text:
Budget 2006
Workers, especially those on high incomes, cleaned up in the federal budget with tax cuts worth $7 to $100 or more a week.
What do you think about Peter Costello's 11th budget?
This forum is now closed. Here's what you said:
what a shame! it is a rich man's budget. real savings go into the pockets of the proseperous.
- Posted by: Gilly on May 9, 2006 10:04 PM
And of course it means that they aren't going to increase spending on the poor so that we can eradicate poverty...
Tax cuts when health systems, among others, are in the dulldroms really aren't all that beneficial...
- Posted by: Karl Sinclair on May 9, 2006 10:09 PM
I think it is a fair budget. Why people think that just because you earn more should pay a higher percentage of tax I will never understand. I work hard why should I support someone that won't get off their butt and work hard. It is nice to get a reduction in tax and increased family tax assistance. Good job
- Posted by: Tracey on May 9, 2006 10:11 PM
say no more, its a shame as rich gets richer and poor gets poorer like why spend billions on aircraft and security when that can be spent on health, education, transports?
you figure out.
vote out the politicians forever
- Posted by: a joker on May 9, 2006 10:13 PM
Middle wage earners miss out again, not only the tax cut but also the family benefit!
- Posted by: Wayne on May 9, 2006 10:16 PM
Where is extra help for disabled people, pensioners especially ?
Over 60s have been given extra benefits, whether disabled or not - the "utilities allowance" extended to Seniors Card holders
But, the disabled, often struck by illness in the prime of life, when they do not have chance to prepare, are given nothing ?
- Posted by: Andrew on May 9, 2006 10:18 PM
Great budget! Finally, relief from the killer tax rates for high income earners. Peter Costello has done a great job and I'm thrilled to bits with what he's done for tax cuts. I believe that if you work hard for the extra buck, you should be able to keep more of it. You don't get better off without having to work for it in the first place you know. However I still think our current tax rates (especially at the top end) are far too steep. You wonder why there is really no incentive to work hard at all because at the end of the day, 45% of my bonus will go towards TAX!!!
- Posted by: Viv on May 9, 2006 10:18 PM
Well...as many commentators have said...the rich get richer. Cant believe the drastic change in the bracket levels.
Im not sure why the average worker (mid bracket level) has been ignored.
Thanks Costello...not much change to my wage...(at least you look after the rich guys...)
No wonder why you havent been able to make PM.
Very dissapointing
- Posted by: Steve on May 9, 2006 10:18 PM
I suppose you will get all the 1940 union labour stalwarts coming out and saying it unfair what the rich get. I sure they would be whinging more if they were paying as much tax as the rich.
You cant make the poor rich by making the rich poor!!
Good work Peter.
- Posted by: Paul on May 9, 2006 10:18 PM
It is not a matter of the rich getting richer.... I know I would hat to think that every time I made $1 I had to give almost half of it (still not far off) to the government.
I am a small business owner and I am far from in the top tax bracket, but I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to have to earn everything you buy twice (considering half goes on tax).
Majority of the time, the "rich" or those on 150K+ (which is stuff all really) get to that point by making smart decisions, whilst at school, after school (uni) and throughout their career.
I only wish I had made the right choices, then I could be frustrated paying 45c to the dollar (but only from July 1!
- Posted by: anthony on May 9, 2006 10:19 PM
At last we are getting a fairer tax system which rewards effort and hard work. Onya Costello
- Posted by: Jason on May 9, 2006 10:20 PM
it's about time our hideously high top tax rate was cut, even if only by 2%. What's the incentive for high achievers to stay in Australia if they have to fork out half the money they earn to the government? this is a good budget. No time for tall poppy syndrome.
By the way, I am not rich - I am a uni student, but I intend to work hard and make money. I don't think people should be penalised for that
- Posted by: Alex on May 9, 2006 10:20 PM
What do I think about one person having delivered 11 budgets? I think a two term law should be in place. Each term at 4 years maximum. And with the greatest of nuances, our new Conservative leader here in Canada shall bring forth such an overdue addition to a well rounded bubget. Not only should the prime minister be remaindered after eight years, so should all politicians that sit in cabinet. I in all my wisdom(?) have taken out a copywrite on just this case: "Nine year ditch." And just in case 'big-boot Johnny' continues with his advancement of forcing a card on all youse's all, I ticked the Remeber Me? Yes circle.
- Posted by: johnemslie on May 9, 2006 10:21 PM
It was a great budget if you are well off and earning a high income.
I like the extra help all us pensioners received.Just like to say thanks peter i will remember you when i fill up my car and pay the high private rent.
- Posted by: John on May 9, 2006 10:22 PM
Ho, hum! AGAIN, THE RICH GET RICHER AND POOR GET SCREWED OVER.
- Posted by: pauline edmunds on May 9, 2006 10:23 PM
What about education and health?
Oh wait thats right, higher income earners can put their bonuses towards private schools and private healthcare. So who cares!
That extra fifty for those over 100k a year will come in handy though, bonus case of crownies!
Did ya'll really expect anything else from this government?
- Posted by: Greg on May 9, 2006 10:25 PM
its crap the poor stay poor our hospitals roads and schools go wanting while the rich clean up again
- Posted by: Greg on May 9, 2006 10:25 PM
good thing I'm earning over 100k. otherwise i'd be pissed!
- Posted by: Ralph on May 9, 2006 10:26 PM
What a pathetic scam.
Vaile looked sick he is so guilty of bribes and selling his AWB shares. Downer with that silly giggling smile to hide his school boy guilt.
Hand out sweets to the masses and make them forget AWB bribes, IR laws, boat people lies, nazi treatment of detainees, false invasion of iraq, sedition.... Oops omg i will be tracked by the gestapo and arrested - what have I done!!!!!!
Hey we are NOT that stupid
- Posted by: dean on May 9, 2006 10:28 PM
- Posted by: ALBERT WATTERS on May 9, 2006 10:30 PM
Howard and Costellos budget has ignored the needs of the health system that forces sick people to die on waiting lists or pay massive amounts for basic health care,while large tax cuts are given to high income earners.It is not all the states fault Mr Howard you need to return the GST collected to improve health services rather than give the wealthy even more tax cuts.
- Posted by: peter on May 9, 2006 10:30 PM
Since when is a someone earning 100k before tax and supporting a family rich? Well done in reducing the tax rates.
- Posted by: Chris on May 9, 2006 10:32 PM
I think that evry1 is a winner with ur budget,also u pay 1% for medical and we here in england we pay 11%. Your Govenment has put tax down for all so u should not be mocking this. I am coming to live in oz soon and will be really pleased to be a small part in making the country prosper and to get out of england. Taxes go up each year here on al purchases, u pay 10% GST we pay 17.5% VAT.
- Posted by: Danny Collins on May 9, 2006 10:32 PM
I don't earn enough to pay near the top rate of tax, but I hope to one day and at least there is some incentive to earn more with the knowledge that any extra income will not be as heavily taxed. For everyone who thinks that high income earners are the big winners, that's only because they're paying more tax to begin with. If you're not getting a large tax cut, then that means you're not currently paying a lot of tax.
- Posted by: justaverage on May 9, 2006 10:33 PM
Somehow i think interesat rates will be going up before the end of the year. This is not the time to flood an economy running at near capacity, running record after record defecits.
Seems the rich got the most, not enough spent on infrastructure - how about a few billion for trains, another few billion for hospitals, a billion or 2 for unis, and some serious money to fund and delop australian research.
- Posted by: Jeff on May 9, 2006 10:33 PM
I went to University, paid HECS and suuported myself working in pubs while I was at Uni. Since then I have gotten good jobs and I have paid an enormous amount of tax, and it is about time some relief was given to those of us who are fortunate enough (because we have studied and worked hard) to earn a decent living and not have to give half of it up to support those of us in this country who are not willing to work as hard. Great stuff Peter...Like Paul said, you can't make the poor rich while making the rich poor. Cheers
- Posted by: Mark A on May 9, 2006 10:33 PM
Childcare Childcare Childcare.
The three most important issues we needed addressed, but they were not.
I've had 4 kids 'for the country', and am exhausted, and financially stretched to the limit.
Re-imbursing childcare fees would have been an enlightened way to spend some of the surplus...Imagine what an extra $2700 per year would mean to a family with kids to help pay for their care. (But instead this money is earmarked for the pockets of the rich).
I think Costello's call for women to have kids for the country will fall on cynical ears, if women are not supported to have viable child care choices. (Noting that many of us do not have relatives that help care for the children...contrary to what some male ministers tend to believe.)
- Posted by: tired mum on May 9, 2006 10:33 PM
I thought that Blind Freddy would have realised that the high tax receipts deriving from an economic boom should, in part, be channelled into ways of keeping the boom going into the future: greenhouse initiatives, addressing the skills shortage, supporting higher education's international competitiveness, supporting entrepreneurship, improving participation in paid work, etc. There seem to be a few token efforts here and there, but imagine what could be done with $36 billion!
This government has no imagination; it doesn't take imagination to collect lots of tax in an economic boom, and then give it back months later.
There's no long-term plan here. What will we do when the resources boom ends? Mineral resources belong to all Australians, not just shareholders, so the royalties should be invested for everyone (which will benefit shareholders anyway as the economy grows!).
This government doesn't believe in planning because it believes in market forces. It refuses to deal in the real world because it doesn't suit their political interests or their wish to make life better for their mates at the big end of town. Markets operate IN societies, and societies needs good infrastructure and good institutions before they can work.
Providing universal childcare will actually SAVE money compared to the system of rebates that just leads to costs going up to provide care facilities and standards that are better than the average just to prove you care about your child. Forcing low income earners to use family day care provided by unqualified carers is a waste of Australia's future: the best bang for a dollar invested in education comes from early childhood education. (Just because you have womb doesn't make you a good carer.)
Don't get me wrong: I'm doing really well under this government personally - I'm a high income earner, and I got to this position because I got a free higher education, including a scholarship. And I bought a house in Sydney before the prices went insane. I don't mind paying more tax for a better deal for those who didn't have my chances in life. Very small life events can leave people on the scrap heap at the moment; there but for the grace of god go I. In the meantime, I'll be out shopping for a plasma TV.
- Posted by: Wilma on May 9, 2006 10:34 PM
I don't know what all the complaining is about. The government is letting the wealthy people keep the money that is rightfully theirs anyway.
Low income earners should be happy that there are people in Aus paying such high taxes. Without them, where would the money come from?
- Posted by: Mick on May 9, 2006 10:36 PM
High-income Labor voter here, with a fully-paid off house. I hope all the 'aspirationals' who are now suffering with high petrol prices, uncertain house prices and the recent interest rate rises are looking at themselves right now... you voted John and Peter in...
- Posted by: HB on May 9, 2006 10:40 PM
Enjoy it while you can.
Eventually a labor government will have its turn, then we will be back to the old system of everyone who works paying more tax than ever to support those who choose not to work and live off our sweat.
They will also return to the careless, uncontrolled immigration of the mid 70s that has caused so many problems for our society now.
- Posted by: Jim on May 9, 2006 10:44 PM
i would say its a good budget. however the top tax rate is way too high still. however it is a good step in attracting expatriate and high achieving Australians back to our shores...
- Posted by: james on May 9, 2006 10:45 PM
This is a measured and positive budget. I must say that I am disappointed more is not being spent on health and education, but providing an incentive to work harder and keep more of your hard earned money is a positive step and one which the Labor party never provided whilst in government. You cannot please everyone, but like some people here, I am perplexed as to why some people seem to think the richer you are the more tax you should pay. Regardless of the rate, richer people will always pay more tax because of the hard work they have endured. Surely they should be able to keep the same proportion of their income as middle or low income workers do.
- Posted by: Bobbie on May 9, 2006 10:45 PM
Great news for superannuation!
Hopefully now people will be able to actually understand the framework that will fund their retirement.
- Posted by: Nikki on May 9, 2006 10:46 PM
As usual the pages of this pathetic rag are filled with the bleating of the losers who want everything handed to then on a platter - oh, and the baby boomers who have had it all given to them and now want to tell us all how to live.
Wake up Australia - for too long those of us who have some drive and want to get ahead have been held back by people who couldn't be bothered getting out of bed in the morning - other than to go and claim their social security check.
Compassion - yes - along with accountability please. So good on you Howard, Costello et. al.
It's about time the doers had a break.
If you earn under 100k a year you're not worth considering anyway - probably shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
- Posted by: Braddles on May 9, 2006 10:51 PM
The rich get richer
- Posted by: mas on May 9, 2006 10:57 PM
Jim....I am an immigrant from the '70s...can you please explain to me some of the problems that I am causing. Because, if I am too much of a bother to you, I'd be happy to take my Tax Contribution($60k/per year) and go elsewhere.
- Posted by: Mick on May 9, 2006 11:02 PM
Australians have become too self centred. Budgets are all about 'what's in it for me, how much do I get, what's the effect on consumer activity'. Very little thought is given to Australia's future prosperity, it's environment or technology. Just like in the 50's and 60's, an abundance of mineral wealth is being plundered and spent for immediate personal and political gratification. And in the end, there'll be little to show for it.
- Posted by: James on May 9, 2006 11:03 PM
Great news again to hear higher income earners receive a tax break. I still believe that both the current and the new tax rates are still too HIGH, it would be nice if the highest tax rate in Aust is 36c. If you earn more money based on your profession why should you be punished.
Keep up the good work (hopefully next budget we see another set of tax breaks).
- Posted by: Robert S on May 9, 2006 11:06 PM
To tired mum with 4 kids "for the country" - I can certainly sympathise with your present financial situation, but that is all it really is - your present situation. Your 4 kids now have a further incentive in that when they enter the workforce, they know they can work hard and will get to keep more of their income rather than handing it over as tax. I would have thought it'd be the dream of a lot of parents for their children to become one of the "rich".
- Posted by: justaverage on May 9, 2006 11:06 PM
Bribery of the already lucky, untruthfully camouflaged as charity for the unlucky. Good for buying votes, atrocious for ensuring a fair future for all.
- Posted by: Andrew Grogan on May 9, 2006 11:07 PM
Tick tock tick tock goes our national debt clock! The fact that as a nation we spend way more than we earn seems to be not getting any attention from head book keeper Costello. Even with a resources boom we still can't shovel enough stuff on to ships going out to pay for the products that we buy coming in. Tonight was just another example of churning your taxes. Whats happens when the pants fall of the resources sector are we going to have to give it all back? It just dumb! Tick, Tock
- Posted by: Joe M on May 9, 2006 11:09 PM
After years of high taxation and With this kind of budget I can smeel the election.
- Posted by: Richard czupryna on May 9, 2006 11:09 PM
Thank God. One budget when I get a say. i work very hard 80+ hrs a week payscale and pay up to $80,000 personal tax per annum.
I have already privately educated my children so they are tax paying graduates.
I privately support my parents in homes.
I pay single income tax with my wife no splits no fixes no funny bussiness. receipt for everyjob done. Tax audits clean.
Piss off you creeps who I support. You cant tax a lazy sod who wont get off his arse to work, nor someone who earns 50K but has 2 kids and so is tax free anyway with rebates. So if you dont pay shutup an let us who do pay talk. We need a system where youre representation is related to your level of taxation. Then I would get my share of say.
- Posted by: pasquale on May 9, 2006 11:11 PM
Nice pressies.. but aren't we suppose to be making hay while the sun shines??? I don't see enough of our $15b surplus being reinvested in Australia's infrastructure and services. Maybe its really because of the lack of a cheap migrant labor force equal to that of the post WWII period (that same ol' xenophobic immigration song).
What happened to hospitals and education?? Universities again are made to rely on overseas students to fund their existance. The Arts and the ABC seems to have been ignored too. Why are they considered such a constant threat to the our right wing, left brain government?
Thanks for the crumbs Peter. FYI, it won't cover my skyrocketing fuel bills and home loan repayments.
- Posted by: Tina P on May 9, 2006 11:12 PM
I don't think you can argue with the new tax scales when over 80 per cent of taxpayers will now be on a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent OR LESS! Come on, 30 per cent is pretty reasonable and 80 per cent of taxpayers is almost everyone.
The superannuation reforms are also great news; the existing system is ridiculously complicated and costly for all concerned.
My only (major) criticism is that the Government is always eager to give voters relatively small tax cuts but never invests sufficiently in the schools and hospitals that could really do with the extra money. I'd happy give up my extra $10pw if it resulted in improvements to these core institutions of our society.
- Posted by: Ben on May 9, 2006 11:12 PM
I'm glad that the Government has finally paid some relief to the 5% of the population who shoulder 40% of the tax burden. Well done Peter!!
- Posted by: Jason on May 9, 2006 11:19 PM
Bye Bye Beazley.
- Posted by: Syd Drate on May 9, 2006 11:26 PM
Extra $7K/yr here...
But I don't need it. And it is hard to imagine that anyone else earning my salary (or more!) does.
Can't help but think that this money would be better off directed to the environment and securing our energy future, such as the renewable energy sector.
Before the holier-than-thou responses suggest that I can personally donate my extra, rest assured I will, but will do so knowing that it is a drop in the ocean compared to what a government committed to securing this nation's future could do.
Instead, as a nation, we�ll send our tax cuts straight into our petrol tanks... furthering our national debt.
$3/l by Christmas 2007. How much does your tax cut buy you?
- Posted by: Simon Jones on May 9, 2006 11:27 PM
half of the tax gain will pay 4 the petrol and half for paying off the mortgage. Still tha same , cc
- Posted by: John on May 9, 2006 11:30 PM
More money in our pockets, will help pay for the increasing divorces, depression and credit card interest bills. I once thought Australia was a community, looks like we are just a political commodity that can be bought for $20/week. Some how we are voting as if this makes us happy, but socially speaking we are hooked on prozac.
The IR laws will drive down wages. A war in Iran will drive up Oil prices, leading to a drop in consumer confidence and businesses will start flexing their new IR 'work choice' muscles to maintain their expected profts. Real wages will eventually drop and this will balance out interest rates. Interest rates will not rise, provided this is the case. ie the economy basically stays the same, no real increase in productivity is achieved.
In the end there will be more people without job security who will work harder for less. But paying off their 'mc mansions' at the same time.
Sure this keeps the 'economy' going? But what sort of society are we trying to create?
Capitalism, in all of it's alledged financial greatness is costing our health in pursuit of the great aussie dream. Perhaps it's time we pinched ourselves?
- Posted by: McMansion on May 9, 2006 11:44 PM
To all those suckers in Western Sydney:
Today we both get tax cuts. Mine is worth $150 per week. Yours is worth $40.
The interest rate rise that increased spending will cause will hit your mortgage hard. Meanwhile I'll get a higher return on my savings.
The tax cuts have come at the expense of services. Specifically, services for you: hospitals, schools, and transport infrastructure. My area has all those things, so I am glad they are not a spending priority.
Yet you keep on voting for Johny, and hence my interests, because he's a racist like you. Keep it up champs.
- Posted by: Mr Eastern Suburbs on May 9, 2006 11:45 PM
You notice one thing in these forums.
- Everyone wants something for nothing (all of the things we enjoy for free in Australia have to be funded by something - yet nobody wants to fund it).
- Everyone thinks they deserve a hand-out. Even when it comes to childcare (you had the kids-you know they are expensive).
- People who earn over 100K really are arrogant (seriously, read some of the posts. Especially Braddles last comment - this mentallity is where we go wrong, not our government!).
It is simple really. You get what you want out of life, but there is a price. Some people feel that they are owed something.... your not.
If you don't like the way the government in Australia is run, move to another county (oh wait, there all as bad as each other).
I say, thank god for whatever tax cut we receive, however big or small it may be.
- Posted by: anthony on May 9, 2006 11:50 PM
Whatever happened to the notion of "mateship", social equality and eglatarianism? I vividly recall one of my old high school teachers in the mid '80's talk about the importance of looking after your mates and doing the right thing by other people. It is a totally different country now.
- Posted by: Mark Spickett on May 9, 2006 11:50 PM
For expats it's heading in the right direction and makes it a little easier to come home, but only marginally. Australia still needs to strive to ensure that its income tax rates don't force high skilled workers to move overseas. Under the new system, I calculate my effective income tax rate would be 39% versus 41% before. In Singapore, it is around 10% or less.
- Posted by: Jack on May 9, 2006 11:52 PM
Thanks for the whopping ten bucks. Pretty useless in my pocket when I will have to spend twenty on school fundraising because they can't afford textbooks. Kim Beazley, where are you?
- Posted by: Shannon on May 10, 2006 12:02 AM
To expand on "the rich get richer" theory. I agree, if you really think the rich pay for the "bludgers" think of the majority family who pay fuel excise and gst, gst on their groceries, super input and out tax, school/uni fees, rates, electricity(+gst), telephone & internet(+gst), water rates, mortgage, insurance to ensure their comparitively meagre assets are not lost (+gst), taxes which if your from NSW or VIC go to build infrastructure in other places?
If youre only earning 35 to 45 thousand dollars a year, figure it out affluent (or effluent, thanks Kath & Kim) Einsteins!
Why would you be so naive or ignorant to whinge if youre earning $100k plus. I can hear the executives on $30 mil payouts and $5 mil a year saying Shhhhhh!
Get real, if you want USA go live there. Fair go for Aussies. Especially those who work for a living.
P.S I was a swinging voter till the industrial laws came in. No more.
- Posted by: Mike on May 10, 2006 12:03 AM
The money they are spending on arms is disgusting. As a CEO of a major company this is a very sad day.
- Posted by: Rich Stein on May 10, 2006 12:07 AM
Good budget. Those who pay a lot of tax got the lowest amount back in % terms. Those who pay the least tax got the most in % terms. This is how it should be, stop looking at the total $ and look at the ratios paid and gained, that is the only logical way to make a comparison. Those who have prosered have some form of obligation to society as do those who have not.
- Posted by: Bemused on May 10, 2006 12:08 AM
All this just to take away the peoples minds on IR reform. The Government is hoping that we all forget about IR by next election. Good PR plan leading up to next election.....Our memories will not be that short.
- Posted by: Pr@nk$ter on May 10, 2006 12:08 AM
Best budget we have had. Well balanced. Nice to see those who pay the most get the biggest percentage back.
Of course Labor will play the class envy card, but it always does. Why not be happy those who contribute the most get a reward!
- Posted by: Scooter on May 10, 2006 12:08 AM
All such revoltingly classist comments.
- Posted by: Dannyboi on May 10, 2006 12:14 AM
Good for expats perhaps, but not enough to tempt my bad self home when I am paying 4.4% in South Korea. Bring on the flat tax.
- Posted by: Aaron on May 10, 2006 12:18 AM
FINALLY! Great recognition for people who work really hard for their money. Motivation to work harder? Maybe. It's about time gov't reward those people who contribute a lot to the Australian economy. Tax cuts to all hard working Australians!
- Posted by: Weng from Sydney on May 10, 2006 12:20 AM
excellent budget...and with next year's election budget coupled with the campaign itself, Labor is going to be buried in another landslide.
- Posted by: fielding on May 10, 2006 12:27 AM
I don't get it with all this optimism about how much more money there will be...
Has ANY tax drop in the past EVER been useful? I do recall all of them having been followed by widespread increases in state and local taxes and fess which have all but wiped out any gains.
This one is gonna be different? Right...
- Posted by: Nuno Souto on May 10, 2006 12:28 AM
Hey Anthony, I think Braddles was just winding you up!
In 04-5 I paid just shy of $100K in income tax, so obviously I am part of the arrogant class.
That was an atypically good year. In capital terms I am still poorer than the average Australian. Why are my few good years taxed so heavily? Well that's just the rules of the game. Nobody likes tax.
My income is variable, as is that of many high income earners. That means the cut in income tax will actually not be very meaningful from week to week because my prospective income for 06-7 will have a higher degree of uncertainty, right up to the last quarter, than the amount of the cuts.
Of course, I hope I can earn as much as possible. I would have hoped that anyway, regardless of the tax cuts. They will be just a bonus at the end of the year. Frankly, anyone at that rate of income will notice $100 or even $150 more a week scarcely any more than a low wage earner would notice $10. (Can anyone notice $10 a week? Surely only those who are rigorously frugal already can do so, and anyone who smokes or drinks could just cut back!)
I would rather have seen some reform for the people who would feel it most by tapering of all those means-tested withdrawals of benefits to soften the effective tax rates of people moving off them or supplementing them with a bit of work, as many must necessarily do. That would apply to welfare beneficiaries taking up a bit of part-time work (which includes single parents), as well as (non-single-parent-pension-recipient) mothers.
- Posted by: marcelproust on May 10, 2006 12:50 AM
I'm an ex pat in the states. I am not overseas because of high taxes in australia. I really wish they had spent the money on hospitals and schools. I do not want australia to follow the USA in this regard. I wish they'd stop pandering to the individual and start helping the communty.
- Posted by: niki on May 10, 2006 12:59 AM
Talk about a lose/lose situation for the Government! Nobody is ever going to be 'happy' with their tax reduction because it represents such a small portiion of their overall income. Further, if Costello was to distribute the $$ evenly to the majority, you'd be getting next to nothing, so WHAT DO YOU REALLY WANT????
On another note, people need to remember that high income earners also have mortgages, cars, kids etc to maintain, but dont qualify for ANY form of welfare. So where some people could go to the Government for a hand-out, high income earners need not apply.
Keep that in mind when you're singing you tired old 'mateship' and 'equality' songs.
- Posted by: Joe Average on May 10, 2006 12:59 AM
The more hours you work, the more you earn.
Tax should be flat, 20% for all, and tax collected should go straight into health, roads, transportation and education.
- Posted by: AR on May 10, 2006 1:06 AM
The government admits that it has been collecting too much from taxpayers, does not know what to do with all the money, and so is now returning them to you. Washing its hand of building infrastructures and providing services for Australia, it is now up to individuals to build their own hospitals, schools, universities, roads, etc, and to look after themselves. This government has no debts and no assets. Welcome to the new Australia, it is every mate for himself.
- Posted by: Stephen Wong on May 10, 2006 1:38 AM
I am glad for people who make over 100K are getting a tax cut if this makes their lives easier but I can't help but be disheartened by the comments by some people on this forum (please note not all) that people who earn under 100K are not hard working but just bludgers - how about our Nurses for an example - registered Nurses have to go to uni as well and they work very hard for us - and remember their pay is not that good and they have to deal with the fact that there is not more spending on the budget for health which could help them ease staff shortages in hospitals? I would rather see any tax break I get go into infrastructure, schools and health thanks
- Posted by: Wondering? on May 10, 2006 1:39 AM
Well you get what you vote for. A tax system which keeps the rich rich and the poor poor.
- Posted by: Robert Balmain on May 10, 2006 1:41 AM
Braddles: We (baby boomers) will tell you how to live for a long time yet.
We have the money and power.
We have the income you'll never achieve; Budgets are always good to us.
We have the house outright you cant afford.
We're the last to get all the super; enjoying retirement, spending our money.
We can pay for good medical treatment to keep us going till we are 100.
We'll have all the private hospital rooms at a pittance when we finally chooff off to that great party in the sky.
Oh, and by the way we are the ones to have the last laugh refusing leave our money from the good times to our kids.
Wake up, we own all the really good stuff and we are having a great time, let's face it there is nothing much left for you, and when we are gone you will be too old.
Get used to it, old, sick, unemployed got no inheritance.
- Posted by: jamie-Lyne Symons on May 10, 2006 1:42 AM
Bit late for us now we have been forced to take our lousy taxed super and will apply for welfare when it runs out. We payed tax for 40years on the higher bracket.
Shame the child care benefits were not addressed as expected because this helps all families, especially higher income earners that need to work harder to afford lavish life styles.
- Posted by: Storm on May 10, 2006 3:31 AM
what do the ordinary workers have to do costello sell their body parts to get ahead.remember 1917 you hipocritical b*******
- Posted by: gavin cochrane on May 10, 2006 3:35 AM
I'd prefer to see the surplus spent responsibly across infrastructure, rather than it used only to pander to the greed of some.
- Posted by: D. Cleary on May 10, 2006 3:39 AM
This budget is more voodoo economics...
Raygun, Bush, and Bush did this to the USA:
Tax cuts for the wealthy. Only the top 5% have real income growth.
Increasing number of people living in poverty.
Shrinking middle class. Wages for most people stagnant for the last 30 years.
45 million people without health care.
Most seniors can't afford health care or medicine to keep them alive.
Running up huge national debt to fill the pockets of the ultra-rich.
Debt that will be payed for by your children and grandchilderen (some with their lives). They will be slaves to servicing the debt while getting no government services in return.
Kick the scum out of office.
- Posted by: Trip on May 10, 2006 4:06 AM
By 2007, no rich man will live in poverty. Good work Pete. You're a genius. I want my money back.
- Posted by: saxby on May 10, 2006 4:15 AM
Wake up Australia. Even the idiots in the US has worked out that Bush and his mate Johnny is only looking after the profit of the big company. Ask yourself this simple question why is corporate tax set at 30% and the personal income tax still max out at 45%. He throws you a few bucks in tax cuts but takes it away when you have to pay more for you drugs, food,...etc.
- Posted by: ky on May 10, 2006 4:35 AM
I am an older Jobseeker with two disabilities, one severe. I get nil from budget and am going to be bullied further by Centrelink. The budget looks after the more fortunate but continues this harassment and bullying of the disadvanatged. Its pretty sick.
- Posted by: leah on May 10, 2006 5:37 AM
I'm an expat Aussie living in the US for 7 years. After this budget, and if Howard / Costello win again I will come home to Australia to raise my young family.
Well done.
- Posted by: RD on May 10, 2006 5:48 AM
If save $10 a week for middle income earner, I prefer government put the money to health and education.
- Posted by: HN Leung on May 10, 2006 6:20 AM
Going the right way but not enough. I will be going overseas to work in July as I can earn more, amongst other reasons.
Individuals should be given more incentive to be more productive.
The income tax rates are still way too high.
- Posted by: Sarah on May 10, 2006 6:24 AM
Well, whoop-de-do! I get almost $10 a week. After all the price rises in the last year, this will still leave me worse off. And joy of joy, this year it looks like I will have to pay $500 for the extra Medibank levy as my income has just inched over 50k. But what the hell, as long as the richies are happy then so am I.
- Posted by: Colin on May 10, 2006 6:40 AM
This only fixes it for a few years. Why isn't anyone talking about how the rates should be indexed to inflation?
- Posted by: KD on May 10, 2006 6:40 AM
Why is there this assumption that people who earn more work harder? That is absolute rubbish. Some people who earn more work harder than others who earn less, but many higher income earners just have rarer skills or abilities, not to mention that some of the lowest paid people work incredibly hard to earn their limited income.
Yet again the Howard apologists show their greed. "I pay more tax so I deserve a bigger cut"
When will people realise that Thatcher was exactly wrong - there are no individuals only community. If you think otherwise please cut yourself off and pay for everything at its total cost.
- Posted by: Menzies on May 10, 2006 6:46 AM
Too Little To Late - the brain drain from Australia is on and accelerating.
Taxation and regulation is FAR too high in every level of Aust. Government.
To much spending on the "health" industry and nothing on preventative and natural CURES.
Here is where the education and money should be directed too.
The more a nation wastes money on phony "health" and phony "education" the faster it will become a poverty stricken nation.
Australians, please THINK about the future. Please Reverse our road to communism and poverty.
- Posted by: Wally on May 10, 2006 6:53 AM
Its hard to fathom that at a time when business is lamenting the skills shortage in our economy, and the Reserve Bank keeps harping about the capacity straints that are putting upward pressure on inflation, that this budget is so bereft of any initiatives in education and long term infrastructure coordination. "let the good times roll" seems to be the mantra, but the short sightedness of providing a boost in aggregate demand at a time when monetary policy is pulling the other way simply makes further rate rises inevitable. Pater will giveth, but Ian will taketh away!
- Posted by: Roges on May 10, 2006 6:59 AM
What's new. A fictitious 'surplus' created by gutting health care, education, and yet again a venal misrepresentation of the nations true fiscal state. No vision, no compassion, no wisdom. Stop wasting my taxes on wars and liars and start spending it on Australians at home. More for public Schools! More for Hospitals! Stop thieving and start serving!
- Posted by: FINTAN on May 10, 2006 7:04 AM
This "family friendly" budget gives families 10 dollars a week in tax benefit and calls it good, but at the same time the government is trying to stop paying parenting payment by making it conditional on looking for work.
So how is it good for families to lose like 380 or 580 a fn and gain 10?
- Posted by: ele on May 10, 2006 7:07 AM
What about education???
- Posted by: Amanda on May 10, 2006 7:08 AM
Although I think removing the tax off super benefits past the Age of 60 is a great Idea, I hope there
will be some checks and balances. At the moment there are age based contribution limits that help limit the
maximum benefit an indvidual can have. But if they remove such a limit it will lead to wide spread abuse.
Why would a CEO say around 50 years of age want to pay millions in tax when they can put it all into super
and only pay 15% tax. And the hundreds of other schemes their financial gurus will think of. Not to mention the
bosses of companies who are on the brink of liquidation who transfer the creditors money into there own super.
- Posted by: Dan on May 10, 2006 7:10 AM
Extra money in our pockets would only make us happy if everything else stays the same......but who believe $10 makes a difference?!! I say cut the dole and get the bludgers working for their living, that's the best way to raise social prosperity. Too much of our tax is going into handouts.
- Posted by: Ozgabs on May 10, 2006 7:16 AM
It is sad to see the profound sense of self entitlement and the disdain for the less fortunate/weathly that pervades most comments supporting tax relief for high income earners. It is also a fault of logic that working hard equates to earning alot and vice versa. It is also a fault of mathematics to suggest, like some have, that low income earners are receiving a higher percentage in tax cuts.
Those earning 100-150K+ should take their extra money and buy themselves some perspective, you ARE rich by almost any measure, and spending money on tax cuts rather than schools, education, health etc will eventually effects everyone.
Also, the government got most of this surplus from taxing resources companies, so why are rich individuals so deserving of it anyway?
- Posted by: MM on May 10, 2006 7:17 AM
Wads and wads of cash and a fantastic opportunity to do great things for the country...but no...just buy some votes to stay in power. These guys have reduced our debt by not spending any money on bulding up the country. Name a single profitable company anywhere in the world that did not invest in itself for future survival. The civilised world's greatest ever problem is in our face now - the inevitable conversion to a carbon constrained economy due to the overwhelming evidence of human induced climate change. What about spending the surplus on making the transition easier rather leaving it to the next generation when it may well be too late or prohibitively expensive.
- Posted by: Alan on May 10, 2006 7:23 AM
I'm sick of the government being applauded their "generous" tax cuts. Essentially, we've all been paying too much tax and now the Government wants a pat on the back for adjusting the tax thresholds- mainly in favour of the richer end of the spectrum. I think the public should take these tax cuts for what they are- a poor and unfair attempt at fixing an over-taxing system. As an example, someone earning $20 000 a year gets a cut of $365 in tax whereas someone earning $150 000 a year gets a cut of $6700 - that is MORE than a third of what the lower-income worker earns!
Many will argue that if you earn more you should get more back, but the majority of these people are the workers on $150k. There are many people out there who work just as hard, if not harder, than these high earners but don't get the same income and struggle on a low rate of pay. I personally feel that society would be better off if the government skewed these reforms in favour of the low to middle income earners- or at the very least made the reforms even.
- Posted by: TM on May 10, 2006 7:24 AM
Let hope the now richer spend this extra money to keep the econmony moving for the rest of us.
- Posted by: Amanda Raine on May 10, 2006 7:24 AM
Another lolly scramble. Typical of the govt to chuck money at the retired and families. Does it ever stop to think about the single people ?? We pay taxes as well and what do we get in each budget .... SHAFTED ... Seems whenever there is a cut in the tax, I always end up getting sweet FA out of it.
As for working overtime forget it. We still get shafted and I thought this was a govt that wanted us to look after/provide for ourselves. Seems they don't give a toss about. All they are interested in is getting our money.
Their idea is to spend all the surplus and leave nothing in the cupboard for when the good times come to an end.
Being a run up to an election year, I hate to think what they will chuck at us in order to get us to vote for them. time they got out and lived in the real world. how aboutt hey give up their genenrous perks ... most of them don't earn them anyway. Come and find out what hardship really is like. and as for Howard tme to stop living in the past. Get with it.
- Posted by: Adam on May 10, 2006 7:27 AM
As a middle income earner who will benefit through the reduction in the 42% tax rate I have to confess to being somewhat diappointed by the egocentric nature of the budget.
Income tax relief is welcome but for me personally I would prefer to see my money being invested in health, education and the sciences. For us to continue to prosper we have to ensure that our citizens, yes all of them, have access to first class health care and access to technical and skilled jobs. The commodities boom is not going to last forever.
A healthy intellegent population is worth far more to me than $12 per week...
- Posted by: John on May 10, 2006 7:27 AM
Like someone else here said, it is disappointing that we are not making hay while the sun shines.
I earn enough, live within my means, pay a fair amount of tax too, might add.
This mob have got us over a barrel.
The Reserve bank government just last week jacked interest rates, warning of inflationary pressures. Adding $2700 to my take home is not going to cause another increase? Peter, please respect my intelligence.
- Posted by: Chris on May 10, 2006 7:32 AM
There are a number of people saying they work hard to be rich and should get higher tax cuts. I work hard to stay poor it seems. I'm a childcare worker and get less than $30000 per year, don't qualify for any government benefit and still have to pay bils like everyone else. As usual this budget has screwed over the little people and given the rich massive tax cuts. Someone earning $60000 per year still got $1739.69 per fortnight (under the pre budget system), whereas all I get is $860 per fortnight. No the rich still get richer. I wish Howard and Costello were in that mine instead of those hard working blokes.
- Posted by: Darren on May 10, 2006 7:33 AM
Where is any mention of Education?
What about an increase in funding to Public Education. After all without a commitment to education, what is the future for our children?
- Posted by: Greg on May 10, 2006 7:33 AM
Doesn't it all sound sweet. Perhaps some of it is a small step in the right direction. Perhaps a lot isn't. How about:
1) Abolish ALL current taxes
2) Tax EVERYTHING, except deposits and withdrawals, at a flat rate of 2%.
3) Abolish state governments and restructure local governments.
4) Go hunting for unhappy taxpayers and tax rorters. There won't be any.
5) Give accountants a job seeking allowance.
- Posted by: Snorky on May 10, 2006 7:37 AM
Too Little To Late - the brain drain from Australia is on and accelerating.
Taxation and regulation is FAR too high in every level of Aust. Government.
To much spending on the "health" industry and nothing on preventative and natural CURES.
Here is where the education and money should be directed too.
The more a nation wastes money on phony "health" and phony "education" the faster it will become a poverty stricken nation.
Australians, please THINK about the future. Please Reverse our road to communism and poverty.
- Posted by: Wally on May 10, 2006 7:37 AM
I welcome this year's budget. The tax cuts are merely to try catch up with time in the 21st century after years of inflation. The super changes are good and the extra money into infrastructure and medical research are much needed.
However, I am a bit disappointed that the budget did not do more to invest in the nation's education system as well as in targeted child care facilities (especially for the needy). Child care is so expensive these days, a $10 a week tax cut for people down the lower end of the scale is not really going to help much. Also, who knows where they will spend the money? Should have spent some more of the surplus in building child care facilities - this is also another way of encouraging mums to go back to work!
Also, Howard complains about the poor education system we have now - so I ask, where is the funding??
- Posted by: Thomas on May 10, 2006 7:39 AM
Whoppy do! Only 10 dollars back!!
Hmm... but wait! I hardly paid any tax to begin with. Oh, I get it now (*hits head* so dumb), you can only get back what you pay to begin with. That's why it's called a tax return.
I've got an idea, lets talk about arms spending or IR laws instead because I have no good argument against the tax changes.
God bless John Howard and his right-wing bible thumping minions- in the name of the Queen!!!
- Posted by: Troll on May 10, 2006 7:40 AM
Government should be responsible for ensuring those who are less fortunate because they really do not know how to help themselves improve get further away from poverty. At the same time I think the Government should invest more in educating those less fortunate to improve themselves rather than simply give out tax cuts to them.
The wealthy are wealthy for a reason. They make a huge self-investment in Australia in terms of putting themselves through constant education and working hard/smart for their money. This is what I am doing to get my income level up to around $150K per year. My income is variable so could very well drop if the economy loses its momentum.
I hope the government is also making provisions that should the economy slow down that they have sufficient capital in reserve to keep the economy chugging along at a nice pace.
I'd like to see the Government spend less on Defence. I'm sure a lot of poverty in the world could be wiped out if governments all over the world did not spend such huge amounts of money on defence! The world should sit down seriously and think how they can wipe out defence problems rather than putting a band-aid on the issue by spending money to defend against threats. The world should have the powers to simply infiltrate where there are defence issues and resolve them. The UN doesn't have enough power in this resolve. Fixing problems at their source is better!
Imagine what Australia would be like if we could cut the govt's budget in 1/2 for defence and further spend that money on improving productivity like better transport systems in the cities not just regional areas!
- Posted by: Stephen on May 10, 2006 7:41 AM
What all the fuss is about, I dont understand. I am in my last semester of 6 1/2 years of university as a full fee-paying student. I have worked darn hard to get the money to pay for it previously. When I finish in July I expect an annual salary of the $130-40 k. I am not disapointed about the reduction in the top-tax rate at all.
Are all the people complaining about the 'rich getting richer' suggesting a flat tax rate? That way there will be no tax-free threshold as there is now, and everybody would probably pay aproximately 35c for every dollar they earn.
Would this be an incentive/helpful for the mums of our nation whom wish to pick up a bit of extra spending cash whilst the kids are at school doing a part time job for 6 hours a day as an example?
Get a grip on it everybody, the "Rich" are still paying more tax dollars for dollar they earn over that increased top tax scale, thereby helping support the entire nation and pay the extra funds required to improve and maintain the hopitals/roads etc etc.
Do people want a flat tax rate of probably 35 c in the dollar with no tax-free thresholds do they?
- Posted by: Sam D on May 10, 2006 7:43 AM
It was good they increased family payments at the low end but something has to be done at the top end. The payments cut out too quickly. For instance if my wife was to return to work part-time and earn 10K she would be on a ridiculous marginal tax rate of 70 per cent (and that excludes childcare). No thanks. The family benefit systems needs a major overhaul to give women incentive to return to work ...
- Posted by: Gones on May 10, 2006 7:43 AM
The top tax rates are still too high. As a highly skilled young professional I have worked in Europe and Asia and have many friends still overseas who have little incentive to return home when the tax they pay here is considerably above the tax in many other major economies. The only people who benefit from high tax rates are the scores of lawyers and accountants who spend endless hours dreaming up 'tax efficient' schemes that encourage investment in unproductive areas of the economy purely for tax reasons. Hard work should be rewarded and not punished with high tax rates.
- Posted by: Joe Smith on May 10, 2006 7:46 AM
My shout on 1 July!
- Posted by: Rob on May 10, 2006 7:48 AM
Bugger, all I got was a $1, a dollar a day. A trip to the supermarket is costing me more than a $1 a day because of inflation. Wish I was on a HUGE income, then I'd be getting $17 a day, that would cover the cost of inflation.
I guess I will have to keep working part-time. As a Disability Support Pension receiver trying to pay the ATO nearly $5000 in tax debt caused by working too hard and suffering bad health. For the last three years I still can't earn enough (due to health) to get out of Federal Government generated debt.
I think I know where Peter got the money from! The battler is being duped again. The bosses and China and India are doing well.
- Posted by: Rob Banks on May 10, 2006 7:52 AM
How Taxes Really Work
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.
The first four men, the poorest would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18; and the tenth man, the richest would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day; the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
So the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12; leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important.
They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
- Posted by: David on May 10, 2006 7:53 AM
A look at all the tax relief by the Howard Government will reveal they are mainly working for the rich. The surplus would raher be spent on policing, education, welfare, health.
- Posted by: James on May 10, 2006 7:55 AM
To all the pathetic 'high' income earners bragging about the amount of income tax you pay - get over it, you obviously need much better accounting advice. And really, there are people who earn well in excess of what you little people could dream of. Have some empathy for those in less fortunate positions. Oh, and by the way, I am one of those who earn well in excess of yourselves, and I don't wish to brag about it.
- Posted by: Rocket Reg on May 10, 2006 7:59 AM
Weng, weng, weng. You may earn alot, but income obviously doesn't cure ignorance. What about all those in the police, fire brigade, ambulance, nursing, teaching, social workers, youth workers, disability workers - anyone under the Social And Community Services award etc etc etc who are working their arses off every day doing some of the hardest work around to contribute to this society, but will never be earning top dollar because their professions aren't 'worth' much in economic terms. OPEN YOUR EYES YOU FOOL. I'm an accountant who may have a good income, but it doesn't make me arrogant...
- Posted by: John on May 10, 2006 8:01 AM
An unabashedly foul and dispicable act. This government will burn in the fires of hell. This is a trying time for all of us but the 2 percent whom the liberals consider worthy of their attention.
When I was naked you clothed me, but the liberals spat on me, hungry you fed me, but the liberals laughed me, alone and you comforted me, but the liberals put me in a detention center, poor and you supported me, but the liberals stole from me.
- Posted by: Chris Ormerod on May 10, 2006 8:05 AM
Here we go again....aim the budget at re-election. Billions being thrown around with no real result on productivity, infrastructure development and services. So what do the tax cuts give us? More hospital beds and better coping emergency wards? better education services ? better transport? skills education? never mind, Howard and Costello know that the majority will be watching Dancing with the Stars then off to the footy, while the country is heading for disaster.
- Posted by: George of Port Hacking on May 10, 2006 8:06 AM
Still not much of an incentive for me to come home from Hong Kong! Also need to help education, hospitals, the elderly and intelligent research a WHOLE lot more before Australia becomes anywhere near as good as it could be. We lack leaders with long-range foresight.
- Posted by: Angela on May 10, 2006 8:07 AM
Reading this makes me feel very sick.
I hear talk about those who work the hardest put the most in balh blah blah.
Kerry Packer didnt work hard, he was an ugly bully. He hardly paid any tax using his highly paid accountants to find any loopholes around. James Packer work hard? it was given to him on a plate.
And what is wrong with high income earners paying more tax? they have benefitted from society, so they should put back in.
After such a great day yesterday where mateship ruled, where guys were willing to risk their lives for their mates in the mine, i have to listen to Howards dribble and then listen to the elitist crap in here.
disgusted to be an australian at the moment
- Posted by: Che on May 10, 2006 8:08 AM
Ok, after I did all the me me me me calcs, something struck me...
Why do we make people below the poverty line pay taxes and fill in a tax return? Yet with families above the poverty line, after rebates and allowances, some effectively pay negative tax?
If governments give up on providing decent services, why the hell are we still taxing the poor? Aren't we already hitting them up for 10% on everything they buy through GST?
