that i am wrong - here is a simple one what section and which ITAA act details this rich tax that only pay?

here you go, in another comment you state sales tax is just another name for GST.  Well here in Australia if you run a business, in its simpliest form, a business will pay GST on purchases, collect GST on sales and net the difference off and pay or get a refund from the ATO.  so the business does not actually pay GST or your term sales tax.  get it?  probably not.

okay.  at the end of the day as you say, the truth hurts, and you have been found out so you resort to childish insults.

it is clear to me that you have a massive sense of entitlment, chip on your shoulder and a victim mentality that so many australians seem to have these days.

but again, that is your choice.

Number Cruncher says:

05:33pm | 14/02/12

What douche bags you all are. Payroll tax kicks on at little more than $500k in Vic. Any business with 5 or so employees and th owner takenng .wage will end up paying. There are still items subject to sales tax such as alcohol, tobacco among others. Fire levy had been added to a lot of business insurance policies regardless of location. Most imports are subject to 5% duty as well as 10% GST. The GST, which u can claim the credit for on your BAS, bit unless your are eligible for the GST deferral scheme can be a huge drain on your cash flow. The second you provide and form of benefit to an employee you get stung by FBT. The aove comments show just how little the common pleb understands the risks, requirements or expenses in running a small business.

Australians R Bunnies says:

01:09pm | 14/02/12

‘bout 18 months til the next election and the polls don’t look good. Not a lot of time left. So this government is doing as much as it can in the limited time it’s got. If they had more time then perhaps they wouldn’t feel so compelled to push so hard.

OUR House of Reps isn’t given the 5 years that their UK counterparts are given. Ever wondered why that is?  Can’t let those Australians truly set their own destiny? Three years? Seriously?

But the perverse outcome is that we effectively have 6 year terms. Australians have voted out a first term government in 2 or so occasions in 110 odd years. And it took war and depression for us to not give a newbie government another shot.

But 3 year terms is still enough to weaken the effectiveness of OUR parliament.

Economist says:

02:09pm | 14/02/12

Randal thanks for providing the PHI industries lobbyist figures on the savings. I question these figures on the basis that this seems like the total cost of all procedures, but the issue is how many of these procedures related to elective surgeries and how many related to surgeries from public waiting lists?

While I agree that for the most part these surgeries improved the quality of life of Australians I’m not convinced that this reduced public waiting lists? This after all is one of the key arguments for the subsidy. Some evidence suggests that where there is duplication of services with the public system, public waiting lists continue to grow because surgeons deliberately do not perform these surgeries, preferring to opt into the the private system as it’s better for their bottom line.

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Agenda,+Volume+18,+Number+2,+2011/7401/Text/ch04-Paolucci:Butler:Ven.html

Australians R Bunnies says:

02:23pm | 14/02/12

Was that about the time when a 3 brm house in say Melbourne’s Box Hill sold for about $80K?

The fish rots from the head down.

Australians R Bunnies says:

02:13pm | 14/02/12

So you’re against “middle-class welfare”.  But you approve of a “offered to low and middle-income earners”.  I’m confused. 

Oh and it’s not really “means” tested is it.  Citizan A who earns $60K pa and owns her own home outright gets the same as Citizen B who spends a huge chunk of her $60K pa on rent or mortgage interest.  Lucky for Citizen A who’s parents could afford to fund the purchase of her house.

Lisa says:

03:44pm | 14/02/12

I will lose my rebate. I don’t whinge “I pay taxes so I deserve the rebate” - I whinge “I pay taxes, I pay an additional medicare levy yet I can’t use the services my taxes pay for”
Instead, I have to get private health insurance on top of the rest of it. I don’t begrudge paying tax and I am certainly happy to support the lower income earner, having come from a family of low income earners. I just don’t understand why we can’t have a system similar to that of in the UK. You pay a levy according to your earnings and everyone benefits.
It’s the double dipping that annoys me, not losing a rebate. And then, to add insult to injury, I take out a high cover on private health thinking that I would be covered for everything but lo and behold, my knee needs surgery. Am I covered? No. 15k later…. thanks very much.