Federal Budget 2014 Discussions - how are you affected?

scotty on 13/05/2014 - 22:45

Interestingly there hasn't been a discussion on this evening's Federal Budget. Sydney Morning Herlad has summarised a list of winners and losers. Yes there will be a lot of cuts on both high end and low end, and the reduced expense will hopefully steer Australia back to surplus one day.

However instead of talking boring politics, maybe we can discuss how this budget will affect you individually? For my family it's probably "annoying but not a big deal".

  • Already pay more than $7 for GP visit as there's almost no bulk-bill GPs in my area
  • Earn way less than $180k
  • However never got FTB B either
  • Still a few decades before turning 70
  • Increased fuel levy might hurt us a bit

How is the federal budget affecting you & your life style? Would that make you spend more or less time on OzBargain?

Poll Options expired

  • 15
    Budget ftw! I am a Ballerina
  • 33
    Not affected at all
  • 197
    It pains a little but I'll survive
  • 90
    It hurts and I have to significantly adjust my life style
  • 4
    It is killing me!
  • 13
    Budget wtf! Engage bikie!
Financial

Comments

  • shortgum on 13/05/2014 - 23:35
    +14

    medicare bulkbill diminishing would certainly a long term pain to everyone. so we cant get sick

    • SavatteDodo on 14/05/2014 - 09:31
      +38

      Expensive to get a certificate for a sickie. lol

      • onlyletters on 15/05/2014 - 08:01
        +1

        Just write up a stat dec.

        • SavatteDodo on 15/05/2014 - 13:09
          +1

          Don't think it will work on a Monday or Friday or even 2 consecutive days.

        • onlyletters on 15/05/2014 - 22:15

          It works for Monday and Friday but not 2 consecutive days and you can't use a Stat Dec more than twice per year.

      • mini2 on 16/05/2014 - 11:42
        +1

        Some places even accept a pharmacy issued note…at least I know it's accepted in Canberra.

    • edgar28 on 15/05/2014 - 11:07
      -6

      should cancel it altogether and stop charging us medicare levy.

  • JR63 on 13/05/2014 - 23:58
    +15

    As a student, on first glance the main things that affect me in the relative short term will be the $7 co-payment (currently bulk billed) and the petrol excise.

    Longer term, the change that jumps out on me is the change to indexing of HECS which means the ~$60k debt I'll have at the end of my studies will increase at a greater rate.

    • Ultraman on 14/05/2014 - 12:34
      +5

      PLUS by however much fees are increased by institutions.

      • JR63 on 14/05/2014 - 14:37
        +5

        I should be fine as I'm a current student: "Student contributions would remain capped until 31 December 2020 for students who commenced or deferred commencement of their course before 14 May 2014."

        I feel for those starting degrees soon though. The UK removed the cap for uni fees and in general all the fees went up a significant amount. I'm lucky because the course I'm studying now (medicine) will probably be one of the most expensive courses once the caps are removed.

        • johnno07 on 14/05/2014 - 17:49
          +3

          It's the most expensive course already, isn't it?

        • JR63 on 14/05/2014 - 18:55
          +5

          Along with law, accounting, administration, economics, commerce, dentistry and vet science. I think under the new changes, it'll be outright most expensive along with law.

          Melb Uni when they changed to a postgraduate medicine model were allowed to charge for domestic full fee places. The cost one of these places is $257,440. They're not afraid of slugging students a whole lot of money, so removing the cap is a scary thought.

        • Fobsessive on 15/05/2014 - 22:27
          +2

          Why is accounting so expensive anyway?!!! It is just a couple of multiple choice mid-sems, dodgy assignments and half bad teachers.

        • redraoh on 16/05/2014 - 01:37

          Because accountants probably end up earning enough to pay for it. Same with medicine (especially), law, etc.

          The cost isn't just based on the quality, but on potential earnings from obtaining the qualification.

        • shortgum on 16/05/2014 - 05:14
          +3

          that's if you find a job after uni study. not everyone can get job easy after graduate these days + all govt cuts

        • bs0 on 16/05/2014 - 13:54

          i thought cost is based on demand (popularity) of the course

        • redraoh on 16/05/2014 - 14:05

          That's what I mean, demand is at least partly driven by potential earnings.

