Budget 2016/17: What’s in it for retirees?

How does Budget 2016/17 shape up for you?

Budget 2016/17: What’s in it for retirees?

Treasurer Scott Morrison has delivered his first budget and as expected, there were few surprises in areas he targeted. So, how does Budget 2016/17 shape up for you?

Superannuation
Introduction of a $1.6 million superannuation balance transfer cap an individual can transfer tax-free into retirement phase accounts
Reduction of $250,000 the threshold of combined income and superannuation contributions at which an individual pays 30 per cent tax
Lowering of the concessional superannuation cap to $25,000
Introduction of a $500,000 lifetime cap for non-concessional contributions
Introduction of Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset for those earning less than $37,000
Removal of current restrictions on those aged between 65 and 74 who continue to pay superannuation contributions
Increase the income threshold from $10,800 to $37,000 for receiving spouse superannuation contributions

Retirement
Removal of restrictions on the development of new retirement income products
Tightening of the rules surrounding transition to retirement strategies to close potential tax loopholes

Taxation
Increase to the Medicare levy threshold for low-income earners
Increase to the middle tax bracket threshold for those earning over $80,000
Four annual 12.5 per cent increases in tobacco excise

Welfare
Removal of the Clean Energy Supplement for new welfare recipients after 1 July 2017
Tougher assessments for 90,000 Australians currently receiving a Disability Support Pension
Better targeting of dental services for low income adults
Maintainence of the current level of Medicare Benefits Schedule fees for all services until 2020

Is there anything you think should have been included that wasn’t?

Keep an eye on your inbox tomorrow morning for more information on each of these items.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    littlehelenb
    3rd May 2016
    9:00pm
    Not even $2-3 a week for those solely on the age pension - yet again the big boys get the buckeroonies.
    MICK
    3rd May 2016
    9:30pm
    Apparently over $16,000 pa more for anybody earning $1 million a year.
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    10:59pm
    You could have lost another $2-3 a week instead. So it wasn't a bad outcome.
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    11:10pm
    I've been at work, so I want to see the easing of super conditions for those in my position - bordering on 67 and still working and planning to do so for some time, even probably moving into full time soon, or close to.

    Damn - instead of buying my 25 foot cruiser out of my super, by continuing to work I'll just have to pay for it out of income... demn me!
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:22pm
    You can keep what you have got and add another $500,000. More than enough for a small fishing boat.

    It's good they did it that way as it doesn't restrict the percentage return one can earn on their super like the $70,000 pa Labor one does.
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    11:29pm
    *gags* fishing boat? I'm talking about a cruiser here... though it will do some fishing work, I'm sure.
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    11:32pm
    Besides, we've flogged super to death... super contributors get a tax cut to put cash away, then they get dividend imputation meaning no tax paid by their fund for shares in most cases, then they pay no tax when it is drawn at the end.

    I don't see a single reason why excessive super earnings should not be taxed. Better still - pay everyone the Pension and tax all income above that by the normal standards. That will not meaningfully affect those with low super, but only those with more than they need, especially considering that they've had a sweet run to even gather that much super.

    Some of the best hits under that regime would be politicians - which I would expect would bring the crowd to their feet in applause.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    11:10am
    Come on now, Trebor. Of course it's a bad thing to tax high super earnings. It would hurt greedy privileged people like Bonny who want the battlers to pay for everything society needs so she can keep handing out to her precious children, while screaming that pensioners shouldn't be allowed to leave anything to theirs.

    Never-mind that the underpaid work and excessive taxes on the lower paid position her to make a lavish income. She then beats her chest and claims superiority, accusing the real LIFTERS of this nation of ''laziness'' because they don't fund their own retirement AS WELL AS WORKING THEIR GUTS OUT TO CREATE THE ENVIRONMENT THAT FUNDS HERS.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:01pm
    Anyone seeing the contradictions here from Bonny? On the one hand, she claims to be living below the poverty line. On the other, she claims her investments are making her a motza (better returns than almost anyone else can achieve, according to Treasury), and now she's glad there won't be a tax on super income over $70,000 pa.

    Liars have to have good memories. Seems hers doesn't measure up!
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    2:56pm
    Do I sense envy here?

    Unfortunately everything I say is true and importantly I don't rely up the taxpayers to support me. My kids are disadvantaged because I use my assets to live and not have them stashed away whilst living on welfare. That is where it is not fair.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:15pm
    It can't all be true, Bonny, because you directly contradict yourself. Obviously you've forgotten what you said earlier. Funny how you claim it's not fair for you to live on your assets, but you scream that it's perfectly fair for those who have a lot less to have to drain theirs!
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    5:36pm
    Seen it for some time Rainey. Latest one is Bronnie claiming to have to go to work. What next.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:01pm
    Mick you no longer have to work at a job to put concessional money into super.

    3rd May 2016
    9:02pm
    The big winner appears to be small business which is the big employer. More people in work means a drop in welfare payments and an increase in taxation contribution. There has been some negative complaints from self interest groups but overall it seems to be a good budget, especially as it is an election year.
    Misty
    3rd May 2016
    9:06pm
    Listened to a top economist on Sky News Agenda this afternoon and said it is a fallacy that small business is the growth engine of Australia, rather it is Big Business that employs more.
    MICK
    3rd May 2016
    9:32pm
    Hold judgement Old Man until you understand the facts. There is a heap of things mentioned which need investigation and are likely to yield more surprises. The speech was a confident one but that is where it is likely to end. Read my post below.
    Anonymous
    3rd May 2016
    10:13pm
    @Misty, all business employs people and of course big business employs more but small business does its bit.

    @MICK, I don't appreciate being told how to make my decisions. Your arrogance is breathtaking. BTW, the definition of a small business has nothing to do with turnover, it has always been classified as a business which employs less than 120 people. Making mistakes like that doesn't do a lot for your credibility.
    Greg
    3rd May 2016
    10:46pm
    http://asic.gov.au/for-business/your-business/small-business/small-business-overview/small-business-what-is-small-business/
    Greg
    3rd May 2016
    10:49pm
    "Small business is the big employer" Maybe/maybe not, I wouldn't know but I do know that if a business profits a few more dollars it may just stay with the owners not necessarily employ more people.
    Anonymous
    3rd May 2016
    10:55pm
    Thanks Greg, my definition is the one used by the NSW government. I accept that different organisations will have different definitions.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    7:06am
    Small and Medium sized businesses employ around 65-70% of the workforce. The concept of reducing tax is a good one on many levels.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    11:17am
    Economists have shot the government's theory down in flames on two counts. First, it's been well evidenced that any employment growth from company tax cuts is negligible. Second, there's minimal benefit as lower company tax just means higher profits and therefore higher taxes for business owners.

    What's really disturbing, though, is a nearly $17,000 a year tax cut for people earning $1 million a year, and an effective tax INCREASE for battlers with families. And higher income earning couples with no kids getting more while struggling families get less. How is that good?

    My biggest concern, though, is the freeze on Medical Benefits Schedule until 2020. That's a GP tax in disguise. It's going to cripple a lot of people, and making health care more expensive is NOT good for the nation. Watch the doctors and specialists withdraw further from bulk-billing and out of pocket costs and health insurance fees skyrocket.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    1:15pm
    Rainey that's not a tax cut for high income earners, it's the end of the budget repair tax imposed by Tony Abbott. Only those on high incomes paid the tax and now the government good to it's word as promised is stopping the levy.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:25pm
    Why? The budget problem is WORSE, not better. And the poor are still paying the price for the deficit. Why should those who need help least be prioritized for relief?
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    1:32pm
    We are all paying the price for Labor's mismanagement not just the poor. I'm pretty sure Abbott promised it would be for only this term of government.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:40pm
    Lying Abbot also promised no changes to pensions. So promises to high income earners must be honoured, but promises to battlers don't matter? And no, we are certainly NOT all paying any price for mismanagement by previous governments (primarily Howard and Costello, not Labor Frank. Only the ill-informed believe that particular LNP lie).
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    5:09pm
    He didn't lie. He said no changes to pensions during the government's first term.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    8:03pm
    And he made changes during the government's first term. Doesn't matter when they take effect. That's just advertising his gross dishonesty. The changes were made, and passed, during the first term. HE LIED.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    8:32pm
    Really mindboggling, Frank, that anyone could be dishonest enough to try to defend Abbott's filthy fraudulent slight-of-hand. He was far worse than any liar. He lied about lying while planning how to lie. He defrauded the Australian public. He never even evidenced being qualified to hold office, but he committed electoral fraud. He lied to get elected with absolutely no intention of honouring his promises. If he was a company director, he'd be jailed. But politicians don't hold themselves to the standards they impose on others. There is no worse scum alive, and Abbott and Hockey were the worst of the worst.
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    9:22pm
    As Expected !! Bugger All !!
    MICK
    3rd May 2016
    9:33pm
    Get the cabbages in and growing. Mine already under way. Put in peas and beans as well as I knew what was coming.
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    9:40pm
    I and others here Beat You Mick ! :-) Ours are well underway !
    I wonder who Cormorant is enjoying a + 12.5% Cigar with on the lawn after this Budget ? His best mate Gone :-(
    nena
    3rd May 2016
    10:04pm
    I would have to talk to the Council people here and see if I´m permitted to grow my garden patch on the footpath!!! Well, it is not a very good alternative, realty, around here...the wallabies would munch the lot. Never mind, I love them more than some, I have said, some people.
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    10:14pm
    We are the Very last Building on the outskirts of Town ! But we've got a good Roo Proof Fence :-) :-)
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:12pm
    I certainly wouldn't eat anything grown on a footpath with all that pollution contaminating the food.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2016
    1:19am
    Chewing gum and dog guano - nothing better as mulch....
    Lippy
    3rd May 2016
    9:28pm
    Tougher assessments for 90,000 Australians currently receiving a Disability Support Pension. As if life isn't tough enough, they pick on the people that have to struggle with a disability to drive them into a grave. Sorry for thinking these SCUM had some heart in them, shame on the LNP : (
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    9:34pm
    I think they were Chasing the Disability Vote :-) :-)
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    10:57pm
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/jericho-disability-support-pension/5297540

    Sounds like they're going to target around 11-12% of current recipients, meaning they think there are 90,000 rorters out there.... wonder what categories they are going to hunt down and drag to the ground and chew to death....
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:23pm
    I agree as there are too many people on the disability pension that should be working instead.
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    6:40am
    I see nothing wrong with re-assessing ALL those on a disability pension, particularly those 'sufferring' relatively minor afflictions. There are many whose disability is severe and lifelong and any welfare payments should be available for them, not for those who 'choose' disability over New Start or other welfare payments as a lifestyle.
    Rosret
    4th May 2016
    7:26am
    Unfortunately any system that can be rort will be rort. There is a growing philosophy in the community that, "If I can take from the government I will." - and that affects the genuine people who need help by creating volumes of paper work and mistrust. ....and a need to take from everyone else's pocket.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:58am
    I know of one self funded retiree that feels she cannot admit that she is not a pensioner and tells evrone she has left her pension card at home. We are now a country of people with a welfare mentality which is not a recipe for good economic prosperity.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    10:10am
    I am getting a t shirt printed with "don't rob me I'm a pensioner." I get charged double when people realise I'm not a pensioner.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    11:34am
    Maybe if we saw some fairness and common sense in the system, the mentality would change. Why wouldn't someone want to be a pensioner when they suffer such abuse for saving to try to be self-sufficient.