Makes no sense to me. Highest taxing government in history, and we see very little for it other than the young and the working class working harder and harder to prop up the living conditions of the baby boomers.
Is something wrong here, or is it just me?
- Posted by: Huh? on May 10, 2006 8:09 AM
Mmm. An extra $9.62 a week. I'm so excited! i think I'll buy 2 extra chops with that instead of a can of lentils. My family will be rejoicing over the bountiful handout Mr Costello has given us. How can we ever thank him!!!
- Posted by: Anne-Maree on May 10, 2006 8:10 AM
I can't help but feel skeptical when people label middle income earners as unambitious low-achievers who don't deserve the tax cuts that the ever so hard-working rich do.
I am an educated, skilled worker who happens to have a passion for an industry that isn't so high grossing. This is my choice, I admit. But I guarantee I work harder, longer hours than a lot of the high-grossing earners here that tout that I'm not worth the air I breathe.
$10 a week is pittance, and barely absorbs the interest rate rise on my mortgage. Additionally, thanks to this generous budget, we can look forward to another rise before the end of the year.
- Posted by: Anna on May 10, 2006 8:11 AM
The tax cuts giveth and the rate rise to accompany the inflationary pressure will taketh away.
What a shame that at a time when strong company profits and commodity prices give the government a cash windfall, they choose the popular approach rather than take the opportunity to reform our tax system and invest in the long term future of the country
- Posted by: Sam on May 10, 2006 8:12 AM
very surprised at the comments here... surprised.. and disapointed.
- Posted by: tt on May 10, 2006 8:13 AM
Yup, the single people get socked again, propping up the system to pay for other people's kids.
Still working hard, still paying 40% tax, still can't afford to buy my own home.
Thanks alot.
- Posted by: CO on May 10, 2006 8:13 AM
Work hard. Any be rewarded that's what this budget says to me. I am 24 and earn just over 120k and have no super education, no uni degree, I just work my ass off, this budget says to me work a little harder and be rewarded expotentially. Save more now and play harder later.
Thanks Peter.
- Posted by: mjg on May 10, 2006 8:17 AM
I can see all those women with two kids and $20k per year in child care fees, per child, immediately going out to procreate with a $200 per YEAR incentive for their third! What a load of crap.
- Posted by: sarah on May 10, 2006 8:20 AM
I love all the talk about health and education.
Last time I looked, they were the responsibility of the state government. In NSW, the state government would lose money running a brothel, what hope do we have of them managing health and education properly. Mr Costello, would you like to be treasurer of this state? We could use someone who knows how to pay back debt and balance a budget.
- Posted by: Michael on May 10, 2006 8:20 AM
Short sighted and narrow minded. With capacity constraints clearly on the mind of the RBA in raising rates, why add to it by feulling the demand side of the economy. We should be investing in the supply side by focussing on infrastructure, education, and health. What good is a $50/week saving in tax to a person with a mortgage if it forces another rate rise by contributing to inflation pressures?
- Posted by: Zac Trinnick on May 10, 2006 8:24 AM
I don't see any difference last year....I still earn a low wage, yet get taxed a high rate...and I don't see any benefits for our dental services which is much needed...and the cost of living is still quite extravagant.
The budget is a disgrace....only benefiting families and the rich.
- Posted by: RS on May 10, 2006 8:27 AM
Let me get this straight.
Howard and Costello give you another "fastfood meal" tax cut, some added bonuses to families along with some whopping bonuses to his rich mates and you're already to forgive and forget the AWB scandal, overlook education, health and transport infrastructure.
How cheap are you people?
This budget is nothing more than the latest in a series of "We're gonna buy your vote" budgets. At least have some pride and hold out for more than just a Subway meal if you're all determined to sell out the nation. Surely we're worth a home delivered pizza.
- Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on May 10, 2006 8:27 AM
Goes to show we truly are in the "lucky country" ... not the clever country!
- Posted by: Where is common sense? on May 10, 2006 8:29 AM
As expected, here's another indication that the only voters that count in this country are voters with families. For those of us upstanding citizens who remain single and childless, yet still contribute to the national economy, we're overlooked again. And if we rent our homes because we can't afford to buy on our own, or we dare to indulge ourselves in continuing education (what's that??), we matter even less. But then: why am I bothering to whinge? Clearly, no-one's listening. I should just shut my mouth, spit out a couple of kids, and reap the rewards of living under this fine government.
- Posted by: Kasey Mack on May 10, 2006 8:29 AM
The economy will find it hard to grow in future years if infrastucture is not improved now. Why not spend 70% of the next 2 year surplus on just infrastucture and hold off on the Tax cuts till then.
A better transport system will save the amount of fuel we use.
- Posted by: Paul on May 10, 2006 8:30 AM
With another Budget being handed down by the Treasurer, Peter Costello; will we see another one delivered by him? A interesting question but some will welcome the tax cuts even though, the pain continues for a large number of Australians.
We see the GDP slowing and the unemployment level remaining at its present level?
The business community will welcome the pain being eased.
We see $1 billion being allocated over 4 years for the smartcard project yet, there's pain for our veterans and their various Health Cards. Their Gold,Orange and White Cards will be abolished.
There's no relief for those who will access the Disability Support Pension and even with recipients of this pension, their pain also continues.
The Budget is clearly a vote-buying one and what goodies will we see in 12 months time?
The Treasurer didn't give relief to those Centrelink customers who are in reciept of the rent assistance payment. Whilst they're struggling to meet rental payments, this is another area that needs a closer look.
Families have again been targeted but fuel prices continue to rise.
- Posted by: David on May 10, 2006 8:33 AM
Great, people will have an extra $10 in their pocket a week. Oh sorry, I was talking about the middle class who still struggle day to day while the rich get richer! what the hell is going on. Maybe the middle class should have a crack at doing the budget next yr to show them how fair is fair!
Now Im just waiting until I get forced to sell our home when I decide to have kids because one income wont be enough. That will be icing on the cake. It kind of puts you off having them!
- Posted by: CE on May 10, 2006 8:34 AM
A smart but big risk Budget. They dont mind you spending the tax cut because they get a good slice of it back in GST. They are hoping most people now 50+ divert their money into super. If the spending spree is avoided then interest rates will stay low. Its a big risk they are taking. Knowing Australians most of us will go straight to the shopping centres and spend it. I would expect 3-4 rises of 0.25% in interest rates in the next 12-18 months. So your tax cut could be wiped out and the value of your property will fall further - very fast if they have misscalculated on the spending and saving behaviours of Australians. My conclusion - A BIG RISK BUDGET - not too much safety net aspects it seems giving all that money away. Watch out for High Inflation High Interest rates High Petrol Prices and High Wages spiral.
- Posted by: Con Carpis on May 10, 2006 8:35 AM
personally i cannot complain...
but when is the government going to invest in structural changes to our country, such as large amounts of money spent on rail and moving to a carbon free economy and the alike.
And for rising petrol prices, this is a fact of life and when the average Australian finally realises this maybe we will take the lead of many european countries and plan for the future.
i must admit i would have preferred my tax cuts went to closing coal mines... but hey... somehow i don't think that would have been a popular decision.
- Posted by: Dugald on May 10, 2006 8:39 AM
No matter your circumstances, people will always say the budget was unfair to them, or perhaps give begrudging qualified support. Percentage-wise the tax changes were a step in the right direction. Sure I would like to have a flat tax and for many people with absolutely no deductions a simpler system of lodgement. I you want a cheaper tax system, go live in S.Korea.
"I only got a miserable $10 a week but pay at least that in increased petrol costs!"
"The rich get richer and poor get poorer!"
"Put it into hospitals and schools and not security!"
"This is just a ploy to take our minds off the IR changes!"
Bob Brown whinged about the miserly $500m for the Murray River system.
etc, etc, etc.
I'll bet if Peter paved all the streets in gold, somebody would whinge that it was only 14 karat.
Budgets are about a balancing of needs, the economy, inflation, interest group pressures and politics. On balance, it was a good to excellent budget providing funding for not only tax cuts (just wait to next year people for the really big ones!), and especially the changes to superannuation being proposed, infrastructure initiatives, medical research, education, sport, ABC, defence, etc, and a huge surplus!
Get real everyone! Take a deep breath or cold shower and consider the whole of the budget.
- Posted by: Gene Bagdonas on May 10, 2006 8:43 AM
I think that the Budget was a missed opportunity to do something great. It sure makes me happy to know that young people, on youth allowance are under the poverty line, while the wealthy get cuts that are bigger than my weekly income.
I see people are saying that its about time that the real "working Australians" that give so much are getting back what they deserve. The reality is the opposite. The real Australians, who are the largest category of tax payers, earning between $30,000-40,000 are getting a mere 10 bucks.
So, I am getting my pockets lined with a little of Costello's loose change. (Which really belongs to me!) But as a student I am paying more than before on my education, with $12b taken out of Universities in the last ten years. I have a IR system that means that I am earning less. I am insulted that Costello looks like the generous one here!
I though that it would have been a great opportunity to invest in the universal things that have made Australia the great place that it is. Fund education and healthcare, which all people receive the benefit from. This is not about class, this is about what is right!
The time was right to invest in the future. Instead you have an extra ten bucks to blow on crap!
- Posted by: cam on May 10, 2006 8:44 AM
An expected disappointment. Two and half million people in poverty in Australia and those earning in the top brackets get a tax cut. Social services throughout Australia desperately need better funding but the government thinks its better to give play money to millionaires. Go figure...
- Posted by: Ms M on May 10, 2006 8:45 AM
With my increased mortgage, petrol prices and private medical cover, I should break even! Not a bad result.
- Posted by: Matt on May 10, 2006 8:46 AM
Unfortunately the longterm neglect of infrastructure will make our children pay for our tax cut.
More needs to be spent on our community resources hospitals, utilities, education and transport.
We need to be less dependant on overseas oil for our fuel needs.
These will indirectly reduce the cost of doing business in our country and share the common wealth to all.
- Posted by: Peter on May 10, 2006 8:46 AM
Hopefully this budget will see the death toll on the Pacific Highway slashed. After years and years of inaction by the state Labor Govt on this issue, thank goodness Costello has acted so decisively.
- Posted by: kywong73 on May 10, 2006 8:47 AM
a lot of "Rich get rich" rhetoric here... i suspect its coming from people with no personal ambition or much hope for wealth of their children.. after all your kids might one day be the so called "rich" who, by the way, are mostly self made people who are working like dogs to give their families a better life.
as someone who's been considering moving to Singapore to ease my tax burden, i can say that this budget has made me sway towards staying put... thats 300k+ of tax revenue staying in australia.
Well done Peter, well done Johny.
- Posted by: Len on May 10, 2006 8:47 AM
With an Interest Rate increase - costing the average home owner about $50 a week.
Then the average income earner gets $10 a week tax cut. So really, the average person is still down $10 a month!
Then add to that the increase in petrol prices and the increase in train tickets, how much are we really down every mth? up to $50?
So what 'real' difference does it make in the long run?
We aren't up $500 a year, more like down $500...
- Posted by: Matthew on May 10, 2006 8:47 AM
Great budget. If I'm a high income earner why am I not entitled to a cut? I work hard for my money, and having to give back 47% of my bonus is a big dampener.
Those who say it makes the rich get richer... get a life.
- Posted by: T.J on May 10, 2006 8:50 AM
...and the meek shall inherit the earth eh? Well they will be none the wiser nor in much better health due to the glowing omissions of education and health in this 'budget bonanza'. Again wealth is redistributed to the wealthy, how strange is anybody really surprised? There is a reason why no money goes into education and health, a free market reason, that is we should be responsible individually in the ways we spend our money, if you want education and health go and buy it. Otherwise be happy, join the legacy of the Howard years be stupid, sick and uncritical anything else would be un-Australian.
- Posted by: James on May 10, 2006 8:50 AM
Well, looking at these comments Costello and the neo-lib crew are right to think if they can help it, most people will be self-interested first and foremost. The micro-level concern over a tiny bit of tweaking to what the majority of us take home! But self-interest won't get us very far when Australians (you and your children and grandchildren) and the economy stagnate because there has been no national investment in education, skills and training for close to 15 years. $10 extra a week to set aside for the 2-3 kids degree or apprenticeship in 15 years time? You must be joking.
Unskilled work already goes to China and skilled work - well, that goes to all the graduates that we import from every other OECD country that invests heavily in its most important asset: people - and for the future.
Oh, and that resources boom - it can't fund the long-term aftershocks of a politically irresponsible stance on energy - peak oil is here and we have a government that has buried its head (and the rest of us) in a coal pile. No serious investment in renewables or any strategic energy policy that deals with the crisis that will hit within 15 years (yep, check out the industry talk this past week, even they agree), nor climate change (yep, that's here too). And riding the resources boom? We've got two years, max.
What rabbits can we pull out after that? Got no viable R+D, got a poorly educated population, productivity low, massive underclass and social stratification with high levels of personal debt.
Everyone feeling comfy and secure about the future are they?
After all the talk, the empty symbolism of 'mateship' and throwing off our British overlords, Blair has worked to create a meritocracy and Australia? Australia is now one of the most class-divided societies in the world. We and our children stand to pay a very, very high price for this government's policies.
- Posted by: emma on May 10, 2006 8:50 AM
I'm an expat as well, this time in HK, and this will do nothing to bring me home either. Im paying 10% tax. Australian still pay way too much tax, this budget only makes it a little closer to acceptable.
- Posted by: Mike on May 10, 2006 8:52 AM
What a joke. $120 a week for the highest income earners. That's about $6k a year or the equivalent of $12k on a pre-tax basis. Nice little pay rise for those already doing well for themselves. Particularly given this is off the back of the Government selling off every public asset they can get their hands on - didn't these assets belong to everyone?
How about some spending on health and education or is there a risk the states might get some reflected glory out of the Federal Government actually doing something worthwhile?
- Posted by: Joseph on May 10, 2006 8:53 AM
Not as radical as I would have liked, but overall a good budget. A few points
First to all the people whinging about rich tax cuts, how many people on six figure incomes do you think are actually paying PAYG tax?
They are salary packaging, have family trusts or income under registered companies, so the supposed savings of thousands won?t apply in full. But it will make it less attractive to avoid tax as the income tax rate begins to match the company tax rate.
Good on the govt for the Murry-Darling funds, the Highway and rail upgrades, and the medical research boost.
Now all we need to do is lower income and superannuation tax further, offset by getting rid of middle class welfare aka family benefits.
- Posted by: Trogdor the Burninator on May 10, 2006 8:53 AM
Providing access to Super Funds may appeal to some but unfortunately many will squander the money and then have to rely on Government for support.
- Posted by: John on May 10, 2006 8:54 AM
As another Australian living overseas like Niki - I not living away because of tax - but the Australian tax system is appalling. Not as bad as the US - but that doesn't mean Australians should think its OK. There should be flat rates of tax, and a properly administered GST that makes sense. Let he who consumes pay and look after your people. If you want to see the damage that could happen, go live in America for a while - that very much changes your thinking with regards to how you look after your people.
- Posted by: LL on May 10, 2006 8:54 AM
Great tax cuts for the over 100K earners. But does this also mean that negative gearing becomes less effective?
- Posted by: DC on May 10, 2006 8:54 AM
I have a univeristy degree in economics - I work 50-60 hours a week - I make 55k per annum - yeah why not slug us poor battlers to help the rich go all the way - We not charge more tax for the poorer and no tax for the rich !!!Take a momment to think of others - we arent all bludgers if we dont make 100k plus ! I cant afford to be a liberal voter any more !Just a hard worker that is my pride !
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 8:55 AM
what a stupid budget.
No increased spending on health, education or infrastructure.
Increased spare cash in the economy just at the time the reserve bank is trying to decrease it.
And once tax rates go down, no politician is ever going to have the guts to put them back up again.
If interest rates go up again the Govt has only itself to blame.
- Posted by: george on May 10, 2006 8:55 AM
The Treasurer said that the Australian budget had weathered 'economic storms every bit as deadly as the cyclones that lashed the north of our continent in the early part of this year.' Wouldn't it be wonderful if a bit of our $10.8 billion surplus was shared with those who are weathering the real storms in our world? Like the 30,000 children who will die today from hunger and preventable disease? Or the 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS?
After 15 years of uninterrupted economic growth and 9 surplus budgets in the last 10 years, you'd think that Australia would already be doing it's fair share to Make Poverty History. But we still only give 30c out of every $100 of our national income in aid to the poor. Australians are the second most generous private contributors to aid, after the Irish. However, Australia comes 19th in the list of 22 rich country donors. It's past time that the Australian government lived up to the generosity of its people and gave its fair share of aid.
- Posted by: ben on May 10, 2006 8:57 AM
Why an extra $10 billion in defence spending? Have we not anything more worthy to spend that type of funding on rather than following the whim of a man hell bent on creating the next "Empire"???
- Posted by: atanas on May 10, 2006 8:58 AM
The big winners are the high income earners in this year's budget, again. I found myself wondering what Mr Costello had planned for those low to middle income earners burdened by excess personal debt. Not much it would seem.
With his trademark smirk, in an interview with Laurie Oaks, he took delight in the fact that BANKS and mining companies were hugely profitable and filled government coffers with plenty of cash to burn. That's right, banks have no doubt done their bit for the Federal Government coffers, it is just a shame that Mr Costello seems to have forgotten where a bulk of their profits originate.
Should we expect increases in personal bankruptcies in the near future? I think so! Mr Costello had better hope the Reserve Bank doesn't increase interest rates again any time soon.
- Posted by: John McPhilbin on May 10, 2006 9:00 AM
Excessive budget surpluses are just as much a sign of bad management as excessive deficits. unfortunately none of the so called experts are mentioning this.
- Posted by: Nadim Joukhadar on May 10, 2006 9:02 AM
q: Is the economy considers to be strong if the GOVT annouces a surplus? How does the surplus helps the economy?
I believe the people are too use to the status-quo and happy to collect any crumbs which are thrown at them; rather they/we should demand lower incomes tax-cuts! The GOVT's job is to serve the people; the GOVT will be a sleep if we are a sleep. Those who think that the opposition will come and fix everything are kidding themselves. Lets not sit back and wait for something to happen, lets take the initiative and demand 'as a nation' from the GOVT to provide income tax-cuts!
- Posted by: Hazza on May 10, 2006 9:03 AM
Weren't we promined tax cuts for middle income earners? Most people's petrol and mortgage bills have gone up by more than the 10 bucks average income earners get from this budget. This is three consecutive budgets when the wealthiest have benefited the most. When are people going to say enough is enough?
Aside from the tax cuts what about responsible planning for the future? This budget had very little for universities and nothing that I know about for clean, renewable energy. But, they are buying some more big plans for the army to fly tanks around to get us more oil!
- Posted by: Guy Curtis on May 10, 2006 9:04 AM
Another year, another obscene, pork-barrelling spending spree from the Howard Government.
I DON'T WANT A TAX CUT - I'd rather the money go to investment in education, water conservation, roads and transport infrastructure, health, tax reform, a saner superannuation system.
Like the Carr government did with stamp duty windfalls from the property boom, Costello is riding the mineral resources boom and when it ends ... get ready for it people, it will be time to pay the piper.
- Posted by: Dave on May 10, 2006 9:04 AM
Currently working overseas. Nice improvement on the tax but still way too high. Should have a flat tax at 15-20%.
- Posted by: V Lee on May 10, 2006 9:05 AM
It's about time there was a cut of the top bracket.
I for each of the last few years have been paying about double the 'average income' in income tax alone, meaning around 100K a year, give or take. On top of that there are things like Luxury car tax, capital gains, excises on this, that and the other, and the GST that we all have to pay. For those average income earners complaining about people on high incomes finally getting a tax break, try considering how much we are actually paying.
I work 60+ hour weeks to earn my money, and have worked my arse off to get where I am. I've always found it appaling that those of us who have put in the time and effort it takes to get to this point have been giving away almost half our incomes in tax. I believe that the decision to make the cut was a very good one.
That being said, this is another attempt from the Howard Government to have people forget their wrongdoings, like the new IR laws. Lets see if people actually have the common sense to remember things like that when election time rolls around, rather than taking the story about interest rates once again. The only problem is, the only other party who have a realistic chance of winning an election are a steaming pile of garbage too. I do however firmly believe in the 'lesser of two evils' theory. Lets hope the rest of Australia does as well.
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 9:05 AM
Straight class warfare.
Nothing for most - ie. services.
- Posted by: Evan Hadkins on May 10, 2006 9:07 AM
Typical ingrates. Newspaper headlines, talk of people going without food and people crying to high heaven when petrol is costing an extra $40 a month but get handed an extra $60 a month and now it's not going to make any difference? Whinge whinge - nobody owes you anything.
- Posted by: MF on May 10, 2006 9:07 AM
What BS Budget. It is the fourth year in a row that the top earners - that includes the polies, of course - get the most of the cuts. Middle AU gets SFO.
Super changes are a good idea.
- Posted by: Les Garam on May 10, 2006 9:10 AM
Rich budget?! What a load of nonsense!
Those who have an income of $150K get $120 per week in their pocket, while those on $40K only get $40 a week. So the rich get more! BOO HOOO!
Stop your whinning!
If you look at it as a percentage you will see that for the person on 150K's extra little bit per week is 0.045% of his overall pay, while the person on 40K is getting 0.1% more than double.
The rich are NOT getting richer while the poor get poorer with these figures! Grow up and understand the facts. Just because it is more money doesnt mean it's a greater percentage.
All this left wing journalism makes me sick sometimes (Ross Gittens)
- Posted by: braveduck on May 10, 2006 9:11 AM
People don't have kids "for the country". I have kids because I love them, and I don't expect anyone else to fund it.
As for the "the rich get richer" droning. Get off your arse and earn more money... then you'll understand what it feels like to earn even a modest $60k (like me) and have the welfare crowd steal a third of it.
- Posted by: Scott on May 10, 2006 9:13 AM
When has the difference between working hard and "working hard" been fairly reflected by way of financial reward? Why are some people convinced that a salary of 100K obviously indicates they work 4 times as hard as a person on 25K? Does your higher income also mean you are smarter, faster, more intuitive, taller, and more beautiful? Some comments here are as saddening as the budget itself.
- Posted by: Roberto on May 10, 2006 9:13 AM
Well, so much for that. As a single income earner, I fall slap into the section where you get the least benefit. Don't get me wrong, more in my pocket is nice, but I'd rather it went to the Hospitals and schools. Mental health needed ten times what they got. I think this budget lacked vision, and wasted an opportunity to plug the dyke before it all comes crashing down.
But it will appease the masses, and so the country will embrace the Howard way once more. I think my small tax gains will mostly be spent on the pills that make me forget.....
- Posted by: Caitlin on May 10, 2006 9:13 AM
This is one of the most short sighted, feel good budgets I have ever seen. Sure a tax cut always comes in handy, but not when the surplus used to fund the tax cuts relies primarily on a resource boom which WILL (AS THEY ALWAYS DO) run out.
AND BY THE WAY, WHAT THE TREASURER ANNOUNCED LAST NIGHT IS NOT TAX REFORM - THEY ARE TAX CUTS! Tax reform is something totally different and last nights efforts do not come close.
We live in an incredibly (and increasingly) competitive global economy. Our government has just spent $36 billion on short-term tax relief when it could have spent a significant proportion of that on "fire-proofing" the Australian economony for the future. This could have been achieved through investments and initialities in education, information technology, renewable resourcess, transportation and infrastructure and not to mention our health system. Investments in these areas affect us all!
Instead, the treasurer has decidec to pump-prime the economy the only way he and his pork-barelling buddies in Canberra know how!
Shame Peter Costello shame!