        • shortgum on 16/05/2014 - 19:47

          Julie Bishop heckled by University of Sydney students over funding cuts

          Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-…

          Spat your anger ? Think She hardly care and laugh all way (just look at her face).

        • MrGrinchy on 17/05/2014 - 13:46
          +1

          Open the education market to a free market platform, then others can do it cheaper.

          Todays education system is so 18th centry communist based its not funny, it should be deregulated, and more open to more 'none institution teachers'.

          I am sure any think tank could reduce a 4 year course to 2 years. Computers also help us be more automated and productive. Gone are the days of reading 12 overly long text books with 50% duplication.

        • Kevan2 on 18/05/2014 - 22:57

          But the legislators and the Uni Money grabbers have forgotten, they will have to go to Doctors when older, and to Surgeons, and also see the one that will really get even - Proctologists. And charge for it?Vengeance is sweeter when served cold. It will come to those who wait.

          Can someone make a Vengeance app with star ratings for those names listed.

    • frutter on 16/05/2014 - 18:48

      i heard that the $7 will be non existent as it will cause competition i.e. places will not charge that $7 but cut down treatment time vs those that do charge…who will you go to.

      • DrLobster on 18/05/2014 - 19:20
        +1

        Just got a text from the medical centre I go to saying they wont pass on the $7 co-payment to the patient when/if its introduced. The centre will remain bulked billed.

  • cpho on 14/05/2014 - 00:26
    +15

    Some of it is blown out of proportion. Like the FTB part B, the income threshold has been reduced from $150k to $100k. Seriously? If you were earning $150k/annum, do you really need it?
    I think it's fixing a broken system, in which people could be very well off, but still also be receiving government support payments.
    I'm in my 20s, so still decades before I retire, by which time, the age of retirement will probably be 100.
    I think the biggest sting will be the petrol tax, and the Uni fees - which are now for profit.

    • Nirraic on 14/05/2014 - 17:48
      +1

      Along with the income threshold being reduced the eligibility has also been changed that to recive FTB B your youngest child must be 6 years of age or younger, this is fine for small families but for larger familes with 6+ members living under the same roof this change will hit them hard.

      • cpho on 14/05/2014 - 20:11
        +2

        But that's only FTB B. Part A is still there, and (from my knowledge), that hasn't changed. So it's not like they'd be completely without assistance.

        Just another (irrelevant) point, I just read that the $1025 student start-up scholarship has been replaced with a loan
        Now THAT sucks. Especially when the university already wants you to buy all the $200 textbooks, which updates every semester, and you MUST have the latest edition. This really sucks.
        Furthermore, my University (not mentioning which one) has confirmed that students which are new from 2016 will face higher tuition fees "as price competition takes hold". Just a heads up for those of you with kids going into University in a couple years time.

        There's also a whole list of welfare(read centrelink) changes on the HumanServices site, where you can sort by your demographic and see what affects you.

        • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 20:13

          Part A means test is being lowered too.

        • cpho on 14/05/2014 - 20:19
          +2

          Single parents with children between 6-12, receiving part A, will receive a $750 lump-sum payment every year

          Also the income eligibility test remains the same at $94k-ish. Only, the "per-child add-on" has been removed. Source

        • Jezzabell on 14/05/2014 - 22:29
          -1

          I read somewhere that the extra fees were being used to supply more scholarships, not sure if true or not..

        • mskeggs on 15/05/2014 - 07:52

          1/5th of any extra has to be diverted to scholarships.

        • pyro love bird on 16/05/2014 - 23:57

          You are absolutely correct, I think it was the year before last where they changed the start up scholarship to be a loan.

        • MrGrinchy on 17/05/2014 - 13:54

          Its time kiddies started to pirate the textbooks. Who needs a real book when you can use an ipad.

      • shiningstars on 14/05/2014 - 20:13
        +4

        I feel for single parents who will no longer be eligible for ftb b when there child turns 6. It is a struggle to find work within school hours so they will find it hard to make ends meet and the children will end up suffering. The $750 each child payment does not compensate for the loss of $2700. They will be punished more when moved to newstart when there youngest is 8. This budget looks after the rich and punishes the poor.

