Another blow to low-income earners

Low-income families will suffer further cuts due to budget measures.

As a result of the government’s latest budget, low-income families will lose thousands of dollars of disposable income per year, while the top 30 per cent of Australian families will be less affected.

Despite the 2015 Budget being promoted as a fairer version of its 2014 predecessor, figures from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) reveal otherwise.

The research, undertaken at the University of Canberra and commissioned by the Labor Party, has shown that some of the lowest-income Australian families could lose up to 7.1 per cent of their total disposable income by 2018-19. This will occur as a direct result of the 2015 Budget.

Under measures from the new budget, which include cuts to family tax benefits, the NATSEM figures showed that low-income families could lose $70 per week, around $3734 per year by 2015-16. Additionally, by 2018-19 losses had risen to $118.50 per week and $6165 per year.

The research was disclosed just days after the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) data, which found that due to the 2015 Budget, low-income earners in Australia will lose $15 billion over four years.

Comparatively, families living on incomes of more than $120,000 per year will be almost completely unaffected, with a loss of just 0.2 per cent on their disposable income.

The NATSEM data took into account a range of household changes handed down in the latest budget, including increased childcare benefits, reinstated indexation of petrol and the cuts to family tax benefits. However, it did not include possible changes to higher education currently being discussed by the government. 

Read more at The Guardian.





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    jackie
    26th May 2015
    10:52am
    Low income people choose to have children they cannot afford instead of taking contraception? Free contraception would be a more effective assistance.
    Paulodapotter
    26th May 2015
    2:52pm
    Why don't we chemically castrate the poor then. Come on Jackie, it's a lot more complex than this. There's a whole range of factors in decisions to have kids. Poverty is only one small factor. Try to have some compassion and understanding.
    Anonymous
    26th May 2015
    3:55pm
    What a sick society we have when people suggest that only the well-to-do should be allowed to reproduce! Seems only the well-to-do are entitled to expect a decent standard of living, and now only the well-to-do get to enjoy the benefits of living as nature intended. Why don't we just return to the feudal system where the poor were slaves who bowed, scraped and begged to the rich?

    Perhaps it's time to remind the populace that the rich are parasites who make their money by exploiting the poor. Without low income earners, society as we know it couldn't exist, and the wealthy would suffer massive loss. So how about we show the real ''lifters'' in our society a little respect?
    Sum1
    26th May 2015
    6:26pm
    There are leaders and there are followers..leaders take risks and are often successful but are then pilloried for their success...Rainey calls them parasites and exploiters. If they fail then there are those followers who are happy...the tall poppy has been brought down to size right.. Without the leaders then the followers would have no jobs so how about we show a little respect for those who show the fortitude and free enterprise and provide jobs for the followers like Rainey.
    Rob
    26th May 2015
    7:43pm
    And Jacki we are seeing a good example of that with the Lebanese low skilled workers that were allowed into the country as refugees by Fraser. There should be an upper limit on how many kids per family are taken into account for welfare payments.
    Rob
    26th May 2015
    7:45pm
    Agree completely Sum1, without people with drive and leadership there would be limited funds to support all these welfare payments.
    sirmikd
    27th May 2015
    8:23am
    Whilst I support the idea of helping the needy I do not support those who do not help themselves.That is , making decisions that help shape their future and that would include starting a family.

    The reverse side of the wealthy coin is that there are MANY MORE who take risks in generating income and EMPLOYMENT [ie buying or starting a business ] but who FAIL and lose a great deal in the process.
    Grumpy
    27th May 2015
    10:34am
    Sum1 and others of the same ilk, some recent reading categorises members of society in a different but rather telling way.
    You refer to wealthy and poor. This is too simplistic from an economic standpoint. What is really important is how the wealth was acquired. Was the wealth produced directly from the owner's discretionary efforts, or was it generated by trading off, or manipulating the real wealth created by others (renters)?
    In the case of genuine wealth producers they create something of real value which is of lasting value to society and may enable others to produce yet more with a consequent multiplier effect throughout the economy. The renters however do no more than "shuffle paper" etc and create illusory wealth which benefits only themselves and their ilk. Most of our wealthy "elite?" fall into the latter category. Their activities tend to be parasitic in nature. They refuse, however to recognise their dependence on the real wealth created by producers.
    Perhaps our tax system should have two structures, as the UK had in the early 60's; earned income at one rate and unearned income at a higher rate. In this way the effects of the accidents of birth and parentage would be overcome and the "elite" compelled to give more recognition to the dependence of their good fortune on the lesser producers without whose contribution the "elite's" wealth would be dramatically less.
    Daffoir
    26th May 2015
    12:35pm
    Leila
    26th May 2015
    12:32pm

    if $6165 represents 7.1% of their disposable income (ie circa 87K) that doesn't put them that much different to somebody on 120K paying tax and suffering losses of 0.2% (better off in fact). And if you took the tax from the 120k earner qu'elle surpris it ends up with 86K. So based on that it would appear that one is better to take the welfare and not seek work unless you are earning well more than 120K a year - as Mr Abbott says: show us your calcs mr Shorten
    Paulodapotter
    26th May 2015
    2:48pm
    You certainly didn't go much higher than primary school maths, Leila. I think you should do a bit more research before you make observations of this calibre.
    SuziJ
    26th May 2015
    3:39pm
    What cuts affect us as a pension couple in our late 50s? Too old for children, not old enough for age pension.

    29th May 2015
    2:01am
    if you can afford these online steam wallet code generator then get them at the link below.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles