12th May 2015
Federal Budget 2015/16 summary
Federal Budget 2015/16 summary

So, what does the 2015/16 Federal Budget mean for you? Here’s a snapshot of what will change over the next two-three years

Age Pension

  • Age Pension indexation changes proposed in 2014/15 Budget have been dumped.
  • The three-year freeze in indexation of income thresholds and deeming thresholds has also been scrapped.
  • The Low Income Supplement, which can amount to $324 per annum, will cease to be paid from 1 July 2017
  • Changes to asset thresholds will increase pension payments for those with lower levels of assets, and will remove pension eligibility for those with higher levels.
  • A doubling of the pension taper rate, from $1.50 to $3 for every $1000 over the asset free threshold.

Health and aged care

  • A reversal of planned GP co-payment and $5 reduction in rebates for GP consultations
  • The establishment of a taskforce to review the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS)
  • $1.6 billion for new and amended items on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)
  • Provision of one year of funding to support public dental health services
  • From 1 January 2016, the rental income exemption for those in aged care, who pay their accommodation costs periodically while renting out their former home, will be removed
  • From 1 February 2017, funding will be allocated to the consumer based on their aged care needs.

 

Growing jobs and business

  • A cut in the small company tax rate by 1.5 per cent
  • A small business tax deduction for assets under $20,000 to take effect from 7.30pm tonight
  • A reinvigorated Restart wage subsidy of $10,000 (increase of $3500) paid to small businesses that employ older workers.

Families

  • A simplified Child Care Subsidy to be implemented from 1 July 2017, based on family income
  • An additional Child Care Subsidy for children who are at risk of abuse or for families experiencing temporary financial hardship
  • From 1 January 2016, ‘No jab, no pay’ rule will stop access to child care payments and Family Tax Benefit Part A for those who do not vaccinate their children
  • Nannies Trial to commence from 1 January 2016, providing care for approximately 10,000 children by 4000 nannies.

Multinational tax avoidance

  • Introduction of a Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law to ensure business don’t escape paying tax in Australia
  • Charging GST on digital products and services imported by consumers
  • Increased penalties for tax avoidance by large multinational companies.

Fairer tax system

  • Capping to $5000 salary sacrificing of fringe benefits for employees of not-for-profit organisations
  • Additional funding to the ATO to extend the GST compliance program
  • Creation of a task force to fight serious financial crime and tax evasion.

Foreign investment

  • Additional and stricter penalties to ensure foreign investors do not profit from breaking the rules
  • Increased scrutiny and transparency around foreign investment in agriculture, lowering of screening thresholds and implementing a comprehensive register of foreign ownership of land.

Welfare system

  • An upgrade of the Department of Human Services’ information technology to meet the demands of today’s digital world
  • A return of $1.5 billion to the budget by increase DHS capacity to investigate and determine welfare fraud and non-compliance
  • Recovery of HELP debt from Australians who move and work overseas
  • Access to the paid Parental Leave Scheme to be limited to those whose employer does not provide parental leave entitlements.

Anti-terrorism

  • $1.2 billion to be invested in national security, which includes $450 million in new intelligence measures to protect Australia and Australians, and $131 million to assist the telecommunications industry to upgrade its systems to implement the metadata retention policy





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    TREBOR
    12th May 2015
    10:55pm
    $5 reduction in medicare rebate? Same horse - different colour - another lie.

    Welfare should read Social Security - and with 800,000 unemployed and countless others under-employed - money is better spent developing infrastructure for real jobs than chasing a few paltry dollars from those with next to nothing.

    Non-compliance has always been a bug-bear - place unreasonable demands on people for no result, which cost them money they don't have, just so you can catch them out and cut their pitiful income.

    What HAS this country come to?
    sirmikd
    13th May 2015
    8:30am
    $5 reduction in medicare rebate?
    A visit to my GP already costs $75 with only a $35 rebate that's now going to be $30 ?

    Is this in the budget - I didn't realise - If so what a scam to claim to have trashed the "co-payment" With so much outcry regarding the co - payment we aught to be screaming about this one.
    KSS
    13th May 2015
    8:47am
    Well whilst you are screaming about that sirmikd, you might want to save some breath for the extra two prescriptions you will have to pay for before your medications become free as you hit the raised safety net threshold.
    BeezNeez
    13th May 2015
    9:10am
    A REVERSAL of planned GP co-payment and $5 reduction in rebates for GP consultations. This is NOT happening, there is no $5 reduction in the medicare rebate.
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    9:36am
    The trouble with the Australia today is that... those who vote for a living... outnumber those who work for a living.
    Theo1943
    13th May 2015
    12:13pm
    The $5 reduction was in last year's budget along with the $7 co-payment. This was never passed and is now scrapped.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    10:54pm
    What has this country come to Trevor? If you travel it will become abundantly clear.
    Australia is a wonderful place where Australians are ripped off for almost everything they buy and where political parties are controlled by the rich and the rich are not happy unless they own everything. In all fairness though the latter is true I other places, but what is different is that most countries do not sell off their wealth to foreigners. We do including our most fertile freehold farming land. It makes a dinky die Aussie want to cry.
    Robi
    14th May 2015
    7:09am
    The government froze the Medicare rebate to all health providers over a year ago. This means that doctors, physiotherapists, optometrists etc have no option but to increase their charges to the public in order to stay on top of their costs. I found this out when I went to my optometrist recently. Visits used to be paid by Medicare only but she has had to introduce a $50 fee ($30 pensioner concession) because of the freeze. We are and will be paying more to all health providers over the next few years because of this government's freeze on the rebate.
    HKW
    12th May 2015
    11:26pm
    "Anti-terrorism - WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY on the so-called "war on terror".

    $1.2 billion to be invested in national security, which includes $450 million in new intelligence measures to protect Australia and Australians, and $131 million to assist the telecommunications industry to upgrade its systems to implement the metadata retention policy."
    =============

    The Australian Government is one step closer to having access to your data

    http://mashable.com/2015/03/19/metadata-retention-australia/


    Snowden to Australians: You’re Being Watched Under Data Retention Laws
    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150512/1022014814.html

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/03/02/data-retention-great-news-for-criminals-and-foreign-companies/

    http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2015/03/22/the-spying-game-versus-the-lying-game-australias-new-metadata-retention-laws/
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    9:15am
    What data would you have that would be so important?
    Grateful
    13th May 2015
    9:38am
    If they really want to save a bundle, just pull out all of our military from Iraq and Afghanistan and the reason for "terror" in Australia will be removed immediately. Why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway????? Why are all THEIR able bodied potential and actual "soldiers' either running away from their countries, or, worse, running away from THEIR enemy!!!!
    What could we do with that $1.2 billion in OUR country???
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    10:33am
    Correct me if I am wrong but 911 happened before any troops went to Afghanistan.
    Terror would stop immediately?..We are very grateful that we have such intellects as you informing us on these forums...where would we be without you....sooo grateful.
    Hawkeye
    13th May 2015
    12:32pm
    I may be wrong, but it looks to me like the "Frank" troll may have changed his avatar to "Sum1"
    Sceptic
    13th May 2015
    1:53pm
    Give us a break Hawkeye, or should I say mick or one of your many other avatars, as obviously you consider that there can only be one opinion on this page and that opinion held by one person.
    Hawkeye
    13th May 2015
    2:56pm
    And to "Sceptic" as well
    Hawkeye
    13th May 2015
    3:16pm
    As I have explained before, I am a swinging voter. I think for myself and actually look at and consider the promises, policies, and past performance of parties and candidates for casting my vote. I am not rusted on to either side just because daddy always voted that way.
    I merely observed that Sum1 answered a question with a question, which is defining characteristic of the Frank troll.
    And, Sceptic, it seems that you consider that I should not be allowed to express my opinion. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    And, considering the LNP policies, promises and past performances, THIS IS A TRIAL ELECTION BUDGET to make us think the leopards have changed their spots.
    If it is well received (by the gullible) there will be a snap election not far down the track, after which ALL THE FEEL-GOOD PROMISES OF THIS BUDGET WILL BE THROWN OUT
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    3:49pm
    Hawkeye...Not Frank the troll... but by association you are inferring that I am a troll? ..my comments were prior to yours ergo you are the troll. What question was answered with a question? Just for the record my "daddy" was a coal minor who worked at Woolongong and handed out how to vote cards for the Labor Party. Having witnessed the incompetence of the ALP I feel a vote for them is akin to treason.
    Sceptic
    13th May 2015
    7:08pm
    No Hawkeye. At no time in my post did I Suggest that you should not be able to express an opinion. As I am sure that you will be well aware, the poster, mick, has a habit of claiming that anybody, including myself at times, is a troll and at times an avatar for someone else. So I commented somewhat tongue in cheek, as you used the very words that mick has used (except for the "I may be wrong"), and was trying to point out that more than one person may hold a contrary position to you. on a subject.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    10:58pm
    When you regurgitate political garbage and blame one side of politics YOU ARE A TROY because you do not want to debate or be fair. Just play the Vile political game for which the current government is well known for.
    And for the record your posts along with several others tell the story: paid political advertising for this most morally corrupt of all governments. Your actions spell out your intentions KSS.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:00pm
    KSS: and just for the record a personal 'opinion' is always welcome....but not a blatant political add. There is a difference!
    eggles01
    14th May 2015
    12:15am
    a bit worried that the law may catch you heyhey
    eggles01
    14th May 2015
    12:15am
    a bit worried that the law may catch you heyhey
    eggles01
    14th May 2015
    12:15am
    a bit worried that the law may catch you heyhey
    Sceptic
    14th May 2015
    1:02pm
    Hey mick, are you in the wrong section? There is nothing from KSS in this section.
    Adrianus
    14th May 2015
    1:45pm
    I notice mick and Hawkeye play the man when they have no worthy argument.
    People are fed up with the empty rhetoric from the left and are asking for strong fair, humane and just governance which only a Conservative Government can deliver.
    I have said this before but it is worth repeating.....
    Tony Abbott will become one of Australia's greatest and longest serving Prime Ministers.
    Belle
    12th May 2015
    11:42pm
    Where is the intent to tax those wealthy Australians who manage through loopholes and living through their corporations to pay NO PersonalTAX at all. It appears that the government is still not brave enough to tackle these "big boys". Shame on you Scott Morrison for finding a loophole re super of $20000 a year earned via a defined benefit scheme but can"t fix the loopholes that the truly wealthy on millions per year use to dodge tax altogether!

