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

    • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 15:01

      We all get fisted on July 1 next year I'm afraid. I'll be starting a payment plan ASAP.

    • jto00 on 14/05/2014 - 17:29

      The indexation comes into affect in 2016 i believe and they've haven't set the indexation rate in stone they have only 'capped it at 6%'

      And no theres nothing you can do. When you accepted starting a HELP debt it would have had a term which mentioned fluctuation based on indexation

      • omghi on 14/05/2014 - 17:52

        This isn't the indexation fluctuating though, this is a change to the terms of the indexation. They've also started to refer to it as "interest payed on HECS/HELP loans" but the loans were always intended to be interest free and adjusted so reflect the value of that loan in today's money.

        • YTW on 14/05/2014 - 23:25

          Feel free to challenge it, by all means…but good luck.

        • tohara on 15/05/2014 - 07:19
          -2

          its a federal budget, they would have had many powerful lawyers going over it with a magnifying glass, if you think you have a grounds for a legal appeal then go right ahead but it would be a great big waste of money

    • Eurasian on 15/05/2014 - 01:26

      According to information from http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/helpfulresources…

      The interest rate for HELP debts will be indexed by the Treasury 10 year bond rate (to a maximum of 6.0 per cent per annum) rather than the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This means that government is lending money at broadly the same interest rate it borrows money. The new arrangements will apply to continuing and new students beginning with the indexation of debts on 1 June 2016.

      Continuing and new students? They really should be clearer with this.

      Anyway, I've never looked at the act (Higher Education Support Act), but I do know that you're made well aware when signing (or electronically ticking) your HELP assistance form that the loan will be indexed at CPI.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2014 - 02:53
      +1

      No, they can't apply new changes to old/existing loans. There were a set of conditions you agreed to and signed. They can't change those or force you to resign to a new set of conditions. As long as you don't have to reapply - then it would apply.

  • redslert on 14/05/2014 - 13:40

    I keep hearing the GP $7 thing is for the first 10 visits in the year.

    • Eivad on 14/05/2014 - 14:13
      +1

      That cap is only if you're a concession card holder or under 16

  • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 15:15
    +11

    I'm 25 and male earning ~$38000 before tax not including super.
    Hearing Tony Abbott and the rest of them tell me about how it's everyone will be getting pain makes me cry and laugh at the same time. Fuel subsidy for miners is still happening. The rich will pay more on tax for 3 years that might eat into their extra money but for people on almost nothing they are getting poorer at least as much or more, it affects their necessity money, not their holiday money.

    Wife, me and kids are all pretty good at budgeting and living within our means but this will definitely hurt lower income families.

    I'll make a breakdown
    We pay extra fuel excise | Big business continues to get fuel subsidy
    Welfare payments go down meaning long term harm to poor| rich people lose 2% of money they don't need for 3yrs
    Retirement age goes up (affecting manual labourers)| Ministers no longer get free $ when then leave parliament?

    They say it's for the good of the nation long-term. It's obviously for the good of higher income earners long-term. I don't think it will affect my family much but it will affect those who need help in a negative way. Way to build the nation on the backs of the socially disadvantaged Tony.

    I was suprised he got voted in, in the first place. I'll be amazed if he wins next election. I guess they could just throw him out for a clean image a year out and replace him with Turnbull.

    • ESEMCE on 14/05/2014 - 15:34
      +4

      Sums it up..
      Will be interesting to see if there is a crime spike!

    • Binchicken22 on 16/05/2014 - 09:09
      +1

      I think what a lot of people fail to understand when they see all these big businesses getting tax breaks here and there is that, without the businesses in Australia, you probably wouldn't even have an income to begin with.

      With the global market these days it's so easy for (most) businesses to just up and leave to a country that is going to provide a better future for them as a business. We've seen this happening already in the last few years.

      It's the governments job to keep business/jobs in the country, not just give handouts to people as that is only a short term solution with no real end game. Whist in the short term people see this as just giving more tax breaks to the rich it does flow down creating more jobs and giving people greater opportunity to earn a larger income.