        • amberdbrickell on 15/05/2014 - 10:13
          +3

          Families on FTB B and of whom lose it…will lost Approx $73 a fortnight….to many a parent this is a lot of money..Kids living in poverty are going to be much worse off…not to mention their education will suffer as many will no longer be able to partake in excursions, camps, sporting teams etc…..if they wanted to get kids out of poverty they are doing it the wrong way.

      • AngryMan on 16/05/2014 - 17:03
        +1

        I don't have kids so I may not understand, if you can't afford to have more than 3 kids, why should other people have to pay for you?

        • OzzyBrak on 16/05/2014 - 22:54

          The main reason is that the more Australian born, the bigger the economy, the more taxes paid. Does not work for those family that are on 2 or 3 generations of welfare payments but that is the general idea.

    • modsec802 on 15/05/2014 - 07:34
      +3

      Removing FTB-B for primary incomes between 100-150 will mean a family where one parent earns say 130k and the other zero will pay MUCH more tax than if both parents earned 65k as they miss out entirely on the tax free threshold for one partner.
      One of the reasons FTB-B (and dependent spouse offset) exists is to level this out but the current government wants to remove it.
      So in my example it would be better tax wise if both parents could split their work to 65k each but this isn't always easy.
      With the cost of living pressures and the higher tax rates on a single income, single income families earning between 100 and 150 aren't doing that great.

      • bluedufflecoat on 15/05/2014 - 11:13
        +2

        Yup!
        People don't often notice this. They just see the headline total, but ignore the final figure which is disposable income i.e. pay, net of tax.

      • stumo on 16/05/2014 - 12:02
        +1

        They've also decided that the "large family" supplement is only for 4+ kids now instead of 3. Its not like I can shove our youngest one back in!

        But really, what did u people expect when voting in a bunch of ideologically flawed neoliberal dbags.

      • MrGrinchy on 17/05/2014 - 14:01
        +3

        I hate that a lot in our tax system, lots of rules treat both couples combined incomes in assesments, yet , tax on taxable income is decided based on single per person rules. Very unfair to people.

        Either allow income splitting, because hell man, if me earning 100k and wife earning zero doesnt mean i give my wife $0. You could account of at least 30k going to her if you want to count all expenses. So like a corporate, why cant my wife be an expense!?

        • Kevan2 on 18/05/2014 - 23:02

          You may be aware that there is a form of income splitting for any Pension support. Total Personal Income is taken into account plus deeming. So as soon as you get old, now as there was a late start of super, or ill or infirmed joint income is assesed for each person if a couple.

        • Speckled Jim on 20/05/2014 - 14:41

          You're alluding to the dependant spouse tax concession, which was clamped down upon under Labor (the thresholds, I forget how much or which exactly).

    • [Deactivated] on 16/05/2014 - 01:50

      I'm in my 20s, so still decades before I retire, by which time, the age of retirement will probably be 100.

      No, by then government will be executing people when they hit 30. Joke? Hardly!

  • Ventak on 14/05/2014 - 00:33
    +27

    Gonna hurt my parents more when my bro goes into uni and I suppose myself if I don't find a job immediately after I graduate (paying off my HECS-debt will also hurt me a little bit more). Tbh, it doesn't really affect me/my family that much, but a lot of stuff announced in the budget…I still don't particularly like. Some stuff was done purely for ideological reasons (such as selling off or shutting down profitable government assets/enterprises).

    Abbott wants to be known as an infrastructure PM and all we get from his government are roads. Forget about the NBN (which has been minced altogether) and don't get me started on rail and public transport…not a single cent towards it.

    As for my time on OzBargain, it'll be roughly the same. Regardless of the budget, I'll still be looking forward to bargains.

    • Nirraic on 14/05/2014 - 17:54
      +21

      I can see this deal being avaliable in 2016

      Get Rid of Your PM For $0, FREE!! VOTE LABOR

      • cpho on 15/05/2014 - 14:21
        -6

        Sorry, but who was it that brought on these circumstances in the first place?
        Oh that's right. That'd be Labor.

        ducks

        • johnn on 15/05/2014 - 16:39
          +21

          Sorry, but who was it that brought on these circumstances in the first place?
          Oh that's right. That'd be the GFC.

          Come at me bro

        • Speckled Jim on 16/05/2014 - 09:13
          +7

          And who brought on the GFC?

