Budget 2012, travel losers

[docjames]

Re: Budget 2012

I don't think there will be an exodus in private health care. I also think the Govt doesn't need to support people who want to go private. Maybe my profession will need to tighten their belts and meet market rates. Not sure what your specialty is but I don't see any future in public health care, especially for the sort of elective surgery that private health excels in. The wait for a knee replacement around here - basically you will never get it. People are self-funding in private in droves around here.

Even the most basic healthcare for a family is ~$150 - 200/month (post 30% rebate). Thats after tax dollars. So $2500/year post tax - increasing without the rebate - I think for many, particularly those only just over what the government has deemd higher income ($80k pa) this is a lot of money, and dont forget the premiums are rising in line with healthcare inflation (not overall inflation) of ~ 7% pa. Dont forget that with basic healthcare there are not insignificant costs associated with actually using those benefits - Excess (anywhere from 0-$1000 pa), outpatient rooms appointments (not covered), medications on discharge etc. I think people will give up private health cover - not just on July 1, but over the coming 2-3 years as costs continue to mount.

The government needs to support these people in private health in the same way they need to put some money into private schools - these are all taxpayers, and it's cheaper to subsidise them into the private system than it would be to expand the public system to cope with everyone (hello NHS).

If we fail to maintain public healthcare we end up in a situation like the USA where healthcare is not readily accessible to all. Is that what we want for our society?

Relative to other countries, we are SO wealthy, even more so with "the mining boom" yet our priorities on how we spend our tax dollars just frustrates me. Dont get me started on our foreign aid which was committed internationally to 0.5% of GDP and is stagnating at 0.35% - when countries like the UK are already at 0.5% and moving to 0.6% despite their financial woes.

 

[rechoboam]

But doctors aren't getting a 7% increase per year. More like 2.5%. So excesses continue to mount and private insurance is worth less every year.

It's nice the UK gives .6% but they have been giving billions to countries like India which are poor but somehow find the money for nuclear weapons and manned space flight programs. You will never convince me this makes sense.

 

[serfty]

Anyway, Departure TAX is going up by $8 from $37 to $55 and will subsequently be indexed.

Last Year, I flew from MEL to AKL for $99, all but $52 of that was this tax.

 

[ncairns]

Is someone able to copy and paste or explain what exactly is changing with this?

Changes to living away from home allowance:
• limiting access to the tax concession to employees who maintain a home for their own use in Australia, that they are living away from for work; and
• providing the tax concession for a maximum period of 12 months in respect of an individual employee for any particular work location.

This measure will not affect:
• the tax concession for ‘fly-in fly-out’ arrangements, as these employees will not be subject to the 12 month time limit; or
• the tax treatment of travel and meal allowances, which are provided to employees who have to travel away from their usual place of work for short periods (generally up to 21 days).

 

[rechoboam]

Anyway, Departure TAX is going up by $8 from $7 to $55 and will subsequently be indexed.

Last Year, I flew from MEL to AKL for $99, all but $52 of that was this tax.

You know I wouldn't mind paying this money at all if it meant our security/customs queues were as efficient as, say Chinese ones!! but they are cutting Customs spending the same way they are cutting Defence (by 20%!!!). If you feel as I do that the absolute core responsibilities of government are our security, policing and defence, this government is truly a shocker.

 

[docjames]

But doctors aren't getting a 7% increase per year. More like 2.5%. So excesses continue to mount and private insurance is worth less every year.

It's nice the UK gives .6% but they have been giving billions to countries like India which are poor but somehow find the money for nuclear weapons and manned space flight programs. You will never convince me this makes sense.

The 7% is the premium increase which is supposed to reflect the actual cost increases bourne by the health funds, which reflects the increase in costs bourne by the hospitals. I sure there's a circular arguement to be had around that topic! Doctors fees are nowhere near the top of that list (I agree that 2-4% on average is a fair estimate) - try implants (prosthetics and cardiac devices predominately) and medications as two areas growing more than 7% pa.

Re: overseas aid: I guess it depends on whether you think stopping the aid will stop the spending on arms, or just lead to more suffering/death. The average amount of charitable funds that winds up "in the hands of the <regime/dictator/insert preferred term>" is less than 1% of all funds spent on aid (around 0.6% last time i looked at the figures)?


(I might add for clarity: I don't (never have) work/ed privately, nor do I (or have I) work/ed for a charity. These are just personal views).

 

[Pushka]

This budget is just a wealth redistribution scheme, with the promised business tax cuts scrapped

As is the Carbon tax. One thing I did agree with, is that it was a True Labor Budget. Don't reward people for hard work.

 

[el_rooto]

Airport tax to rise, queues to lengthen after federal budget

Ok stuff like this gives me the absolute S***s.... Also way to put another drag on the struggling tourism sector struggling with the high AUD... (Going to be collecting express cards from now on.)

Is SYD going to turn into the next LHR?

Edit: They'd be better off spending the money on more customs/immigration officers than the nude-o-scopes...

 

[Alanslegal]

It can not be any worse than the current pack of fools!

It's simply not possible

Right-e-o

One of the reasons why I am not having kids right now is that Abbott wants/will force my kids to read the bible. Scary.

And if my son chooses to be gay, well he won't be allowed to marry his boyfriend. Scary.

 

[amaroo]

And if my son chooses to be gay, well he won't be allowed to marry his boyfriend. Scary.

I must have missed that one - has something changed?