What was it that Prime Minister Howard said about putting downward presssure on interest rates??? Pedal to the metel ladies and gentlement!!!!
- Posted by: Steven on May 10, 2006 9:16 AM
Mr Costella is going to spend an extra A$623 million for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, A$1.9 billion for new military transport planes, and more than A$10 billion for future defence initiatives. This compare to A$248 million in incentives to encourage couples to have more children in a bid to counter a falling birth rate and looming labour shortages. What's the logic?
- Posted by: E.Lee on May 10, 2006 9:17 AM
Here is the real story to lighten the Budget discussion! You've heard the cry in the last 5 or 6 days from across Australia: "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is accepted as fact. But what does that really mean? The following explanation may help.
Suppose that every night, 10 men go out for dinner at La Porchetta's. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, and it went like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.
* The fifth paid $1.
* The sixth $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.
All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said: "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?
They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggested reducing each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
* The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (3% saving).
* The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
* The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
* The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
* The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for free, but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"That's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of it.
That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Monaco and the Caribbean.
With thanks to David R. Kamerschen, Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.
- Posted by: Jae on May 10, 2006 9:18 AM
To you all who knock the "rich" - I work hard but why should I be taxed a lot so much so it tantamounts to supporting say, 3 families - mine and 2 others. This is why I don't donate money because I have already "donated". Why should the Govt take what that belongs to my children and give to someone else's children?
- Posted by: trina on May 10, 2006 9:18 AM
For all of you liars who said "The tax cuts should have gone into education or health"... your local school or hospital is staffed and awaiting your generous donation...
silence ... I thought so..
- Posted by: Scott on May 10, 2006 9:19 AM
I'm one of those in the $80,000+ bracket - and I'm going to get a nice little bonus with the tax cuts.
I've got a mortgage like everyone else, and I'm already cutting back on things to pay off the loan as quickly as I can. But do I really need this tax cut. Absolutely NOT !! I'd much rather see all this money being spent on things we really need, like infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, roads and environment.
This tax cut is wasted on me as I don't need it - and I'd much rather see this go towards everyone in the community who will get benefit out of, rather than lining my hip pocket.
These tax cuts seem to be open slather for a buying spree which will push up inflation, followed by interest rates - meaning that those already doing it tough, will find it even harder in the coming months, especially when the inevitable interest rate rises swallow any of the measly return that they're getting back.
- Posted by: Richard Bolt on May 10, 2006 9:20 AM
I know my fuel bill has gone up more than $10 in the last month so there goes that cash and by the looks of the budget, this applies to 80% of the population.
I think it strange that 'anthony' should say that we should 'thank god' for any tax cut we receive. A strange title for the treasurer?
Don't forget that you put in hard work to give them that money and they are just giving you back a few coins.
What is more important is what they do with the money they are supplied with in a non-individual sense. The election mandate seems to have very long legs indeed.
- Posted by: Steve on May 10, 2006 9:22 AM
Albert said "SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO MAKE OWNING A RENTAL PROPERTY MORE ATTACTIVE."
If interest rates went up and property fell 70-80% then rental yield would make owning rental property attractive to me.
Until then renting a rental property is more attractive to me.
- Posted by: The Claw on May 10, 2006 9:23 AM
The Tax cuts are always welcome, shame it doesn't cover the extra Fuel and Interest Rate Rise. The money would be better spent on Hospitals and Schools. PS I have no children so this is not self interest. The super incentive is overdue, but it's heading in the right direction.
- Posted by: John on May 10, 2006 9:24 AM
I don't think it's a BAD budget, with some lip service given to incentivise hard work, but it is very disapointing there has been little REFORM and lacking in vision, as in simplify the system, rub out deductions, broaden the base further, and reduce the rort that between company rate and personal rates. $1.5bn is spent annually by taxpayers sorting out their affairs, this is totally unproductive for the nation.
Super tax should also be axed.
- Posted by: Enrico Palazzo on May 10, 2006 9:26 AM
I think that is good to most of the society. Even thought the middle to higher incomer have the most benefits, it encourages people to stay working in Aussie and not go overseas.
- Posted by: jojo on May 10, 2006 9:27 AM
tracey, why do you equate people on lower pay with laziness? there are many jobs that don't pay highly, but are extremely important - social workers, cleaners, child care workers - and they work extremely hard.
and as to why the rich pay more, it's because they can. they have enough to live comfortably, and so it is part of their responsibility to help provide for those who are less fortunate. stop being so selfish.
- Posted by: pam on May 10, 2006 9:29 AM
This is a sham budget, we get to have money our money in reality spend on critical infrastructure upgrades which have been in desperate need of serious federal spending for over a decade.
If the federal govt is so cashed up surely it can bail out the NSW state govt who are so intent on selling off the Hydro to cover up their own fiscal follies.
Or is this just another way of diverting our eyes away from the court challenge to the I.R. legislation which has stripped away any job security we used to have. How safe if your mortgauge, car repayments or credit card debt with no job security?
- Posted by: Mick on May 10, 2006 9:30 AM
To those who think the rich get richer, try earning AUD 100,000 and pay the taxes accordingly. Then ask if you will enjoy the tax cut.I am immigrant with income 100,110 per annum.Only been in the country for 6 years.Never received any benefits and never used the health services. The harder you work the money you should keep.I challenge those who think the rich get richer. Is it my fault that the lower income decides to stay on a lower income and then complain the higher income gets higher tax break.Try earning 100,000 and feel the pain of paying high taxes.
- Posted by: Aran on May 10, 2006 9:30 AM
After reading all these comments (very interesting), it appears there should be more budget mney for spelng clsses four youse all.
- Posted by: Bruiser on May 10, 2006 9:30 AM
Im surprised at how many "high earners" in this blog believe that have absolutly no obligation to help and support those people less fortunate than themselves. It's not about the bludgers..there will always be bludgers... its about not creating a massive unjumpable gap between rich and poor. that is why you are taxed so high...and that is why the others are taxed so low and deserve more of the winfall when it comes back. If it doesnt work like that then those caught on the bottom of the ladder will NEVER break out of the poverty cycle and neither will their families. Go visit some badly run countries like those in South America and South Africa... you will see first hand the chasm created by a small middle class.
Have some social responsibility and help your fellow man!
- Posted by: Bionic on May 10, 2006 9:33 AM
People say that this budget is for the riches only. Let's not forget the changes to LITO (Lower Income Tax Offsets). For a person on $1m salary, he or she stands to receive $450 tax cut per week. However, that only represent a 4.5% increase in his or her pay.
On the other hand, for a person on $25,000 salaray, he or she stands to receive $19.44 extra per week. That is an increase of 4.5% as well.
So overall, I think it is a pretty balanced budget.
- Posted by: Raymond Lou on May 10, 2006 9:35 AM
A drover's dog could have delivered last night's budget!
(Spelling ok Bruiser?)
- Posted by: Bill on May 10, 2006 9:35 AM
Hand off superannuation completly, this is the money we put away for our retirement.Abolish the CGT the most unfair tax of all,we put at risk our own money in the share market if we make a profit on the sale we have to give half to the tax man.Give people the incentive to save and be self sufficient for their our retirement, we will not then be a burden to the governament.
- Posted by: maria del simone on May 10, 2006 9:36 AM
It seem the prevalant attitude here is that the richer you are the more you deserve and everyone else can just go to hell. Was Australia always like this?
- Posted by: Oscar on May 10, 2006 9:37 AM
Scott - I would gladly give my $10 tax cut (or whatever it is) to my local hospital/school but what good would this really do them - buy them a few extra pens a week? However, if the government gave everyone's tax cuts to health/education they would have some real money to make real improvements.
- Posted by: Kate on May 10, 2006 9:39 AM
Scott said: "For all of you liars who said 'The tax cuts should have gone into education or health'... your local school or hospital is staffed and awaiting your generous donation..."
...Um Scott that is why we pay tax, these are the collective benefits that singularly we cannot afford but as a group can provide for all. Gee I know that sounds awful like 'socialist propaganda' but the concept of the society that you propose is already in existence. If you like the US that much go join George, there are a few politicians at the moment who you may wish to take with you too!
If you choose to stay it would probably be best if we abolish all government...let the market adjust our lives after all we are but mere numbers in a universe of rubbery economical figures.
- Posted by: James on May 10, 2006 9:39 AM
I always find it a little hard to comprehend the annual budget whinge that middle and low income earners have been left out. That they don't end up with as much in the pocket from tax cuts and that the higher income earners end up with more. It?s a sliding percentage scale guys!.... don?t worry, high income earners still pay a hell of a lot more tax than the low/middle income earners. And as a group probably ask a lot less of the social purse (ok that?s potentially inflammatory but go on, consider it!)
Before you scoff, I am a middle income earner.
I don?t know if it is from years of high taxation conditioning but I feel a little guilty about the tax break. Would have preferred to see the money spent on just about anything else in the community. Especially considering the likelihood that this tax break will go straight back in interest payments once the RBA has it chance to respond. Till then, I'll beat that mortgage down that little bit more!
- Posted by: Ad on May 10, 2006 9:39 AM
as a high income earner i am getting a nice tax cut and thanks for that. i don't even have to spend it on rugrats, yippee!
to be honest though, i'd happily give up my tax cuts if it meant this monstrosity of this warmongering rascist homophobic government was out at the next election.
all you poor people and families bleating about not getting enough of this budget - stop voting in this government. you only have yourselves to blame.
- Posted by: toriness on May 10, 2006 9:39 AM
I can see it now, left-wing mongering with street interviews in lower socio-economic areas about the budget and ACA and TT hammering us with bad luck stories.
It makes me sick. People who earn lower incomes somehow believe the world owes them something. I work as hard as people at any income level and whilst spending needs to be in more needy areas (roads, hospitals), I will take whatever tax benefit is on offer.
- Posted by: Adam on May 10, 2006 9:40 AM
Just reading all the comments.... It is a real honour to live in a country with all these understanding compassionate loving caring people...
I feel so proud of all of you.
Keep up you great attitudes.
- Posted by: Peter Cost on May 10, 2006 9:42 AM
People say it's a budget for the riches. But let's not forget changes to LITO (Low Income Tax Offsets)
Here's a guide:
$10,000 - tax cut of $7.02 per week (+3.6%)
$25,000 - tax cut of $19.44 per week (+4.5%)
$50,000 - tax cut of $9.81 per week (+1.3%)
$100,000 - tax cut of $51.93 per week (+3.8%)
$1,000,000 - tax cut of $446.15 per week (+4.2%)
So overall I think the budget is pretty balanced.
- Posted by: Raymond Lou on May 10, 2006 9:43 AM
I am over the moon over this budget as I am 55 and wealthy and will now pay almost no tax for the rest of my life. Forget the changes to the tax rates. They are insignificant.
The superannuation changes in this and and the previous budget (elimination of super surcharge) now ensure that most of the wealthiest people in the country need pay only 15% income tax on their earned and investment income while they work. The investment income then becomes tax free after they retire early at age 60. How, you may ask? Simply by salary sacrificing most of their wages into their DIY super fund and funding their day to day living through preferably, their accumulated savings or else their borrowing. This effectively gears money into their super fund where it is also taxed at only 15%.
The beauty of this is that the wealthy are able to masquerade as poor by dramatically reducing their taxable income, so becoming eligible for many goodies such as FTB - Part A, govt super co-contribs, etc and avoiding charges such as the medicare levy.
Who pays for this huge reduction in their tax? Guess who, suckers.
I wonder what will happen to the luxury car market now that company cars are a very bad option for tax saving for the wealthy over-50's.
WHY HAS THE GOVERNMENT DONE THIS and WHY ISN'T THE MEDIA SCREAMING?
- Posted by: steve on May 10, 2006 9:44 AM
I was in tears last night. Not that I expected any help but I am really desperately struggling. I am recieving a disability pension. I had a stroke 12 months ago which has left me with a paralysed right arm (my dominant one). To top it all off, I have a mental illness.
- Posted by: Cathy Page on May 10, 2006 9:46 AM
When reading some of the comments, one doesn't know if to laugh or cry...
It seems a few of the high earners feel their taxes are being used to support low earners..:) Why do you people don't see that your hard earn dollars are helping mantain the expense created by deploying troops in Iraq? Now that I don't like!!
I am one of the lucky ones, we have a combine income of over 100k before tax, so we are going to get a nice cut in our taxes.
Now, a tax cut is always welcome, but I do think that it would have been much better spend if that money was going towards our Hospitals and Schools.
And for some that say why don't I just donate my tax cut, I am telling you, that I already donate to many different charities in Australia and overseas.
Let's get real, and see this budget for what it is..a vote buying exercise for the next election...let's foget the appauling new Industrial Relations that will affect thousands of low income earners in this country (and by the way, I will not be affected by those either)...and put at risk lives by leaving safety to the bosses.
- Posted by: Berta on May 10, 2006 9:46 AM
I think it is good that there are tax cuts for everyone. What is fair is fair. Problem in our society is the 'tall poppy' syndrome is pretty much alive and well. People feel the need to 'equalise' achievers. And you know what else? What Malcolm Turnbull said is true. The really 'rich' people don't really pay big taxes. They can afford all these elaborate tax schemes via trusts, etc. Why is the ATO investigating all these lawyers and judges? I say eliminate these trust schemes, reduce reductions and reduce tax rates. Now that's simpler and fairer for everyone. For all those who still believe the rich are getting richer with these tax cuts, "dream on". You're barking up the wrong tree.
- Posted by: Chris on May 10, 2006 9:47 AM
Still to high, the most income will be at around 20%, Economy will grow fast. US rates of 35% are still to high. Start dropping rates, eliminate deductions and write offs, have economy grow at 7 to 12% a year.
- Posted by: Robert Jewett on May 10, 2006 9:47 AM
The rich are getting richer. The poor get the picture. The bombs never hit ya when your down so low. The bosses want decissions. The workers need ambitions. There won't be no collisions when they move so slow.....You wouldn't read about it!
- Posted by: Oily on May 10, 2006 9:47 AM
What this budget did is not improve quality of life for the working class. As he could have achieved this by adjusting the tax brackets as he did and $75,000 is a reasonable cut off. However he could have gave 1cent on the upper two brackets and another 2 or 3 at the bottom two brackets to increase the overall quality of life of about 80% of all Australians.
Something they did not mention is that the often attractive salary sacrifice offered by benevolent groups whom cant afford to pay as much as other sectors offer is now worth less in real value. Especially since not many people I know working for these employers are in the top two brackets.
However, quality of life isnt important to this government, as we have seen by Industrial reform and so many other actions. I have no party affiliation but believe that sometimes we need to stand up for those who all so often do not have a voice heard.
- Posted by: Richard on May 10, 2006 9:47 AM
WELLLLLL anyone that earns under the top threshold should be shot....what a drain on society you pesky low to middle income earners are, grow up and get a life stop whinging, don't like it get a 3rd job
- Posted by: AG on May 10, 2006 9:48 AM
What a two-faced society we live in!!
First of all, everyone is complaining about the cost of petrol and how the goverment should do something about it, yet when they are given more a week in tax cuts then it would take to combat the rising fuel prices, it's war on the government for not giving it to schools and hospitals!
It might not be a perfect budget, as nothing is ever perfect. But think about it this way: we have no debt, for consecutive years we have enjoyed a massive surplus and our economy just keeps booming.
Maybe next year the government should just give all the surplus to developing countries and aid organisations. Then it would reach people who would REALLY appreciate it.
- Posted by: Louisa on May 10, 2006 9:49 AM
my wife and I earn in excess of $150 each - so we get a combined tax reduction worth some $2000 per month - that'll help us pay off our holiday home in France, but not sure what we'll do with what's left? Maybe buy another investment property in the eastern Suburbs (we already have 5). Thanks for the $$$ Peter!!! I'm glad worked hard at school, bet some of you wish you had too!!
- Posted by: richerbyfar! on May 10, 2006 9:51 AM
It's a budget for the governments' true constituents, isn't it. Shame I'm not one of them.
More an observation than a whinge as realistically, the $9 extra a week isn't that big a deal to me. With the state of our roads, hospitals, schools etc, I'd have been happier to see my supposed tax relief go towards improving these things. Then again with such a huge surplus, why isn't the government putting the money into fixing what really needs fixing as a rule? Can anyone out there with even a rudimentary understanding of economics explain that one to me? As a tax payer (& I really have no problem with the fact that I have to pay tax) I don't think I'm wrong in expecting my tax dollars to go towards improving the infrastructure of the society I live in. What's the point in the government sitting on it so they can brag about how much of a surplus we have?
- Posted by: Karl on May 10, 2006 9:51 AM
I am not really concerned with the Tax cuts, I have a comfortable life - total DINK. So they are not going to affect me in real terms. High petrol prices, increased interest rates is just par for an expanding economy. For the most part all Australians are remarkably well off compared to 30 or more years ago. Which leads me to my one problem with the budget... IS the only environmental issue in Australia the Murray Darling? It will be nice when we are all in morgage free homes, driving nice cars, and all sickness is cured but what if we have no clean water to drink, no arable land to farm, and only polluted air to breathe. It is cheaper to arrest environmental degredation now because down the line it will cost the Australian Government (aka taxpayers) a heck of a lot of money.
- Posted by: Ethical Professional on May 10, 2006 9:53 AM
Well maybe it is time for total tax reform. Upon saying that why not go the whole hog and really shake up the system.
Lets make the tax free threshold $40k a year and everyone above that pays a flat 35%.
Raise GST to 15% and encourage a national savings plan to get money re-invested back in to the country.
The higher GST should counter the additional spending from the lower rungs of society and hence inflation while leaving the tax office to chase after high end tax cheats, fraudulent investment companies, developers etc while allowing ASIC some real powers of arrest, so corporate crime which is virtually a scot free ticked to rip off on a major scale can be curtailed.
But that will take real will which is why I am leaving this country. The writing is on the wall it's only a matter of when not if the whole place implodes so like many of this countrys brightest I am moving myself, my business and my family away to a place where they understand capital investment not just fiscal policy to placate the masses.
- Posted by: Mick on May 10, 2006 9:56 AM
To all you whingers complaining about how well everyone who's rich got it. I worked through high school to support myself. Not that I didn't have parents just they were farmers going through high intrest and heavy drought in the mid 90's. So they literally couldn't afford anything, not even food. I worked my backside off and got good marks. I debted myself up to go to uni, worked again, got a degree in engineering. Now after 5 years working I'm happily pushing up the income tables. And due to a stable government(among other factors), my parents are doing well too.
So before you start complaining about how you got it so rough. How about you get off your ass and do something about it yourself, instead of waiting for a handout!
- Posted by: Paul on May 10, 2006 9:57 AM
I am a high income earner and I'll be taking max benefits out of this so I'm happy to have a pay-rise I haven't earned and to have more in my take home each month. Having said that, there are many more useful things for the government to do with our money.
James, you're on the money. Scott, "put your money where your mouth is" is such a lame argument. I heard this recently from someone who put it forward as a reason I'm not entitled to an opinion - guess you couldn't think of anything else?
- Posted by: Joseph on May 10, 2006 9:58 AM
Do you want to have lots more money for schools hospitials, roads, Etc.? Then cut the marginial tax rates a lot more. Regan cut the US Tax rate drasticly, and ended up with 50% more money in the federal till. Now the Congress went out and spent 90% more, but at least it was there to spend.
If you think raising taxes will give the goverment more taxes, raise them to 100%. the goverment will get 100% of nothing. nobody will work. drop the tax rate to 20-30 % and more people will be working, robust growth in the economy, High income earners will make more, invest more, hire more workers, the revenue the goverment reveives will be more, a lot more.
- Posted by: Robert Jewett on May 10, 2006 10:01 AM
The super change is good. Now all they need to do is up the minimum contribution from 9% to around 10% in 2007, 11% in 2008 and 13% by 2010.
Once the government does that, the tax free status of super will effectively mean that the generation with 20+ years before retirement - and the ones that follow them - will be almost certain to be self funded retirees.
- Posted by: Jon on May 10, 2006 10:02 AM
Budget 2006 is crap. Majority of income earners get $10 a week savings while high income earners get $120 a week savings. So UNFAIR !!!!!
I have 2 kids under 5. There is nothing in the budget to decrease my child care costs (I work 3 days and pay $330 a week for 2 kids in daycare for 3 days a week).
The Government threshold of $40,000 for FTB is ridiculously low. Any family with 2 working people achieves that.
All in all there is nothing for us except a $10 a week savings. I am paying $40 a week more just in Petrol (and I haven't even taken in to account increased mortgage payments due to interest rate rise).
- Posted by: FK on May 10, 2006 10:05 AM
Surely one of the stupidest, most short sighted Budgets in a while. It seems to do very little about the real problems and in the not too distant future it's going to get wiped out - and then some - by the interest rate rises that it generates.
What does it do for Australia in the long term?
- Posted by: Michelle on May 10, 2006 10:06 AM
I think this is a freaking Joke!
It is going to benefit only 500 thousand people out of a population of 20 million.
No more comments.. do your maths
- Posted by: Magda on May 10, 2006 10:06 AM
I think that Peter Costello has a problem with his perspective on the budget.
I know that the bulk of the aggregate of the tax cuts go to families and people on low incomes... but I think the people perceive it in terms the fact that the (few) people on high incomes get a reduction in the rate, while low-medium income earners don't, and the fact that high income earners will pay significantly less tax, while the reduction in tax paid by average income earners doesn't seem all that great.
I think that raising the top two tax thresholds is a great idea, (coz it allows tax cuts without cutting tax), and there is something in the way of "Incentive" in it. But reducing rates is silly, because although it doesn't cost the government much, it's perceived as a big handout by everyone who doesn't get it (which in this case, is most people). The fact that high income earners already pay significantly more tax isn't necessarily the first thing that comes to mind when other people get big tax breaks and you don't.
- Posted by: Robert on May 10, 2006 10:07 AM
Thanks for nothing,my tax rates stays the same, while I am not entirely against cutting the high rates of tax what about middle income earners. I agree with Anthony those poor dears earning over 100K bleating about not being rich. I earn less then half of that and I know a lot more people who earn a lot less, shut up your whinging and be grateful that you had the chance to get an education that enables you to earn big bucks. Some of us didn't get the breaks you got, and we are the ones who suffer.
- Posted by: Carmel on May 10, 2006 10:07 AM
Hurrah, oh the joy.
Each week, Peter and his band of merry men happily take about $300 out of my pay packet.
It is most generous of them to give me back about $10 per week of it.
Yet another budget in which the middle class childless man with a mortgage is shafted - I think that makes about 11 of them.
- Posted by: Matt on May 10, 2006 10:07 AM
I hear alot of arguments that the government should of given the money to schools and hospitals. But why should the government subsidise incompetent labor state governments. The shift blame by these socilaist left winges is astonishing to say the least.
- Posted by: John on May 10, 2006 10:07 AM
I have a sense of social responsibility and and is willing to help my fellow man - but no one should force it down anyone's throat ! I remembered a time when I was unemployed - I couldn't even qualify some unemployment benefit despite all the taxes I paid before.
- Posted by: trina on May 10, 2006 10:08 AM
What does this government do to encourage employers to offer jobs to skilled professionals in their 50s?
What good are all these tax cuts if once you have gained all that work experience you find yourself unemployed and unable to find work, simply because you're too old for this market?
- Posted by: Tedy on May 10, 2006 10:08 AM
Changes to Superannuation Taxation - what a joke! Don't be conned by the less-than dynamic duo's rhetoric. Perhaps I am too cynical ("lets con some old people into voting for us"), but any changes they mention may never happen - a closer look indicates that this is a plan for evaluation and action no sooner than 1 July 2007. Reforms - bull!