      • Cheshire Cat on 18/05/2014 - 09:50

        What are you talking about, the mines won't pack up and leave, apple won't suddenly stop selling products here etc. we should be smarter at ensuring they pay their fair share particularly for resources that are finite. Even if they all did pack up…in 20 years they will be back begging for our iron as other places start to run out. It's not like our fair share makes it impossible to do business here.

        The simplest balance would be to ensure we as a country make as much off the mines as we would if we ran it ourselves. Assume all the inefficiencies you want (even though that actually increases employment) but if a mine could make $1B profit in public hands then it sure as he'll better be returning that much to us in private hands.

  • MrBillions on 14/05/2014 - 15:26
    +2

    "There will be no new taxes"…yeah right…BS

  • MrBillions on 14/05/2014 - 15:38
    +2

    Rudd got kicked out, Ghillard got kicked out, so what do we need to do to get Abott and the cigar dude removed?

      • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 18:14
        -1

        Clearly, there are a couple of Rudd lovers still left out there.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2014 - 03:00
          -1

          Aw, they're all the damn same. It doesn't matter which scumbag gets in - they're all still scumbags. One is NOT better than the other. They all go and bicker in parliament, but then meet together at restuarants nearby for lunch like best mates.

      • Speckled Jim on 17/05/2014 - 09:11

        Hmm they should have regulated the insulation industry first then?

        Imagine the howls righteous indignation!

      • Cheshire Cat on 18/05/2014 - 09:53
        +1

        The libs voted for almost every one of those 'orchestrated high debt levels' policies. So we would be in the same situation if they were running the show. And the debt levels are tiny…and Rudd isn't responsible for terrible insulation operators who have been charged btw.

  • bs0 on 14/05/2014 - 16:13

    hey I watched question time today (what a drag) and something that I noticed liberal party kept referring to is the deficit that labour accumulated before they left. Pretty much Hockey and Abbott avoided questions about 'promises' and 'tax cuts' by blaming it on Labour.

    Did labour really the leave that much debt, and where did it come from? I was wondering whether it was the GFC which I understand the rudd government did pretty well in australia by increasing spending?

    Sorry, never really go into politics, no biased replies/anecdotes, just enlighten me factually? :D

    • neil on 14/05/2014 - 16:19
      +9

      Politics 101: Always blame the previous government.

      Our current Victoria government (Liberal) still continues to blame the former government for random things, almost 3 years into their term. If something works great, it's all the hard work of "current party". Something is wrong, blame the "former government" of creating the mess.

      I wouldn't take any statement (from any party) from question time as a fact. Best to check ABC Fact Check.

      • NosDan on 14/05/2014 - 17:12
        +5

        Best to check ABC Fact Check.

        and that in its self is mostly the reason for the budget cuts to abc/sbs

        i cant help think that is yet another kickback promised by abbot to murdoch for murdochs help in getting abbot into power…. "will do my best to remove all local and OS competition to your media empire"

      • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 17:43
        -5

        Well the important fact is here - Labor created a massive debt, some was justified, most was not, just wasted money on pink batts, school halls, $900 handouts and massive blowouts in the asylum seeker bill because they changed a working policy. That's multiple billions right there! Now we have a Government in power who has to reduce the debt. Did you know that 12 billion in interest is paid to overseas companies every year on that debt bill alone? That's $12 billion that can never be used on services for Australian residents.

        • NosDan on 14/05/2014 - 19:02
          +1

          there is just no reasoning with one eyed lib supporters

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 22:35
          -2

          Is that all you can add? I just expect that from a one eyed Labor supporter :)
          Remember the words of JFK, it's not what your country can do for you, it's what you can do for your country. And JFK was a democrat too.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2014 - 03:02

          Well, to be fair… the debt would have happened no matter who was in power. Because the world bank can't sleep at night unless every country is in debt to them.

        • Cheshire Cat on 18/05/2014 - 09:56
          +1

          The batts,school halls and to a certain degree the handouts were a success not a failure. Most were supported by the libs and do you have a home loan? Debt in and of itself isn't a bad thing (especially when you are a government with tiny interest rates).