    I want to be a pensioner after Jan 2017. I don't want to live on half the income pensioners get and zero benefits. Sure, I can spend my savings. I went without lifestyle for 50+ years so I could be WORSE off in retirement than a pensioner and forced to give up EVERY BENEFIT I saved for, while people who had all the pleasures I went without get handouts. I should be quite happy to have to blow the money I saved for an expensive medical procedure to save my sight when I reach about 75 on daily living expenses and not have anything left of the money I saved for the eye operation I was warned I would need. I should be quite content to have to live off the savings from going without holidays and restaurant dinners and never see one ounce of benefit from that saving. Why the hell should I be entitled to preserve my eye-sight using money I saved for that purpose?

    My partner gets no compensation for being stolen and suffering hideous injustice in childhood because he's not Aboriginal. But part-Aboriginal doctors and lawyers get ''compensation'' for deprivation they never suffered. Well-to-do women get paid maternity leave while a woman forced out of the workforce by the birth of a disabled child who needs expensive special care gets nothing (except insults from the likes of Bonny when she later needs an aged pension because she gave up her income to care for her special child!!!) The mother of a disabled child struggles to survive on peanuts while couples getting fat pay-checks get big handouts to pay for childcare so they can keep drawing fat incomes.

    People who gift millions to their kids before they turn 60 claim a full pension and benefits, while honest aged people who struggled to try to be self-sufficient get screwed. Owners of multi-million dollar houses get full pensions while owners of country shacks with a few bob in the bank get screwed over.

    The problem isn't PEOPLE'S ATTITUDE. It's a stinking system that works on favouring this group unfairly for this benefit and that group unfairly for that benefit, and giving far too much to the haves and bugger all to the have nots.

    When the system is fixed, people's attitude will change. The current mentality developed along with the neoliberal thinking of governments and the beginning of handouts to the rich. It will change when that thinking ends.
    Blossom
    6th May 2016
    2:12pm
    Rainey, I agree with you. I saved and put extra of my wages into super. Now I am just over the upper threshold and get nothing at all, pay gap on medical services, medicines.
    Women had no super scheme when I started work. There was no salary sacrifice. We paid full tax on the money we put into super., that we put into savings accounts etc.
    Salary + interest from banking it = taxed twice.
    We are not encouraged to save by being taxed several times for money we earn & save. Many don't try to save for their retirement, and a lot don't spend it wisely. Not many gift large amounts to relatives, friends, charities.
    ex PS
    10th May 2016
    12:07pm
    Highly amused to see the number of people that imagine that those taken of various benefits will actually find jobs to go into. Don't know for sure but I am willing to bet that a majority of positions currently created are part time.
    Alex
    3rd May 2016
    9:28pm
    There is nothing in this Budget for people who are already retired or for low income earners. While $6 dollars a week may not mean a lot to people earning over $80,000 it would mean an lot to pensioners and low income earners struggling to pay utility bills and other basic costs. Last year's Treasurer said the cuts to the income of self-funded retirees and other cuts would cover tax cuts for business and higher income earners. That is exactly what has happened. The tax cuts for small business will probably not make much difference to the tax take or business income as small businesses do not pay a lot of tax. Saul Estlake reported that 67% of Australian small businesses are non profitable and non taxable.
    MICK
    3rd May 2016
    9:36pm
    It has already been commented on that the many Australians earning less than $80,000 pa get nix and then are hit with falling services as this government rips the heart out of everything which working Australians require.
    I found it interesting that Morrison used the term "hard working Australians" a number of times whilst spitting in the faces of these people. I guess he wanted to befriend working Australians so that they would vote for his bunch of pirates.
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    9:58pm
    Yes ! Nothing for "Leaners" :-)
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    6:46am
    Oh for goodness sake. The minor personal tax cut (well flagged) was to stop the bracket creep of those on who are 'punished' for moving into the second highest tax bracket on what is really only an average salary and as a result taking home a lower wage despite earning more. Earning $80000 $87000 does NOT make you rich!

    And before the likes of MICK weigh in on me, I earn far less than $80000 so will not be affected one way or the other from this change to personal tax thresholds.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:21am
    Look on the positive side retired and low income earners get to keep what they have already got.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    8:45am
    I had no idea that the budget was meant to make retirees and non workers rich? The Victorian Premier will not like losing the bracket creep.
    Theo1943
    4th May 2016
    9:54am
    KSS please exlain to me how someone can take home less money because of bracket creep. When you go to the next bracket you pay 37 cents instead of 30 or whatever only on money you earn over the bracket amount. You still take home 63 cents for every extra $ you earn. There is no way your take home wages will decrease.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    11:39am
    The attitudes we see here from the privileged are shocking in the extreme. ''Look on the positive side retired and low income earners get to keep what they have already got.'' No, Bonny, they don't actually. Because medical costs will soar. And if there IS any bracket creep (which major economists say is BS - it isn't happening because wages have stagnated) then prices will rise and the poor will lose yet again.

    Frank, nobody suggested the budget was meant to make retirees and non-workers rich. But neither was it intended to make the rich richer while the battlers who build this country keep getting screwed.

    We can't afford tax cuts. But those who need them least get them - at the cost of blowing the deficit out to worse than it's ever been. Anyone who doesn't deem that VERY BAD ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT is missing brain cells.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    5:43pm
    KSS: Never mean to weigh in on you mate as long as your posts do not sound like government propaganda. Discuss the facts honestly and you'll get a fair go from me.
    In regards to the repositioning to slow down bracket creep: fair enough but then the richest amongst us are getting a 5% tax cut. Is that fair? The really big boys may have to wait a few years but the deceit from Morrison was to redefine what a Small Business is (it was NEVER one turning over $10 pa) and to every year after that double the threshold so that ALL business gets the tax cut. Big business goes from 30% down to 25%. I call that corruption by any other word with this government working for the big end of town, not the nation.
    Call me what you like, they are the facts after the Budget speech.
    Blossom
    6th May 2016
    1:47pm
    If they run a commercial vehicle over a certain size they pay tax big time in fuel tax etc. Every time them give them a rebate the up the charge on something relating to the vehicle higher than the rebate.
    I know a person who runs a truck (not as large as a semi-trailer) who thought he would be better off...but that didn't happen. He like many others are struggling even more. If they charge the same high prices as the big companies they don't get the jobs.
    MICK
    3rd May 2016
    9:28pm
    I have been saying for some time that the winners in this budget were always going to be big business and the rich who were going to get a big tax cut.
    Morrison tried to cover his tracks by changing the definition of small business from those turning over $2 million a year to those turning over $10 million a year. So now $10 million pa turnover is a small business? Yeah right.
    Morrison went further and stated that in the second year the above tax cut would be extended to businesses turning over $25 million pa, the year after $50 million pa, etc.
    In other words BIG BUSINESS is getting a tax cut. It's just that this is going to be phased in. So the chiseler has hidden the truth. Welcome to the coalition government.
    There is more to come but the Budget is little more than a shell game run by the government casino. Not a responsible Budget. Lies and half lies. A sham designed to sell the 'we are responsible' fairytale. Con men is closer to the truth.
    Morrison is a confident speaker...but when the speech is pulled apart Australians will see the dishonesty.
    Tom Tank
    3rd May 2016
    9:44pm
    Yes MICK it is all looking like smoke and mirrors.
    The biggest benefit to the lift in tax threshold will be to the top end of town - - again.
    The median wage of Australians in $57,000 per annum which means the vast majority of Australians are earning less than this magical $80,000.
    I have always led to believe that Christians were honest, upright people but Morrison, who proclaims himself to be Christian, does not appear to be able to lie straight in bed.
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    9:48pm
    Good budget especially increasing the turnover of small businesses to $10 million.

    Tax fee income from multimillion dollar super funds has been limited to only tax free income on $1.6 million.

    However I don't think that people will now be able to put enough in super to fund their retirements in the future.
    MICK
    3rd May 2016
    9:54pm
    You assume that Morrison and the rest of the front bench are Christians. They are anything other than that.
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    10:11pm
    Its Lay straight in bed, But Lie will do in this case !! :-)
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:03pm
    You know one shouldn't mix politics and religion. Anyway what does it really matter who is Christian and who is not?
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    11:35pm
    Yes - they could be hardline Muslim and it should make no difference........
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:45pm
    Exactly.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    6:44am
    And a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush Bronnie.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    10:30am
    MICK, your post is nothing but a vicious personal attack straight from the Labor/Union handbook.
    It was Labor who floated the $AUS. We are part of the rest of the world now so get over it. This government is recognising that our prosperity lies in competing, not with each other, but with the rest of the world. There are 1,000,000 Australians working overseas, many of whom have chosen to set up a business on foreign soil. Driven out by your mob MICK. While you sit in your Sydney Harbour front, multimillion dollar mansion, calling hard working Australians dishonest? Pick up your game mate!
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    11:54am
    Interesting that they up the tax on smokes to encourage people to give up, but they are counting the budget gain as if nobody quits! Another example of the Treasurer's gross incompetence, and yet another flag that the budget problem will increase due to mismanagement.

    As for Morrison claiming to be a Christian.... OMG!!!!
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    1:21pm
    Wrong Rainey. Your Labor party ran with the idea that smokers wouldn't quit and finished with a $20b black hole which apparently was a "rounding error." Morrison counted on only $4.8b over 10 years.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:33pm
    Wrong, Frank. The Labor Party used figures supplied by the Government, and those figures were wrong, as are the Government's forward estimates.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    2:46pm
    BTW. Frank. I don't support Labor. Never have. Probably never will, though I will likely vote Labor next election simply because it seems the only way to try to ensure this facist LNP isn't re-elected.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    3:01pm
    It's a win/win for the government. If people don't give up smokes they get extra tax and if they do then you will need less health care.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    3:10pm
    Rainey the ALP used old figures from Treasury. They were asked if they should be updated. So blaming someone else for Labor's incompetence is no longer an option. It happens far too often. And for the record, MICK doesn't support the Unions either. :)
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:24pm
    So say the lying LNP, Frank, but it's BS.
    Anonymous
    8th May 2016
    10:49am
    I note Treasury now says the Government's figures on the cost of company tax cuts are out by mega-millions. Bet you don't acknowledge and condemn that error, Frank. No doubt you'll refute Treasury's claim. Your precious LNP can do no wrong.
    Adrianus
    8th May 2016
    11:42am
    Rainey, as I posted here somewhere a couple of days ago. I had a doubt over the $48.5b figure because there are too many moving variables, particularly with < $10m enterprises. Level of profit for one. When you think about the many activities which can influence profit then all you have is an educated guess. I think the figure could be more accurately estimated for big business.
    There is no doubt about the power of taxation to influence consumer behaviour. A good example is the instant tax right off below $20,000 for small business which was introduced by Abbott. We've had record car sales. Of course also feuling that surge was the dropping of the false economy with the big car makers. Imported cars are now cheaper than the locally made.
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    9:38pm
    Good budget to get the engine room of Australia moving but a loss of some franking credits for super funds and self funded retirees.