    How can the he sleep at night?
    How about fixing the black economy where there are two prices -one for cash and the other. How much is lost in GST this way.
    TREBOR
    13th May 2015
    12:09am
    He's not interested in sleeping at night - he sleeps well knowing he is well paid to support these things.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    1:34am
    Sham.
    pom13
    13th May 2015
    7:44am
    Don't do as I do, do as I say, Hockey and the LNP have no conscience that's why they sleep at night and dream of their retirement on Taxpayer funded Superannuation, I would like to know when they are going to start lifting and not leaning!
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    9:30am
    The GST at least gets a 10% return on those gaining money through the black market but we won't count that Eh! Belly..as that was a LNP initiative. SM finds a loophole yet it is still shame on him...Try for some balance please instead of just belly aching.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    1:29am
    Whilst some of these changes are most welcome WHO CAN TRUST THIS GOVERNMENT and much more importantly WILL THESE CHANGE REAL BE I PLEASE NEED OR IS THIS A RE-ELECTION BUDGET???
    I'd be willing to bet that this budget is a sham, that it will turn a blind eye to real change and that if this bunch of liars is re-elected that we will see a 180 degree about face where it's financiers are concerned.
    eggles01
    14th May 2015
    12:21am
    hey mick what is it like to be a labor party stooge independent you must be kidding with all the damage the juliar and rudd the dudd parties have done to Australia and put it in hock for many many years to come down the track
    Hawkeye
    14th May 2015
    1:38pm
    What is it with the "rusted-ons". They, such as eggles01, just can't get their tiny one-sided minds around the concept that those who criticise one side are not automatically aligned to the opposite side. They appear to see the world in black and white only, assuming that if you criticise the LNP, you must an ALP stooge, or vice-versa.
    For my part, I believe that political parties are simply a form of organised corruption, collusion, and bribery to to force MP's to vote for particular pieces of legislation, or be denied funding for the next election. As such I believe they are completely illegal. And from past comments, I think that Mick has similar views.
    PlanB
    13th May 2015
    7:17am
    This Government is NOT to be trusted they say one thing and do another and they are under handed and sneaky, now we have an .05% cost on bank deposits ! We are getting SBA in interest now! The amount spent on Medications will also rise b4 you get free, there are a LOT of little sneaky things in this budget.
    ronald james
    13th May 2015
    7:25am
    the new deeming rates are higher than the banks pay what a joke,we lose out again. Ron-j
    PlanB
    13th May 2015
    7:55am
    Yes Ronj they are

    The Current Rates

    Currently a deeming rate of 1.75 per cent applies to the first:

    $48,000 of a single customer's total financial investments
    $79,600 of a pensioner couple's total financial investments
    $39,800 of total financial investments for each member of an allowee couple.

    A deeming rate of 3.25 per cent applies to financial investments above these amounts. The thresholds at which the higher deeming rate begins to apply are indexed in line with the CPI in July each year.
    MacI
    16th May 2015
    10:03am
    This is true but the pension for a couple is reduced by only 50 cents per dollar earned in interest so if you can get 3% interest on a term deposit you are still in front.
    Gee Whiz
    13th May 2015
    8:03am
    Why are we forever sticking our noses into every other country's business instead of getting Australia back on its feet.

    We pour billions into some of the most corrupt countries on the planet. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, India. The list is endless. And most of this aid goes into politicians and bureaucrats pockets.

    Then we import trouble makers and fanatics from these same countries and waste more millions keeping tabs on them to make sure they don't kill genuine Australians.

    Is this the sign of a rational, clear thinking, patriotic government or an administration controlled, and loyal to the one world government whose plan is to reduce Australia to third world status.

    So far they have been responsible for the complete demise of manufacturing in this country and now they're starting on agriculture with the foreign take over of our farming sector.

    Of course most of the mining is already under the control of foreign companies.

    So what does it all mean. It means you can never trust any government to to the right thing for Australia. They are so busy kow-towing to overseas influences and stuffing their pockets with taxpayer dollars that they couldn't care less about Australia and its citizens.

    If they spent all the money they waste overseas on bring this country into the twenty first century it would truly be the land of milk and honey.
    KSS
    13th May 2015
    8:39am
    So Gee Whiz, you don't think Australia should be helping the people in Nepal after their two major earthquakes have rendered most of the population homeless, jobless, without basic food, water or medical services?