        • Speckled Jim on 20/05/2014 - 14:39

          The US, for example, are OVER 17 trillion in debt!

          Not saying it's justified or a good thing, but a little perspective here ppl.

    • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 16:26
      +12

      The bulk of the deficit was due to spending on stimulus to avoid the GFC. It worked pretty well.
      It was sad that some poor buggers got killed doing insulation, but 1 million houses ended up with lower power bills because of it, and a lot of people got work when the big businesses were shedding workers.
      Lots of school resources got built (although too many got ripped off) and everyone on low incomes got some unexpected dollars which helped the retailers when everyone was freaked out and saving every penny.
      All in all, it was a text book example of good government policy.

      That said, the labor government didn't really have a plan to pay down the deficit once they buckled on the mining tax. I reckon that gutless move cost us all.

      • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 17:46
        -2

        Well Rudd has always lived off of the money from his wife, who is in fact worth $150 million. What would Rudd know about the true value of money? The guy wasted obscene amounts of money. You can see why his own party voted him out before he even completed one term in Government.

        • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 19:57
          +6

          Why is it wasting obscene amounts of money when Rudd builds some school halls, but when Abbot sends $245m to school chaplains or launches a new tax for a medical research fund, or starts a generous paid parental leave plan that offers up to $50,000 for only some participants it is money well spent? Especially as his argument is the budget is in distress?

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 22:49

          Ok so you're another one eyed Labor supporter. I think $245 million for school chaplains is ridiculous by Abbott. I don't agree with everything in the budget. I agree the handout mentality in Australia has to stop as it's not affordable. Spending money on medical research is not wasted. Seeing as Australia cannot compete with Asia on manufacturing and a resources sector that will not always be booming, our focus must switch elsewhere and one which involves developing medicines and finding cures to diseases will be very profitable for Australia.

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 22:55

          Rudd was a dud. Why would his own party vote him out before he even finishes his first term? Wayne Swan said words to the effect that he was basically a nutter. That whole period from 2007 to 2012 was a great embarrassment to Australia. Changing back and forth between Rudd and Gillard was pathetic.
          Let me guess, you still voted for Labor despite all that?

        • Speckled Jim on 16/05/2014 - 09:44
          +3

          The MRRT was the downfall of Rudd. It was "Democracy at Work" after the mining companies launched a multi-million dollar smear campaign against him.
          So the polls went south.

          Gillard was seen as an easy target because A. Female and B. carbon trading scheme. But if things were so bad, why wasn't there a landslide Coalition win in 2010?
          Another sustained media blitz and she was a goner.

          We can thank big business for the failure of these two revenue sources. We should deride the idiot Labor and swing voters who didn't vote Labor because:
          "I'm just sick of the Labor drama."

          The delicious irony is that it's these same people who now have to do the "heavy lifting". Don't like drama? Instead of the remote Labor drama in Caucus, it'll be in your own home as you juggle priorities and smash money boxes for 5c pieces.
          Enjoy, dullards!

        • [Deactivated] on 18/05/2014 - 21:50

          Because the policies that Tony Abbott makes are more politically correct, they don't have to benefit actual people, just his image.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2014 - 03:19

        I'm still amazed people believe the money Labor threw at us actually prevented the GFC here. The average people got would have been what… say, $3,500 to $7,000!? Ok, now let's assume the average wage is say, $700 a week. Even if every person in Australia received $7,000 from Labor - and ALL that money went towards someone else's wage - it still would have only propped the country up for 10 weeks.

        But when you factor in the reality that:

        1. Not everyone received $7,000.

        2. Buying that plasma TV wasn't all profit. A $2500 TV may have cost $2200 to bring into the country in the first place. So that's only $300 profit. And again, not all of that goes directly to someone's wages either. There's rent, utilities, insurance…

        3. Many people didn't spend - they repaid existing debt.

        4. Despite the government 'directing' us to do otherwise, many banked the money.

        … considering these and many more things like them, it becomes pretty obvious it would have been far less than 10 weeks of stimulus. Probably more like a fortnight or less. Would a fortnight of economic stimulus have saved an entire country from the effects of the GFC? Hardly.