 

[straitman]

Right-e-o

One of the reasons why I am not having kids right now is that Abbott wants/will force my kids to read the bible. Scary.

And if my son chooses to be gay, well he won't be allowed to marry his boyfriend. Scary.

Yeah right.

Abbott would be long gone before either of those were an issue.

 

[lovestotravel]

Right-e-o

One of the reasons why I am not having kids right now is that Abbott wants/will force my kids to read the bible. Scary.

And if my son chooses to be gay, well he won't be allowed to marry his boyfriend. Scary.

I must have missed those policies as well

Can he currently marry his boyfriend ? I believe Julia has just side-stepped the issue

 

[wandering_fred]

I must have missed those policies as well

Can he currently marry his boyfriend ? I believe Julia has just side-stepped the issue

Not sure about the side step....
She's not marrying her boyfriend either.

Happy wandering

Fred

 

[el_rooto]

I must have missed those policies as well

Can he currently marry his boyfriend ? I believe Julia has just side-stepped the issue

Gillard just hates marriage.

 

[lovestotravel]

Gillard just hates marriage.

She just hates guys.......

 

[Pushka]

Right-e-o

One of the reasons why I am not having kids right now is that Abbott wants/will force my kids to read the bible. Scary.

And if my son chooses to be gay, well he won't be allowed to marry his boyfriend. Scary.

Um, while I agree with the sentiment, people don't "choose" their sexuality. It just is.

 

[JohnK]

All governments around the world are a joke.

But more expensive to travel OS so some may stay home.

If it means that less bogans will travel then that could be a good thing.

But I am becoming very fond of the 1AUD=32THB exchange rate recently so will miss it if AUD falls further. One way around that problem is to open a Thai bank account and load it up with enough to cover expenses over the next 20-30 trips. Only issue is where to find a spare ~$30,000 in cash....

 

[Deleted member]

As is the Carbon tax. One thing I did agree with, is that it was a True Labor Budget. Don't reward people for hard work.

This is a non budget. Too much of the smoke and mirrors for my liking. Even though there was a lot splashed around in what was labour heartland, which they needed to do to pull themselves back from the brink of oblivion, But probably a case of too little too late. They wont survive the next election

 

[Deleted member]

I remember travelling when the Aussie was at 75 cents US and .40 pence , we managed. The country was doing well our exports were ,ore competitive. So I am not too upset about the Aussie settling back to say .85 - .90 cents US. But it will take a while so enjoy it while it lasts

 

[seanpodge]

The departure tax increase is less than awesome, but really a bit of a first world problem. Bit worried about them indexing it though. They've already done that with passports and the prices for them were already ridiculous compared with other countries (e.g. my Australian passport costs nearly twice as much as my Irish one). Don't smoke, but it would be nice to still pick up some cheap ones for if I need to go to jail for a while.

The budget predicts surpluses for the next four years, so complaining about the government bringing forward spending to get one isn't a compelling argument really. I'm not particularly convinced that a surplus is especially vital for Australia, but I can see why the ALP did it anyway. Probably could have gone harder with some of the cuts and targeted other areas (e.g. school chaplains program, fuel rebates for miners) but I don't think they did too bad overall.

Gotta say the 30% on super for those on over $300k seems a bit harsh. Still the super guarantee will just about use up their consessional cap anyway. Plus I still think 30% tax is better than 45%.

From a public policy perspective, superannuation is meant to take pressure off the pension system. If someone earning over $300,000/annum can't adequately plan for retirement, I'm not sure how that's the government's fault, especially since they'll still be getting a 15% tax discount with superannuation.

Maybe the 2 NSW "Independents"need a lesson.They represent the 2 electorates with the lowest ALP primary votes in the country.They were also in the lowest 10% of primary votes for the ALP in the Senate.Not really representing "their"voters.
[cut]
I suspect,but cant prove,that those who voted for Windsor and Oakeshott were even less likely to know they would support a minority ALP government than Libs or ALP voters that were voting for the leader.

If the voters of Lyne (Oakeshott) and New England (Windsor) wanted a Coalition government, then why didn't they vote for the National party candidates in the 2010 election? Both independents were up against National party candidates and both independents wiped the floor with them. People vote for independents because they don't want another major party cipher representing them, which would distinguish them greatly from the brain dead appendage of the Liberal party that is the National party. If the voters of Lyne and New England think that Oakeshott and Windsor got it wrong, they can vote them out next year. I don't think second guessing the voters of the two electorates is particularly democratic though.

The coalition may block the 1% reduction in business tax but don't control the lower house, the government and independants do. In the upper house - it would be the greens who block the business tax cut in the upper house, that is the ALP's problem - they can't get legislation through the upper house without the greens support.

If the Coalition were to vote with the government in both houses of parliament, the legislation would sail through no matter what the Greens and independents thought of it. That would of course require Abbott to actually be cooperative for once, so it's obviously difficult to imagine. But it is actually possible, despite all the "Greens balance of power" doomsday articles in the press would have one believe.

As for business missing out on the 1% cut, stiff excrement. It was known from the moment it was proposed that the (initially 2%!) tax cut was to be funded by the RSPT. Did the BCA and co. come out and support the cut and tell the Minerals Council where to go while the miners were going feral against Rudd? The silence was deafening. If you don't fight, you lose. If I was a business owner, I might enquire as to when such representative bodies were planing to stick up for my interests rather than the Liberal party's.