    Or the people of Christchurch NZ after their earthquake, or the people of Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, India after the Boxing Day tsunami? Or the people of several African countries in their fight against ebola? or or or or or ......
    valleymist
    13th May 2015
    8:40am
    well said
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    9:19am
    When you have to borrow money and... then pay interest on it... and then give it to someone other country...then and ask the Tax Payer to fork out for it ...then I would question it..particularly Indonesia. Perhaps you could add it to your tax return as a gift if you feel so ultruistic.
    Theo1943
    13th May 2015
    12:21pm
    Sum1, most people in Australia, including this pensioner, already give more money to charities working overseas than the Government does. Maybe you should start.
    Foreign Aid is not giving money to Foreign governments to do with as they see fit.
    Theo1943
    13th May 2015
    2:59pm
    Gee Whiz said "If they spent all the money they waste overseas on bring this country into the twenty first century it would truly be the land of milk and honey."

    You think they could do that with 0.22% of GDP? That's 22 cents per $100. You wont get much honey with that.
    Do you know that money we spend inside Australia on refugees is counted as Foreign Aid now?
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    3:54pm
    Theo...Pleased to hear a pensioner has so much money to spare that he can afford to give more generously than the incumbent gov...keep up the good work Theo.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:03pm
    KSS: or Indonesia to whom we give huge sums of money???? As normal no clear perspective. Aid money needs to be targeted, not doled out like confetti. When your public service retirement benefits hit the wall you will then agree with me.
    sirmikd
    13th May 2015
    8:26am
    Another "sneaky" hit on pensioners -

    Australians on some types of pension, including the Disability Pension and the Age pension will have the rate of their payments cut after being overseas for more than six weeks, down from the previous limit of 26 weeks.
    KSS
    13th May 2015
    8:56am
    Oh what a shame sirmikd. Pension recipients of various types can afford to take overseas trips of more than 6 weeks duration and you expect the tax payer to pay for it? If they can afford to do that then they shouldn't be on a pension at all.

    And if they are living overseas semi permanently why should the Australian tax payer be funding that? Presumably they will argue it is cheaper to live elsewhere. That may well be true so they don't need as much then do they?

    Fund it yourself then go where you want for as long as you want. Just stop expecting the Australian tax payer to pick up the tab. Where is my 6 weeks overseas trip on the tax payer? I can't go, I am too busy working and paying for theirs!
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:10pm
    I've been travelling overseas for 9 weeks now KSS. But despite having lived and worked in Australia all of my life I don't and won't get any pension other than what I put away by doing without. So let's not be too bitter, eh.
    As for living overseas you should be happy. Its less of a burden on Australian taxpayers and those who choose to do this should not be shot at the airport as you seem to advocate. A bit of fairness needs to exist.....but from what I have seen you seen to be lacking in the area of fairness, logic and perspective. Sounds a bit like your boss mate.
    marto
    13th May 2015
    9:03am
    Well we all know what do do when it arrives GIVE THEM THE BOOT
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    9:24am
    Yes...reinstate the other incompetents who drained the coffers in boom times and allow the country to slide into receivership.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:12pm
    Maybe give both sides the boot Frank. Many voters overseas are doing precisely that: voting down both sides because they have had enough of political betrayal and corruption.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th May 2015
    6:25pm
    Yes, we should give both sides the boot and start fresh with a no-party system in which every representative votes in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Of course it will never happen!
    What boggles my mind though, is that some people are still ignorant of who is responsible for for the current debt. Blame Labor. Blame Labor. Blame Labor. The chant goes on and on, but anyone who reads history knows that it was Howard and Costello whose policies created the current debt, by giving massive tax breaks to the richest 20%. It's true that Swan could have reversed them, but Labor would have been kicked out in a hurry if he'd done that! We inherited a debt from a Liberal Government that couldn't manage the economy properly through a boom, because they assumed it would last forever. They didn't factor in the costs of their tax cuts if the economy slid backwards, and they didn't invest in infrastructure. They just gave it all away, and that's why we are in debt today.
    worker
    13th May 2015
    9:45am
    I note there was no stopping the life time perks and pensions of MPs after they leave or are removed from Parliament as employees of the Australian citizens.
    No reduction in superannuation to bring it in line with other worker.
    Self imposed life time perks and so called pensions by Australian citizens employees (workers) after they leave their job could to go a long way to pay for the health system
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    10:39am
    Why didn't you stand for Parliament...Oh! just an ordinary worker...that's OK...but you seem to have envy of others. Parliamentarians compared to other highly paid Public servants are certainly not overpaid and any cut to their perks would be a drop in the ocean. Perhaps Rudd/Gillard putting out the red carpet for so called asylum seekers that cost this country $10 billion and still counting might be a better starting point for you to work on worker.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:19pm
    Rules for some.....different rules for others. VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDENT and send a message.
    Sum. ...or is it Frank....perhaps stop the political trollIng. But of course that is what you are paid to do on this site. Be careful though as the above is dishonest. Whilst true we have something to show whilst your man hands over $8 billion a year to the fossil fuel industry.....WHICH GOES STRAIGHT INTO THE POCKETS OF RICH AUSTRALIANS. Please don't get me started on your side of politics. The track record is there to see.
    Crazy Horse
    13th May 2015
    10:05am
    This budget fails the future test and fails the fairness test. In fact, it’s not so very different to last year’s budget.