          Farktard free-marketeers, venture capitalists aka Neo-conservative douchebags who allow "self-regulation".

          Didn't that go well?

        • Cheshire Cat on 17/05/2014 - 11:47
          +3

          Who brought on these circumstances? Let's see was it Costello who squandered a fortune saving nothing for a rainy day when they had the chance (and when labor did try to put the future fund to it's intended use via the NBN that got torn up too) or was it the labor government who passed a bunch of measures to attempt to stave off the GFC almost all of which were SUPPORTED by the libs in opposition. They keep forgetting to mention that part.

          It's labors debt….because if we had been in charge our debt would have been almost exactly the same.

          Shame journals do such a terrible job.

          And on topic it won't really affect me at all, a bit with doctors and fuel (don't use either that much) but it's still a terrible budget if only from the uni perspective. Idiotic ideological crap that will seriously damage the country.

        • MrGrinchy on 17/05/2014 - 14:04

          It was the banksters, and IMF, world bank type people. Free rules for them, 0% interest to each other, unlimited credit creation.

          freemarketers, are people like you and me, who buy stuff on ebay, or sell stuff to friends. Or run their own consulting. VCs well, they are offering money, you dont need to accept it.

          Its the Mr Big Banksters!

  • neil on 14/05/2014 - 00:44
    +37

    Some things missing from the SMH article and comments:

    $7 GP fee. Well, go down to a clinic (e.g. Collingwood) and see some of the patients there. Vulnerable members of the community, poor refugees, homeless, meth addicts. I'm happy to pay the $7 fee however I think those who struggle shouldn't. (should be means tested).

    • NosDan on 14/05/2014 - 11:01
      +13

      Huge cut in the science budget (CSIRO, etc). Also gutting anything climate change related.

      who needs those crazy scientists and all their facts when god will save us all in teh end anyway… right?

      1. School chaplains
        $245 million over five years

      wait… wut? really? i hope thats wholy going towards the teachings of the church of the flying spaghetti monster… all those other cults only teach hate and intolerance, and some are a little unhealthily partial towards young boys…… but now federally funded by these nutcases so that makes everything right…

      $7 GP fee. Well, go down to a clinic (e.g. Collingwood) and see some of the patients there. Vulnerable members of the community, poor refugees, homeless,

      its always easiest to take from those with the smallest voices. its as easy as taking candy from a baby.

      probably NSFW

      • Speckled Jim on 14/05/2014 - 11:08
        +6

        I'd buy that t-shirt!

        • stemcell on 14/05/2014 - 17:22

          I'm going to get it printed on a T-shirt, any reccomendations of a company who does a good job?

        • NosDan on 14/05/2014 - 17:36
          +3

          it is already a tshirt you can buy as well as a sticker, just google "abbot dick head" (one word, but apparently it gets censored in OzB) and you should find it……

          beware tho, you may also find this… do not click here

    • jto00 on 14/05/2014 - 11:29
      +4

      Those who are eligible for health care cards should be exempt from the $7 fee

      • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 12:17
        +6

        But surely the people who are clogging up GPs unnecessarily, the old, lonely etc. are the ones with health care cards?

        • nieza on 16/05/2014 - 19:29
          +1

          Not to mention the bloody sick and disabled. Not only do they hog the queues at the surgery, they also tend to take up the most of the physician's time. Bloody inefficient, treating them! Totally unnecessary too..

          Ok, let's come back to planet Earth now, shall we?!

      • NosDan on 14/05/2014 - 17:28
        +1

        No one forces you to become a meth addict.

        while this is true, the medical system is put under FAR greater stress from the 2 most common and harmful drugs in australia, booze and cigs. should we maybe take away free cancer treatments if you have ever smoked in your life? or make people who drink also exempt from receiving any sort of medical benefits as well? after all you chose to do those known harmful drugs.

        but my guess is that you have done at least one of the 2 at some point in your life, most people have. so i bet your views on treating all harmful addictive drugs equally are a little biased?

        As for being homeless, there is no reason to be homeless in Australia as there are various organizations who provide shelter.

        umm, no. no there is actually not. not unless your female or a child.