        The idea that artificial stimulus saved us from the GFC is pure hogwash. The reason we didn't have it here like other countries is because conditions here were nothing like those in other countries. We did't have it because we never would have. Not because we had two weeks' pocket money given to us.

      • amberdbrickell on 15/05/2014 - 10:32

        I am sorry but in relation to the cash bonus' that a huge range of people got was wasteful…..we were never really in big trouble when the bottom fell out of the USA…..we are/were buffered by the China economy…now if China goes that is when you will see Australia be up the creek…..

        Oh and those school halls (I have been in plenty of them) while they are nice, new and shiny they are useless……like a freezer in winter and a oven in summer…yet, they were marketed as being environmentally friendly…sure they use less power etc but many schools can't actually use them as they do not cover students under OHS policies….further, many schools have had to spend their limited budgets on installing air cons/ heaters etc because they didn't come with them.

        • redraoh on 15/05/2014 - 17:52

          now if China goes that is when you will see Australia be up the creek…..

          There was a Four Corners episode a few weeks back and it was said China are just lagging the GFC and they will soon have their own crisis…

          I for one welcome it…the rich/poor divide is getting too large in this country, and this budget will only increase it.

    • TheAviator on 14/05/2014 - 19:23
      +5

      When Labor entered government, there was about $60 billion in government debt. When they left it was about $340 billion. Yes it's an increase, but keep in mind the rest of the world increased theirs too. The GFC was bad.

      As for the deficit, we have the second lowest budget deficit in the developed world, so it is very low by international standards. Furthermore, it's not so much the spending that is the issue, but the revenue. Labor kept spending growth to an average of 1.4% per year, which is far lower than it was under Howard, and also lower than the spending growth Hockey is projecting. The problem is there's just not enough tax. Howard made a few income tax cuts and Labor made some too in the early days, perhaps we should look at reversing them.

      • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 23:04

        The Chinese demand for Western Australian iron ore was more of a stimulant to the economy than Rudd's work. Australia was largely insulated from the GFC because of this and the fact our banking system was strong. Rudd over spent big time, he knows it, and now Australian people are paying for it. Let's face it, Rudd farted and the rest of Australia gets the stench.

        • TheAviator on 14/05/2014 - 23:33

          Actually, the mining sector did pretty badly in the GFC. If the rest of the Australian economy shed jobs at the same rate the mining sector did, the post-GFC unemployment rate would have been 9.7% (when in reality it was 5.4%).

    • murkywater on 14/05/2014 - 22:03
      +5

      Yes Labor did spend money during the GFC. But Joe Hockey cooked the books to make it look alot higher than what it was… http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-dou…

      • Speckled Jim on 16/05/2014 - 09:32
        +3

        Thank you!

        Notice how nobody dares reply to these uncomfortable truths?

  • SupeNintendoChalmers on 14/05/2014 - 16:45
    +2

    Barely affected, but I feel for the poorest both local and abroad

    Look at foreign aid, for example;

    • Aid will be cut by $7.6 billion over 5 years (including the $4.5 billion of cuts already announced by the Prime Minister and Treasurer at the 2013 election).
    • The Government's promise to increase aid slowly in line with the Consumer Price Index has been pushed back beyond 2016.
    • The Government's has abandoned its promise to increase aid towards 0.5% of Gross National Income.

    This means that cuts to aid – which accounts for just 1.2% of Federal Government expenditure – will provide 20% of the Government's budget savings. Is this a case of the Government balancing the books on the backs of the world's poor?

    • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 16:50
      +14

      Well, yes. But what do you suggest they do? Scale back school chaplains or ballerina boarding schools? That would be true suffering.

    • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 17:51
      +1

      Do you realise how much of that aid gets to the poor in those countries? Not much at all. Most is absorbed by the administrators and much ends up in the pockets of the officials in those countries, many of whom are treacherous dictators. How do you think the Government leaders of these countries are always well off, well dressed, nice cars and houses, their armies well equipped and well dressed?

      • Dalton on 14/05/2014 - 18:15
        +2

        Our government gives aid in many ways, not just through cash payments. We provide training and direct support to countries in need, always with a view to stabilising those countries, not to undermining them. Aid is a way that Australia can further its own interests overseas. One could argue that overseas aid and the defence of our nation are inextricably linked. This government has decided that stable foreign nations are less important to us than war planes. I think that's a misjudgement.

      • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 20:00
        +2

        You sure spout some nonsense. Please provide a citation of Australian government aid being directed to corrupt dictators.

      • fattyboombatty on 14/05/2014 - 20:05
        -1

        You realise when the revolution comes, you're among the first to get lynched?

  • Letrico on 14/05/2014 - 16:46

    No bulkbill with Medibank anyway, had to see a GP and cost me $80+ and I can only claim back $30.

  • stemcell on 14/05/2014 - 17:27

    Don't come complaining if you voted them in.

    • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 17:52

      Well plenty did because they're much better alternative than Labor and the Greens.

      • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2014 - 03:21

        They're the same as. Or if you like, just as bad only in different ways.

      • Speckled Jim on 20/05/2014 - 14:59
        +1

        "Lame, gay, churchy loser"

        -Francis Abbott
        (Tony's daughter)

        Christopher Pyne?
        MMMMmmmmmm….mentions his "kids" quite a bit, but never his wife. Does he even have one?

        Face it mate. They're a bunch of whingey little Catholic school boys who gave us the biggest six year dummy-spit from an opposition party in Australian political history. Recall?

        "Madam speaker, I move that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended to move a vote of no-confidence in this Government…"
        ABBOTT — EVERY FARKING SITTING DAY.

        They have no:
        plans,
        communication skills,
        empathy,
        charisma,
        or balls.

        Bring on the double-dissolution.

  • sintro on 14/05/2014 - 18:18
    +4

    Gone are the days where a family can survive on just one paycheck… every day it seems that things are more and more out of control, yet only one in a million understand why. You are about to discover the system that is ultimately responsible for most of the inequality in our world today.

    The powers that be DO NOT want you to know about this, as this system is what has kept them at the top of the financial food-chain for the last 100 years.

    Learning this will change your life, because it will change the choices that you make. If enough people learn it, it will change the world… because it will change the system .

    For this is the biggest Hidden Secret Of Money.

    Check it out: The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

    Don't miss the last two minutes of Steve Forbes, Editor in Chief of Forbes Magazine.

  • TheAviator on 14/05/2014 - 18:47
    +20

    Gosh, where do I start? Will try to keep this as short as possible.

    Education: Hugely disappointed with the removal of the uni fee cap. I just completed my course so doesn't affect me, but this is a huge issue for future students. Yes you can still get the govt loan, but a big loan is still a big loan, and the thought of a $100k tertiary education would be enough to turn a lot of people away.

    Health: Imagine, $7 for GP, $7 for X-Ray, another $7 so GP can analyse X-Ray, then $5 for a prescription. $26 for getting sick just once. Might be alright for those who can afford it, but I definitely feel for those (and there are some) who will be avoiding doctor visits just to put dinner on the table.

    Environment: Replacing carbon tax with Direct Action means spending money instead of raising money from climate change. Seems a big waste, could be used for better services.

    Fuel Tax: CSIRO analysis suggests fuel tax will raise about as much as the carbon tax, and do just as much to fight climate change, so seems like Abbott's carbon tax in disguise. Will definitely feel the effect of this one. Also not happy the miners will keep their 32c rebate on the tax. Even just halving the rebate to 16c would've saved the budget ~$10bn.

    MP Salary Freeze for just 1yr: Yeah, after making us make so many sacrifices, surely they could do more themselves than just take a one year salary freeze. A really poor look.