- Posted by: Geoff Young on May 10, 2006 10:09 AM
Annual Savings from tax cuts for selected income groups are as follows:
$35000 is $750,
$40,000-$64000 is $510,
$65000 is $750,
$70000 is $1350 and so on.
Which indicates that a biggest upset for the person who are earning in between $40,000 to $64,000 - this group is really neglected.
- Posted by: Dr M Mohsin on May 10, 2006 10:09 AM
Enjoy your tax cuts - just pray you don't need a hospital or your kids don't need quality schools or unis. This isn't economic management - it is simply underspending on essential services in order to buy people's votes with cash in pockets.
- Posted by: Andrew on May 10, 2006 10:10 AM
Just in response to a couple of posts, lets start with this one:
Roberto says "When has the difference between working hard and "working hard" been fairly reflected by way of financial reward? Why are some people convinced that a salary of 100K obviously indicates they work 4 times as hard as a person on 25K? Does your higher income also mean you are smarter, faster, more intuitive, taller, and more beautiful? Some comments here are as saddening as the budget itself."
So, how many years did you spend at university getting degrees to qualify you for a job that didn't pay 25k? Yeah, I thought so. People earning 25K a year are earning a low income because they chose to. They made the choice indirectly at about high school age, by not putting in the effort. Some people put in the time and effort with their education to get ahead later in life. Like it or not, it's a fact.
I'd also safely say that I do work 4 times harder than somebody on 25K. I work from 8am to 6pm every day, rarely get a break, and am responsible for over 100 staff. Once 6pm comes I go home, eat dinner, play with my kids for a while, then get on my laptop and work some more. I also work weekends and am basically on call 24x7. Yeah, people on high incomes aren't just handed cash to sit in an office. Get a clue, please.
Then we have coments like this:
Pam says "and as to why the rich pay more, it's because they can. they have enough to live comfortably, and so it is part of their responsibility to help provide for those who are less fortunate. stop being so selfish."
Why is it 'part of our responsibility' to help anybody? Why do so many people think somebody owes them something? This is the kind of attitude that completely sickens me. It basically tells people on low incomes that people who earn more money have to support them, because for some mysterious reason we owe them something because of the situation they have created for themselves. This is the kind of thing that makes certain people think that they have no responsibility to support themselves.
Fortunately there are still people around with the dignity to pay their own way through life and not expect constant handouts. If everybody thought like Pam, we would need an income tax rate for all of about 99%.
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 10:13 AM
I don't understand why Costello couldn't just increase the tax free threshold to $7,000 per year. That would give everyone the exact tax break.
Oh dear - too egalitarian perhaps?? A bit too socialist??
- Posted by: Karen on May 10, 2006 10:15 AM
Run down hospitals, skills shortages, no long term "clever country" plan, and foreign debt at astounding levels - all we will be left with after the commodities boom will be a clapped out quarry of a country with the super rich in enclaves.
- Posted by: Tim Looker on May 10, 2006 10:16 AM
I make too much money, so I don't care about the budget and I really don't care about what other people think or the fact that they are struggling. I am looking after numero uno, welcome to the new world people!
- Posted by: Tony on May 10, 2006 10:19 AM
Just in response to Mark's post. Last year I worked 3 times as hard as you, per your reasoning. Pull your finger out you slacker.
- Posted by: Joseph on May 10, 2006 10:21 AM
"So, how many years did you spend at university getting degrees to qualify you for a job that didn't pay 25k? Yeah, I thought so. People earning 25K a year are earning a low income because they chose to. They made the choice indirectly at about high school age, by not putting in the effort. Some people put in the time and effort with their education to get ahead later in life. Like it or not, it's a fact."
Mark, you are a moron.....
- Posted by: Karl on May 10, 2006 10:23 AM
I am amazed at the varying degrees of attitudes displayed which seems to depend on how much you earn. How sad this nation has become!! So revoltingly classist.
- Posted by: Dannyboi on May 10, 2006 10:23 AM
Hmm... looking to iritate the average family ?
1 - Make lots of noise about a budget to help the average family.
2 - Make sure that the 2 child, 2 working parents earning 30,000 -40,000 are the least rewarded with the latest budget.
3 - Also make certain that you don't do anything else to subsidise family day care.
Well done Costello... full marks.
You really are an idiot mate.
- Posted by: Mike on May 10, 2006 10:25 AM
The government should have spent the 37 billion dollars on reducing our contribution to climate change.
With that sort of money Australia could slash its CO2 production and switch over to clean energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal hot rocks. What a difference that would have made...
Instead we'll all get an extra $10 a week in our pay packets so we can afford to buy even more energy and destroy the world faster. Good work Costello.
- Posted by: Anthony on May 10, 2006 10:26 AM
I've heard so many people on this blog make the comment - 'The people who work hard for the money are finally getting a tax break'...
Please enlighten me by explaining how someone on a $60 - $80K a year salary works any less than someone on a $200K salary.
I'm not saying that one deserves more of a break than the other, I'm just disgusted with some of the arrogance displayed by people here.
Poking fun at the western suburbians and laughing at those who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths is just low.
This country would fall apart without the 'men in the middle' who keep the economy ticking over.
Peter, you can keep my extra $9 a week put it towards more money for education and health if you're 'investing in our country's future' as you've suggested.
- Posted by: Matt on May 10, 2006 10:26 AM
What happens to tax cuts when we all have to start paying off our overseas debt? It seems that all off Howard's admirers will be dead by then and the economic mess will be left to younger generations to clean up. The "baby boomers" are the ones who benefit most from the reign of John Howard. They have no conscience, be it, on a social, enviromental or on a social one. It's great to see the gloating and smug self satisfaction that knows no bounds in this forum. The future will see this time as the "Thatcher years of Australia". The trail left behind wil be a vacuum of personal debt, degraded social infrastructure and an economic legacy for generations to come. It will be the "boomer's" grandchildren who will pay the price. But, of course they don't care because they only want to think about the "now". They have created the stigma that even "questioning" a government's actions is unpatriotic, "un-Australian". Once this government has finished "buying-off" elections, maybe Howard's loyal voters will wake up and realise that what has been created is irreversible and that the "pay-off" holds much graver consequences. Of course I'm being really "un-Australian" to even think such thoughts aren't I?
- Posted by: Alison Cole on May 10, 2006 10:26 AM
At the end of the day the govt has:
- increased its redistribution towards those on incomes below $25k;
- cut income taxes for top income earners ie $70k+ (I dont think that the 80% who missed out significant tax cuts this year will miss out pre-election budget next year;
- slightly increased services, payments to the states, and capital construction; and
- set aside money for future superannuation tax reform.
Not a budget with any real solutions to the capacity constraints on the economy, (low unemployment, infrastructure bottlenecks etc.) If the National Reform Agenda (an agreement with the States to increase economic efficiency) had played a larger role we may have taken the opportnity to undertake some real reform and increase the level of prosperity in the future.
On a slightly seperate note: Pasquale wrote: "We need a system where your representation is related to your level of taxation. Then I would get my share of say." You fail to note that this can only lead to one long term outcome - autocracy, which is probably not an optimal outcome
- Posted by: Etin + Yad on May 10, 2006 10:30 AM
Hey Mark.. You are a fool. There is only one reason people worl from 8am to 6pm with no break, and then do more later at night. That is: either they have too much work to do, or they are not very good at what they do. Either way, its your fault so get a real life and go home early so you can play with your kids all evening and then spend time with your wife. Life is about living not working. You are a product of your own consumer driven nightmare
- Posted by: Roger on May 10, 2006 10:34 AM
In response to Mark's comments: Mark can you really spare that half an hour or so you set aside to play with your kids? Time is money mate and you wouldnt want to miss a cent after all the effort you have put in.
I feel sorry for your kids. I really do
- Posted by: Mathew on May 10, 2006 10:35 AM
Oh dear...I can feel the 'interest rates we had to have' coming on! Still, with 21% mortgage rates whilst treasurer (which is far inexcess of anything Labor produced), John Howard's interest rates scare campaign was always going to reveal itself as fantasy! If this is a mid-cycle budget one can only imagine what next year holds! I suppose with AWB, WorkChoices and the gammit of other Howard Government stuff-ups there'll be alot of amnesia to purchase!
- Posted by: Adam on May 10, 2006 10:35 AM
Since when does earning obscene incomes equate to "Working Hard"?.
Obviously the Sydney CBD is burgeoning with arrogant overpaid fat cats whose primary concern is from where there next Latte' is likely to come !!!
This budget is both short sighted and naive. Any half arsed Economist will tell you that such Fiscal policy will inevitably lead to an tightening of monetary policy.
What ever happened to investment in infastructure and public assets??
Me thinketh the housing market may be about to collapse..oh well !!!
- Posted by: kim van dijk on May 10, 2006 10:35 AM
Budget 2006 is very UNFAIR. Majority of income earners get a $10 a week tax cut while high income earners get $120 a week tax cut.
There is nothing in it for working mothers (and Australia needs women to go back to work). I work 3 days a week and pay $330 a week in child care fees to send 2 kids to daycare for 3 days a week. The Budget did nothing to reduce my child care costs. The FTB payments is unchanged for me as the threshold of $40,000 is ridiculous as any family with 2 working parents achieves $40,000 a year quite easily. Yes I know many of you would say that why should they pay for me or my kids. Well, I could leave work and stay at home and then you will be paying a whole lot more for me and my kids. So why not encourage women to go back to work. I am back at work but the Government does nothing for me.
As for the $10 a week pay cut, I am paying $40 a week more in Petrol costs alone. I haven't even taken into account the extra mortgage payments due to interest rate rise.
Overall, a budget for the rich people. A very poor effort by the Government.
- Posted by: Fk on May 10, 2006 10:35 AM
Pam's comments..."and as to why the rich pay more, it's because they can. they have enough to live comfortably, and so it is part of their responsibility to help provide for those who are less fortunate. stop being so selfish" show just how selfish low-income earners can be.
Pam, what gives you the right to presume who is "rich" and what is "comfortable". Is someone earning $50,000pa rich? Are they comfortable? What about $60,000? $80,000?
I am always appalled by people who assume that if you earn over a certain amount, you're automatically rich, and thus are fair game for wallet-gouging taxation levels.
Pam, if you pay bugger all tax, you get bugger all tax cuts. If you want a bigger tax cut, go out and earn more money and pay more tax.
Someone earning $25,000pa pays around 10% of their income in tax. Until the last 2 rounds of tax cuts, some one earning $75,000 paid around 35% of their salary in tax. Was that fair? Hell no. Kudos to Costello for ignoring the lobby groups and acting on the tax inequity that Australia has had for so many years.
- Posted by: David on May 10, 2006 10:36 AM
It's amusing that people resort to childish name calling when presented with a truth they dont like.
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 10:36 AM
To tell you the truth I think the Australian tax system was stupid and more changes are needed. People up there pay so much tax! 47%!? You joking?
What's wrong with earning heaps of money with your skills and your brains. That's what we're awarded for.
I am a uni student. I am going to earn lots of money in the future and I AM NOT willing to pay for all the bums out there waiting to live of the rich or the government.
Earn your own.
- Posted by: Jay on May 10, 2006 10:37 AM
Once again, with much fanfare, Peter Costello smiles and gives mid and low income earners a gift of a few of their own dollars. It won't cover the increased fuel prices (which provides a windfall for the Government), and the home loan interest hike. Will we ever have a government that will give us meaningful tax reform such as income splitting between couples?
- Posted by: robbie on May 10, 2006 10:38 AM
Mindless Stupidity.
We now seem to judge ourselves not by what WE do, or by What WE receive,,But by someone who has done better than us.
Is there one person in Australia worse off today due to the budget? The answer is NO.
That is the sign of a good budget.
- Posted by: strata on May 10, 2006 10:38 AM
I am sick of people saying at the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. People look at 365 savings at $10k salary vs 2700 saings on $100k salary and immediately assume that the budget is more favarable to the rich. Not really.
Someone earing $10k only pays $900 in tax, the $365 saving represents 37% in saving.
Someone earning $100k pays over $30k in tax and receives a saving of $2700, that is ony 8% saving.
Have a think about it.
- Posted by: Simba on May 10, 2006 10:38 AM
Why do we enslave ourselves? Who bought the house that required the large mortgage in a suburb that requires us to drive so far to work? We've got the 4 bedroom house but can't afford to fill it with children. This is a problem of our making and not the government.
This budget gives us money primarily from a resources boom. When the resources boom goes, get ready for the government to take the tax cuts back.
- Posted by: Peter on May 10, 2006 10:39 AM
An extra $10 will help me, I can now put an extra $10 on the Megabucks at the Doonside Hotel.
- Posted by: Joe Johar on May 10, 2006 10:39 AM
Only 2% of the population is in the highest tax bracket. Almost everyone earning more than $150,000 starts up a company and works for their own company. Then they only pay 30% company tax. Anyone in the highest bracket is simply paying more tax than they should. The difference between the company rate and the highest personal rate is a simple recipe for tax avoidance. All this talk about the highest personal tax rate is completely ignorant of what is really going on.
- Posted by: Dave on May 10, 2006 10:40 AM
My reading of the superannuation concession that this is irresponsible, incompetent and unstainable. It's more Costello flimflam than substance. He's promised what on the face of it looks like a major concession (ie. no tax on drawings) but made this a commitment payable largely by future governments. My concern here is that (a) superannuation will be abused and exploited by the wealthy and (b) Costello made no provision for funding this concession leaving the obligation payable by governments expected to be under severe financial pressure resulting from the 'baby boom' generation passing thru retirement. Most baby boomers will have insufficient superannuation funds to cover their retirement and, hence, will largely be funded by government pensions, supplementary welfare payments and medicare benefits. Hence, future governments will have the double whammy of having wealth people paying minimal tax and their welfare payments sky-rocketing. This is illogical and unstainable.
There are some good aspects to this and earlier proposals (eg. incentives for over60s to continue to work, but, on the whole, this budget confirms my view that Costello either has very poor financial management skills and/or lacks integrity and/or is totally a political opportunist. I suspect all 3 apply.
- Posted by: Brian on May 10, 2006 10:40 AM
I am a qualified Chartered Accountant. I spent many years studying. However I am now a mother of 2 kids and work part-time. This budget does nothing for me or my family. I have to say that for someone who has a lot of education, you didn't learn much and are quite ingonrant.
- Posted by: FK on May 10, 2006 10:40 AM
Just a quick comment. Letâs not forget that someone on $100,000 a year pays around $27,848.45 dollars a year tax. A hell of a lot more than lower income earners. I have no problem with this. What I don't agree with is people on lower incomes, who also received a tax break, complaining that theirs wasn't enough, when it was comparable to the percentage tax cut I received.
The other thing is people saying that the money could have been better spent on schools and health. It could have, however why not give the tax payers a break. Means they can better afford health services. Also, the high income earners contribute the most to the health and education systems anyway.
I welcome this budget.
- Posted by: cal on May 10, 2006 10:40 AM
Its impossible for any budget to benefit every one. The long overdue simplification of the superanuation rules is a great bonus to older Australians who really struggle to understand the mindless complexity of the existing rules. The less well off have missed out in the past due to not understanding these rules or not being able to afford the advice you needed to take full advantage of superanuation. Overall a great budget which will greatly enrich the Australian people as a whole. When I look back at the enormous amount of tax taken from me over my working life and compare that to these new rates, this will mean that when people in the current workforce eventually retire they will be far wealthier and considerably less likely to be a drain on the public purse than those currently retired. This is a big step in the right direction to give power back to the people. Just make sure that you dont spend all the money before you retire!
- Posted by: Ian on May 10, 2006 10:43 AM
Pretty dreadful budget from what I can see. The super changes are a welcome releif for retirees, but the tax breaks are a joke. Keep in mind that I personally will get approx $50 a week extra. But what of those that are really struggling. They get basically nothing. The high earners get way too much. They will simply spend that money, drive up the economy and then the Reserve Bank will hit everyone with a rate rise. Then those who got nothing from the tax breaks will loose from interest rate rises.
Yet again, John Howard is looking after his mates, and cares nothing for the worker
- Posted by: Roger on May 10, 2006 10:44 AM
I'm happy with my extra $3050 per annum. I work smart and deserve the salary I get. I reckon the cuts could have went further. I have friends on $300K a year in Japan and they pay 15 to 20% tax. Well done Peter.
- Posted by: Greg on May 10, 2006 10:45 AM
Hey Tony,
When you die buddy I just hope you know that the big fella will ask what you gave and not how much you saved!! What happened to our sense of giving and helping others??? People don't just struggle because they choose to struggle. Let's stop being so arrogant and help out one another to make this country a better place. Maybe we could learn something from the town of Beaconsfield!!!
- Posted by: Steve on May 10, 2006 10:45 AM
Firstly: Wraps to Karl - People like Mark who carry on with crap like that without any understanding of the advantages required to "put in the effort" should be corrected at every turn.
Secondly: I am utterly horrified that the tax burden on low income earners has hardly shifted and people at the top end (myself included) get such a large benefit.
I think posters in general should put themselves in the position of a family on a combined income of 60K, with two kids, a 300k mortgage and a weekly petrol bill of $150 and think about how you would manage and what effect that $10 would have on your ability to make ends meet.
As a professional single on more than that I can't really imagine, but I know that those people should have more assistance.
- Posted by: notorious C on May 10, 2006 10:45 AM
RE: John and the incompetent labour governments.
These days States take a smaller portion of the total tax income paid by australians and rely on the Fed govt. to divi out the spoils from the GST. Hence the Fed government should be responsible for providing states with sufficient funds to cover the basic neccessities of Health Care and Education.
I would personally forgoe the $10 per week (yes I am middle income)and have a decent education system which will prolong our economic development. Btw what does $10 now mean if in 5 years time they re-adjust the tax brakets because of economic hardship (caused by lower economic development resulting from lack of skilled workers) and take all the money back.
These surpluses should be re-invested in our economy to remove our dependence on the resource commodity boom.
- Posted by: Will on May 10, 2006 10:46 AM
It's very simple to say higher income is a perfect correlation to hard work. Not everyone who is low-income doesn't work hard.
My mother works in a aged-care home looking after elrderly patients with dementia. For this she earns less than a checkout chick, even with penalty rates. I suppose she deserves poverty for this service to your parents, who you're probably too busy to visit/care about given your 80-hr working weeks?
What about teachers? Police? They all add more value than almost anyone earning six-figures to society. They work hard too.
Think about this - if everyone "worked hard" and made "the right choices", would every one have a six-fiugre income? Of course not. You stil need someone to clean toilets, pick up garbage etc.
There's always going to be rich, and always poor, and it's ridiculous to simply say you get what you deserve.
- Posted by: Rob on May 10, 2006 10:47 AM
My partner works 12 hour days 5 days a week, without a break.
If he's lucky, he gets enough money in his account to pay for rent, bills and food.
I hate this stupid attitude that low income earners are somehow lazier and haven't worked to 'improve their situation'. My partner and I work our backsides off doing two jobs each to try and earn enough to live. Incidentally, my partner is ten times more intelligent than my boss, who earns $120K + per year.
i long ago stopped expecting anything from this government.
- Posted by: Jen on May 10, 2006 10:47 AM
Another wasted opportunity! History may not be kind to Messrs Howard and Costello. We need training and infrastructure, but we get two bob tax cuts!
- Posted by: Peter Smith on May 10, 2006 10:48 AM
pfft, I don't care! I've escaped the country all together cause of it's ridiculously high taxes.
Good bye Australia and thanks for educating me and then driving me out with your low incomes, high taxes, and over priced cost of living!
- Posted by: Anon on May 10, 2006 10:48 AM
For all the people wanting a fair budget. I reckon the easiest way to make it fair is same payment for all.
$5000 bucks per person per year.
Seems pretty fair isn't it.
This would make it fairer for the richer people, some paying 50K plus a year, compared to some people who pay $1000. How unfair!
- Posted by: The same as before on May 10, 2006 10:49 AM
A moronic budget. A windfall profit as the govt is currently enjoying should have been invested in infrastructure for the future. Windfalls do not go on forever but giving tax cuts does. But this govt continues with its policy of public poverty and private wealth. And all done blatantly ignoring the tsunami of overseas debt building up off our coast.
- Posted by: B Dickson on May 10, 2006 10:58 AM
How long has it taken to get into the 'I work harder than you so I deserve more' debate? Not very long at all. For all those out there that seem to think that high wages are just about working long hours get a life. Oh sorry you don't have time too, right? Income is rarely about the social merit or importance of the work either it is simply a dysfunction of our economic system. But in a country of aspirationals and bludgers (ie those that do not fit the aspirational ticket or someone who criticises popularly head assumptions) this has sadly replaced the concept of collective goods.
Now regardless of whether the public pays for something like health and education or it is a private matter you would expect teachers and nurses to be well paid after all they are supposedly making us a smarter and a healthier state- well it don't work this way there are just too many of them to allow much wage growth in this current system. Importance, hard work, intelligence do not have anything to do with relative pay scales. The bullshit about 'I did it tough and so should everyone else' is just ridiculous.
Just because good fortune and hard work have paid off for one person in no way means that it will for everyone. In a society being structured to be a consumer economy no one likes making $25000 a year. But don't tell me that they deserve it. There are lots of people out there that don't deserve the hyper salaries that they are receiving either. People who earn good money should not be vilified but the idea of consumer greed at the expense of state institutions and services should be
- Posted by: James on May 10, 2006 10:58 AM
Super changes are excellent.
Any of you whingers that don't want their tax cut can donate it to the cause of their choosing. But if you really think you have to much money you can send it to me.
- Posted by: mark preston on May 10, 2006 11:00 AM
Poor Mark. How I would hate to be you, always looking over my shoulder, hoarding my beans, no doubt safe in my McMansion with the 4x4 outside.
We live in a society sustainable because we interact. To use an example that you might understand, where would you be without your 100 employees, or underlings or whatever they are, working towards the plans you 'goal orientated plans' that you type late at night?
Some people are good at some things, some at others. Our society decides (and is deciding) on heirarchies of pay for these people. But what we decide here in Australia is not an absolute. Example - Kindergarten teachers in Sweden probably earn more than your good self! Can you believe it?? Here, obviously they don't. While that does not mean that one society is good and one is bad, you could probably draw a lot of conclusions from the comparable education, drugs and crime rates of the two countries if you wished.
In Australia, by your reasoning, the Kindy teacher is worth a quarter of what you are. While I am not entirely sure how you are qualifying your argument - other than with greed - a little further clarification might help.
My point is that inferring worth, laziness or otherwise from salary numbers attributed to a society by a young market system seems at best pretty shallow.
PS. The average uni grad these days earns between 30-40K. One group doing worst out this budget.
- Posted by: Pat on May 10, 2006 11:01 AM
Raymond Lou's got his calculations right but his conclusion wrong. Whilst the low and high income earners are roughly 4% better off (paying 4% less tax), the middle income earners are only 1.3% better off. Peter Costello claimed the budget will benefit Middle Australia, I don't think so. I only drive 3km to work everyday, but I challenge everyone in the workforce, let's hand all our tax cuts back to the government, and ask the Govt to set up a special counter petrol price fund, all the money in this fund goes to offset taxes in petrol prices, hence reduces the petrol price for the community.
- Posted by: Howard on May 10, 2006 11:01 AM
What an utterly disgraceful government we have, all this budget talk was tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts, there was nothing mentioned about the state of the hospitals or public education.....if anyone out there thinks that a few dollars a week is a real achievement then we are in deep deep trouble. Once again under this government the rich just keep on getting richer!!!