    Good move increasing the turnover of small businesses to $10 million.
    Tom Tank
    3rd May 2016
    9:45pm
    Good response from the right wing.
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    9:45pm
    And the Black Market Peeps are Laughing all the way to the Money Launderers !! :-) :-)
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    9:51pm
    Good election budget. Lollies are coming folks.
    MICK
    3rd May 2016
    9:54pm
    A message straight from party HQ.
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    9:56pm
    I wont take Boiled Lollies from Ugly Pollys ! :-( :-(
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:24pm
    Might be some decent lollies in that money set aside for election promises.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    6:46am
    Only to buy votes from the mentally challenged.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:22am
    Ha ha I'm not going to write the answer to that one.
    douwe26
    3rd May 2016
    9:47pm
    How about extra increase in pay? and assistance with health care
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    9:54pm
    Politician's pay rise is under Consideration. With Private Hospital No Worries :-) Thanks.
    Greg
    3rd May 2016
    11:02pm
    "Maintainence of the current level of Medicare Benefits Schedule fees for all services until 2020"

    Over the next 4 years that may start hurting people.
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    7:08am
    Yes Greg, hurting the GPs who will continue to be out of pocket. People have to start seeing the GP as a small business because that is exactly what they are and an employer of others. They have exactly the same overheads as any other small business. If medicare rebates do not increase they have to raise their fees just like any other business.

    And then there is the rise in the level at which the medicare levy kicks in. That amounts to a small tax cut for those people.

    And before all the haters jump on this comment too, let me be clear: philosophically I think that Australian CITIZENS should be able to access life long high quality health care - including dental care - and high quality education without having to pay more in addition to tax. If people want to 'opt out' of the public systems they are welcome to do so BUT they should pay the full cost and not rely on the Government to support their personal choices. Everyone else pays, no exceptions.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:25am
    Unfortunately one does not have a choice you need to have one leg in each camp. They designed it that way.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    12:01pm
    KSS, just how do you think people are supposed to pay for medical care when they are born disabled, have serious accidents, get cancer, have disabled children, or are denied opportunity in childhood and struggle in shit jobs on pay that doesn't cover rent and food, let alone saving or insurance?

    Only the privileged think as you do. People who have no respect for others, but think society should enslave and exploit those born to disadvantage so the rich can keep partying and plundering.

    The freeze won't hurt GPs. It will screw the struggling sick and create more health problems, more social problems, and ultimately higher burdens on the taxpayer.

    Until people realise that tax is an essential to fund civilization, and serious inequity leads to serious social ills, we will continue to see this country slide downhill.

    As for clamping down on disability benefits - if anyone had the ability to assess disability accurately, it might be a good thing. But when a quadriplegic in a wheelchair is denied benefits, and a cancer patient can't get benefits because they haven't been on their death bed long enough for ''their condition to stabilize'', the system is broken, and it's certainly not the fault of the victims of this stupidity.
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    1:27pm
    Rainey: Almost all those you mention in your first paragraph are or could be bulk billed and therefore changes will not apply to them as they will not be charged a 'gap' payment.

    And by the way, you have NOT cornered the market on compassion even if you think you have.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:45pm
    KSS, you show your gross ignorance. You have absolutely no idea how things work in the real world!

    I know people who were sent bankrupt paying for cancer treatment. I know battlers who risks serious consequences by rejecting a recommendation to have diagnostic tests that cost them thousands, out of pocket, because specialists DON'T bulk bill CSHC holders if they are not on a pension. I know struggling families who pay thousands per month for treatment for disabled children, and get very little help. If you really believe what you say, you are ill-informed and it's time you stopped making claims and investigated the true situation out there for strugglers.

    As for compassion... I judge by what I see. Your comments reflect a total lack of it.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    3:17pm
    Rainey KSS is right medical bills for these people are bulk billed even those of specialists. Having had a first hand knowledge of all but that of being a quadriplegic all of these things are of very little cost if any.

    When I hear stories of battlers struggling financially with these costs I really wonder what they are talking about since they would not be struggling with the medical costs. If you get cancer they even help to pay for your household bills or petrol costs. Cancer treatment is free in public hospitals. All diagnostics tests are bulk billed unless you elect to have them done where they are not. With my disabled child all the treatment and medication given was at very little cost.

    So I can't understand why battlers struggle as they also get help from the government through sickness support.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:23pm
    Bonny, you don't understand because you trade on misinformation and anecdotal claims. And YOU ARE WRONG! Sorry. People wouldn't be complaining about struggling with costs if those costs didn't exist. I was recently quoted $2000 for a simple procedure that's free for pensioners. ''CSHC NOT accepted in our practice. Sorry.'' was the explanation. The procedure was not available in a public hospital.

    My disabled child cost me three houses. My disabled grandson is costing his parents a fortune. Yes, SOME treatment is free. Most isn't. And if you want QUALITY treatment, you have to pay. Much of what is offered free is very poor and conditional on you accepting terms that are often not acceptable. My grandson's parents would have had to accept that he had a condition he didn't have and put him on an inappropriate diet to get treatment he needed free, because the SYSTEM says if he has XXX disability, then he has XXX diet problem. Except he doesn't! They label people and box them, for convenience, and they get it hopelessly wrong.

    You pretend to live in some sort of utopian dream that has nothing whatever to do with reality in Australia. The real world is NOTHING like you pretend to believe.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    6:41pm
    So battlers can access these services for free unless they decide to go private instead.

    I rest my case.
    Anonymous
    7th May 2016
    11:13am
    I get it, Bonny. Battlers are supposed to accept sub-standard care or wait excessive lengths of time - possibly dying before they get to the top of the queue - DESPITE having saved to be able to pay for BETTER quality care - so you and your rich mates can retain your sense of superiority and the elitist benefits you seem to think you are somehow entitled to?

    In any case, Bonny, a lot of needed care is NOT free under ANY conditions. My partner needs medicines that cost hundreds of dollars a month because they are not on the PBS. NOBODY, no matter what their circumstances, gets those medications cheaply.
    LiveItUp
    8th May 2016
    11:46am
    Yes you can make choices to pay for treatment and medications but it is still free under medicare.
    Anonymous
    8th May 2016
    4:10pm
    Are you as thick as two bricks, Bonny, or do you just CHOOSE to miss the point. Nobody said SOME treatment isn't available under Medicare free. But it isn't always quality. It often involves long waiting lists. And people who saved to afford better shouldn't be deprived of their savings by greedy, selfish, self-serving nasties who want to avoid a fair tax on super because it HURTS THEM, but are quite content for others to be treated unfairly.
    Adrianus
    8th May 2016
    5:27pm
    I'm only just finding my way around. My assessment is that Doctors are in complete control over who pays and how much they pay for medical treatment. I have spent a fortune until recently.
    Alex
    3rd May 2016
    9:57pm
    It is of serious concern that Aged care providers will lose more than $1 billion in funding for complex healthcare over four years. This is an area that is already struggling to cope with demand. As the income and assets of current retirees are whittled away fewer people will be able to cover their own aged care costs. These cuts will precipitate a major crisis for aged care. It is a safe enough area to cut as it is likely to go unnoticed. The frail aged are not likely to be out shouting from the hustings and it seems no one else is likely to do it for them. Instead people such as those who benefit from running this website are advocating using the family home, which has been a fall back for covering aged care costs, to pay for the pension. This leaves people destitute when they need assets to pay for aged care.
    Yes Mick as you said if you are earning $1 million + you get the equivalent of the aged pension p.a. and the coming the tax cut for very big business, turnover up to $100,000 million, is disguised as a more palatable cut for small business.
    This is what the Treasurer called fairness.
    Alex
    3rd May 2016
    10:26pm
    Correction, a 'the' too many. It should have read 'the coming tax cut for very big business, turnover up to $100,000 million, is disguised as a more palatable cut for small business.'
    *Loloften*
    3rd May 2016
    10:36pm
    LNP have just lost 1million+ voters - vast majority of Age & Disability Pensioners + Carers. Goodonya Scotty & Mal...not!!!
    Play Fairly
    3rd May 2016
    10:44pm
    I am lost for words. It is more than obvious who the LNP favours with Budget 2016. They haven't given aged pensioners, low paid workers, the sick, and the disabled, any consideration whatsoever, except to show them things are going to get much worse for most of them.

    I hope Bill Shorten is worthy of our votes, and I hope he is sharpening his policies so that the LNP is booted out with the biggest defeat.....ever... as they most certainly deserve to be decimated at the polls.
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:06pm
    Yes agree Bill Shorten and his team will be decimated in the polls because they simply have nothing better to offer anyone.
    Play Fairly
    3rd May 2016
    11:38pm
    B(r)onny?.....you must have misread my post. I'm wanting the LNP out and anyone else who agrees with their discrimination towards people doing it hard has absolutely no place in our country's government, or in our society.
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:47pm
    Sounds like you could be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire then if you expect any better from the opposition.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    6:47am
    If all else fails Bronnie attack Labor or unions. Are you really that desperate? The budget is a flop and the coming days will show why.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:29am
    It is just so stupid that we don't allow our pets to linger on but we allow our relatives to do so. This is not obly cruel but very costly.
    Play Fairly
    4th May 2016
    8:57am
    Now you have really shown your true colours Bonny. Are you seriously advocating euthanasia for our relatives as a cost cutting measure? Please do not go where angels fear to tread!

    I'm off to buy an anti-ageing elixir. With obvious LNP supporters like you sprouking things like this, I'm going to need it to stay well clear of the aged care system.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    3:24pm
    No one should be left to suffer and linger on for the sake of their own dignity. Yes this is costly and serves no purpose.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:04pm
    Alex: correct. The tax cuts are a total con. Big business is getting a 2.5% tax cut but it will cut in. That is the deceit...again.
    I guess Ceo salaries will now go up another $1 million or more plus 'performance' bonuses.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:39pm
    Yes, Mick. CEO salaries will go up another million, and the poor CEOs will get a tax cut that's more than an aged pension has to live on. But they still won't be satisfied! Wait for the next barrage of whining from the Business Council!
    Chrissy L
    3rd May 2016
    9:59pm
    As expected, absolutely nothing for retirees or single pensioners. Do they realise how difficult it is to live on a single pension? We have all paid our fair share of tax over the years, and what do we get now? NOTHING!! I hope the LNP does not expect the Pensioners vote at the next election as thinking Pensioners wont't be giving it! On top of that we have a reduced interest rate announced today. What do they think we live on "Fresh Air?" Chrissy M
    Snowwhite
    3rd May 2016
    10:04pm
    Chrissy L they probably think we can live on dog food if worse comes to worse. Just another budget to show the worsening inequality of the haves and the have nots. Unfortunately the LNP think they are born to rule and stuff the rest of us.
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    10:04pm
    Spray some Vanilla Essence around to make Your "Fresh Air" more Nourishing :-)
    *Loloften*
    3rd May 2016
    11:07pm
    Chrissy L they don't give a damn abt single pensioners et al as they'll never need to live below the poverty line. Budget 2016 2nite totally ignored (not a single mention) age pensioners, disabled & their carers - lost all their votes, silly but not unexpected as LNP have always looked after their "uptown" mates. Don't think many earning $80,000pa will be enamoured of a meagre extra $6/wk either.
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:08pm
    It is even harder for some of our young families to make ends meet and just one disaster can tip them over the edge as they have no savings to fall back upon.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    6:48am
    Don't worry Chrissy. Plenty in the budget for the rich. Bronnie rubbing her hands together.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:30am
    Gee you are doing well to afford vanilla today.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:21pm
    I wish I could find some of these struggling young families, Bonny. I've looked hard. The food courts are overflowing with young families stuffing their faces with expensive goodies. The mothers pull up in fancy new SUVs at the school gate daily. New housing estates seem to overflow with 4+ bedroom, 3+ bathroom, 3+ living room brick and tile homes with landscaped gardens and swimming pools. And all the ''struggling families'' in my area are taking their kids to Bali for annual holidays.