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 18:05
          +2

          I agree that excessive alcohol and tobacco consumption can have serious health issues. However, at least a huge amount of tax is paid on alcohol and tobacco products which is put towards the health budget. Additionally, alcohol and tobacco are legal. Last I checked, possession and use of meth was illegal. These people have spent thousands on a fix, often dole money, and then expect free treatment from doctors. People who work hard for a living have to pay. Is that really fair?

        • twocsies on 14/05/2014 - 19:05
          +10

          In the same vein… People who work hard for a living have to pay for people with diabetes and heart disease. Is that really fair?

          Obviously it is fair, because we as a people have decided that we have hearts. We don't exterminate those we can't be bothered with.

        • This Guy on 16/05/2014 - 02:56
          +1

          I've heard of reports stating it's cheaper to have smokers, treat them and have them die prematurely than have them not smoke and live out to 90 on the pension.

          Yes this is grim and I'm sure there is more to it but I can't be bothered reviewing a scince paper at 3 in the morning.

        • Baghern on 16/05/2014 - 09:48

          Not really, what people forget about in regards to Government welfare is that its feed back into the economy.

          Treatment doesn't

          The best course of action I see is for smoker and those over a certain age,…. ie 70-75 is to remove big budget treatment/operations and just provide low cost pain prevention.

          What I hate about the budget and the 70year age pension is that it assumes we'll have the same proportion of old people as we do now. That is not the case the reason we have a pension problem is because of the overwhelming babyboomers… the lack of superannuation scheme when they were younger

        • fattyboombatty on 14/05/2014 - 19:55
          +11

          Your comments lack worth as evidenced by the votes in general

          We take care of the most vulnerable in our society - that's what make our society something worthwhile. You're free to spew your vitriol (another benefit of our society) but thankfully for the most part you are ignored.

          The changes being made here, while saving us a little dough in the short term, will have long term effects on devaluing the great society we have built in the long run.

        • Happy501 on 14/05/2014 - 19:58
          +7

          I accidently upvoted you because my hand slipped. In that instant my wife hit me across the head.

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 21:56
          -4

          These changes are required now or else far worse changes would be needed in the future. The vulnerable will still be taken care of. Compare Australia to Asia, South America and Africa as far as taking care of the vulnerable.

        • mskeggs on 15/05/2014 - 07:53
          +1

          How about comparing against Europe?

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 15/05/2014 - 12:43

          Which countries in Europe? I'm thinking not Russia, Romania, Hungary etc and probably not Italy, Spain or Greece. In Switzerland and Scandinavia they do well but you might want to research the cost of living in those countries.

        • mskeggs on 15/05/2014 - 18:46
          +14

          I've lived in Europe and enjoyed the quality of life including the excellent health care, public transport, community facilities etc.
          The tax bill was a little higher.
          But I don't work from my bank balance, I work for my quality of life.
          Extra dollars in the bank mean nothing if I have to live in a community where some people can't afford the healthcare they need, when a 29 year old's employer goes belly up and they can't get the dole for 6 months, no matter how much effort they put into job seeking, where the universities are given a green light to charge whatever they want for a degree that the government will pay for and keep the student in debt (what a cluster-k this will turn out to be).
          There is plenty in this budget that could be sensible, and extra tax on high income earners, winding back family allowance etc. but there is way too much that is just blatant greed and ideological ham fisted-ness.

        • Claggs on 15/05/2014 - 20:45
          +1

          Hit the nail right on the head for me. Explained it perfectly.

        • Cheshire Cat on 18/05/2014 - 09:43

          What does their cost of living matter when their wages are also significantly higher? We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, we should demand similarly high services.

      • ninjapanda on 15/05/2014 - 02:06
        +7

        Just wanted to add:

        No. Refugees can't just go and get a job.

        Refugees arriving after August 2012 are legally BANNED from working unless it is via the dole. We actively prevent these people from working! In fact if they are found working they may face deportation and do NOT have the right to appeal this decision.

        But no that can't be it… They must not be working because of Islamic religious reasons like you said… Yes that makes more sense.

        • edgar28 on 15/05/2014 - 12:47
          -5

          refugee? you sure? they spent 30,000 dollars to travel to australia.
          they are travellers.

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 15/05/2014 - 12:51
          +3

          You're confused. Asylum seekers released from detention centres were not allowed to work. That was a Labor idea. The detention centres became so full, because Labor changed a working policy, that they released them from detention into the community with no work rights. Refugees who came in the orderly way are allowed to work.

