I love the way the PM and her ministers gloat about how fair this will make the tax system as no longer will the low income earners subsidise the high income earners health costs.Julia just look at the rate of taxes starting on 1/7/12 when the health subsidy changes come in-those with taxable incomes less than $18200 have a tax rate of...........0%.They are not subsidising anyone.Pity that our journalists cant even pick up these simple facts.
), but IMHO I can't see why that wouldn't work. You'd want to be very careful with the timing of the payments though I reckon.) and even I am annoyed by this change. The reason I'm annoyed isn't specifically to do with the loss of welfare / extra cost, it's to do with the fundamentally flawed system it represents.
IANAA (I Am Not An Accountant
I'm not typically a Liberal voter (I "swing"
The real problem is not that the private health subsidy is now going to be means tested, it's that the subsidy - and, importantly, the Medicare Levy Surcharge - even exist in the first place. I have no fundamental issue with private health insurance, but it should not be a government subsidised system - that is what Medicare is for. If someone wants to have it that is fine, but they can pay for it, and those who choose not to pay for it should not be compelled to have it (which is what the Medicare Levy Surcharge does for the higher-earning segment of society).
Personally, at this stage in my life (healthy, relatively young person with no kids) I do not want private health insurance. But I'm essentially compelled to buy a basic level of cover as it would cost me more not to have it via the Medicare Levy Surcharge. Based on this you could argue my viewpoint is self-serving, but that's not it - the current subsidy / surcharge system makes no sense at all from either an left-wing or right-wing point of view.
, once you get a family the Medicare surcharge becomes much less than private health insurance, roughly 50% IME. But you know private health insurance is a must have for me and I would maintain it regardless of rebate. It allowed me to get a professor plastic surgeon to remove a cist from my daughter's eye brow instead of a surgical resident in a public hospital. The emotional cost of a facial scar would have been enormous.
A PAYG taxpayer could reduce the withheld tax and then pre pay tax ti the ATO to make up for it. Wouldn't that get around the issue of penalties and interest.
Why am I not surprised by all the so called Liberals complaining their loss of government welfare. For people that supposedly believe in self determination and minimal government intervention you certainly seem to be in favour of those things. Personally, an extra $10 or $20 a week is not going to kill me and the lost mid class welfare is only worth about 2 decent lunches. 2 less afternoons of gourmodising and 2 more salad sandwiches a year equals no change.
Sorry to tell you but people earning under $18k didn't pay tax already. They had this thing called the low income earner tax offset which meant any tax they paid up to $18k was refunded at the end of the year. Highly inefficient churning of money. That offset is going perhaps you can take off the blue undies for a second and realise this is a good thing, overall.
The other thing is that raising the tax free threshold gives every taxpayer a tax cut. Even you.
Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app
Frankly I don't care about the pension, I'll provide for myself
Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