    The only ''struggling'' families I know of are those where parents are unable to find work, and those with disabled or chronically ill children. On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of struggling retirees - most of whom gave a great deal to this country and deserve a hell of a lot better than the vile treatment they are suffering. Even the veterans who saved YOUR freedom, and sacrificed their health and future earning capacity in the process, are struggling on pathetic incomes. And all the privileged care about is attacking so-called '''welfare recipients''.

    What a disgrace!
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    3:26pm
    No you won't find struggling families stuffing their faces with expensive goodies as they can't afford to do so.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:40pm
    But that's the point, Bonny. They aren't struggling, because they ARE out stuffing their faces with expensive goodies - or cruising to Bali with the kids.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    8:18pm
    Bonny, you are contradicting yourself again. You claim to be concerned for struggling families, yet you approve of a budget that slugs them to give more to the well-off! Mind boggling!
    LiveItUp
    8th May 2016
    11:48am
    Other than smokers I can't see where the budget slugs anyone.
    Adrianus
    8th May 2016
    12:35pm
    The only ones getting slugged are the well off. I don't mind that, but I object to 10 years retrospectivity. The 4% of superannuation members MICK refers to as the rich have been making plans based on the rules, but now the Turnbull government has wound back the clock to 2007. Of course no posters here would see that being unfair. I think it's just as unfair to do it to a homeless person as a millionaire.
    Snowwhite
    3rd May 2016
    10:00pm
    Bonny how come the LNP trolls always come out in support of the Conservative budgets??
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    10:06pm
    The Only friends they've got :-)
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    6:49am
    Glad somebody else noticed.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:31am
    I haven't seen any of them.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    9:14am
    MICK, looks like your propaganda is working :) Probably affected the seven dwarves as well.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:09pm
    In case you do not understand the meaning of the word 'propaganda' Frank you should look it up. Facts are facts are facts.
    You routinely peddle propaganda, not me. I'll discuss the facts. You throw mud and promote lies.
    I predicted that the Budget would contain TAX CUTS for the rich. They have. And as is the norm for this government IT LIED.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    6:45pm
    Mick I hope you have a good set of ear plugs for use until July 2 otherwise you will hear many lies from all sides of politics.

    I thought only aspersers people had problems with white lies.
    Alex
    3rd May 2016
    10:13pm
    Yes Parti, the politicians got a pay increase this year and get two tax cuts in the Budget. The vanilla essence is a bit costly for pensioners.
    Chrissy I think they hope they can kill us off quickly
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    10:17pm
    One must look after one self mustn't one ? :-)
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    6:49am
    The wealthy mates club.
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    7:46am
    Wealthy get two tax cuts? People earning between $80,000 and $87000 can hardly be called 'wealthy'.

    Those earning over $180,000 have to continue to pay the 2% debt levy that was imposed in the budget before last and which was due to expire this year. AND they cannot deposit more than anyone else into super - $25000 concessional contributions for all and a lifetime limit of $500,000 in contributions. Where are the 2 tax cuts for the wealthy?
    PlanB
    4th May 2016
    8:00am
    Well I would think that $80.000 + are very well off
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:22pm
    People earning $80000 a year ARE wealthy, KSS. You have absolutely no idea!
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    1:35pm
    In which case Rainey as I said yesterday pensioners on the aged pension are clearly well off then on $22721.40 for a single and $34,252 for a couple and there's the 'extras on top such as Pension Supplement, The Energy Supplement.....
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    1:36pm
    And as I posted elsewhere today:

    $80,000 is NOT a high salary.

    A few examples:

    Most people in Australia would consider teachers as being underpaid. Well the salary of a 5 year trained classroom teacher (step 6) is $65,486 and the absolute highest salary on the scale step 13 is $92,892.

    Another group of people that most would consider underpaid are nurses. Well in NSW a registered nurse can earn between $59,394 and $83,309. And a probationary Police Officer in NSW starts at $65,059.

    So tell me again just how wealthy someone is on the average $80,000!
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:51pm
    Certainly well off compared to pensioners struggling on a pathetic $22,721.40 or $34,252 for a couple, KSS. $80,000 is more than double the latter and nearly quadruple the former. Since food, rent, and other unavoidable costs don't change regardless of income, if we assume $22,721.40 covers the basic necessities (and if it doesn't, we should all be bellowing loudly for that to be increased BEFORE any tax cut is given!), then someone on $80,000 a year has enough for all basic necessities, plus nearly that much again 3 times over for luxuries. That's well off!

    Whether or not a professional is underpaid depends on what they contribute to society. Most people are underpaid (CEOs, top bureaucrats and executives, company directors and politicians excepted!). But that doesn't mean they are not well off. Anyone earning double what a large portion of society has to live on is wealthy.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:11pm
    KSS: talk to Xenophon who was interviewed after the budget speech by Leigh Sales.
    Frank
    3rd May 2016
    10:16pm
    Yes, excluded it seems, a change in policy to scrap the totally unfair, discriminatory and shameful Liberal Party policy on the introduction of a 6 week portability change to those migrants with less than the requisite 35 yrs AWLR.
    Bring on the genera election and hope to see politicians who will see and aid the plight of those of us who will be the losers if this portability nonsense continues.
    particolor
    3rd May 2016
    10:20pm
    Vote Buying ?
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:32am
    I agree with this policy. If you live overseas then you are not supporting our ecomony so why should you be supported.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2016
    8:37am
    Because you've supported it in the past, thus laying away pennies in heaven for your eventual retirement, as per the established approach? It's your money, as explained time and again, even more so than that of superannuants and share dibblers, since it is all bought and paid for fully taxed along the way.

    These but a few of the inequities in our current retirement system and approach.
    *Loloften*
    3rd May 2016
    10:47pm
    Can't wait for election day now, will be so good to see shock on Mal & Scotty's faces when they lose after completely ignoring Age & Disability Pensioners + Carers that don't have $100,000s in savings.
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    10:56pm
    I can't wait to see the look on a lot of faces here when they win another term.
    Paulodapotter
    3rd May 2016
    10:58pm
    You're probaby right, Bonny. We're a pretty gullible bunch.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:28pm
    Heaven help us all if this mob get in again! Has anyone noticed the similarities between Turnbull's pose, mannerisms and tone to Hitler's. Very apparent when you watch him carefully. I keep expecting ScoMo to give his boss the Nazi salute. I think Turncoat re-read Mein Kamp recently.

    Be VERY careful who you vote for.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    2:56pm
    *Loloften I only watched part of Morrison's Budget presentation but I'm sure I heard that $2.1b was going to the National Disability Insurance scheme?
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:15pm
    The commercial media are already starting to run a repeat of the last election. Promote government ministers at every turn, create a warm and fuzzy feeling for them, and do not mention the lies and the bad stuff so that voters can be groomed to believe the "responsible government" lies being promoted. The reality is that the deficit has been shown to be less in both the Rudd and the Gillard years than under Abbott and also under Turnbull on the projected figures.
    We are seeing another campaign from the commercial media to get their man back in.
    If voters are again taken in you may be right Bronnie. Not so sure though.
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    10:53pm
    A lot to digest after just getting home from work and still paying super at nearly 67. I'll read a few comments and think on it.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:33am
    I can now pay into super too.
    Paulodapotter
    3rd May 2016
    10:56pm
    The LNP are incredible at slight of hand, but this time they've missed their mark. Nothing there to attract "Howard's Battlers". I wonder how they are going to attract the yobbo vote. They certainly got the middle to upper income voter listening. They'll have to start attacking a few more refugees. Unfortunately, they seem to be attacking themselves and have stolen the major parties' sthunder. Bu t of course, they're self immolating because protesters are giving them false hope. How do you figure that one, Sociopath Hunt?
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    10:58pm
    I think a lot of people are thinking that it could have been much worse and are very concerned about the opposition's agenda. A few bob on the LNP for another term IMHO.
    Paulodapotter
    3rd May 2016
    11:00pm
    You're probaby right, Bonny. We're a pretty gullible bunch.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:18pm
    The Budget was a smooth document....devoid of real detail. I suspect it will be pulled apart and shown to be a sham.
    People are pretty gullible. I just hope those who have been under attack will ignore the con and remember what this bunch did last time around, much of which was blocked by the senate....who this government is trying to remove as well.
    andromeda143
    3rd May 2016
    11:02pm
    So much for a reform agenda from a government with vision. This once again illustrates that the Liberals care about no one but themselves and the business world. Slug students, education, medicare, health, child care, unemployment and to hell with any sort of real plan for the future. Anyone who earns less than $80000 per year would be mad to vote for this lot of crooks.
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:10pm
    So who do they vote for then?
    Paulodapotter
    3rd May 2016
    11:10pm
    "Don't you worry about that" as old Jo used to say. There's plenty of dopes out there that will vote for the LNP even if they were being lined up by Greg Hunt and told to self immolate or be shot.
    *Loloften*
    3rd May 2016
    11:14pm
    Agree
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    1:40pm
    I wonder who has been talking to those refugees?
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:20pm
    Yes Andromeda. Vote for an Independent with a preference not going to this government, or if all else fails vote Labor to get rid of the scum who now consider themselves to be a national government.
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    11:08pm
    Reading comments :- It hadn't escaped my notice in advance that pollies would be giving themselves a tax cut... nothing new there. I can see an argument for a raising of the tax threshold to cover bracket creep for those just edging that mythical $80,000 mark - I see no real reason to offer tax relief in a budgetary crisis to those who are earning well above the top layer.

    Also it is clear that it is the low end of town who will be expected to fund, through their majority contribution to taxes of all kinds, any budgetary measures.

    As for 'small business' - I rather thought that was something in the order of the corner shop etc, with a turnover in the low millions... not those with a turnover of deca-millions.....