    But yeah, in summary, it's a lot of pain for almost no gain. Seems this budget will hurt people, planet AND the economy, all to fix an imaginary "budget crisis" that no mainstream economist believes exists.

    So many other areas to discuss (such as the axing of First Home Saver accounts, which is probably the change that hurts me the most) but I think this post is long enough already. :)

    • Ventak on 14/05/2014 - 22:04
      +1

      It's pretty sad that biased Coalition voters support the Coalition's budget to rein in the debt, yet they also support the selling off of profitable assets and scrapping of revenue raising schemes just because they were Labor ones. For this government, spiteing Labor seems to be take precedence over actually doing what they said they would do - reining in the deficit & debt.

      • TheAviator on 14/05/2014 - 22:53

        And perhaps the saddest part of all is that despite the rhetoric, they aren't even reigning in the deficit and debt! ABC Fact Check confirmed they've doubled the deficit. Plus, in this budget they've increased spending by about $32bn but revenue is only up $12bn, so deficit has become even wider and more money will need to be borrowed.

    • Cheap Rich Guy on 15/05/2014 - 00:23
      +2

      I'd love to know how many politicians would still remain in their jobs if their pay was cut by 50%? Most I reckon.
      I can't understand how the Australian PM's yearly salary is more than the President of the USA and the PM of the UK, both of whom oversee countries with far larger populations?

      • GateauBoeuf on 15/05/2014 - 15:14

        Straw-man politician: I wish to serve the country, and our nation's people
        <remove astronomical income, benefits, other shenanigans>
        Straw-man politician: LOL NOPE

        The main thing I have against our current political system is the incentivisation of these rewards. So when it boils down to it we're attracting the wrong kind of people on an institutional level, individual variability aside.

    • WT on 22/05/2014 - 12:14

      wasn't there going to be a forced inflation freeze anyway, then they add it to the budget to make it look like they are also "sacrificing"

  • Gdsamp on 14/05/2014 - 19:47
    +3

    So people complain about $7 for going to the GP. And yet they're happy to spend up to and above ten times as much on things that are not strictly beneficial to their health. Alcohol, junk foods, eating out… And don't bring out the 'OzBargainer' on me, surely you would not put saving a few dollars ahead of your health.

    • fattyboombatty on 14/05/2014 - 20:09
      +3

      It's a symbolic thing - that "free universal health care" is no longer free

      I haven't had a free doctors visit since I moved to this country 8 years ago, but recognise the need that others may have to avail themselves of that service.

      I moved from a country with actual "free" heath care (Canada) and listened to the same arguments happening over there.

      There are no easy answers, but Australia is truly starting to embrace a USA style user pays system

  • HoracePinker on 14/05/2014 - 21:04
    +4

    no more torches for me :(

  • machej on 14/05/2014 - 21:10

    Wasn't as bad as I thought it might be. I see too many arts students at my uni who plan to stay there for their whole life.

  • LakeVostok on 14/05/2014 - 21:22
    -1

    it amazes me as to how most people are assessing the budget on the basis of the implications of the budget in their personal life. The funding cuts to schools and hospitals as well as pension and other welfare cuts will have long-lasting impacts on life as we know it. We need to stop being so short-sighted and consider the long term effects of this 'especially made for poor/middle-class/sick/student/unemployed/young people' budget!

    • YTW on 14/05/2014 - 23:38
      +1

      Um…maybe everyone is looking at it from this perspective because that's what the OP was asking for…

      However instead of talking boring politics, maybe we can discuss how this budget will affect you individually?

  • bucketbong on 14/05/2014 - 22:00
    +2

    FHSA FARCE
    :(

  • murkywater on 14/05/2014 - 22:07
    +7

    Personally I think the most shocking thing is the under 30 unemployment benefits. First 6 months you get nothing, then you get 6 months of payments. Then 6 months of nothing again. And in the meanwhile you'll always have to be doing what they tell you to.