    Fairness failure:

    1. $80 billion in cuts to schools and hospitals
    2. $100,000 university degrees
    3. Cuts to family payments
    4. Cuts to paid parental leave for 80,000 mothers.
    5. People under 25 still have to wait 4 weeks before accessing unemployment benefits
    6. Stay-at-home parents will lose access to childcare rebates.

    Future failure:

    1. Unemployment will be higher for longer
    2. Debt is up
    3. Spending is up
    4. In the past 12 months, Hockey has doubled the deficit
    5. Renewable energy industry is gutted, with investment declining by 88%.
    This is a budget for the next election, not the next decade. Debt is up, deficit is up and unemployment is up. At a time when Australia needs a budget about today and tomorrow, we have a budget about the past.
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    4:26pm
    Crazy Horse...Is your name by choice or by observations of others?
    Why would stay at home mums need childcare. If you cant look after them don't have them.
    Hawkeye
    14th May 2015
    1:51pm
    True Sum1.
    But also, if you cant afford to pay for (unsubsidised) childcare, either stay at home and look after them yourself, or don't have them.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th May 2015
    6:29pm
    Why are high income earners getting much larger child care rebates? Surely high income earners can pay for their children's care themselves. Odd how some claim part-pensioners shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer but are quite happy to pay for a rich couple's kids to be looked after while they earn more.
    moama jock
    13th May 2015
    10:20am
    Most posts are right on the money penalising those who have worked and saved to accumulate super no handouts to them punish the elderly just hand the cash out to the whingers [ only earn $150+ so need paid maternity leave etc dole bludgers the illegals who wont work but are subsidised better than our seniors.Lets face it Abbott and Hockey are simply incompetent {i am a lifetime conservative voter so that hurts to say ] chuck em out but don1t bring back the complete incompetents sorry the crooked unions/Labor that brought on our problems in the first place
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    5:39pm
    I thought the budget showed a balance to everyone. The incompetents read ALP put the country into insolvency.
    There is no paid paternity leave in the budget?
    The illegals were given an open invitation by the ALP. the LNP stopped the boats.
    The bill for the so called asylum seekers has run into the tens of billions and now we have to put in more billions for security.
    "Chuck em out"...what and bring back the gangreens.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:21pm
    I'll believe it when I see it. Many measures are going g to be dropped AFTER THE ELECTION. This is a 'please re-elect me' budget aimed at the feeble minded. But then you already know this.
    Wstaton
    14th May 2015
    11:51am
    Sum1,

    If you think not cutting back on the concessions to the top 10% getting them who don't need them is part of a balanced budget I wonder about some peoples thought process. Yet the same balanced budget then accuses double dipping when a employee has negotiated extra from their employees for paid leave, there is also something wrong.

    Not sure what amount the employees get but if not a lot, I guess employers will drop this so that they will claim anyway reducing the amount that will go back into the economy from the extra employer payments.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th May 2015
    6:51pm
    I don't much like Labor and I can point to a lot they have done wrong, but for heaven's sake let's remember that Howard and Costello caused the problem in the first place, by handing out massive tax cuts to the wealthiest 20%. If we merely reversed those cuts, the deficit would be all but eliminated. But heaven forbid the rich be asked to contribute to fixing the problem their greed created!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th May 2015
    9:14pm
    Those who blame Labor for the budget deficit might want to check their facts. Tony Abbott voted WITH Rudd and Gillard on 97% of the proposals they put forward. If Labor was so wrong, why did he agree with them so often?
    Jude
    13th May 2015
    10:41am
    Good budget for the current situation; well done Treasurer and Prime Minister.
    CindyLou
    13th May 2015
    2:01pm
    Agree
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    5:42pm
    Yes... Congratulations Joe, Matias, and Tony...against the odds.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:24pm
    Tell 'me they're dream in.
    This budget is the next lie/scam and will evaporate if this government is re-elected. But then already know this don't you.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th May 2015
    6:59pm
    Oh good! Massive debt blowout, but that's no longer an ''emergency''. Fatter handouts to rich couples to pay for childcare. Continue the $10 billion in superannuation tax handouts to the super rich, but victimize part-pensioners who spent a lifetime saving for a retirement they are now denied. Give more to the spendthrifts who didn't save much, if anything, because they have a lot of voting power. Happily, that helps the genuinely disadvantaged, but that's a by-product. Nobody in this Government really cared about them, as evidenced by last year's cruel attack.

    Apparently the health and education cuts are still there, but cleverly hidden in the fine print. What else is in the fine print?