    Truly these politicians live in a fantasy world due to the fact that they dabble daily with billions, and have some amazing idea that this means that a few bucks to a pensioner or aged worker is nothing to worry about. It's called The Lost Horizon of Politicians.... or in pub phraseology - no farken idea.

    I still say get rid of the lot and let's start again.
    Paulodapotter
    3rd May 2016
    11:12pm
    Are you recommending civil war Trebor. We're probably due for one. The Eureka Stockade was a bit of a flop.
    LiveItUp
    3rd May 2016
    11:19pm
    These people on $80,000 pa and above pay 74% of taxes so deserve a tax break. If they pay 74% of taxes the low end of town doesn't contribute very much.

    $2 million turnover was too low and it's good they up it to to $10 million. Corner shops have a but disappeared because quite simply they are not profitable any more.
    *Loloften*
    3rd May 2016
    11:19pm
    I'll be voting for well researched Independents in both houses unless ALP impresses me with policies on Thursday.
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    11:22pm
    Not a Civil War, Paulo - just a new movement of the people to restore sanity to politics and economic management here. Civil War is a hopeless cause, as Ned Kelly's attempt will testify, since the Guv have all the guns and the people none in any real sense.

    A Political Civil War I suppose is what I mean.
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    11:25pm
    As with many similar, Bonny - you are lost in the realms of income tax alone... the majority by simple majority pay the majority of taxers overall. One person on $80k buys one microwave, two people on $40k buy one microwave each = 2 x the tax recouped in the sale.

    Simple really. What it means is that those on large income have more discretionary cash and put it into areas that do not incur tax - such as offshore trips, investment properties and so forth, so a bald statement that this mythical group pay the majority of tax in reality is a fraud.
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    11:27pm
    I too will not be voting for the other half of The Tag Team, or the Greens, unless they can convince me that they actually have some answers and not just more rhetorical ideology to push relentlessly.
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    7:22am
    And two people on $80000 buy two microwaves. And one person on $40000 buys one microwave. Your point Trebor?

    Off shore trips - you mean like Mick's several overseas trips a year? Or those on a pension living overseas? Or those complaining that their overseas visits will be curtailed by the proposed reduction in time allowed offshore before their Government pension is stopped?
    TREBOR
    4th May 2016
    8:38am
    There are more people on > $80k.. that is the issue... apart from the fact that the issue goes all the way to the very top earners, how many of those buy microwaves in comparison with the majority?

    Keep thinking.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:24pm
    You crack me up Bronnie!
    Those on a wage of > $80,000 pa earn MOST of the money in the nation.
    Those on $80,000 are for the most part in the 32 cents or lower tax bracket.
    Your game ignores the fact that there are heaps of incomes in the $100,000 to $1 million bracket. Of course these people should pay the top rate on some of their income. That is how any progressive tax system in the western world works.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:43pm
    But that's the problem, Mick. The rich and privileged have decided progressive tax is a bad thing. They want the benefits of civilization WITHOUT the cost. The ''born to rule'' think that they are ''entitled'', and the rest of us should work for stale bread and water to line their coffers.
    Blossom
    6th May 2016
    2:21pm
    People who are only just over the threshold and pay in the highest tax bracket are probably no better off than some in the higher end of the lower bracket.
    When I was working and we were changing to a new computer system we were doing overtime two nights a week. After tax time at the end of the financial year it put me just over a threshold and I gained less than $500.00 a year. Financially it wasn't really worth the loss of sleep.
    Anonymous
    7th May 2016
    11:33am
    Blossom, people only just over the threshold ONLY pay the higher rate on that portion of their income that is over the threshold - not on all of their income. So If you are in the 37c in the dollar tax bracket and extra earnings push you to the 45c bracket, you are 55c better off for every extra dollar you earned.

    I would be very happy keeping 55c in every extra dollar I earn, but I guess it depends on how much you have. Those with high incomes seem to feel it's not worth working unless they are paid, and retain, a very large amount of benefit. Those accustomed to lower incomes are more easily pleased.
    TREBOR
    3rd May 2016
    11:19pm
    Some reading material (again):-

    http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Australian%20Small%20Business%20-%20Key%20Statistics%20and%20Analysis/downloads/PDF/AustralianSmallBusinessKeyStatisticsAndAnalysis.ashx

    High points:-

    "For statistical purposes, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) defines a small business as an actively trading business with 0–19 employees.
    Micro businesses are small businesses with 0–4 employees. "

    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/Employ

    "Small businesses accounted for the largest share of total employment in Australia (by firm size) at 44.0 per cent at the end of June 2014—this compares with a 24.3 per cent share for medium sized businesses and 31.7 per cent share for large businesses."

    So it appears that between those three categories, small business is indeed the biggest employer.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2016
    1:21am
    Sorry that first link:-

    http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Australian%20Small%20Business%20-%20Key%20Statistics%20and%20Analysis/downloads/PDF/AustralianSmallBusinessKeyStatisticsAndAnalysis.ashx
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:34pm
    How many SMALL businesses turnover $10 million a year, Trebor? That is hardly ''small''.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    1:46pm
    And for tax purposes? What measure is used by the ATO?
    Why would you compare a business on number of employees when we are discussing tax payable?
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:26pm
    We already knew that TREBOR. Morrison just tried to redefine a couple of things to suit his purposes.
    Alex
    4th May 2016
    12:11am
    Trebor Like your cat
    TREBOR
    4th May 2016
    1:23am
    That cat is a great hunter... catches rabbits.... a good cat has to feed the family that feeds her....

    Must be an analogy in there for government... or perhaps an anal log ey? Just saying...
    Scrivener
    4th May 2016
    12:38am
    Why do these idiots think the future of the world is vested in little shopkeepers, mid-sized shopkeepers and obscenely big shopkeepers. This is a shopkeepers budget.
    Another Coalition party with lots of icing on the cake for shopkeepers.
    So they steal at least three Labor party ideas and miss the real nub of Innovation, Education. Ans so on it goes and goes and goes - thankfully it may well soon be gone.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2016
    1:28am
    Perhaps they now feel that education has peaked and has lost its original purpose of developing a viable pool of people with qualifications. Now it's become a glutted pool and too much education money is vanishing into areas of research etc that, frankly, have little to no value.

    I fear an associate professor friend of mine may soon lose her job..... she made great waves over 'women in education'.... kinda passe` these days with every second girl graduating with something.... who gives a rat's about women in education nowadays, when the whole system is weighted towards them and has been for decades now.... nearly thirty years to be exact.

    Socio-fascist 'equality' at work.... another phase in the great socialist revolution that has burnt out after burning countless others for no real reason.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2016
    1:31am
    Why bring innovation into it? We have no manufacturing base to implement it anyway and it would be sold off to the Chindians or the Yanks to make a profit out of....

    Sidenote - was struck by the program last night on housing, and the 30km from Melbourne house that needed two hours travel a day each way. Amazing lack of infrastructure built into these ticky-tacky housing tracts..... should be part and parcel of any development. Obviously nothing has been learned since the halcyon days of the Campbelltown 'satellite' townships.... like Raby, Claymore etc where angels fear to tread.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:29pm
    Innovation? The government? No way.
    This government is likely a traditional 'mining' funded government interested in maintaining the status quo at all costs.
    It was mentioned that NOT $1 went to renewables in the Budget. Apparently no other government in the western world would dare to try that one on. Guess what! Yeah.......the coal fired government still trying to destroy the future of the nation. Innovation is at the heart of green energy and we will be left behind.
    TREBOR
    4th May 2016
    1:36am
    Oh - another sidenote. On another forum I just responded to someone saying there was no 'wage scale' in reality and people started at the bottom of the ladder and worked their way up.

    I said that only worked when the bottom rungs of the ladder can support a person..... otherwise nobody gets to climb at all.

    I was referring to the Morrison 'internship' payment of about $230 a week or $6 an hour. Gotta admire the gall of a man who would offer a worker $6 an hour and en employer $10,000 to take him/her on...... must think the kids all work at Macca's in the US.....
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:36am
    Kids in Maccas in Australia are no better off.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:13pm
    That makes it okay, then, Bonny? Things is bad in some places, so it's okay to make them bad in others? Odd logic!
    PlanB
    4th May 2016
    5:52am
    All good again for the big end -- NOTHING for the everyday bloke but what did we expect from this mob !?
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:30pm
    True to form. But be assured that if these ratbags get back in you will get new taxes.
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    7:30am
    Perhaps those of you who consider yourself more 'intelligent' than the rest of us can explain how reducing the concessional contributions to superannuation to $25000 for all (down from $30000 under 55 and $35000 over) will 'hit the rich'. The so called 'rich' deposit mostly non-concessional contributions into super (if indeed they do) given the limits already imposed which were themselves a reduction on previous limits. There is now a danger that even the less well off have little incentive to save for their retirement.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    2:22pm
    Any incentive for the less well off to save for retirement was firmly killed off by the stupid change to the pension assets test, KSS. Why the hell would you save only to lose 7.8% indexed to inflation (possibly plus a host of benefits) for every extra $1000 you save for retirement, when savings might return anything from 2.5% to 5% per annum?

    Now the message is ''save for retirement so we can punish you for doing so, strip you of your savings, and give much more to those who didn't.'' Bloody idiotic!
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    3:37pm
    I really don't think anyone other than the 300,00 people effected would take the change in asset test into consideration when saving for retirement. It is just another change that one has to take in their stride and change their circumstances for what best suits them.

    That line is the sand could be drawn anywhere by the time they retire. Even deeming is a relatively new thing for us retirees.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:29pm
    More crap, Bonny. People are smarter than you give them credit for. It's only the bat-eyed idiots who want to make stupid claims based on anecdotal nonsense that can't see how idiotic the policy is. Young people are withdrawing from saving in droves. Change circumstances? Sure they will. More costly houses. Big gifts before pension age. World cruises before retirement. ANYTHING to cut their savings so they aren't punished for being responsible.

    More people on bigger pensions. More taxpayer burden. Not much brains in the ''brains trust''. No wonder the nation is in debt!
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:33pm
    After tax contributions still only pay a tax rate of 15% in super. Fantastic saving. And still tax free when taken at retirement.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:52pm
    Good for those who earn enough to pay more than 15% tax, Mick. Stuff the rest! And what good is a piddling little saving (and it is piddling for low income earners) when it's taken back at retirement?
    MmtuMoja
    4th May 2016
    6:19pm
    A wise man once said something along the lines of "I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilisation".

    If we vote these govern for the have's back in, what do you think the rest of us will be buying?
    Rosret
    4th May 2016
    7:34am
    I have a question.
    Why has the government dropped the lifetime contribution to $500K ?
    Why does the government not wish the retired person to put there money in super should they come into money i.e. sale of house, inheritance, excess savings etc?
    Why does the government want the worker to put in 25% of their income into super and not allow the individual to put in a bulk amount?
    Why do you have to draw down a certain percentage every year once you start accessing your super?
    I honestly don't understand. Why?
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:40am
    No it doesn't make sense because you can put in the proceeds of the sale of a small business with generous tax concessions. This is now limited to $500,000. This is only super some of these people will ever have.
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    7:41am
    All good questions. I don't understand the reasoning either!