    This is going to cause a spike in homelessness and crime rates for sure…

    • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2014 - 03:28

      I was thinking about this. Surely that's just their spin/semantics. If people were starving with no income, there would be organised riots in Canberra. I bet there's more than one payment - so they can SAY… "unemployed will get no payment 1 from us for six months!" (All while they're handing out payment 2.)

    • sparkles on 15/05/2014 - 22:41
      +4

      Agree - drug dealing, house breaking and mugging people are gonna look a whole lot more attractive when you have no job, no prospects and now facing six months of no money. Sure hope they are dramatically increasing the police budget to account for it because crime will skyrocket and it will be a vicious circle. Wouldn't paying kids Newstart (all of which then gets injected into the economy on food, rent, stuff, creating income streams for others to be taxed on) has gotta be cheaper than having them in jail? This policy is just social suicide. There are no winners.

      • redraoh on 16/05/2014 - 01:56

        Agree. Liberals put ideology first. It might be economical overall, but here is one pocket where it isn't and will cause unnecessary hardship. The age of entitlement is over, except for their own generation who got their education for free, perpetuated and rode a property bubble, etc.

    • WT on 22/05/2014 - 12:17

      They arnt cutting all centerlink, just newstart so they will get about 1/2 of what is current.

      But yes, it was pretty common when I finished high school for some people to take a gap year. It wasn't a lot though, as your parents needed to earn like less then 50k combined to get the full benefits. i.e rent assistance, newstart etc etc

  • yesterdaysnews on 14/05/2014 - 22:13

    My hex debt will increase a little but i'll pay it off sooner, as the threshold was lowered, when i get a job in my field. With all the money going into infrastructure I will hopefully get a job sooner than expected as the civil eng field was looking a bit flat there for awhile. I guess petrol price increase is a bit annoying but i guess i'll manage as it's not like they havn't been going up anyway. Only time I've been to the gp in the last 5 years was to get a mole removed.

    I do feel for people who need doctors appointments frequently but i can see reasoning behind the price increase. What I would most like to see is the pollies doing menial labour til they are 70, after they retire from politics before they get their annual payouts. We all have to make sacrifices and adjust

  • Jezzabell on 14/05/2014 - 22:31
    +2

    Moral of the story. If you can't afford to have children then do not have children.

    • ssx on 18/05/2014 - 14:24
      +1

      And what about those who could afford it, but then became single parents?

  • kungfuPrada on 14/05/2014 - 22:41
    +7

    liberal and labour, one is shit coat in chocolate and the other one is chocolate coat in shit. Which one do you prefer?

    • leiiv on 15/05/2014 - 00:15
      +3

      If many people think both liberal and labor are bad, then why did't they vote other parties?

      • edgar28 on 15/05/2014 - 11:10
        +2

        other parties always hope for something unrealistic

        I was in the renewable energy forum, I asked the question how we manage the toxic solar panel after 10-15 years? or 25 years (if it lasted that long)
        They straight away said, recycle!

        I asked again, how much it cost to recycle vs making a new one. 2.5 to 5x more (expected to be 10x when technology improves)…….

        so what's the conclusion? land fill………

        • edgar28 on 15/05/2014 - 12:28

          I even heard the comments like, solar energy is forever, the more into the network is better, it's a scam that we got refuse to connect due to "stability quota" (he refering to non managed type - for those who knows what i'm talking about)

          that guy really doesn't know what he/she's talking…….

      • GateauBoeuf on 15/05/2014 - 15:16

        @leiiv. It's a catch-22. Everyone else is under the assumption that the person next to them will be voting for a major party. Ergo, they vote for the major party they consider marginally better, ad infinitum.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2014 - 03:31
      +3

      I know what I prefer. Surrounding parliament house with thousands of people and then have a public lynching.

  • spammingb on 14/05/2014 - 23:47
    +2

    $7 may not be much to a lot of people, but economically it is a terrible idea. It will encourage even more people to go directly to hospitals’ emergency departments (which is already a major problem). People complain about the horrid wait times at hospitals, and this makes it even worse. Also, this will push more of the costs on to hospitals, yet the budget is cutting the states’ funding for hospitals.