    This budget is about vote winning and nothing else. It's about trying to recover from the backlash after last year's cruel, unfair and socially destructive budget. To be hoped nobody is fooled by it. This is government that can't be trusted. They have lied about everything. Is anyone silly enough to think they have suddenly reformed and are now telling the truth?
    eggles01
    13th May 2015
    10:52am
    DOES ANYBODY OUT THERE KNOW WHAT THE WORD :::REVERSAL::: MEANS IF YOU DO PLEASE READ THE HEALTH AND AGED CARE SECTION AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN OR ARE YOU JUST A LOT OF LABOR WINGING WASTED SPACES,,,IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IT MEANS THERE WILL BE ""NO"" REDUCTION OF THE $5 AND THE GP CO-PAYMENT WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED
    KSS
    13th May 2015
    11:31am
    I know eggles01 it can be very frustrating when people do not read or misunderstand what is written and then spread mis/disinformation. But there is really no need to SHOUT!
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:27pm
    But a reduction in what you get back is. SEMANTICS. Just the shell game from a bunch of lying misfits.
    Robi
    14th May 2015
    7:44am
    But they have FROZEN THE MEDICARE REBATE TO HEALTH PROVIDERS. Not many people know this. They did it over a year ago. This means we are already, or will be, paying more to see doctors, optometrists, physiotherapists etc as they put their fees up to stay afloat. Another sneaky move by this government.
    Hawkeye
    14th May 2015
    2:07pm
    If this budget is well received by the gullible, they will bung on a snap double dissolution election to try to gain control of the senate. If the gullible allow that to happen, then we will very quickly learn the meaning of the word REVERSAL, when every piece of bait in this temporary budget is reversed, and they reinstall last years.
    Wstaton
    14th May 2015
    2:49pm
    Too true Hawkeye. One can just imagine how the pensioners, disadvantaged, disability, healthcare, Education and more would be faring worse if they had the numbers in the senate now. I think we would almost have had a revolution then out with the troops to suppress. Methinks that is one reason that so much money is being spent on security, getting into our emails, what sites we visit etc.

    I guess the Paid parental leave will stay but will revert to the Abbott PPL.

    So the gullible Beware what you do. REMEMBER this government lies. Why do you think that most of these changes don't come into effect until 2017 when they may not be in power unless they get in with a double dissolution, control of the senate and have time to reverse them before they come effective.
    FrankC
    13th May 2015
    12:49pm
    sirmikd,what on earth are you doing paying $75 for a GP visit. If you on this site and a pensioner, you should not be paying anything., if you aren't a pensioner, I would change GP. Here in Qld, you wouldn't have to pay no more than $53.
    KSS
    13th May 2015
    2:03pm
    FrankC that's a bit unfair. In my area there are no bulk billing GPs so everyone has to pay about that amount - $75 per consult. It all depends on where you live.
    FrankC
    13th May 2015
    12:49pm
    sirmikd,what on earth are you doing paying $75 for a GP visit. If you on this site and a pensioner, you should not be paying anything., if you aren't a pensioner, I would change GP. Here in Qld, you wouldn't have to pay no more than $53.
    Not Senile Yet!
    13th May 2015
    1:35pm
    KSS and Sum 1 ......whilst it may be appropriate to voice your Right Wing Views and attack the Left Wingers on this site.....it is not appropriate to be so One-eyed in your commentary!!!
    The Deficit that was ALL so important and had to FIXED ASAP seems to have magically disappeared off the Face of the Planet...NO???
    Still spending what they do not have according to their OWN statements!!!
    Still taking from those who are incapable of replacing or earning more!!!!...Namely the elderly or disabled!!!!
    No Australian Citizen should be restricted from overseas travel just because they are disabled.....that is direct discrimination and removal of a basic citizens rights!!!!
    Not all disabled are collecting and profiting from a disability Pension because of choice you know.....they are receiving it because their choices have been removed or limited NOT BY THEIR DOING or from bad luck...ie accidents and so forth!!!!
    We are NOT America.....NOR DO WE want to be!!!
    The current Right Wing Mentality seems to be Monkey see what America does and Monkey do what America Does!!!!!
    Well I have bad news for this or any Government that believes the average Aussie desires that outcome.....a very short...ONE term Party.....who will get the heave Ho!!
    Not because We are Leaner/Bludgers....but because we actually believe in the Anzac Spirit of Never leaving your mate behind.....regardless of their disability or Mental weakness....it is why people want to be in Australia.....we actually give a Damm about our Society Structure and our Poor!!!
    That is neither Left Wing Nor Right Wing......it is simply Australian!!!
    KSS
    13th May 2015
    2:16pm
    Not Senile Yet, For goodness sake; overseas travel is not a right its a privilege. There are many many Australian citizens who cannot travel overseas because they simply cannot afford to go and they are not on any kind of Government pension. Simply being disabled (at whatever level) and receiving a disability pension does not entitle you to a passport and a plane ticket paid for by the tax-payer. Nor does being disabled prevent you from doing just that if you have the means to go. The same thing applies to older Australian citizens. They are NOT entitled to overseas travel simply because they are old. If they have their own funds then go and enjoy. It is not an Australian citizen's right. It is a rite of privilege.

    No one, especially me, is trying to restrict anyone of any age or ability from travelling. Just not at my expense. Why should the tax-payer pay for foreign holidays on the basis of someone's disability or age and the fact they have a pension of some sort? And for more than 6 weeks at that!
    Sum1
    13th May 2015
    4:20pm
    NSY.....Try as I may to make any sense out for your ramblings... I simply had to give up. You may consider upping the dosage on your medication though.
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:35pm
    Not senile yet: I agree with much of what you say but you need to realize that a few posters on this site are one poster: Frank. This person is posting under different names but from what is written it is clear that this person is an employee of this government as all you get is biased propaganda. No fair discussion. No logic. No truth. The webmaster needs to vet posters who clearly are here to deceive.
    FYI - I had the same comment as you got above fron Frank. IT IS THE SAME POSTER.
    Robi
    14th May 2015
    7:48am
    Well said Not Senile Yet.
    Wstaton
    14th May 2015
    12:06pm
    Let me get this right,

    If a disabled person or pensioner scrimps and saves, does without those things that most of us take as the norm. Then uses the money to take possibly a once in a lifetime trip overseas then it's a privilege just because he/she is on a pension or disabled.