    On the mandatory drawdown, I assume this to ensure people actually DO use the money rather than keeping it and drawing an aged pension as well. The mandatory drawdown amount increases the older you get so I assume this is to stop people going to Government with their hands out whilst preserving their savings to leave to their children/grandchildren as potential costs increase over time.
    CindyLou
    4th May 2016
    8:04am
    KSS, to the best of my understanding, the super balances are counted as an asset/income for people of retirement age, so it would NOT be possible to preserve their super savings whilst simultaneously drawing a pension.
    Radish
    4th May 2016
    8:19am
    I totally agree with your one sentence Cindy Lou..."I want the best for the country...whatever it takes".

    Think of the nation as a whole; not just yourself.
    Retired Knowall
    4th May 2016
    8:52am
    If you are under age pension age, your superannuation investments are usually disregarded for income and assets test purposes. When you or your partner reach age pension age, whether you receive Age Pension or another payment, superannuation investments are:

    included as assets under the assets test, and
    regarded as financial investments. They are added to the value of other financial investments and all financial investments are deemed to calculate income
    We will use the balance from your latest member statement to determine the asset value of your superannuation and then use this value in working out the amount of income to be deemed for this investment.

    If you have reached age pension age and your partner has not, your superannuation will be assessable however your partner’s superannuation will not be assessable until they reach age pension age.

    In certain circumstances where you or your partner are of age pension age and you are unable to access your superannuation investments, an exemption may be allowable if certain conditions are met.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    9:03am
    Rosret, my understanding is the non-concessional contribution level will go from $180,000 pa to a lifetime cap of $500,000. This could be of concern to members with a warrant larger than this cap. Meaning they would then need to go into retirement with the debt or sell the asset.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    7:49am
    I like most of the changes to Superannuation tax and I am one who would rather no changes at all.
    The introduction of a $1.6 million superannuation balance transfer cap an individual can transfer tax-free into retirement phase accounts is a good one and puts a stop to those using super as a tax minimisation strategy. Likewise, the
    reduction of the threshold to $250,000 of combined income and superannuation contributions at which an individual pays 30 per cent tax.
    Lowering of the concessional superannuation cap to $25,000 is not a good idea in my opinion. While it reduces Government tax liability and may put some money into other areas of the economy it doesn’t address the growing long term need for retirees to be self funding.
    The introduction of a $500,000 lifetime cap for non-concessional contributions. Not sure where this figure came from? But I agree with a cap on non concessional contributions.
    Now this is the big one which will benefit women on low incomes, the introduction of a Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset for those earning less than $37,000. What a great way to rebalance the fairness scale.

    The removal of current restrictions on those aged between 65 and 74 who continue to pay superannuation contributions is a common sense approach given the other changes.
    Another big boost for women’s retirement savings is the increase in the income threshold from $10,800 to $37,000 for receiving spouse superannuation contributions.
    All in all, I’m happy with the changes.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    7:53am
    When you think about it, I would say low income earning women are the biggest winners out of this budget!
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    9:47am
    How many Franks have we
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:36pm
    You are being frank and earnest there robbo. The only frank I ever liked was a franked dividend.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:12pm
    Mick a cut in the company tax will also mean a cut in franked dividends.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    8:00pm
    That's right Bonny. It will also water down the tax benefit with salary sacrifice.
    rtrish
    4th May 2016
    8:03am
    So the Energy Supplement will go for new welfare recipients after July 2017. A whole $14.10 (currently). How mean.
    PlanB
    4th May 2016
    8:10am
    Whats in the budget for the ordinary man in the street

    SWEET BA
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    9:09am
    rtrish, if you multiply that by 3,000,000 you can understand why. Isnt it better to not push up power prices artificially? Labor has a plan to push them up by 78%.
    KSS
    4th May 2016
    9:10am
    Given the tax that the Energy Supplement was meant to cover, was abolished some time ago, there is no need to continue the Energy Supplement is there?

    That's part of the problem Australia has, people are happy to take but not to give it up when the purpose is no longer there.

    Now if you want to campaign for a higher rate for welfare payments in general, fine, go ahead, but to retain something no longer valid is just ridiculous.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    9:50am
    Yes Frank I think its called a carbon Tax.

    KSS you are right why should the taxpayer have to fork out for something that is know longer around it should be cut immediately.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    10:34am
    That's right robbo, they are secretly planning to reintroduce it. This time we wont be able to afford the Energy Supplement.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:13pm
    KSS, Frank and Robbo, the reason people aren't willing to give up the benefit might just be that the costs of energy DIDN'T FALL. We NEVER saw the promised reductions in prices. It was all lies. In fact, many of us saw prices skyrocket after the carbon tax was canned.

    I saw this debacle decades ago with meat prices. They went sky high when there was a bit of drought and graziers were doing it tough. When we had a great year, there was no reduction. Then we had another bad year, and up they went again. The rort happens everywhere, sadly.

    The problem with energy is that it SHOULD be free, and to line the pockets of select groups, we are maintaining obsolete infrastructure and trying to find way to force people to pay for it. Consumers are paying so that people who profit from selling an obsolete product can retain their profits.

    Funny how the privileged object to paying poor pensioners a few dollars to compensate for a cost that continues to hurt their budget, but not to the rip-off by the well-to-do who insist their high profits must be artificially maintained after the usefulness of their product ends.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    1:28pm
    Rainey, didn't fall heh? Much depends on which state you live in. Try telling people in Tasmania that their power bills haven't dropped.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:37pm
    I have friends who run a business in Tasmania and they tell me costs have risen sharply. I have a friend whose family live in Tassie and who travels to visit them regularly. She was shocked at the increases - and she had complained about the increases in S E Qld, where heating is rarely needed. In Tassie, it's essential, and a lot of folk are going without it because of energy costs. Now, a lot more will freeze.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    2:38pm
    As Cota pointed out:

    "While the rest of the population enjoys the benefits of the restructured income tax arrangements which were put in place for the carbon tax, it seems unfair that those who have least resources will have these benefits withdrawn."

    Taxpayers haven't lost their energy cost compensation. Only pensioners. Typical LNP policy!
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:40pm
    Frank you numskull.....electricity prices did NOT come down after the Carbon Tax was repealed. They kept going up. ANd then they suddenly went down a couple of crumbs worth.
    Let's end the lie: electricity prices NEVER went up because of the Carbon Tax. That was just the lie of convenience. Greg Hunt's favourite....until Tony Jones laughed at him on air when kept repeating the lie. Hunt then stopped.
    You are just flogging a LNP lie mate!
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    4:42pm
    It didn't take a crystal ball to work out that energy prices would rise substantially after they were privatised. So one could either sit back and whinge or do something about it. As with most things in life most people just sit back and whinge.

    I however did something about it. I now generate all my own energy instead.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:47pm
    So do I Bonny. But I have friends in the military who are forced to rent and can't install solar. Of course, their names aren't '''Bonny''', so they don't matter. Pity they wouldn't put a mark around your ''country estate'' and say this part of Australia is not entitled to any defence against foreign invasion, because the occupant is a selfish egotist who has no appreciation of the sacrifices others make, and no empathy whatever.
    LiveItUp
    4th May 2016
    7:16pm
    Interesting idea that one because with no defence then I pay no taxes as I am annexed from Australia.
    CindyLou
    4th May 2016
    8:10am
    I want the best for Australia as a whole - whatever that takes.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    9:57am
    yes you are correct Cindy Lou a lot people on this blog only have there own selfinterest in mind.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    12:36pm
    You won't get anything good for Australia as a whole from this government, Cindy Lou. Nor from a Labor government sadly. In fact, I think we'd have to do away with the entire political system to have any hope.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:31pm
    Speak for yourself, Robbo. What's good for Australia is a healthy society. Inequity and unfairness makes for a sick society. It's now well recognized, globally, that inequity is the biggest problem the world faces, and if we don't fix it, the consequences will be very serious indeed. So a budget that gives more to the well off and ignores the battlers is NOT GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:42pm
    Cindy: giving the big end of town repeated tax cuts is not in the best interests of the nation and the government and Business Council repeating their nonsense about "more jobs" as a result is a con. Overseas evidence shows that this extra money goes straight into the bank accounts of the rich. Not their businesses. AT the same time average Australians will be taxed more to pay. A simple formula! Ask robbo.
    Radish
    4th May 2016
    8:42am
    This may be of interest to some. Lifting of restrictions on people being able to contribute to superannuation up to 75.

    "Harmonising contributions rules for older Australians"

    To assist older Australians prepare for their retirement by boosting their superannuation account balances, the Government is lifting restrictions on their ability to contribute.

    Currently, there are minimum work requirements for Australians aged 65 to 74 who want to make voluntary superannuation contributions. Restrictions also apply to the bring-forward of non-concessional contributions. In addition, spouses aged over 70 cannot receive contributions. None of these restrictions apply to individuals aged under 65.

    The Government will remove these restrictions and instead apply the same contribution acceptance rules for all individuals aged up to 75, from 1 July 2017.

    These changes will provide better incentives and more flexibility to all Australians to make superannuation contributions appropriate to their circumstances.
    downunder
    4th May 2016
    9:31am
    Can't wait when they come up and lift the 'contribution age' to 5 yrs after death
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    10:05am
    Rad that is good news for retirees. The lifting of those restrictions will allow for a more care free retirement for many.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:24pm
    Good news for well-to-do retirees and those blessed with good health and education who can keep earning.
    As usual, that's the only class the LNP and it's supporters consider. To hell with the rest!
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    2:00pm
    Rainey, if you have something to say then say it. Why this constant criticism of other posters who don't share your political view? You are beginning to sound like MICK. For someone who purports to be the only poster with compassion, you sure don't display much of it?
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    2:25pm
    I didn't criticize anyone in the above post, Frank. I merely said it's good news for well-to-do retirees and those blessed with good health and education to keep earning. That's a fact. It certainly does nothing for people who have nothing to put into super. And it's clear that is the only class the LNP and it's supporters consider. That's obvious from LNP policy and the endorsements supporters post. I deal in fact. I'm sorry if facts offend.
    downunder
    4th May 2016
    9:29am
    What is in it for retirees? Absolutely sweet nothing. Retirees are one of the milking cows for this 'out of touch' government. Not to mention another 25 points rate cut on the same day, just to make matters worse. Thanks, but NO thanks
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    9:55am
    downunder why should there be anything in it for retirees they already get a heap of welfare and benefits because they can"t look after themselves why should the average taxpayer stump up anymore give me a break.
    Alexii
    4th May 2016
    10:27am
    A lot of retirees are struggling and have to watch every cent they spend. I see people on full pensions who are much better off than I am.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    11:50am
    Robbo, why should YOU be well off as a result of living in a society that was built and is maintained by people who are paid far less than their labour is worth (otherwise business could never profit)?

    You are a LEANER. You want to take take take and then scorn those you take from and demand they get nothing back. A sick mentality.