- Posted by: CP on May 10, 2006 11:02 AM
So, we have a government that is reducing the tax base, whilst spending more than ever on middle-class welfare, all fueled by a resources boom that simply cannot last forever. Sound financial management? I think not. However, as long as people continue with their "me too!" attitude, and only worry abot themselves, this type of budget will remain popular. Schools, hospitals, universities, the highway network and the ports are all massively underfunded, but please give me another 2 per cent off my tax.
Australians have proven once again, they have forgotten about the need to fund ever part of society, not simply the government pet parts (families and the rich).
- Posted by: Scott on May 10, 2006 11:02 AM
""I have already privately educated my children so they are tax paying graduates.
I privately support my parents in homes.
I pay single income tax with my wife no splits no fixes no funny bussiness. receipt for everyjob done. Tax audits clean.""
Pasquale, how wonderful. you have managed to do all of these things despite paying tax for years at very high rates. And you need a tax cut because....?
- Posted by: Annie on May 10, 2006 11:03 AM
Agreed, my point exactly James.
- Posted by: Joseph on May 10, 2006 11:04 AM
This is a ridiculous and completely short sighted budget. The increase in the budget surplus is entirely due to the current high price of minerals and metals. This resources boom will surely end sooner or later, leaving a budget deficit.
Instead of spending the surplus on health, education and investing in infrastructure, which this nation is sorely in need of, the liberal government has spent it almost entirely on handouts.
And what is worse, is that most Australians seem to have bought it. Some people are saying 'I'm happy with the budget because I will get more money'. Most of the rest are saying 'I'm not happy with the budget because my handout isn't as big as his.'
Australia really needs increased infrastructure spending - better roads, rails, water and communications networks. These will increase Australia's wealth and living standards in the future.
More Health, education and scientific research funding will also help to ensure Australia remains prosperous.
These handouts do not do anything for Australia's future.
- Posted by: Ben on May 10, 2006 11:04 AM
Australia is a low-tax country compared with other OECD countries, yet the highest tax rates are uncharacteristically high. We live in an underpopulated but geographically large nation - requiring massive amounts of government money for basic services and maintenance. This budget is a strong budget. High income earners keep the economy going - their spending is more important than their tax bill. Get over the whinging - I am working, tax-paying uni student! You won't see me bleating about my right to hand-outs like an ignorant fool.
- Posted by: Emma on May 10, 2006 11:06 AM
Very happy with the budget! Also, health system? I don't get it, I look after my health, exercise, eat well so I can avoid the hospitals/doctors. I recently had a baby and my entire experience was such a pleasant one - I don't get why there is such whinging about the health system, my experience was great.
- Posted by: Tracy on May 10, 2006 11:07 AM
It bothers me that everyone whinges about the fact the savings are greater for higher income earners. That is because high income earners pay almost 50% of their salary out in tax. If you looked at the tax paid rather than the tax saved perhaps you would stop complaining.
- Posted by: JC on May 10, 2006 11:07 AM
A Liberal government in Canberra that, after a decade in power, delivers yet another budget surplus with tax cuts for all and funding boosts for research, the environment and defence ...
and a Labor government in Sydney that, after a decade in power, is about to deliver a budget deficit with tax increases and reduced spending on hospitals, schools, public transport ...
interesting contrast, isn't it?
- Posted by: Brian on May 10, 2006 11:08 AM
I am extremly happy with the new budget!
It just so happens that it coincides with my commencement as a graduate lawyer after 6 years of study at university.
The extra tax savings however will just be plowed straight in to my HECS debt which will be around $35,000 by the time I commence work (double degree)
We live in a capitalist society and it is important to reward those at the top of the income scale. Though it still wont stop me, Japan or the UK here I come.
From what I can discern I will be saving $1350 in my first year alone!
Those people on the low income scale save more in percentage terms then the highest wage earners. Why are these people complaining? Its never too late to further your education!
Labour should never be in power again!
- Posted by: Rich on May 10, 2006 11:09 AM
There has been no serious expenditure on infrastructure since the Chifley government (other than city motorways & highways). What about some more Snowy River type schemes to produce renewable energy, flood mitigation, flush out inland rivers, stimulate decentralisation, etc.
Bill Ross
- Posted by: Bill Ross on May 10, 2006 11:11 AM
Outstanding ... I just made an additional $7000 per annum! But don't worry, I pay for my kids education, pay for my families medical expenses and pay into my own super fund ... after 30 years, I have never received a single dollar from our great government because I don't need it. I still contribute $80000 per year in tax which I am sure goes a long way to help pay for our fellow citizens health and education expenses over time.
- Posted by: Andy on May 10, 2006 11:11 AM
Typical mid term budget. Next year's will see the money to the middle-incomer's, child-care places, education, welfare, hospitals etc. Again this government will buy hearts and our souls and like lemmings we will believe and forgive them. We are idiots and dopes! Labor will lose (again) and offer no-one anything different. Where are our leaders? Where is the "good policy" our country deserves? Where is the future thinking of Australia? Can we not think of winning the next three years? Why can we not think of the next 10, 20 or 50 years? Why? Because we are consumed by greed and the "me-me-me" mentality! Come on Australia, come on Labor, come on Liberals/Nationals, think guys - things can be better if we really try. Remember, money is the root of all evil.
- Posted by: Antony A. Waltho on May 10, 2006 11:12 AM
Stupid. Middle class gets the least.
- Posted by: TONY on May 10, 2006 11:14 AM
It's fascinating to note how little intelligence is required to become a high income earner! I've been reading post after post from high income earners pontificating about their breath taking contribution to the nations coffers, but what none of them are taking account of is a simple little reality known as proportion! As a proportion of tax paid, high income earners are contributing relatively little when compared to middle and low income earners. Indeed, even the simplest of people can recognise that 2% of people on $150,000 paying 45% tax rate is nothing compared with 80% of people on $40,000-$60,000 paying 30% in tax. As for the notion that the more you earn the harder you work, I really don't know where that comes from. However, I think that the people on higher incomes spouting this rubbish are merely using this as an attempt to imply some sort of relationship between income and virtue...utter nonsense!
- Posted by: AdamB on May 10, 2006 11:14 AM
Any budget surplus would be better spent on long term projects which benifit all Australians, both present and future. projects such as public transport, renewable energy, education, healthcare, environmental restoration, etc, etc, etc. But no, the government as usual will throw a few bucks at people to buy their vote, and just as before, it will probably work...
- Posted by: paul chachelle on May 10, 2006 11:15 AM
It is disappointing that there was not any spending on improving work skills and education training in the country.
More incentives are needed to encourage nurses back into the workforce or to encourage them to be trained, our public health system is getting worse every day.
The tax cuts will not last long they will be gobbled up by all the hidden taxes in NSW that they call levys.eg 11 cents on every litre of milk we purchase.
Once again the Princes Highway did not get any funding.
- Posted by: Diane Hodges on May 10, 2006 11:16 AM
David, best comment all day mate!
If you pay bugger all tax, you get bugger all tax cuts. If you want a bigger tax cut, go out and earn more money and pay more tax.
- Posted by: Simba on May 10, 2006 11:19 AM
"Hurrah, oh the joy.
Each week, Peter and his band of merry men happily take about $300 out of my pay packet.
It is most generous of them to give me back about $10 per week of it.
Yet another budget in which the middle class childless man with a mortgage is shafted - I think that makes about 11 of them."
Here here Matt. I am sick of having my pay packet pillaged to pay for a bunch of services I do not use and have no intention of using. I am sick of having to support two other people I do not even know through the tax system. Time to think about taking my skills and experience elsewhere to a place where I am actually rewarded for my labour, maybe Hong Kong (10% flat tax rate).
- Posted by: Andrew on May 10, 2006 11:19 AM
We have monetary policy increasing interest rates and taking money out of the economy and fiscal policy adding money back into the economy. Monetary policy (and the banks) will win and the tax cuts will be eroded by interest rate rises in the next few months. Would have been better spending the money on eliminating contribution tax on superannuation and spending more money on infrastructure such as the road between sydney and brisbane.
- Posted by: Michael on May 10, 2006 11:20 AM
What do they say, "you cannot please all the people all the time" anybody against this budget must be a so one eyed labor supporter that really the only thing to please them would be to have a Labor Government, a humungus debt, interest rates sky high and double figure unemployment.
- Posted by: Dennis on May 10, 2006 11:20 AM
When will Australians wake up to all this vote buying and start to think about more long term and the legacy left for their children. This budget stinks of give and take and unfortunately most Australians are too busy to give it much thought, too consumed with daily stress, e.g., mortgage, and / or too dumb to question it properly. This is a budget to suit the liberal elite and those who follow in blind faith - it does nothing for a more secure future and soon the Australian econmy WILL SUFFER because of it as we are riding commodity prices which will be destined to fall... there is nothing to develop this nation into the future here.
- Posted by: Bergmeister on May 10, 2006 11:21 AM
"I hear alot of arguments that the government should of given the money to schools and hospitals. But why should the government subsidise incompetent labor state governments. The shift blame by these socilaist left winges is astonishing to say the least."
Exactly what has my (& others) desire to see their tax dollars spent on essential social services got to do with socialist left wingers you imbecile? What the hell else should the federal government be doing with our taxes? May as well eliminate income tax altogether if you think services such as health, education, roads, welfare etc shouldn't be the recipients of our tax dollars.
- Posted by: Karl on May 10, 2006 11:23 AM
unbelievable. the rich getting richer - what a surprise.
i'm sick of people on here saying "i work hard, therefore i should get higher tax cuts"
what about all the middle income earners who work just as hard, school teachers, nurses - what about us - i work damn hard for my money - why don't i get a break? the difference between the 40-60 bracket being 510 and 80+ being 2000+ is a joke
thanks to the Lib Gov - may you rot in hell.
- Posted by: wendy on May 10, 2006 11:24 AM
Well Done
Another short-sighted political gain budget. Bugger the investment we need into hospitals, education research and development, reduction of debt and all those things to we are obliged to leave to future generation. All these surpluses have been extracted from all excess taxes and squeezing money out of education and hospitals.
Only question I have is, will it be enough to buy off voter dissatisfaction with the IR laws?
Budget scores a high distinction.
- Posted by: Mug Citizen on May 10, 2006 11:24 AM
how predictable,
another budget where a single person in their late 20s who earns an average wage of $50k, is paying a $200k + mortgage themselves, doesnt get any goodies - oh yeah, $10.00 extra a week. Besides getting a promotion and earning over $75k a year, my best option would be to pop out a few babies, then i might get a few more goodies from the budget . . .
- Posted by: cat on May 10, 2006 11:25 AM
Excellent budget. Howards government got this country out of the Labour debt and now we are reaping the rewards.
My fiance is a high income earner and worked his butt off to get where he is. The tax cut is fantastic and well deserved. I am a lower income earner but get some more money too.
Excellent budget - great job Howard and Costello. You can't please everyone though!
Luckily the majority of Aussies vote Liberal :) I don't agree with everything Liberal does but I sure fire agree more than I do with Labour! Labour is all for the Single Mums and Dole dependers. They encourage it while Liberal is family focused.
Go LIBERAL!!! :)
- Posted by: Fee on May 10, 2006 11:26 AM
I think there is a little in it for all. Yes, the higher wage earners get more but that will always be the case when you have a scaled income tax rate system we have.
The biggest problem in this budget is that there is little or no money for infrastructure, education transport and hospitals.
- Posted by: fab on May 10, 2006 11:26 AM
David I REALLY like your restaurant analogy and I think you are exactly right. It doesn't surprise me that 90% of the people on this page are just repeating EXACTLY what the SMH has said in its articles. And it certainly doesn't surprise me that the SMH is trying to brainwash people into thinking this is unfair in an attempt to influence how we vote.
Lower income earners have always been been proportionately advantaged by our tax system and nothing has changed.
- Posted by: JC on May 10, 2006 11:30 AM
Just to take the gloss off a bit for those people loudly crowing about how wonderful the budget is for their hip pocket - How come no one seems to have cottoned on to the fact that the tax cuts announced in this budget already include the 1 July 2006 cuts that were promised in last year's budget? As a result, for someone on $70,000, the actual tax cut from this budget is about $510pa, not the $1350pa that has been publicised. As a $90k+ income earner, I personally would have preferred to see the cuts go toward addressing our education/skills shortages needs and assisting mothers back into the workforce - but hey, I'm just a leftie pansy!
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 11:30 AM
Johnnys corrupt rich big business mates score yet again on money the ordinary Australian taxpayer earned.
Wht didn't they richly reward most of those who earn $30-$60,000?
Answer : payback for their rich mates. We should have voted Labor!
- Posted by: Phil O'Donnell on May 10, 2006 11:31 AM
Well, with the new tax cuts at least the I can finally afford to splash a new coat of paint on the yacht. I mean to think of these poor uneducated masses who didn't try hard enough at school for their parents not to buy them a yacht!
Oh, and I'll be able to take that round the world trip. Oh, to think of all these double income families with their cursed children, the children are their problem.
And wait till Christmas I'll splash out! Oh and don't get me started on all those lazy people who don't have any food, clothing and shelter. They should have studied harder at school.
Oh, I'm so glad I wasn't brought up in low socio-economic circumstances with insufficient positive modelling and resources to develop the necessary skills, knowledge and social networking needed to succeed in the real world.
NOTE: this is sarcasm.
I can't believe some of the stuff you people are saying. I hope you all lose everything you own and get sick and learn what poverty is. You live in black and white worlds with no concept or understanding of what its like on the other side.
I hope you all lose everything you own and everyone you love and as I walk past and you ask for change I'll spit on you. I hate you so much.
I hope there is a heaven for the poor, sick and poor in spirit as Australia looks more like hell everyday.
- Posted by: John Sizemore on May 10, 2006 11:31 AM
There is no one magic pill when it comes to managing the finance of a developed country with a huge social infrastructure. This is not great, but then again it is not bad either. A little for everyone i guess. High income earners gain more, but then again they have paid more in the past. The important question is will there be enough to put back into education, health-care and aged care. What about programs for training apprentices etc and building a sustainable model around that. Small steps, but at least they are thinking....
- Posted by: Laz-pdx on May 10, 2006 11:33 AM
This idea that higher income equates to being more worthy, deserving or more important to our society - well, this seems misplaced.
I feel that I work very hard as a middle income earner. But then again I realise that the vast majority of us do - not only to survive, but to feel like we've contributed to society as a whole.
Surely a way to make us all feel "worthwhile" in our society is to spend on improving our societal infrastructure? For example, putting something back into unis after they have been systematically leeched for years and are now being made to compete corporate style with each other for funds to operate? Allowing adequate student to teacher ratios in schools or upgrading rotting school buildings? What about propping up the PBS scheme and funding surgery and hospitals for all of us? Or actually helping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders access the same kinds of infrastructure we do?
Also, people are buying houses further and further out west because house prices in the inner areas of Sydney are plain inaffordable to those without mega amounts of capital to start with. Blaming these people for "choosing" to live west and "choosing" to pay higher petrol prices - well, I think this speaks volumes about those comfortable enough to ridicule non-cashed-up people trying to live. To imply that they deserve bigger mortgage slugs and petrol bills because they chose to live in the only places that are still affordable... It just shows that maybe everyone is right, that the wealthier of us are deluded enough into thinking they "deserve" everything better.
- Posted by: Yin on May 10, 2006 11:34 AM
What an utterly disgraceful government we have, all this budget talk was tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts, there was nothing mentioned about the state of the hospitals or public education.....if anyone out there thinks that a few dollars a week is a real achievement then we are in deep deep trouble.....oh wait a minute Peter and John will look after us...YEAH RIGHT!!
- Posted by: CP on May 10, 2006 11:35 AM
What a tosser:
my wife and I earn in excess of $150 each - so we get a combined tax reduction worth some $2000 per month - that'll help us pay off our holiday home in France, but not sure what we'll do with what's left? Maybe buy another investment property in the eastern Suburbs (we already have 5). Thanks for the $$$ Peter!!! I'm glad worked hard at school, bet some of you wish you had too!!
Posted by: richerbyfar! at May 10, 2006 09:51 AM "
This is precisely the type of people society co well do without.
- Posted by: Bergmeister on May 10, 2006 11:35 AM
I cannot believe that John Howard believes that the tax cuts will not lead to higher interest rates. The Reserve Bank has already raised interest rates with indications that there will be more to come if inflation is not reigned in. Is John being honest or is he lying again?
- Posted by: Sushil Ramrakha on May 10, 2006 11:35 AM
Notorious C, which advantages are these that are required? I certainly didn't get any of them.
I'd left home just before my 15th birthday, and had to work and go to school, all while living in share accomodation with up to 5 other people. The high school I went to was so prestigious that a teacher was stabbed one year, and seeing kids being dragged out of class in handcuffs was not completely uncommon. I also went to a public college in the same area, with the same kind of reputation. I worked before and after school and weekends in crappy jobs packing shelves and laboring.
Thank god for all those advantages I obviously had.
Working hard all my life is how I got where I am, and not expecting or getting any handouts. This defeatist attitude is the majority of the reason people won't dig their way out of the hole they may be in. Nobody else is going to do it for you. You make your own future, regardless of any advantage you may or may not have.
All the people who continue to whine about how the budget does nothing for them, too bad. Nobody owes you a damn thing. The sooner people realise this the better. I dont expect a tax break, though it is nice to get one. Quit complaining and stop living beyond your means if you are having such a hard time. I know people living quite happily on 25K a year because they realise that they cant afford that new car, the holiday or 2 kids. Common sense is the answer, not tax breaks.
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 11:38 AM
What a pity that the surplus can't be used where it is desperately required. There are people in genuine need and public infrastructure that is crying out for funds. I stand to gain out of this budget but our community as a whole loses.
- Posted by: Wendy on May 10, 2006 11:39 AM
Simba :
" If you want a bigger tax cut, go out and earn more money and pay more tax "
Next time you or your family require a paramedic or a nurse , you won't mind if they put a surcharge on your service so they can move into a higher tax bracket ??
Glad to see people still equate a persons value to society based on their pay packet.
Guess that is why Alan Jones gave up teaching though! Do earn more money for his trips to London ?
- Posted by: Jeffrey Hampton on May 10, 2006 11:39 AM
Middle income singles still will wish they had started that family years ago. Especially since the education and health systems for their children have been adequately catered for...not! My extra a year being a single male will be pushed harder and then possibly wiped out next time public transport fares increase. Lucky I do not drive, it would be already gone.
On the plus side, at least its not a tax increase.
- Posted by: Dorian on May 10, 2006 11:40 AM
And the rich get richer......
So much pressure from increased petrol prices, house prices dropping but repayements are increasing.....
When will the lower and middle class get a reduction that will actually do more than just insult our intelligence.
No surprise really.....
- Posted by: 2mates on May 10, 2006 11:41 AM
Mark's arguments are quite logical to me.
Much negativity expressed here are from people who typically lack an ability to reason.
Jen for instance, who works her backside off doing two jobs can actually find time to contribute to this forum. Is that cyber blugging? Sure I don't regard people with low income as lazy. But if Jen's partner is so intelligent, his low pay must have been his personal 'choice' then.
The outbust from FK, a chartered accountant is equally perplexing and unfair, The fact that this budget does nothing for her has nothing to do with Mark's argument at all.
- Posted by: G Zen on May 10, 2006 11:50 AM
Listen to all this people whinging and saying the government has shafted me!
If you want to make more money, do it, have some confidence and go after what you want.
I just find it funny, people wanting something for nothing.
- Posted by: BeWhatYouWantToBe on May 10, 2006 11:53 AM
The rich people's budget. There is only one fair way to cut taxes, raise the tax-free threshold.
- Posted by: Roger A Stockburger on May 10, 2006 11:54 AM
A good budget, those earning 150K or more will be the ire of the average punter, however, you get nothing for nothing and most of these people will be working 6-7 days a week, 70 100 hours. Paul Keating made some interesting observations on the seven thirty report on Monday, that bacause labor's base is 37-38% they will struggle, because there is no longer a bigger base to build upon, with many now self employed, who will lean in the direction of the coaltion, part of the reason being the great foundation he and Bob Hawke laid down. He acknowledged that the government debt was now paid off, but foreign debt (debt incured by the private sector) is up around 500 billion. Another interesting point was that we are now short of labour/workers to the tune of 190,000 people, well if you do the math, we have 5% unemployed, that would have to mean there are enough poeple on the dole who could fill these jobs.
Having baby's is not a solution to getting more funding, get off your butt and get a job, work hard and you will be rewarded. Simple as that.
- Posted by: Peter G on May 10, 2006 11:56 AM
Andrew you would be wise to check your figures on Hong Kong tax rates before you start telling people they are a flat 10%, they are not. The top tax rate in HK is actually 15%, but most mutli-national companies tax equalize these days so you may end up like me paying Australian tax rates and living in HK.
But lets look at HK, very minimal social services, very low wages for many people, McDonalds workers would get around A$2.50 an hour - (and things are expensive 2L milk costs A$8.00), the average family lives in 400 -800 Sq feet apartments and the air is so thick with polution most days you could cut it with a knife (after all no one wants to waste tax payers money on the environment - they would have to raise the tax rate!), so here in HK you are either rich or dirt poor with not much in the middle. Everything comes with a cost, low taxes = low services. You say you dont want to pay for services you dont use. Fair enough, but dont expect the pension or other services when you grow old. It will be my investment in my children who will, at that time, be paying the taxes that will fund the carefree retirement of those that chose to spend their lives endulging themselves and living the carefree life whilst people with families strugled to make ends meet so that the next generation of tax payers could become a reality
You say you want to come and work in Hong Kong, well i dont doubt you will get the shock of your life when you find out that most of the world, unlike Australia, does not strive for a minimum standard of living for all, in HK, Asia and even the USA, you either stand by yourself or fall into unending poverty. Its time people like you woke up and realized that even though you dont live your idea of utopia its a heck of a lot better than what 5.5 billion other people on this planet are ever likely to have.
For those that think the grass is greener on the other side, go and check it out, you might find it is not as green as you think
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 11:57 AM
$37 billion that could have fed and medicated millions of children here and overseas, and probably cured the odd disease or 5.
Instead, it's all about ME, ME, ME.
Maybe most of us are actually already quite well off compared to the other 90% of the world???
- Posted by: I want MY money!!! now! on May 10, 2006 11:59 AM
Bergmeister - if we eliminate the so called "tossers" who will shoulder the 40% tax $$ they contribute to the economy. Tell you what why don't we get rid of anyone who earns over $100k because they are greedy and bad and everything will be better! Wonder who'll pay for everything then though? Maybe you and your mates will stump up the tax shortfall......
- Posted by: MY MONEY on May 10, 2006 12:02 PM
So is this more tax cuts in addition to the ones promised from last year ? or $10 ontop of the $10 already p
- Posted by: con on May 10, 2006 12:03 PM
wow, mark, your response to my post was hilarious. i'm surprised you didn't call me a bleeding heart socialist (although personally i prefer the term 'raging leftist hippie', it's so much more colourful). and my point about responsibility still stands - one of the bases of a democratic society is that of rights and responsibilities - not everyone has the same abilities and opportunities, and it is our responsibility to help those less fortunate.
and as for your banging on about how those who earn less just didn't work as hard, my social worker friends are all university qualified, i am currently studying for my masters and aim to go into humanitarian aid work. but of course you'd just say those people aren't working hard enough and don't deserve any help, wouldn't you?
- Posted by: pam on May 10, 2006 12:04 PM
It is dismaying to see so many people on here whinging about the "rich" getting such a big tax cut compared to the "poor".