        • GateauBoeuf on 15/05/2014 - 14:52
          +1

          canned laughter

        • ZomgFango on 16/05/2014 - 15:31

          Way off topic and potentially entirely the wrong person, buuuuut… Beef? Cake? Is that you, well, either of you? If so, msg me on here! (Your profile needs to enable PMs to do so, as I tried to PM you but it bounced back).

          If you have no idea wtf is going on, or who I am, please disregard, and move along! :D

      • Cheshire Cat on 17/05/2014 - 11:51

        Doctors aren't allowed to absorb it. Go read the budget info again.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 01:20

    $7 GP doesn't affect me as I hardly ever go to GP anyway and its not the bulk bill one.
    Extra fuel excise will be annoying as fuel is already rather pricey for someone who lives in the suburbs and has to get in the car to get anywhere, wouldn't be annoyed if Perth was better planned/better public transport.
    The uni fees are worrying, we don't want to end up like the US where they have loans of 100k plus, I go to a GO8 uni and I already pay over 10 grand a year. I kinda ignore it now but in the future it will bite.
    Tax hikes for those who earn over 180k grand are also stupid, I know a few people who are really well off and they will just shuttle their money through business expenses/loses and other loopholes then use the rest for negative gearing and hope for some gains in property like they already do. This flat tax is very primitive and does not punish those which know how to work the tax system(legally).

    • neil on 14/05/2014 - 01:39

      While there are ways to minimize tax, I don't think everyone above that bracket can do that. But the tax only goes into effect for any money after $180K. So if you earn $200K, you will be taxed 2% of 20K or an extra $400 in tax. Not that much.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 01:57
        -5

        I really don't understand why they don't implement more brackets. Surely a tradie doing fifo while a CEO should have different tax rates for their upper ends of income. I know a few slogging it hard in the mines on 200-300k but it is real gruelling work. Why isn't there a 180k-300k bracket and 300-500k why stop it 180k, in this day and age of housing prices its not actually that exorbitant a pay packet. 500k plus should be like 50%, that's what I really don't undersand …the really rich are always sheltered, I'm all for making the system more simple but this isn't hard to implement.

        • scotty on 14/05/2014 - 07:15

          The top bracket was something like $80k just over a decade ago…

        • p1 ama on 14/05/2014 - 10:22
          +4

          It's not as simple as saying "hey, let's implement a tax and everything will be great", in general, higher taxes are actually bad for the macro-economy, it slows down growth, promotes saving rather than consumption.

      • pinnacle on 14/05/2014 - 07:30

        It will be $4000., Neil. Still not that much for a person earning $200K

    • onlyletters on 15/05/2014 - 08:02

      Hardly ever? wait til you age.

  • ProspectiveDarkness on 14/05/2014 - 01:36
    +3

    Starting Uni next year. Fun times ahead. sigh

    • Astro551 on 14/05/2014 - 10:58

      just overload so you graduate before 2020 ;)

      • macrocephalic on 15/05/2014 - 14:45

        Are there any undergrad degrees in Australia that take more than 5 years?

        • Fobsessive on 15/05/2014 - 22:48

          Double degrees

        • pyro love bird on 17/05/2014 - 00:06

          Not if you go to UWA, they changed their courses so the undergrads are 3 years now :)

      • edgar28 on 15/05/2014 - 14:55

        units accredited only carry forward for 7 years unless you get the dean's approval. new materials kick in, you have to restudy again.

      • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 19:26
        +11

        They deregulated fees also. Do keep up.

      • highwind on 14/05/2014 - 19:29
        +1

        Uhh, how about Europe where they have plenty of free degrees? Or are you just comparing to the top US universities?

        http://www.mastersportal.eu/articles/405/tuition-fees-at-uni…

      • Grent on 14/05/2014 - 22:43
        -5

        Exactly.

        I can't believe students are whinging about the government paying slightly less of the students own education bill while still lending them the remainder at below market interest rates with no payments required until you earn above a certain threshold.

        If you were to offer that to students around the world the vast majority would be celebrating what a great new system it is.

        • redraoh on 15/05/2014 - 04:35
          +10

          Kids today. I mean, who do they think is going to make up the tax deficit from all the properties that baby boomers have inflated and negatively geared?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join