    Then I guess politicians after a short time as one can take trips overseas at tax payers expense is not a privilege but a right. No having to scrimp and save here.

    Personally I don't care a hoot what a pensioner or a disabled person does with their money as long as they don't in turn winge because they do not have enough money.

    It seems now its a privileged to be disabled or a pensioner.
    Mak
    13th May 2015
    2:06pm
    With an attitude of apathy every political party will have you by the short and curlies, every time, all the time and action must be taken to force governments to change their snooty, holier-than-thou attitude toward Australians.
    Sit back and whinge in tune with everyone else, or, attack them with complaints, continuously, every day send email and fill their boxes with a simple message, "We Want Direct Democracy", the Swiss have it, the voters are able to agree or disagree how the country's taxes are distributed.
    Our politicians now deny that there servants of the public..........(2 swear words here *&%$#(@(%$@& !#@(&*^%$(}} for what they are)
    MICK
    13th May 2015
    11:40pm
    If you want to fix our broken political system the do what the media and both sides of politics plead with you not to do: VOTE FOR INDEPENDENTS. This is what is happening in many other countries and it is scaring our pollis shi**less (pardon the french).
    The only real way to fix the political system is to show them the door. It works.
    eggles01
    14th May 2015
    12:29am
    hey mick why should we vote for you either as a labor party red flag carrier or for the independent who only have enough brain power to connect to the labor party which one would you prefer to have their hand up your back to work the strings
    MICK
    14th May 2015
    4:01am
    I despise both sides of politics. The only reason I ever defend Labor is because the paid trolls post their vile lies as if it were fact when for the most part propaganda it is simply a paid add from this government. I find it disgraceful that this is allowed is it is meant to deceive readers.
    Sceptic
    14th May 2015
    1:24pm
    I for one would be more than happy for the convenors of this site to let you know, mick, that I am an individual, not paid by anyone for my opinions, do not post under any other name, and continue to , to the best of my ability, comment from a factual base. I try not to abuse others, although some have mistakenly misunderstood an attempt at humour as abuse. Unlike certain other posters, I do not repeatedly, and without evidence, make insupportable accusations against other posters.

    I would be extremely satisfied if the convenors would disabuse you, mick, of your apparent need to accuse the few posters not of the left on this site, as all being one person, and in the pay of the Government.

    It would be laughable if did not appear that you are so filled with hate.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    14th May 2015
    10:23am
    The LNP claims to want to encourage people to save for their own retirement and reduce aged pension costs over time. A noble objective! So according to their logic, this is acheived by:

    1. Giving a huge 33c in the dollar tax concession on superannuation to anyone on a high income, who won't qualify for a pension ever anyway and doesn't need taxpayer incentives or help to save for retirement. This is to ''preserve incentive'' for them to save! Budget cost, something in the order of $21 billion I believe.

    2. Give a much lesser concession or none at all to those on lower incomes who might, if encouraged and helped, manage to save so that they only qualify for a part pension. Cost approx $10 billion, apparently.

    3. Victimize and destroy the retirement plans of some 81,000 who did save for retirement, making them far worse off than pensioners who didn't. Message to the young: ''Don't save for retirement unless you are wealthy. Battlers who save enough to be only on a part pension will not live nearly as comfortably as those who spend all their money and collect a full pension.'' Saving, some $2.4 billion (IF it doesn't drive all those affected to go on a spending spree!)

    To be fair, the Government justifies point 3 by saying these retirees are ''wealthy''. Someone can't do math. $550,000 for a single or $823,000 for a couple DOESN'T constitute wealth when it has to last you through 25-30 years of inflation and the interest rates are at 2% and falling! Estimates are that a couple with $1 million of income-returning assets will see their annual income fall to $30,000 from $37,600 from January 2017 (The pension is currently close to $34,000 pa for a couple, PLUS a lot of valuable benefits). A couple with $800,000 in income-returning assets will see their annual income fall from $39,400 a year to $25,800, forcing them to draw more than $8200 from savings to come close to the income of a pensioner, or $25,000 to be as well off as a part pensioner with $400,000 in the bank. Obviously the incentive will be strong to spend up big quickly, but even if they don't, they will rapidly fall below the threshold and draw a much bigger part pension than they would have under the existing scheme.

    And I seriously doubt the Government's projected savings, because I suspect these now poverty-stricken ''wealthy'' retirees will draw on their savings, reducing their capital, so that in future years they need a lot larger pension than they would have under the old scheme.