If you are currently on a salary of $25,000p/a, you pay the grand total of $65 per week in tax. So, the largest tax cut you could possibly get would be $65 per week, meaning you would pay zero tax on your entire income!
Compare this someone on $100,000, and they pay $618p/w in tax, almost 10 times what you pay! So, naturally they will get a larger tax cut in dollar figures, since they paid so much in the first place.
Why is this concept so hard for people to comprehend?
I am happy with the changes thus far. I joined the top tax bracket after only 2 years in the workforce, straight out of uni. To me that was a sign there were serious problems with the system.
Now, first time in over a decade, I will no longer be in the top tax bracket.
There are still various things that need fixing in the tax system, such as single income families not being able to split their income. So, a single income family on $100,0000 pays significantly more tax than a family where both people work, but only earn $50,000 each. They have the same family income, but the single income family loses out.
- Posted by: Paul on May 10, 2006 12:05 PM
I'm a 22 year old new grad health professional and even I can see that a lot of people need to quit with the gripes and be grateful for what you have. Until you're slumming it like a huge proportion of the worlds population is, I suggest you take pride in what this country is offereing you - abundant oppurtunity and free speech.
- Posted by: Lil on May 10, 2006 12:05 PM
Is anyone out there surprised? Our government has fulfilled expectations of assuring those who 'have' have more, whilst continuing to screw the 'have nots'. Everyone pays the same price for petrol, Johnny & Peter, so if this is your answer to petrol prices it's laughable (not in a funny ha ha way), not to mention stupid and inequitable. A disincentive to volunteers too, who are largely the 'have nots' - shame, shame, shame.
- Posted by: Raseshvari on May 10, 2006 12:06 PM
It is utterly sad that the electorate now expects handouts everytime budgets come around, judging from the many joyous comments made. Contrary to popular belief, economic management is NOT about vote buying! The extra money the government has more to do with luck than anything else - the resources boom will eventually end and Australians will have to face up to reality. The extra money should have been spent on investing in the country's future to improve infrastructure and productivity for when our luck do eventually run out, not instant gratification. If Labor has any brains left, it will take full advantage of the eventual interest rate hike from the Reserve Bank due to increased inflation caused by a surge in demand from all the extra money sloshing around. Australians will then hopefully learn the hard way what economic management is really about!
- Posted by: Chris on May 10, 2006 12:08 PM
What can I say. What do people expect. Reading this web site it is all me, me, me. You people need to wake up & think how lucky you are in this country, a country envied by millions in this world. What a selfish, obnoxious lot you are. An absolute disgrace.None of you would know how to spell the word "grateful", let alone understand the meaning. Would a Labor Government have produced a better budget.Not in a million years. NSW , wait till you see what Costa brings down in the State budget, then you might be able to whinge. What a disgrace.
- Posted by: Phil on May 10, 2006 12:08 PM
Where is the Money/plan for education, health, working-class students and the Unemployed people? This government is very good at rewarding people who vote for it (high income earners/retirees) and loves to punish those of us who live in certain postcodes and have a preference for Bob Brown or . This government is the worst government this country has ever had and the opposition is probably the worst opposition we have ever had (although Wayne Swans "Post Codes" book is a very good look at what is happening in this country). Some unemployed people are about to be slugged with 50hours p/f work[slave] for the dole while the wealthy get a few crisp notes shoved in their wallet, this is an absolute disgrace!
- Posted by: Dan K on May 10, 2006 12:09 PM
I agree that more money should of been spent on Health and Education, however I do think that a tax reduction for High Income Earners is justified.
I am not a high income earner, however why should people who are more successful or have worked harder to get the high responsibility and high pressure jobs be punished by heavier tax?
Anyone who has a problem with high income tax cuts is simply not happy with their own financial position for reasons of their own.
With the exception of Health and Education, this budget outcome is by far the fairest across-board budget in the history of Australia.
- Posted by: James on May 10, 2006 12:10 PM
yet another unfortunate, short-sighted budget from costello et al. i agree this is the highest taxing government we've had, but I really don't mind paying lots of tax if its going to be spent on health, education, addressing climate change etc. but i do resent this money being thrown away at tax-cuts for the wealthy, an extra couple of billion for "defence" and nothing for the things that really make a society comfortable.
unfortunately i work (very hard incidentally, and will never earn $100,000) in the health-care industry, and i know that if you are critically ill or have some unprofitable, chronic illness then the private system won't be up to the task and you too will become a "burden" on the public system. how many private emergency departments do you see around the place? if they do exist, they are not terribly effective believe me.
there are always people in this world who will need more help than others. if you want to live in a selfish society like the US, then be prepared for the consequences; increased crime, violence, and you'll definitely be witnessing more uncomfortable, discreditable scenes of poverty...
- Posted by: anne on May 10, 2006 12:12 PM
Head in the trough.
Tail in the air.
Only with the next recession will we care.
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 12:12 PM
I am a Liberal voter but I would never vote for you Peter Costello. We all work hard no matter what incomes we earn. To all you high income earners get off your high horses and come back down to earth. We are all equal........
- Posted by: Siham Owen on May 10, 2006 12:13 PM
How can the government be so irresponsible? This will only fuel more inflation and another interest rate rise will be on the RBA's agenda. This money could have been much better spent on health, the environment and resarch and development. The average person does not know much the economy and Costello has done this just to win votes....anyone with a knowledge of economics knows that we cannot rely on commodities forever, and any suprplus would be much better spent on research and development to give Australia some sort of manufacturing base, not just mining and farming and tourism!
- Posted by: Dav on May 10, 2006 12:13 PM
I hope Smirky Pete has salted away
A$300M to pay the Iraqi people compensation for the AWB and Governments oil for guns fiasco. Also another A$100B or so would come in handy to pay the Iraqi people repartration for an illegal war and the destruction of their country, its infrastructure and society by the US Deputy Sheriff and his clique of WAR CRIMINALS.
- Posted by: Mike Talbot on May 10, 2006 12:15 PM
Fee - surely you jest:
"Excellent budget. Howards government got this country out of the Labour debt and now we are reaping the rewards."
Never mind the coat tails of economic reform that Peter and John have been riding on.
"Luckily the majority of Aussies vote Liberal :) I don't agree with everything Liberal does but I sure fire agree more than I do with Labour! Labour is all for the Single Mums and Dole dependers. They encourage it while Liberal is family focused."
I think, with a little research, that you may find that no government has been a better friend of welfare recipients (both rich and poor, single and coupled) than the Howard regime.
It is shallow ignoramuses like yourself that will ensure the decline of our society to the point that a lower income earner like yourself will be seen as a bludger who hasn't tried hard enough... oh, wait, we are already there...
- Posted by: Matt on May 10, 2006 12:16 PM
Hey Pam, dont like how reality in a capitalist society works? I hear flights to the DPRK are fairly inexpensive. Maybe you can head over there with the rest of the communists who enjoy working for the 'common good'.
Actually, why just direct this comment at pam, all of the people whining about the rich getting richer can take my advice too. It's even free, so you wont have to pay for something else you can't afford.
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 12:18 PM
Spot on, Paul (Paul at May 10, 2006 12:05 PM). I too hit the top bracket only 2 years into full-time employment ten years ago. This is the first time since then that I'm not in the top bracket. I'm not rich at all - I have to watch every dollar I spend, just like most people.
Good comparison with actual tax paid. Someone on $25,000pa has enjoyed a >30% reduction in their tax paid, over the last 5 years. It's about time that higher-income earners got a break.
I'd like to see income-splitting become universal - that would remove the inequity of one high-income earner supporting a family. That would be the best thing that a Federal government could do to support a family - give them more more in the bank each month, rather than a convoluted rebate/payment/welfare system.
Comments on this forum reflect a worring "rich vs poor" and "haves vs have-nots" mentality. Rich isn't a label nor is it a line you can simply define.
- Posted by: David on May 10, 2006 12:19 PM
High wage earners get higher amount of tax cuts because they pay a higher amount of their wages as tax.
It is a pretty simple concept really, so all those who are griping about it should get real.
I am not a high income earner, I dont have issues with cutting the top rate from 47-45 .
Overall this is an average budget, no visionary new policies to creat entreprenaurship or invest in high skills education.
- Posted by: Greg H on May 10, 2006 12:22 PM
Fee, it is Labor not Labour. Perhaps more money should have been spent on education.
- Posted by: Carl on May 10, 2006 12:22 PM
My reference to tosser was about the attitude. People with elitists attitudes as such, demonstrate immaturity - nothing else, and they see themselves as better, yet underline the fact that they are not, by the mere mention of even their posting name - richerbyfar, not to mention the content of their text.
- Posted by: Bergmeister on May 10, 2006 12:22 PM
Tax cuts are great but still NOT enough for families......
We continue to fall behind OECD countries when it comes to family benefits.. the threshold is ridiclous...
- Posted by: Mas on May 10, 2006 12:24 PM
You people are being stupid and don't deserve a cent back.
Did ANY of you go to school? Did you pay attention during the Maths bit?
19*52/25000 = 3.952% tax cut for those making 25k or less a year.
254*52/1,000,000 = 1.32% tax cut for those making 1 mil or more a year.
This budget favours the lower side of the income scale and the only people that should be whinging about it are those at the top end.
- Posted by: Jeff on May 10, 2006 12:26 PM
Could the SMH please explain from the "Tax Graphic" they have, how my taxable income of $10,000 is going to give me a $365 saving when the table clearly shows No Change in the lower thresholds or rates between current and proposed????
- Posted by: Bob Graffham on May 10, 2006 12:26 PM
The budget is a disaster waiting to happen. Nothing has been done to curb the rolling inflation. No government in the last thirty years has done anything to impove the value of the dollar. The value of the dollar has decreased to approximately one sixty fifth of its value in 1950 and continues to go down. Why bother saving only the very wealthy will benefit
- Posted by: A.C.B. Macartney on May 10, 2006 12:27 PM
Mark says:
"I work from 8am to 6pm every day, rarely get a break, and am responsible for over 100 staff. "
- Posted by: Satans Manservant on May 10, 2006 12:28 PM
We should be proud of the way Australia's economy has been ran by the current government.
Just coming back from overseas after a lengthy stay away and having visited countries in other continents, all I can say is that Australia is the best country to live and the current government hopefully stay for many years to come.
The australian people must be happy having their future secured when they become old or retired.
What we have here in help from the government you will not be able to find it anywhere in the world.
To all aussies who have never visited other places in the world, sit tight and enjoy the ride....we are in very good hands.
- Posted by: Frank solar on May 10, 2006 12:30 PM
- Posted by: IT'S ALL ABOUT ME ME ME on May 10, 2006 12:31 PM
Have to agree with the singles who have posted comements. The whole budget was slanted at "families" which means if you have no kids forget it. I am heartily sick to death of paying people to have babies when I get absolutely nothing back for my hard work, and if reports are right when the $3000 baby payment came in people were spending it on everything else but children, plasma TV's etc. I would dearly love to get a payment like that to pay off my mortgage, this budget does nothing for singles, but then that is no surprise we are never considered by this government the word "singles" is anathema except to tax us highly and give it all to people who have children.
- Posted by: Carmel on May 10, 2006 12:31 PM
P.S. I forgot to mention! The reason so many hit the Highest Tax margin so early, is because The thresholds are too low! Plus there should also be a threshold at $200,000 after which all income and handouts/gifts from the business to an individual are taxed at %99
- Posted by: BoB Graffham on May 10, 2006 12:31 PM
This is a rich man's budget anyone below 75,000 is still paying 30% why not drop a few % of that threshold and increase the threshold for the higher income earners they have 4 or 5 houses evade taxes and get richer what about us middle income earners keep on paying taxes not good Costello u will loose the next election
- Posted by: Batigolau on May 10, 2006 12:32 PM
Well said Paul. It is amazing how people who pay very little tax to start with expect to get more returned than they pay (shame, shame indeed).
My only concern with the budget is the possibility that it is inflationary. I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to mess with the fuel excise (sort of), but high fuel prices will be reflected across the board in goods and services; with people having more after tax money, the conditions are set for increased inflation. Speaking of the term 'money in the pocket', could the journos reporting on the budget please refrain from suggesting the changes to super mean more money in the pocket? Whilst the changes to super are good for an ageing population, for most of us they don't equate to 'money in the pocket' for some years.
- Posted by: Andy on May 10, 2006 12:33 PM
A young person?s perspective - Shove your tax cuts!
The government rules for the top end, not for the majority of Australia. I am not taking aim at the wealthy, however, it is fair to say that the Howard government does not care much for large swathes of middle Australia. We must also realise that the majority of wage earners in this country fall into the middle income category!
The most astounding achievement of the Howard era is how successfully he has managed to market his government at "middle Australia" and convince those he has no intention of aiding to send their votes his way. The so called "Howard battlers"... how switched off and naive we are!
WAKE UP! This is not a "Nation Building" inspirational budget. It's a ploy to attract voters whilst times are good. What happened to investment in health, education, proper subsidies in child care, Medicare, our forgotten people and investing broadly for the future.
For those of us who were furthering their education and starting their careers in the late nineties and who were not able to purchase a property, the cost of living has increased dramatically. No tax cut is going to assist in paying a $300-$350,000 mortgage for a flat and assist with childcare costs of $30 per day.
I earn an above average income and am in a better predicament than most other young people due to having a sizeable housing deposit. If a government were to keep taxes at current levels, invest in healthcare, government education, provide a commitment to Medicare and the PBS plus fund national infrastructure projects, they will have my vote.
I've had a gutful of this government and their extreme policies, lies and spin! The phrase "The Liberals" is an oxymoron, conservative yes, liberal NO!
In turn, I cannot comprehend why the Labor Party has not got the guts to boldly counteract the policies of this government and push hard with policy alternatives. Shape up Beazley or ship out! We need a decent, credible and visionary alternative to "Honest John" and his no-vision "unLiberals". LABOR get out there, get bold and get moving.
Are Australians non-caring, uncompassionate self centered and switched off ? The government that is supposed to represent "OUR" interests certainly is!
- Posted by: Geoff, Hornsby on May 10, 2006 12:36 PM
great budget, glad to see some spending on roads and rail. can't belive they still haven't increased the tax free threshold. am amazed about the fact they have abloshed RBL's. unexpected but very smart move.
- Posted by: jasmin on May 10, 2006 12:36 PM
This just in....
Money insulates people from reality.
- Posted by: popeye on May 10, 2006 12:36 PM
A move in the right direction towards making our income tax system more competitive. I still feel we have a once in a life time opportunity to make major structural reforms in the tax system, and yet reduce income taxes at the same time. I for one would prefer a flater income tax scale , say, 10%, 18%, & 32%, with a tax free threshold of $10,000. Let's get rid of the complex and unfair allowable tax deductions.
- Posted by: Matt on May 10, 2006 12:41 PM
Maybe those kids who decided not to put the effort in at high school did so because they wanted to get back at their parents who were spending too much time chasing the dollar, and not investing enough time in their family. Maybe they did well at school, but their parents couldn't afford to send the to University.
Remember Mark, what goes around comes around. But then again, you will be too busy to notice if your children go off the rails, beacuse its all about you.
- Posted by: Danny on May 10, 2006 12:42 PM
What a waste of money, handing out paltry tax cuts rather than truly invest in the future of the country. What happened to the ailing health system or Climate change? I will not even notice my tax cut, swallowed up by the mass of regulations and high food process that this government has brought us.
- Posted by: Mikol Furneaux on May 10, 2006 12:43 PM
So we are supposed to be happy getting back the money Costello overtaxed us last year? 15 billion surplus if you allow for what should be a normal surplus of say 3 billion we were all taxed 12 billion too much last year and looks like another 8 billion next year even with these current tax cuts. Come on Pete get the sums right.
- Posted by: Robert Christison on May 10, 2006 12:44 PM
Firstly can all Liberal party advisers stop hitting this blog and get back to work, or at least do it in your lunch hour like me.
Secondly this is the worst budget in the last 30 years and Peter Costello is the worst Treasurer we've had. It's easy to govern when time are good and ask yourself has the Liberal Government really contributed to this?
Don't congratulate Costello on interest rates, it market determined and we have the highest in the Western world because of private debt. The only way the Libs can control interest rates is if the RBA board was stacked, is this what you're all implying? Though rates should have gone up before the 2001 election to slow the housing boom.
As for paying off Labors debt, this isn't exactly hard when you sell off billions in assets owned by the public. What a genius!
If this commodity boom busts then you'll see a situation where the Australian dollar will plunge and we'll be in real trouble. Hence Costello should be insulating us from such a case. Manufacturing, one of Australia's largest employers is on the decline. Where's the investmetn in infrastructure you cannot necessarily trust the market on this. We are a basket case economy based on commodities and services. We have a housing market that is overpriced and people are to heavily geared. In fact, for a lot of people 18% interest rates on smaller mortgages was far more managable then today's situation.
The following tax reforms should occur, but won't because the Government caters to old wealth, not new wealth creation. First, eliminate Family tax benefits; eliminate deductions; eliminate all taxes on super except when someone cashes it in and insist that it be taken as a pension. Grandfather the existing pension to make people more reliant on super; drop the top rate to 30%; issue food stamps; place a tax on inheritance above 1 million at about 5-10%.
Costello should also push for smaller government. Lts get rid of States, and I don;t agree with handing everything over to the private sector. Market failure exists just as much as public good failure. After all business is not abouting competition, but creating monopolies, based on location, size etc.
As for the rich being there because they word hard, what a load. Poor people work hard as well. Rich = risk + luck + hardwork + inheritance + e. e= other factors
- Posted by: Mark J on May 10, 2006 12:44 PM
Jeff, you're an idiot, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. The fact that a dollar is a greater percentage of a lower income means squat. A lot of the recent budget surpluses have come from asset sales, assets which belonged to all of us and not proportionately higher to the high income earners.
- Posted by: Joseph on May 10, 2006 12:45 PM
I am on an aged pension, I am not selfish enough to not recognize the benefits in the budget for families and workers, but I need to point out that I worked and faithfully paid taxes for 48 years,most of these prior to super savings, so very small "nestegg" and since the introduction of the GST the cost of living has risen much greater than Govt assistance. I have kept an accurate itemisation of my "bills" for the past 8 years.
May I point out also that whilst Mr. Howard claims that tax reduction is the best way to compensate for petrol price rises, does he realise we ( Aged pensioners ) are not all in homes, some of us still drive cars.
- Posted by: peter o'shea on May 10, 2006 12:47 PM
I wonder if people who think they are on low incomes, will complain if the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts are some poor Afghanis or Sudanese huddled in a tent in a refugee camp.....second thoughts, yes...they will. They are losers who don't get off their backsides to do something for themselves, no matter how unlucky a hand Life dealt them...and always expect a handout.
- Posted by: trina on May 10, 2006 12:47 PM
i realise the states pay for health & education, but i remember our premiers begging the federal government for more cash for these very things, while Costello & Howard sat unmoved, on a mountain of GST cash. now they've seen fit to throw it away at tax-cuts for the rich instead of spending wisely on health, education, redressing environmental degradation and climate change and investing in efficient, high-speed public transport and rail freight.
the federal government has fiscal responsibility for very little, yet holds the pursestrings. seems unfair doesn't it?
- Posted by: anne on May 10, 2006 12:49 PM
"This just in....Money insulates people from reality."
Absolute classic!
- Posted by: Life is tough till you live in Africa on May 10, 2006 12:49 PM
I'm deliriously optimistic that in 20 years time(at 60 years young)I won't have to pay tax AGAIN on my superannuation. It might take another 20 years for my 'hierarchy of needs' to be fully realised - but this reform (if it's a core promise) will provide a substantial boost to my future independence, and who knows, maybe I will be in a position to assist others in less fortunate positions, whether here, overseas or on Mars!!
- Posted by: Sue on May 10, 2006 12:50 PM
I was hoping for a cut on the contributions tax to super. After all as a gay man I am not allowed to marry - and legally have children - so who will support me in my old age. I continue to pay 15 percent tax on my contributions to super, money that goes into the pockets of people who have the right to breed through generous family allowances, and have children who can top up their income when they are old (by the way my parents cannot live on the aged pension and I give them $80 a week)
- Posted by: Willy on May 10, 2006 12:51 PM
Danny, you missed the boat entirely. As previously stated, I put myself through high school, college and university. This has nothing to do with people with rich parents, it is about making your own future.
When will people understand that the only person who is going to better your position in life is you?
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 12:55 PM
To Geoff and the younger people reading this - Good for YOU - stand Up - be counted - insist that these politicians think about the future, the environment, our growing country. Think of life for YOUR children, their education, the planet they will live on. Insist on a vision for the future. I love my new tax cut - thanks Peter Costello but I'm still not voting for you - I'd rather live in a clever country than one where we have US style wealth divisions.
Stand up the youth of Australia and vote these people out!
- Posted by: Tony on May 10, 2006 12:56 PM
It's is unfortunate that every time there is a government initiative, that there is just so many whingers.
There has been some sensible comment about perhaps the attention to other area's of spending. That is fine.
But what's with the attitude about attacking ( what some percieve ) the Rich. Like they're bad people or out casts etc.
The people who are in this category are not to blame for the governments budget. Do you think that they like be kicked for something that they did not do?
And who, that isn't in the Rich category wouldn't want to be Rich?
Mmmmm .... Yes most of you would like to be Rich. And those that don't are usually not the ones whinging ;).
So many apparently are against the Rich - but they buy Lottery/Lotto tickets so they can be Rich. Why would that be?
The "Rich" are the ones who own the companies, who take the risks that employ the rest of us. So guess what, we need them.
And they pay far more in TAX than the wingers do. And when they are sick, they pay for their own medical expenses. But when your sick, they pay for you through Medicare. They pay for their children's private education, and pay for yours as well.
And when they invest to make money, that generates more income that is taxable. Both in their personal tax, and in their company tax.
Because some of us can manage our lifestyles on what we earn, doesn't mean we would be interested in supporting those that blow the lot, and blame the Government because of their "poor" position. Oil prices will go up. Interest rates will go up. Housing will go up. Cost of child care and all other costs with children WILL go up. Plan for it!!
Take responsibility for you own life and actions. If you want more money. Then work for it. Study and increase your worth. Invest in yourself and in the country.
No government is perfect. And there will always be those who complain because it's NOT their fault that something happenend to them. As far as I can tell, this Howard government has managed the country extremely well.
- Posted by: John on May 10, 2006 12:56 PM
Joseph, I think Jeff forgot that the country owes you a living.
PS, get up off your backside and get a job
- Posted by: Andy on May 10, 2006 12:56 PM
As a self-employed person earning more than $150,000, I'm obviously happy to cop an extra $120 per week. And to hear the sound of gobsmacked silence from middle-income families who got nothing when they're already paying effectively zero tax anyway (given the level of family benefits they get).
But I'd happily hand it all back (and more) to a government prepared to invest responsbily in health, education, infrastructure and a plan to improve labour productivity.
Costello's approach is dubious. These surpluses are not built on any fundamental structural change in the economy. They're built on a commodities boom which will eventually go bust. When that will happen is anyone's guess - the estimates range from 2 to 20 years. But when it happens - and it will - what are we left with? Not only vastly less revenue from company tax on resource companies as their profits decline, but less capacity to collect revenue from individuals because we've reduced the personal tax rates. Of course, Costello's aim, as with all the Libs, is "small government". You don't need to collect a lot of revenue if you don't provide any services. Privatize everything, turn it all over to market forces to get the best deal for consumers.
It's worked a treat so far, hasn't it? Has anyone's private health insurance premium actually gone down under the miracle of so-called competition?
