Budget 2014

[ninwa]

Instead of raising the pension age, a person's house should be classed as assessable income when considering eligibility for the pension. It should be assumed that you could reverse mortgage, say, 30% of the equity in your home if need be.

Instead of a deficit levy, reduce the tax benefits from salary sacrificing into super. It's primarily high income earners who are able to contribute extra to super anyway.   

The new interest rate of HECS will screw up a lot of people who went back to uni and getting larger HECS debt under the assumption that it would not accrue real interest. Kinda unethical to apply it to existing debt imo.

I think #1 is already in the Budget? (Actually, maybe I'm getting confused with the commission of audit - pretty sure it was in there.) It's been debated for a long time and I don't know if even this government would dare to touch this. It can be problematic as well - for a lot of pensioners, they've been living in their family home for decades and it is their only significant asset, and including it in the means test is basically forcing them to take a reverse mortgage which I'm uncomfortable with.

Agree with #2 but I'd love to see how that might impact on the economy in terms of the investments that superannuation funds make.

[Reckoner]

I think #1 is already in the Budget? (Actually, maybe I'm getting confused with the commission of audit - pretty sure it was in there.) It's been debated for a long time and I don't know if even this government would dare to touch this. It can be problematic as well - for a lot of pensioners, they've been living in their family home for decades and it is their only significant asset, and including it in the means test is basically forcing them to take a reverse mortgage which I'm uncomfortable with.

In the audit, not the budget I don't think. I see where you're coming from. Personally I would prefer this to potentially having people work for longer than they perhaps should. But thats just me, I do acknowledge your point though. 

[Professor Polonsky]

[pi]

http://theconversation.com/how-much-student-debt-will-you-be-facing-post-budget-26712

[thushan]

Oh dear.

[xenial]

Lol fuck. Should've done undergrad med. Ahhh sigh. Y u no tell me this before I pick career path.

[Orb]

Lol fuck. Should've done undergrad med. Ahhh sigh. Y u no tell me this before I pick career path.

Doesn't a 99.95 net you a full scholarship regardless?

[ninwa]

In the audit, not the budget I don't think. I see where you're coming from. Personally I would prefer this to potentially having people work for longer than they perhaps should. But thats just me, I do acknowledge your point though. 

Good point, I guess it's the lesser of two evils

[pi]

Doesn't a 99.95 net you a full scholarship regardless?

Not for the MD part of things

Obligatory #monashmasterrace

[grannysmith]

Oh wow. That's just depressing.

[slothpomba]

It's a horrible budget. It's based on a manufactured "Budget Emergency" (the vast majority of the world would kill for our situation), allowing them to shunt through their neo-conservative ideology of the rich and big business. It's a trojan horse that'll leave a scar upon this great nation.

It takes a razor to some of the most cherished and worthwhile programmes in this nation and yet, it ignores the income side. I'm no economics professor but everyone knows there are two sides to a budget, income and expenditure. They're slashing expenditure without much thought for the in-flows. Yes, they have a temporary levy but that hardly fixes anything in the long term, it will expire. In a round about (and dishonest way), there is an increase in tax income because of "bracket creep" (average incomes will go up, i.e. people will get pay rises due to inflation, etc but they will not adjust the tax brackets to match, more people will move into the higher brackets). In-fact, this is the majority item that is fixing the budget, their bracket creep.

They are slashing all these programmes but ignore the fact that multinational mining companies are ripping wealth out of this country for a meager sum. Even 60 years ago, countries like Iran were charging 50%+ tax on their oil because they realised it was whats best for their nation, they didn't want to let rich, majority foreign, companies rip wealth out of their nation. Yet, we roll over and take it. If we taxed mining at a respectable rate, many of these cuts wouldn't be necessary.

This also ignores the elephant in the room, Abbotts absolutely massive paid parental leave scheme. In a time when he's trying to cut expenditure, he doesn't seem to keen to cut this.

[charmanderp]

http://theconversation.com/how-much-student-debt-will-you-be-facing-post-budget-26712

(Image removed from quote.)

BUT MY ARTS DEGREE IS USELESS.

It's a horrible budget. It's based on a manufactured "Budget Emergency" (the vast majority of the world would kill for our situation), allowing them to shunt through their neo-conservative ideology of the rich and big business. It's a trojan horse that'll leave a scar upon this great nation.

It takes a razor to some of the most cherished and worthwhile programmes in this nation and yet, it ignores the income side. I'm no economics professor but everyone knows there are two sides to a budget, income and expenditure. They're slashing expenditure without much thought for the in-flows. Yes, they have a temporary levy but that hardly fixes anything in the long term, it will expire. In a round about (and dishonest way), there is an increase in tax income because of "bracket creep" (average incomes will go up, i.e. people will get pay rises due to inflation, etc but they will not adjust the tax brackets to match, more people will move into the higher brackets). In-fact, this is the majority item that is fixing the budget, their bracket creep.

They are slashing all these programmes but ignore the fact that multinational mining companies are ripping wealth out of this country for a meager sum. Even 60 years ago, countries like Iran were charging 50%+ tax on their oil because they realised it was whats best for their nation, they didn't want to let rich, majority foreign, companies rip wealth out of their nation. Yet, we roll over and take it. If we taxed mining at a respectable rate, many of these cuts wouldn't be necessary.

This also ignores the elephant in the room, Abbotts absolutely massive paid parental leave scheme. In a time when he's trying to cut expenditure, he doesn't seem to keen to cut this.

You. I like you.

[Russ]

Lol fuck. Should've done undergrad med. Ahhh sigh. Y u no tell me this before I pick career path.

Some people were talking about it before, but apparently since you've already started, if you go straight into postgrad medicine after finishing undergrad then it won't affect you until 2020 (so you get 3 years on the old system)

[slothpomba]

A harsh budget but necessary imo. We are living beyond our means.

Prove it. This myth constantly floats around but no one has seemed to prove this often repeated newsbite. It's often said a lie repeated enough becomes truth, if you accept this as truth, what basis did you accept it on? Or did it just stick in your mind because you heard it constantly?

People complaining about a $7 trip to the GP. Yet these people don't bat an eyelid when they purchase overpriced cigarettes and alcohol. I'd gladly give something back for my health.

We already give back plenty in taxes. It's a myth to think we should (or need to) pay more.

It boils down to a basic choice in many government policies. Do we: (a) punish the minority who is abusing the system, at the cost of the majority OR (b) allow this and help the majority of good, innocent workers? It's the same question with the dole. Yes, there are some "dole bludgers" but its a choice between allowing that or turning out good people who have hit bad times out onto the street.

Nobody is entitled to free universal healthcare

Why shouldn't we be? Why shouldn't society as a collective provide one of the most basic needs to its citizens, health?

Does everyone know that Churches aren't taxed? They would be giving over 40 billion dollars back to Australia. But no, Abbot ignores all the free money flow to his buddies over at the church and takes it out of education and scientific research.

It's not just churches, its any non for profit organisation. Churches aren't special, they're a class of non-profit organisations. The red cross isn't taxed for instance. I'm not 100% but your local kids scouting club isn't taxed either. Animal shelters, etc. The list on. 

Churches pick up a lot of slack charitable work-wise where the government fails as well.

[slothpomba]

Bill Shortens reply is worth watching as well - http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/budget-in-reply-special/IV1414C001S00