    • JR63 on 15/05/2014 - 00:19

      There's a policy that says State governments can decide to charge people for ED visits that could've gone to a GP. Don't see it being introduced by States initially though.

  • hello007 on 15/05/2014 - 00:27
    +7

    We are all affected because:

    1. We will be slugged $7 each time we go to the GP.

    2. The Rabbit will then give that money to giant international mega-corporation pharmaceutical giants so they can do whatever they want with our $20bn under the guise of medical research. Totally unaccountable.

    3. In return these mega-corps will then permanently super-fund Rabbit's re-election campaigns well into the future. Oh - and we get no share of any of the super profits they generate from the medical breakthroughs we will be paying for!

    4. The Rabbit couldn't care less what happens with the $20bn or if any constructive research ever results.

    5. The main game here is for this $7 to create a beach-head - under this lame excuse of unaccountable research - with zero benchmarks - so that Rabbit can keep increasing the fees we pay to see a GP well into the future.

    6. I give him three budget cycles to have that fee at $25 PER VISIT.

    It's ideological driven madness that says that Medicare has no place in Australia - Rich people deserve the best health care and the rest of us can all go and die slow and painful, untreated deaths.

    That's the Rabbit's ideal world.

  • bich.light on 15/05/2014 - 02:42
    +2

    Increased fuel levy, the $7 medicare and the rapidly increasing HEC's debt at the end will be the major to hit hard with myself.

    The main issue I find with the $7 medicare is the fact that the doctors insist I visit weekly to receive treatment for my foot. I have some kind of infection/disease that's been there for a while and requires weekly treatment. Having to pay $7 every week does NOT sound very pleasing.
    Am I one of those people 'clogging' up the medicare system?
    No, at least I don't believe so. If you do, you should allow civilians to have easy and affordable access to liquid nitrogen. I think that's what it was, fairly expensive.

    I think the rest is self-explanatory…

    • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2014 - 03:32
      +2

      Quick - have the foot removed. Then onto disability before the rules change. That'll teach 'em.

  • MrBillions on 15/05/2014 - 06:50
    +7

    How about ditching the dud jet fighter order? $12.4 billion saved. It's that easy.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/libera…

  • onlyletters on 15/05/2014 - 08:05
    +3

    The whole budget was created for the rich. Now there will be more mining and coal seam gas extraction which requires millions of clean water pumped into the ground for the extraction to take place, your drinking water! I'll never vote liberals again. Biggest mistake! There should be a stop to this new law and a re-vote!!

    • Baghern on 15/05/2014 - 09:18
      +3

      Every liberal budget is like that.

      As far as I'm concern Liberals are looking for a class system like ye olde England

      They want people to be employed but pay peanuts for it

      Education and health isn't a concern unless your poor.

      Its always funny to hear about how great Howard and Costello were, when their Pension buying budgets is a reason we're in deficit.

      No one has said how their budgets improved the economy or moved the country forward.

    • JimmyF on 15/05/2014 - 15:23
      -1

      created for the rich? Yeah thats why they are taxing those who earn $180k above with a special tax!

      • tyler.durden on 15/05/2014 - 17:15
        +1

        it's only 2% of whatever is earn after the 180k

        the main target are the poor, sick, family and students.. who are the hardest hit..

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

          the $7 gp visit is good but only for those who earn more than 150k.. tax the rich.. the rich who don't care about $7..

  • pao2x on 15/05/2014 - 08:17

    The $7 medicare co-payments will be a disaster to our health system if not implemented properly.

    1) Who will pay the $7 x 2 for consultation and $7 or more for xrays and labs when ED remains free? I don't imagine that ED will employ a cash clerk anytime soon, imagine the chaos on that.

    2) All the cheapos that does not want to pay or too lazy to go the hospital emergency dept (because it is filled up, more than usual I should say)) will end up as real hospital admissions soon enough.

    Primary health care and GPs work. They are the most bang for buck part of the health care system

  • Turd on 15/05/2014 - 10:32

    TIL I will be getting ~$1000 from the government!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join