    I agree with downunder. Australian retirees are treated worse than retirees almost everywhere else in the world. How we treat our aged says a lot about our civilization - and it says nothing commendable.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    2:44pm
    Well, Alexii, çome January 2017, a lot more retirees will be struggling and much worse off than full pensioners. But according to Bonny, that's fine, because battlers should NEVER be allowed to benefit from their hard work and saving. If people struggle to improve their status, they must be bashed down.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:48pm
    downunder: the attack on retirees is a diversion from this government which does not want scrutiny of its performance and its refusal to tax the rich and multinational companies.
    I found it interesting that the ATO was getting more resources (staff) but no legislative changes were to occur. The reason - the milking and tax avoidance is supposed to continue with this bunch of misfits then crying 'no legislation'. If it were not so then rigorous legislative changes would have been drafted. That was avoided at all costs!
    KB
    4th May 2016
    9:38am
    They are not being fair on those of us who are genuinely disabled. If the assessment was to receive extra help then great but it never happens.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    1:31pm
    Don't you understand the neoliberal philosophy, KB. If you are disabled, sick, or otherwise disadvantaged, it's YOUR fault and you should be punished harshly. If you are a hard worker who strived and saved to escape early hardship, you must be stripped of all that you attained. Only the rich matter in this Neoliberal world. Get used to it. It's going to get very much worse! Human decency has been replaced by unbelievable greed and selfishness, as we are seeing here!
    Alexii
    4th May 2016
    10:05am
    If they want to add to employment it would be better to give a tax break to the lower income earners - after all they have a very high propensity to consume - in other words they will spend that little bit of extra money they get in the pocket. Likewise they could rescind the decision they made earlier on to reduce the part age pension for many supposedly wealthy self-funded retirees. These retirees will have to cut back on what little spending they do once their part pension is reduced or wiped out altogether. But of course it's easy for government to knock groups of people like that.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    10:12am
    Alexii, when you say low income earners can you state a wage level?
    Alexii
    4th May 2016
    10:25am
    For instance up to $40k pa. But what about all those below the average wage in any case. It might have been better to extend the tax free level by another few thousand and that would be of benefit to all.
    Adrianus
    4th May 2016
    10:56am
    Alexii, I don't know that there would be much room to move there. Once the medicare levy is removed the 4,500 income tax would mostly be returned in welfare and super subsidies. I would be in favour of decreasing welfare for low income earners and increasing the tax threshold with a net effect.
    Radish
    4th May 2016
    10:44am
    I dont know if all are aware but according to figures I heard in the last few days out of a population of around 24 million people only 10 million pay tax.

    It would be wonderful if there was a money tree in Canberra and everyone got something but there isn't.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    11:46am
    It would be wonderful if we had a tax system that taxed those who can afford to pay fairly, so we can maintain a healthy society without blowing the federal budget. There's ONE problem and ONE problem only. The mentality that says the rich shouldn't have to pay can't work. You can't get blood out of a stone. Tax is the price of living in civilization. Until the rich recognize that they benefit from tax and they should pay up and shut up, we will never resolve the problems.

    Most of those who don't pay tax contributed to society in other ways - to a very large extent. Aged pensioners who worked for 40 or 50 years on low pay contributed by performing necessary work for little reward. We wouldn't have roads and electricity networks and communication systems if people didn't work for far less than their labour is really worth. We wouldn't have schools for rich people's kids and hospitals for the well off to be treated in if some of the population didn't slave for years on low incomes. We wouldn't have mail and freight services if people didn't work in those areas for much less than is justified. Business couldn't operate if people weren't paid a fraction of what their labour generates.

    The well-to-do in our society are the ''entitled leaners''. They refuse to acknowledge what they have taken from society, and how little they have paid for the privileges they enjoy. And they refuse to be fair, respectful, and appreciative of what they have. They want it all, but they want to give nothing back. That's slavery. If you want to return to it, at least have the decency to be honest and stop the lying BS and vile insults and accusations against people you should be bowing down to and thanking for keeping civilization working.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    4:49pm
    Children do not pay tax. Nor do most people in retirement phase.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:59pm
    That might not last long, Mick. The rich are determined to somehow make the rest of us foot the bill for the social benefits they enjoy. Try not to put ideas in their heads please!
    Alexii
    4th May 2016
    10:04pm
    Well said, Rainey!
    Alexii
    4th May 2016
    10:05pm
    BTW, Mick, each and everyone of us pays tax on just about everything we buy - GST.
    Anonymous
    7th May 2016
    11:21am
    You are right of course, Alexii. EVERYONE pays tax. The rich invented indirect taxes as a way to force the less advantaged to pay a major share of the rich mens' taxes for them. Recently, they tried to increase GST so the rich would pay less and the less advantaged would pay more. It's a bit like trying to bleed stones, as was eventually pointed out to them. They'd have had to find a way to help the stones grow in order to get any more blood out of them, and that presented too much of a challenge.
    bobby
    4th May 2016
    11:07am
    Littlehelenb. Stop whingeing. You are very lucky to be getting as much as you are now!
    Nadine
    4th May 2016
    12:30pm
    My comment is about the proposed changes to the Dental Scheme. This has been woefully inadequate, but seems to me that the removal of it in its current form by a yet to be identified scheme - as I understand it - to be delivered by the States, is likely to fall into oblivion with no-one being responsible. Personally, I believe that Dental Care should be classified as primary health - especially for children AND aged... the latter emphasis is not being heard. I expect it will be re-invented but the aged element will have fallen off the wagon. AND, how long will it take to be re-invented and what will happen to those on the already lengthy waiting lists?

    4th May 2016
    2:01pm
    Bonny says ''These people on $80,000 pa and above pay 74% of taxes so deserve a tax break. If they pay 74% of taxes the low end of town doesn't contribute very much.''

    Just shows how warped the thinking of the well off is. Are they actually bat-eyed and ignorant enough to think that how much a group contributes to overall tax determines whether they deserve a break or not? More likely they are just self-serving enough to pretend that's what they think?

    Anyone with a brain knows that tax is the most minor and irrelevant way people contribute to society. Those who pay less tax contribute far more by providing labour at low cost. People provide voluntary services. People provide intelligence and innovation and culture. Many of the providers are paid nothing. Vast numbers are paid a tiny fraction of what their contribution is really worth. Every worker in a business contributes by working for less than his work is worth, so that businesses can profit.

    Progressive tax systems were created in recognition of the fact that the lower income earners give more to society and the higher income earners take more from society, so it's only fair that higher income earners pay more tax. Sadly, we've lost the plot. That reality is no longer recognized, because greed and selfishness have displaced conscience and human decency.

    In a society that has a major debt and deficit problem, and can't provide adequate health care, education, infrastructure and welfare to maintain a healthy society and a growing economy, NOBODY earning more than they need to maintain a basic living standard (that is, more than the pension) DESERVES or NEEDS a tax cut, and only a grossly irresponsible government would give them one.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    2:03pm
    BTW. Bonny. The low end of town contributes an enormous amount relative to their capacity to pay, because they pay relatively high indirect taxes. Conversely, the high end have all sorts of avoidance strategies. The tax burden is heavily weighted to be unfair to the lower and middle income earners. The LNP has just made it more so.
    Mez
    4th May 2016
    2:29pm
    I am satisfied with this budget but we still need to increase Rental Assisyance for Age Pension.
    ONE DOLLAR increase recently is PATHETIC & A BAD JOKE!
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    2:42pm
    Mez, a lot of renters are far better off in income terms than home-owner pensioners. I know several who are considering selling their home and renting because the system is so biased against them, but that's a tough call when you've worked and saved for 5 decades for th security of a home of your own.

    The system is broken. Increasing one benefit isn't going to help. It needs a complete overhaul.
    PlanB
    4th May 2016
    3:20pm
    I would hate to rent -- have to pay all that rent PLUS other bills and never own a thing -- AND can be outed at any time -- NO THANKS
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:36pm
    I agree, PlanB. I was only pointing out that increasing one benefit doesn't necessarily fix problems. That's why we have such a mess, in fact. Because each group competes for more for their select group, with no regard for fairness or common sense, and no consideration of the fact that what applies to SOME in that group doesn't apply to others, and likewise what applies to SOME in other groups may not apply globally.

    Generally, renters struggle, but the 2017 asset test changes make many renters far, far better off than their home owner counterparts. We don't need increases in rent assistance. We need a total overhaul of the entire pension system to make it fairer, more efficient, easier to administer, and less costly for the taxpayer.
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    5:24pm
    Be careful what you agree to Mez, and remember that this budget was very very slick but when it is pulled apart there will be questions which will be avoided. I suspect that the Budget will be the same as the Paid PArental Leave Scheme before the last election: a promise which was intended to be broken as soon as the election was done and dusted.
    The essence of this Budget is simply more debt, tax cuts for the rich and undisclosed tax increases for everyone else if this bunch get back in.
    I suggest that voters simply remember the track record and try to avoid the rhetoric. The thing with good liars is just that: they make you believe that which you know to be wrong.
    MmtuMoja
    4th May 2016
    3:12pm
    Bottom line is that Australians on the median full time income ($64,000 pa) or less get far more benefit from properly funded public healthcare, public education, TAFE's, public transport, social housing, investment in public infrastructure and the like than they ever will from tax cuts or subsidisation of private health or schools. That's why Scandinavian countries have high tax rates, high quality publicly funded services - like schools available to all citizens, high living standards, rate high on the world happiness (of their citizens) index and they have low debt. Norway (it saved its North Sea Oil revenue rather than buy votes with Liberal tax cuts and baby bonuses) and Sweden don't have deficits
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    4:33pm
    Yes, and we could learn a lot from them if politicians weren't so arrogant and we didn't have so many selfish, self-serving well-to-do demanding more and more in their pockets and whining about the cost of ''welfare'' (which actually costs Australia very little in world terms).
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    5:28pm
    Have you not heard how much money this government has stripped from PUBLIC utilities and services in the past 2 years? Nothing taken from private entities though. And now they give the wealthy more tax cuts whilst continually looking for ways to raise money from working Australians. And the deficit, which this lot promised to reduce before the last election, is more than it was in the Labor years.
    LiveItUp
    8th May 2016
    11:34am
    Mick they haven't stripped anything from them that's a myth.
    Watchful
    4th May 2016
    4:59pm
    let all us part pensioners remember one thing in the up coming election it was the Australian Greens who did a deal with Scott Morrison to lower the Asset limit and double the taper rate leaving approximately 300,000 part pensioners with cuts of as much as 40% to their payments from the 1st January 2017
    MICK
    4th May 2016
    5:35pm
    I think you will find that the Greens are out there batting for YOU. I watched the 7:30 Report and the Greens senator explained how he and all other well paid Australians actually get 2 add-ons to their income, and that is before anybody on high income registers a company and claims the 27.% tax rate after the Budget.
    The Greens have a bit to answer for and I would like to see Sarah Hanson-Young gone for her ongoing attempts to flood this nation with economic migrants masquerading as 'refuges'...which most are not. But please remember that the Greens support sensible policies like renewable energy. The Budget did not allocate a single dollar for this. Outrageous. Where do you think the future lies and where do you think that innovation exists?
    I do however think anybody in politics should cut a deal with this government given the government's blatant disregard for the nation and its one eyed business agenda aimed at the big end of town.
    Alex
    4th May 2016
    5:52pm
    Hi MIck while Richard di Natale did point out that he will be getting two tax cuts he did not have anything to say about supporting pensioners, retirees or disadvantaged people. Last year he supported the Government cuts to the taper rate and asset limits which makes a huge difference to people with small lump sums as Rainey has been pointing out and aggressively defended his actions. He would like more money for 'environmental projects' but alas the Greens do not usually regard people as important.
    Watchful
    4th May 2016
    6:17pm
    Hi Alex,
    Thanks for pointing this out to Mick
    While Mick thinks that the Greens are out there batting for me they are in fact caused lasting damage to me and all other part pensioners like me.
    As for Dr Di Natale and their spokesperson Siewert I wrote numerous emails to both and have not received one reply. Also Di Natale has stated that he is open to do more deals with the Government.
    If this is batting for me then there is no hope
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    8:10pm
    I agree Watchful. Di Natale is a disaster. I wrote to him too, and he ignored me as well. I wrote to a Green further down the food chain and the response was the height of stupidity and arrogance.
    seadog
    4th May 2016
    6:26pm
    Mick How Red are you.
    We are in a very poor situation nationally because of the spend without concern friends of yours in Labor. Gonski was never funded and neither was the NDIS scheme, nor the so called *$80 million pulled out of hospitals by this government as it was never given in the first place.
    You and some of your co correspondents are nothing but complainers. And No I am not Liberal, Labor or Greens as I do not have much time for any of those in Canberra or within State governments either but you need to be a little fair in your comments and not be such a knocker of anything that is not Labor. They put us indebt and the interest on that debt is what has caused the increase in borrowings that this government has had to do to pay the interest. I think that we need four year terms of parliament so that who ever is in power has at least some time to get things in order so that we can then legitimately condemn them when they do not produce. Currently they have one year to try and sort out the problems left to them by the previous crowd, one to try and do something and the next one to try and get elected again. Maybe then we can all have a fair crack at them but until this happens it will be the same old same old.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    8:15pm
    Um, I don't think you've been reading history correctly, Seadog. It's a well established fact that the primary cause of the debt problem was profligate spending by the Howard/Costello government, who burned the profits of the mining boom giving away billions in tax cuts, concessions, rebates, and middle-class welfare. 80% of their gifts went to the richest 10%. Almost nothing went to the poorest 10%. And when Labor came in and the mining boom ended, leaving us with less revenue, Labor was stuck with the ridiculous tax cuts and handouts that Howard and Costello had legislated. And then this lying LNP claimed Labor created the problem. And instead of doing ANYTHING to sort out the problem, they made it very much worse.
    In Outer Orbit
    4th May 2016
    6:33pm
    Sounds like some genuine gnashing of teeth going on but I'd say try not to despair - I sense the Trump phenomenon is a disquieting message for current right leaning political Establishments across the world; ie don't take the masses for granted. (Trump may have his own faults, besides the cleverly targeted buffoonery, but that is another matter).