    That's Hockeynomics, apparently! Meanwhile, as John Hewson points out, tax concessions Howard and Costello gave to the wealthy are costing us almost enough that, if reversed, the deficit would be wiped out. And making superannuation tax concessions fairer would save half the deficit again.
    I used to think it was the Labor Party whose policy were bordering on Communist - but this latest move comes close to the Communist's confiscation of land in China in ---.. Sad thing is, they'll probably get away with it because it only affects 81,000 people, and it gives more to all the irresponsible spendthrifts who didn't save as well as to the genuinely disadvantaged. It makes a lot of pensioners and part pensioners better off - which is good - at the expense of 81,000 who will now be worse off than if they hadn't saved, unless they go and quickly spend up big, wiping out any projected short-term Government savings - which they will no doubt be sorely tempted to do.

    Whether you are affected or not, and regardless of in what way, I urge everyone to please raise your voice in objection to the change to the assets test. It's grossly unfair. It makes battlers who worked hard and saved carefully to try to reduce their need for a pension far, far worse off than full pensioners. And I can't see how it can possibly save the government money long term, because it creates a perverse incentive for anyone except very high income earners to avoid saving much for their retirement.
    Wstaton
    14th May 2015
    1:24pm
    Yep, The concession is simply a tax break for those who will not even need a pension.
    Adrianus
    15th May 2015
    3:30pm
    Rainey, are you happy about the small business tax cut at least? Surely that's something you're happy about?
    MacI
    16th May 2015
    7:03am
    Rainey - I agree with you that the deception of the proposed change to the Asset Test is that it hits the millionaire rich. A couple with $1M of assessable assets who have just retired (and hence their Super is counted in both the Income and Assets tests) under the current income and assets test would receive a part pension of $5889 per annum whereas someone who retires with $700K would receive $17589 per annum. Under the new assets test they receive $0 and $8366 respectively hence the millionaire is $5889 per annum worse off and the 700K retiree is $9223 worse off! As you say $700K is not rich when it has to fund 20 to 25 years in retirement and substantially remove the burden on the tax payer.

    Where I disagree with you is that the part pension should be such that it allows a retiree to maintain their capital as you seem to imply. Also, anyone who invests large amounts of capital at 'term deposit' rates needs some financial advice. My Super fund has returned and average of 7.1% over 10 years with a Conservative asset mix, i.e. 30% growth and 70% defensive. The defensive assets include 18% in cash and 45% in fixed interest. The 10 year time frame spans the GFC.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th May 2015
    6:41pm
    Frankly, KCI, I don't object to reducing pension payments to some, as long as the system is fair. But it isn't. People on $70K a year get a part pension, but someone with modest savings and a low income doesn't. Someone with both assets and income can, in some circumstances, receive income unassessed. Someone with $1 million in savings is worse off than someone with $700K, and the responsible savers are subsidizing big increases in pensions for those who squandered their money or lived it up in their working life. Meanwhile $10 billion is being given to the very rich.

    We need a total overhaul of the system to make it simpler, more efficient, and fair.

    I agree anyone who invests large amounts at term deposit rates needs some financial advice. Maybe the government should make trustworthy advice more accessible then - instead of reducing the regulation of the financial advice industry so that more people suffer risk of loss. And maybe it's time we started teaching financial management and investment strategies in schools. Why not do something constructive to solve the problems?

    At the end of the day, our welfare system is designed to keep people down, and it does that very effectively. We need to redesign it to help people up, and to encourage enterprise and prudent management. Maybe if we spent a less on handouts and more on help and education, we would reduce welfare costs. But the assets test change is more likely to increase costs, as it simply creates a perverse incentive for retirees to spend more and for the young to save less.
    MacI
    18th May 2015
    8:33am
    Rainey - I'd be interested in and example from you of how someone with $700K is better off than someone with $1M.
    Wstaton
    14th May 2015
    11:22am
    Some of the things are good but all this seems to me is robbing Peter to pay Paul except that the really advantaged are not being robbed only the less well off.
    MacI
    16th May 2015
    7:07am
    Wstation. If our government is to restrict expenditure and revenue is decreasing then robbing Peter to pay Paul is the only option given that we are borrowing money to pay the interest on current borrowings.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    16th May 2015
    6:44pm
    But the rich aren't suffering at all. That's the problem. Yet it was Howard and Costello giving to the rich that created the problem. Surely fairness and common sense demands that what was given in good times should be taken away in bad- from the SAME PEOPLE it was given to.
    Wstaton
    16th May 2015
    6:53pm
    Thanks Rainey for understanding what I was really saying above.
    MacI
    18th May 2015
    8:24am
    Sorry Wstation. I did miss your point. I agree that the very wealthy have not been touched by these changes. The pity is that the opposition, if they regain government, may target the very wealthy through taxing earnings on large Super balances but they are likely to go along with these changes. Leaves you feeling powerless, doesn't it?
    Wstaton
    18th May 2015
    9:03am
    Tanks KCI

    Yes it always seem tha whatever gov is in power they try the slam dam way of doing things. The ppl is an example where they slammed the so called double dipping when possibly a more conservative approach would have been better. Maybe similar on how the treat the pensioners where they reduce the payment by a certain amount for each dollar from employee contribution. No instead they thought that Australians would react better by vilifying them.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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