    Globally, technology is delivering increasing transparency and exposing social injustice for the crime it is. An increasingly crowded planet is unlikely to tolerate this indefinitely. Sooner or later the equivalent of a social road grader is likely to substantially flatten the ridges. History is littered with examples - revolutions in Russia, France, China, Cambodia, India etc, the demise of the monarchies of Europe, the Arab Spring. Ivory towers have always proved unsustainable. Vote for social justice and it will come. Vote for inequality and it will remain.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2016
    8:11pm
    Well said, Outer Orbit. But I doubt the selfish will take any notice.
    Adrianus
    5th May 2016
    8:31am
    Come back to earth! People like Trump simply because they are fed up with this nonsensical PC being fed to them.
    That's why we voted for Tony Abbott.
    That's why we voted for Clive Palmer.
    The PC brigade have worked over our youth to the extent that they are now void of individual thought.
    Those who have rejected the brainwashing are still capable of sending a loud clear message to the left at this election.
    Crazy Horse
    4th May 2016
    6:47pm
    All of us Seniors have to deal with Centrelink and we know what a nightmare that can be just getting to talk to someone. Buried in the Budget Papers is the fact that despite being unable to cope with it's existing staff levels the Department of Human Services (Centrelink etc) will have a cut of a further 810 people into 2016-17.
    mccosker
    4th May 2016
    9:43pm
    Did anyone notice the reduction in Age Pension for future retirees? They will not receive the Clean Energy Supplement but present pensioners will keep it ... or will it be deducted from future half-yearly increases to bring it into line?
    Rodent
    5th May 2016
    8:09am
    mccosker

    Yes I noticed it and posted this yesterday on another YLC item

    Just posted this on other items in response to comments so my be of interest here where it relates directly

    However don't you find it strange that they Grandfathered the Clean Energy Supplement so that it DIDNT get eliminated for EXISTING pensioners and only eliminated it for NEW pensioners after July.

    Given the Govts expressed views about NOT grandfathering the Assets test changes due Jan 2017, - because they would be to hard to manage, why have the accepted Grandfathering now? can only be the numbers or Dollars are small. I predicted on this forum earlier in the year the Clean Energy Supplemented would be eliminated for ALL pensioners, I think for political reasons its a bit like "eat elephants slowly, they are hard to digest!! , therefore clearly it will happen
    LiveItUp
    8th May 2016
    11:29am
    It will be gone for all in the next budget.
    Rodent
    5th May 2016
    8:30am
    something "very Interesting" in the Budget- I am not the Author of this just posting it as info

    The admission of an election war chest was contained in a single line item on page 61 of Budget Paper 2.
    A table containing all ­expense measures since MYEFO 2015-16 contains an entry for “decisions taken but not yet announced”. It will include announcements for spending of $476.5 million for this year, an extra $624.8 million for next year, $502.2 million more in 2018-19 and a mysterious budget spending cut of $1.9 billion in 2019-20.
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/federal-budget-2016-government-will-roll-out-hidden-15-billion-war-chest-across-marginal-colation-seats/news-story/fc24c31cbc6a9859cc3b942b18edaa60
    NGE
    5th May 2016
    2:46pm
    Bonny, I am sick to death of reading you biased and ridiculous comments.

    Rainey, Keep up the good work. You definitely speak similar thoughts to me.
    Adrianus
    7th May 2016
    2:05pm
    Is that you Rainey?
    LiveItUp
    8th May 2016
    11:28am
    Agree it is hard to face reality and easier to ridicle people instead. It's time people faced reality and stopped whinging.
    Anonymous
    8th May 2016
    4:07pm
    Pot calling kettle black, Bonny! All I read from you is ridicule and insult of anyone who isn't as well-to-do as you and anyone who dares to suggest that your precious LNP might have gotten some things wrong.

    But the penny finally dropped why you keep ranting that people shouldn't leave money to their kids as it will be spent on trips to Disneyland. Since your kids don't have mortgages, you would have not appreciate that when battlers leave their kids a little, it goes off the home loan or in the grandchildren's education fund, NOT on the frivolous luxuries that your overindulged brats spend on.
    JOHN T
    5th May 2016
    5:41pm
    Please note the Government has $1.6 billion in savings they have yet to announce of which most are policies of the Abbott leadership which were blocked by the Senate they include pension cuts we must ensure the Senate has a lot of Independents otherwise it will be to late after the event
    Blossom
    6th May 2016
    2:01pm
    Not all GPs and Specialists bulk bill pensioners. Some still pay a gap.
    More people are using the Public Health System because of it.
    They also won't use the Emergency Depts. at private hospitals in Adelaide as even for a pensioner you are charged $220.00 (that was 2012 charge could be more now) and there is no rebate at all - not Medicare or Private Health. If they go to a Public Hospital it is free.
    Also if you need an xray before admission you get less rebate than if you have already been admitted. If you are sent to a Private Hospital with a GP letter that has Emergency you are still charged. It happened to a relative of mine. Prior to 2006 if you were admitted you weren't charged. Apparently they are using different companies to administer Emergency and that's how they get away with it.
    Anonymous
    8th May 2016
    10:46am
    Most specialists in my area will ONLY bulk bill aged pensioners - not CSHC holders. GPs currently bulk-bill both, but if revenues are further squeezed I'm sure that will change.
    KB
    7th May 2016
    12:56pm
    It is hard enough dealing with a disability without the extra stress of being targeted by the government Being disabled is not a choice for many of us..The NDIS does not help everyone.
    Anonymous
    8th May 2016
    10:45am
    I sympathize, KB. But some here would assert that the fact that tougher eligibility rules for benefits mean vast numbers of disabled were ''faking it''. My response to that is that it's easy enough to disqualify a lot of people. You just refuse to recognize their genuine disability. I don't think that thought ever occurs to the 'holier-than-though' blessed who can't abide paying taxes to support the less fortunate. No, the idea that those kicked off benefits must have been ''rorting'' is much more palatable.

    10th May 2016
    10:45am
    Interesting comment from Bernie Fraser (former gov of Reserve Bank), and apparently some eminent people agree:

    "The Reserve Bank should be talking to the government and saying there is not much more we can do on monetary policy, that this is a classic situation for being more active on fiscal policy. Australia shouldn't worry too much about debt and deficit at this stage. We need some growth," he said.

    On that, Fraser, Stevens, the RBA and private sector economists are likely to find an accord.

    Now GROWTH requires CONSUMPTION. And CONSUMPTION requires CONFIDENCE. And CONFIDENCE requires not screwing those who spend, not moving the goal posts without warning, and not wiping out the Government services people rely on.

    That says to me that the budget was a disaster and the LNP couldn't do more damage to the economy if they tried their hardest to destroy it completely!

    We need to maintain welfare and government services, and we should do this by taxing the wealth of people who have so much that they simply CAN'T spend any more but will just hoard the extra wealth. Put a few dollars more in the hands of those who don't have enough now to maintain a decent lifestyle. They WILL spend the extra, creating jobs and driving profit growth that drives tax revenue growth that reduces debt. Leave retirees alone. They DO spend - especially those who have healthy savings. If allowed to maintain their savings to give them a sense of security, they spend most of their income - again, driving profit growth, job growth, tax revenue growth.

    Common sense says austerity is doomed to fail. Bash the poor (as Bonny seems to want to do continually) and spending slows, profit falls, jobs reduce, tax revenue falls, and the only people who win are the millionaires hoarding their massive tax gains in overseas havens and salivating over their bank statements. Only they won't win for long, because a sick society, falling profits and increased social problems will catch up with them, and an increasing deficit as tax revenue continues to fall will likely force taxes up in future.

    It seems to me to be common sense, but greed and selfishness destroy the brain cells it seems. Among the privileged, common sense is extremely uncommon!
    Not Senile Yet!
    23rd May 2016
    12:26pm
    What they have not included for the Retired.....the Death pill at 75 being compulsory!
    Then they can save Billions from not paying Pensions
    Tax the hell out of the Inhertance that's left and save on Aged Care as well!
    The aged are past their use ny date.....and pay little or no tax.....so no benefit in doing anything for them!!


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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