- Posted by: Steve Reynolds on May 10, 2006 12:59 PM
Anne (anne at May 10, 2006 12:49) needs to realise that it's the *State* governements, not the Federal government, that are sitting on the "mountain of GST cash".
GST revenue goes exclusively to the States, which are all Labor-controlled. It's the States that are under-spending on health, education and infrastructure.
"Throwing away tax cuts on the rich"...well, Anne, someone earning $75,000 is NOT rich these days. Maybe $75,000 was a lot of money in 1986 but not in 2006. It's barely 25% above the average wage. It's about time that the true middle class stopped getting labelled as "rich", and got some breaks.
- Posted by: David on May 10, 2006 12:59 PM
at least the federal government are giving people an incentive to work hard. As a small business owner I am continually perplexed as to why the NSW State Government now fine me every time my business employs an additional person !
(The fine is called "payroll tax")
This fine is about $4,000 pa for each additional person I employ and is a disincentive to growing my business any further in what is a very low margin and barely profitable industry.
- Posted by: stephen on May 10, 2006 12:59 PM
How can you trust anything from the Prime Minister for Lies and Deceit and his Bridesmaid. The reality will be six to nine months away when by surprise the surplus will twice the figure in budget. He just canât get it right.
- Posted by: Paul Hoolahan on May 10, 2006 1:02 PM
"Luckily the majority of Aussies vote Liberal :) I don't agree with everything Liberal does but I sure fire agree more than I do with Labour! Labour is all for the Single Mums and Dole dependers. They encourage it while Liberal is family focused.
Go LIBERAL!!! :)"
It's just so heartwarming that Fee is here to lead the cheer for the wholesome Liberal Party. Hooray for Fee! Go Fee! Thank god that John Howard is keeping those ugly single mums & dole bludgers away from her boyfriend's & her hard-earned tax dollars.
You are kidding aren't you Fee?
- Posted by: Karl on May 10, 2006 1:03 PM
I don't understand... the people who say they are hard workers and earn good money... yah yah yah ... don't want to give over their hard earned.. OK - that's fine.
But how do you expect EVERYONE to earn big bucks and perform elite work (I assume that's what you are doing?)... it will never happen - it can't happen - there will always be people who for reasons they can't help, never earn mega $$ - I don't think you should put everyone in the same basket of not trying at school or not going to uni or whatever.
It will never be an equal playing field and I'm only too happy to support the lower echelons because I believe in the long term it will be better for the country as a whole and provide more opportunities, even for you mega earners.
I don't think its fair to say just because you don't earn big bucks you don't work hard?? That's ridiculous!
Alright, there is an 'element' out there but I'm sure there's just as many deserving people.
And besides, that I worked hard at school and I'm doing my third degree at uni and I earn reasonably good money...
Deb the Pleb
- Posted by: Deb the Pleb on May 10, 2006 1:03 PM
Joseph pay attention, we're talking about this year's budget not past surpluses.
IF a dollar is a dollar then why do we have different tax rates at all? Shouldn't there just be a flat tax amount regardless of an individual's income?
The simple fact is a dollar to a someone making 10,000 a year is worth more that that person than a dollar to a person making 1,000,000.
In relative terms this budget is heavily weighted to families and low income workers (neither of which I am) and my point about the only people who can whinge about this budget are at the top end is 100% right.
You think not? Let's swap tax rates.
- Posted by: Jeff on May 10, 2006 1:08 PM
i agree 100% with FK.
zero for families with a couple of kids in daycare and with a family income of $60k, whilst the big end of town get richer.
Costello should try living in Sydney on $60-70K with a mortgage or rent to pay plus daycare at $75/day. The lousy tax concession is a joke. 31.5% marginal rate at $25,000 a yr is ridiculous
- Posted by: jeff on May 10, 2006 1:08 PM
All I can say to the people who voted for John Howard last election and are earning 30-60k p.a. is LAP IT UP.
When will you wake up to the fact that Howard doesnt have your interests at heart? But please.. keep voting against your interests and giving me tax cuts. The only thing that has made the Howard years bearable is the knowledge that a large chunk of his voters are paying me for their stupidity by giving me more of their money. Also the fact I can take home a lot more of my money without feeling guilty about it.
To middle income Labor, Green and independent voters I offer my sincerest empathy and hope that come next election we will have a government that cares more about investing in health, education and public transport than giving people in my position (running a business) more money (Although I have to say I work like a **** for it doing 90+ hours a week, going grey early and probably shortening my lifespan by several years and do welcome tax relief when forced on me.)
- Posted by: andrew on May 10, 2006 1:10 PM
This is a shortsighted budget which does little to secure the future prosperity of Australia. It sems to be about winning elections. Major spending needs to be done on our infrastructure to reverse our balance of payments. If this is not corrected soon it will come back to bite us and all the tax cuts in the world will not help.
- Posted by: Chris on May 10, 2006 1:11 PM
As per usual the whingers of the lower income & family groups are out in full force because evidently the whole world owes them something for nothing. How about this for a novel idea - a flat rate for everyone where we all pay for our own choices. We have been slugged for years & entitled to absolutley nothing! It has reached a point where in some instances our take home pay is less than others who earn signicant less before tax. Key word here is EARN before tax not TAKE for nothing. Many of us have spend a lot of time & money into improving our prospects professionally only to have it ripped away by people who haven't bothered to do the same. Its high time that the real workers of Australia got back what they put in & stoped being punished at the benifit of those who think welfare is a lifestyle choice their entitled to just for exisitng.
- Posted by: KS on May 10, 2006 1:12 PM
At 74 as a self funded retiree who supported Superannuation during my working life, I have paid for my own tax cut but still dont get relief from pharmaceuticals and petrol prices. Some long overdue remedies with an eye to a forthcoming election year.
- Posted by: Maracas on May 10, 2006 1:12 PM
What lights my fire is TAX-on-TAX! Paying GST on Excise, paying GST on stamp duty etc and on liquor excise and any TAX on TAX area. Burns me up!
- Posted by: Buck Shot on May 10, 2006 1:13 PM
"I work from 8am to 6pm every day, rarely get a break, and am responsible for over 100 staff. "
...and that explains why Mark has time to sit on this forum and explain his lack of social responsibility or empathy for anyone else. Better get back to it chief, your 100 staff need you!
- Posted by: Andrew on May 10, 2006 1:13 PM
In spite of some reasonable measures, overall it is an abject failure.
Our public health services are in crisis yet there are no dental & public health initiatives.
Likewise our universities are in crisis yet there are no education initiatives. HECS remains a major disincentive for higher education. Instead it is an incentive to export our most educated and talented people - once they obtain their degrees it is far more profitable to work overseas and avoid the liability for repayment. So in fact this is exacerbating our nations skills shortage. We should be using the surplus to return to free education for all.
Our public transport systems are in crisis yet there is nothing for that. Investment in efficient public transport systems (especially rail) is critical if we are to address the long term issues of urban sprawl and greenhouse emissions from private cars.
Our energy sources are overwhelmingly based on fossil fuels which are contributing to environmental degradation and global warming yet there is nothing for research and development of alternative clean energy. If we are to avoid the catastrophe of climate change this is a must.
Superannuation, in spite of the changes, remains fundamentally flawed in favour of high income earners and against low income earners. My daughter's $1 of employer super costs her 15c (as a low income earner she would have paid no tax in her hands but in her super fund it is taxed at 15%) By comparison it is worth 30c in tax breaks to a high income earner. That is a 45% difference in favour of the high income earner! How can this be justified?
In a time of record budget surpluses this budget is a political budget which has no forward thinking at all. It is a "Me" budget designed to shore up the governments prospects at the next election when it could have been addressed to fix some fundamental issues that will affect Australia for generations to come.
- Posted by: Greg H on May 10, 2006 1:20 PM
I love how people here think $150,000 is "RICH". I make a $150,000 and my wife earns $100,000. Were not all that rich thanks to the fact that last year we paid $80,000 in taxes. God forbid if we get back $600 a month. When the rest of you start paying $80K a year in taxes then you can start your whinging
- Posted by: Richard on May 10, 2006 1:26 PM
Glad to see overseas aid get a boost. Whilst we have so much, we should be helping those with little.
However, did anyone notice the paltry $160M added to the pacific highway?
Wow... that should allow another 15km to be upgraded.
- Posted by: Chun on May 10, 2006 1:27 PM
Just another feathering of the nests of the Members Stand and continuing the vote-buying programme of the middle class breeders. No vision for the future - what will happen when there's no more "family silver" to sell & the free ride on China's back ends?
- Posted by: hardy on May 10, 2006 1:28 PM
you are a sickening example of what has gone wrong with this country. Your pathetically insular views have been pandered to for 10 years to the point where you feel that your opinion actually has a grounding in reality.
For the record, I had a high paying job and career and felt that all it offered was the path to where you now sit. Bloated with self importance and money, failing to realise that the essence of community was around long before capitalist society. Sadly community is now a word used in relation to fenced estates where people like you revel in a pointless consumer driven being and think you are better than those who do not have a big TV etc.
From all of us 'losers' have a good look at yourself. If I was you though, I'd avoid it.
- Posted by: matt on May 10, 2006 1:28 PM
Someone said that Howard's government is not representative of Australia, as reflected in this budget which favours the wealthy (again). What surprises me is the 'Who? Me?' mentality of all these (apparently "un-Australian" - what a meaningless term!) Australians. How else has Howard won government the last four elections? It is sad to say, but I hope that things go really sour for Australians the longer the Coalition remains in power - it's possibly the sort of scare we all need to recognise that the economic rationalists in power share a 'rationale' with the rich, and not with 'the rest'. Unfortunately our social consciousness has also been affected by the 'trickle down' effect...
Also, besides the unfairness of the tax cuts to middle income earners, Howard, Costello and co have not put much aside for future generations: there could have been a massive investment in the environment and education-focussed infrastructure.
We all seem to want our cake and eat it too.
Wake up Australian people. Think about someone else for a change.
- Posted by: Sam Hewett on May 10, 2006 1:29 PM
Would you rather have a Lexus? or justice? a dream? or some substance? A Beamer? a necklace? or freedom?
Wake up Australia! Or won't your mortgage allow it?
- Posted by: reg on May 10, 2006 1:31 PM
i think we have really missed out on an oppurtunity to use this money that was handed out in tax cuts, why not do something about the impending sale of the snowy river scheme, better rail and road infrastructure, and i know this may give some people a heart attack but mabye spend a little more on higher education since so much has been ropped out of it recently, or even more wild and wacky give the sciences like R&D or the CSIRO a boost
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 1:34 PM
It's about time higher income taxpayers got a break. All the government needs to do now is cease using my money to subsidise the over population of this planet...
- Posted by: Andrew on May 10, 2006 1:36 PM
Hey Rich:
" Labour should never be in power again!"
Glad to see that DOUBLE DEGREE is worth the money.
Labor Party is spelt without the u. "Educated" but still semi-literate - Typical lower middle-class Liberal voter!
Good luck in you self-centred world.
- Posted by: Jeffrey Hampton on May 10, 2006 1:37 PM
For someone who proclaims to be so busy, you are spending alot of time posting comments on this forum. Do they 100 staff you 'manage' (the ones that earn less than you and dont work as hard as you do) know how much time you have wasted today......
- Posted by: Danny on May 10, 2006 1:38 PM
Consider this. Australia is self sufficient in Natural Gas for approximately the next 400 years based upon current estimates and totally self sufficient in uranium.If our Government was to show some courage it would pay every one with a motor vehicle still using petrol a subsidy to convert to LPG and Truckies to convert to the alternative to diesel. The estimated costs of this measure would be approximately some $2.8 Billion. The savings would be enormous a fall in our current account deficit, an increase in our S&P rating, no reliance upon foreign oil reserves to keep the country moving and above large savings in the weekly budget (approx $35 - $45 p.w.). There would be no need for tax cuts just plain common sense. The Government would not miss out as the increased savings would be spent on more essential items such as health care, the odd night out and a host of other things families do without. But this would require Politicians to use that stuff between their ears and think beyond the next election. Such things are what dreams are made of.
- Posted by: John Coupe on May 10, 2006 1:40 PM
Stop the whinging, I'm sure other budgets have had bigger tax cuts for middle and low wage earners.
The high income earners deserve a catch-up too.
Im stuck in the middle, but now at least I have something to look forward too when I move up the scale.
I only wish more money would go into the crumbling infrastructure system, this country has the worst roads, a train system that has improved little since its introduction since the early 1900's. The infrastructure is possibly worse than 3rd world countries.
- Posted by: john on May 10, 2006 1:40 PM
All this budget is about is keeping the majority of apolitical voters happy. The Liberals and Labor are no different. They only see what short term political gain and not take into account essentials such as hospitals, public transport, education etc
- Posted by: Marc on May 10, 2006 1:40 PM
Migrants lose lot from this appropriation bill (the budget). As indicated in SMH analysis, they are typically a family with two children. One person earns 67,000 and other person earns around 33,000. Tax cut of 35$/week is lost in rising petrol, interest rate, vegetable price etc. etc. The losers!
- Posted by: Prem on May 10, 2006 1:41 PM
The lack of understanding of tax collection and allocation, judging by some of the previous comments, never ceases to amaze me.
Most of the current federal surplus has come from increased company tax receipts, NOT from selling assets NOR from PAYE taxpayers. Read today's Ross Gittins article.
Federal funds provided to the states have been more than generous over the last 10 years due to the combined windfall of greater than expected GST revenue (-ALL- GST revenue goes to the states, Anne, the federal govt doesn't "sit on a mountain" of it) and above-inflation targetted funds provided for health. Add to that the windfall NSW has enjoyed with land tax and I simply can't understand why the NSW government continually blames the Federal Govt for not providing enough money for the hospital system that is managed by the state.
The only criticism I have of the budget is that there was no provision for addressing future energy and transport problems.
- Posted by: Gary on May 10, 2006 1:46 PM
" I love how people here think $150,000 is RICH "
I'd never think you were rich. Nothing indicates there is any richness in your life at all. . .You only mentioned money in your post which clearly indicates what you value . Enjoyed the " Da Vinci Code " did ya ?
- Posted by: Jeffrey Hampton on May 10, 2006 1:47 PM
Richard and his wife who make $250k must be absolutely kidding if he thinks he's not rich and doing it easy! Mate, if you paid $80k tax between the two of you, then you still cleared $170k which equates to over $14k a month! Peanuts!
My heart bleeds for you!
- Posted by: Rob on May 10, 2006 1:48 PM
Richard (Richard at May 10, 2006 01:26 PM)
I'm so sorry to hear that you are struggling on a net annual income of $170k. It must be so tough limiting yourself to only one bottle of moet for dinner each night. I have to do with a VB longneck.
- Posted by: TMA on May 10, 2006 1:49 PM
Strange that a government would give massive tax breaks to high-income earmers in the same year it brings in legislation specifically designed to hamper the ability of low-income earners ever to move to higher incomes.
Is that CLASS IDEOLOGY I smell?
- Posted by: JJ on May 10, 2006 1:50 PM
Hands up all those that could see the inherent benfit of their miniscule $7 a week or so tax cut going towards hospitals, public transport, roads, alternative energy source research? You really have to ask, who in the Liberal Government is actually concerned about the future, not just the upcoming electiion!?
- Posted by: Shaun M on May 10, 2006 1:51 PM
Could not agree more with Paul's comments about Trina. What a pathetic path this country is going down. Wake up Australia! A miniscule tax cut means bugger all when times get tough. And they will eventually. Put the surplus into something more beneficial like health and education.
- Posted by: Steven on May 10, 2006 1:51 PM
To all those doubting the veracity of John Howrd and his Liberal Government remember one thing.
The alternative was Mark Latham.
Is there a man or woman out there that says we would have been better off under a Latham Government.
- Posted by: Latham 4 PM on May 10, 2006 1:51 PM
See, Jeff is complaining about the exact thing I was talking about earlier.
You are having a hard time paying the $75 a day for daycare? Easy solution, don't have the damn children you cant afford then. It is not anybodys decision but your own to put yourself in that position. Take some responsibility for your own choices and quit complaining how hard life is for you. Neither the government or taxpayers should be forced to carry the burden of your poor choice to have children you can't afford.
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 1:52 PM
Heres some sanity perhaps.
10 percent of my weekly take home wage goes to Petrol.
65 percent of my weekly take home wage goes to my Home Loan.
10 percent of my weekly take home wage goes to my Groceries. (Home Brand)
I have no holidays, no plasma, no imported car, no flash watch, have worn the same shirts for 2 years, 2 kids and a wife.
Live in a 3 bedroom house in a near coastal Sydney Suburb that was not my choice but close to my family.
My life is full of restrictions and after all the other bills and stuff, we actually spend a little more than we earn and we are tight arses and have to sell shit on ebay to get ahead. (mind you, thats fun in itself).
I earn 100,000 per year.
So jam my life up your crack and stop buying plasmas and imported cars that drive up inflation and stop ****ing whinging about the rich getting richer.
Its all relative.
- Posted by: Rids on May 10, 2006 1:52 PM
Jeff, don't be specious.
You should already know that because $1M is so far over the top marginal tax rate that the %benefit decreases. Not only that but the % of millionaires is infintesmally small compared to other wage earners and have better ways of reducing tax than relying on government cuts. You are either yourself mathematically illiterate or just being plain deceptive by selective statistics.
The vast majority of people earn more than 25k and below 70k.
40k/yr (avg wage) 1.28% saving
60k/yr 0.85% saving
70k/yr 1.93% saving
150k/yr 4.13% saving
It is indeed a budget for the rich.
- Posted by: andrew on May 10, 2006 1:53 PM
Anne and you other dills who go on about the Federal Government and all the GST money it has - not one cent of GST does the Federal Government keep. It all goes to the states and it is the states (all Labor) that are underspending on health and other essential services. The GST has cashed the states up more than they have ever been before. I can understand some of the comments from the Howard Haters who would have criticised the budget no matter what but at least get your facts right.
- Posted by: Lennie Hugo on May 10, 2006 1:54 PM
If nothing else the super reforms will benefit all of us - with super funds hopefully investing in replacing ageing infrastructure we will be able to plan long term as well as provide returns for all Australians when they retire.
- Posted by: Fiona Place on May 10, 2006 1:56 PM
Yes I am serious - Liberals rule!
John Howard has done a lot more for this country than Labor ever did. Labor got us into debt yay Labor!
And we are a lucky country - stop whinging people! Geez we got gain in this budget more than loss. Like I said earlier you can't please everyone.
You can say all you want about the rich getting rich but its untrue! The 'rich' (defined: mostly those who work hard to get where they are) lose heaps of money in tax so I support them in this budget. Its all relative in the end.
Say what you want but the majority of Australians agree with me about Liberal :) Why else would this government still be in power? And I have no doubt Liberal will win the next election.
GO JOHHNY AND PETEY! LOL so looking forward to feedback on this blog hehe
:) :) :)
- Posted by: Fee on May 10, 2006 1:58 PM
My comment is simple. The tax cut is just a gesture. The real meaning is to remind aussies to work and learn hard and get up to the lader. then you don't have to winge. But one thing is those at the top always got the authority to purpose new ideas and in control. Those in the middle level are just the subordinate and have to work for those at the top level. Otherwise you will do without a job. Now just listen and be quiet. Even tax cut is so unfair, at least every one got some. Other points need to be addressed is those at 30% are still the disadvantaged due to the fact the tax has never ever never ever been treated like those on the top or bottom level. Howard goverment needs to look at the majority group and let this group of citizen(good hard working group) have some great benifit.
- Posted by: esther Pong on May 10, 2006 1:59 PM
Oh well... I guess I'll just give up uni, get on the dole, get knocked up and in 9 months get my baby bonus and kick back on the pension & family tax benefits. "Have one for the country." as Costello said. Clearly Howard couldn't give a sh**t about students and when I was a full time worker, he didn't give a sh**t then either. Until we get rid of this turkey, we're all stuffed.
- Posted by: Dee on May 10, 2006 2:00 PM
Well, what a diverse range of comments!
It seems a battle of the haves and have not's and this is dividing our nations which is not good in the spirit of generating a community spirit! It is all about what's in it for me as I don't care about our community??
I am as Peter Costello states in the top 2% of income earners and can say that the top marginal rate of 45% is better than the previous 47% but should cut in at $250,000 plus (like in the USA) however I will not complain as to me the smart investor or risk taker (no matter what income you are on) will be the one living comfortably but on based on day to day income as he or she will not care how much income tax they pay as you should learn how to minimise your tax, and then live off your capital gains which even on the highest tax bracket (now) you will not pay anymore than 22% tax and not need to live off your income!
I don't mind paying more tax because you only pay a lot of tax if you earn a lot of income, and for those people complaining this budget was meant for the rich, saying "oh we with a family on $50,000 only received $10 per week and those over $100,000 received ten times more at $100++ per week.." Well I say do your math! Don't just look at the surface or the flat tax rate or just read the sensationalised TV or press. Check with Centrelink. A family earning $50,000 per annum would pay $10,860 in tax plus Medicare levy however would then receive $9,475 in Family Tax Benefits and $4713 in Child Care Benefits the net tax paid is $2,579. This equates to a net of 5% tax?? We seem to becoming a nation of ?wingers???
The tax I pay for example pays for the full pension of 9 older people on the old age pension or 11 unemployed people or 21 families? child care rebates and so on. I am pleased to pay taxes to help the community in addition to the money I donate to charities for children. So lets stop attacking the people on the 40% and 45% plus tax brackets and start using your heads and look at the ?net? return not just in nominal tax but also include all the tax deductions and tax rebates and then you would realise the people in the two top tax brackets are paying ten times more in tax to fund the bottom 50%. This is not said as criticism to those people but just stating the simple facts.
And a comment for all those Australian expats overseas saying they only pay 10% tax. Wake up guys I have lived as an expact in three countries including Singapore. Yes, less tax in Singapore however with only 4 million people and the size of country is smaller than Sydney what exactly would you do with more than 10% tax collected as there is little money spent on infrastructure (most business funded) , the majority of their university students study in England, USA or Australia, they have no beaches no national parks, do not having thousands of kilometres of freeways, highways and train lines, do not have to build hospitals and schools spread across the size of Europe etc etc etc, so as I said what is Singapore spending the 10% employee tax on in comparison to Australia??? Oh and I forgot Singapore is not a true democracy as you can never speak against the government without being jailed?.. I am glad to be living back in Australia n a high income any day?.
Regarding the budget the things I would of changed for the community not just income tax?
Why do we need to spend $1.9 billion in defence? Defence from whom? Do you think America and Europe will would invade Iraq at the drop of incorrect intelligence and let any nation invade Australia especially with over 50% in foreign investment in this country?
Spend money on ASIO yes as proactive in better than reactive although I would like to see another government body established that has security clearance to review the intelligence and all the manual effort/hours with very strict audit trails as employing more spies does not necessarily equal more intelligence on terrorism and especially if it is all secret you can keep spending more and more money with no measurable results.
Airport Security with $644 million, this is another one of smoke and mirrors. No amount of security can stop the modern day terrorism more than the security measures we already have in place now. Again no one has shown the public any measurable outcomes on how all this money is helping us.
The $1.9 billion and $644 million (over $2.5 billion) should have been spend on improving:
1. Infrastructure Education, more Technical College and Universities were the majority of non affluent public live and $0 upfront cost for your first trade certificate or degree
2. Infrastructure Hospitals, we need more hospitals closer to were the majority of the population lives based on income or affordability. In addition there are number of internal documents that show public hospitals are 30% more efficient that private hospitals so increase the Medicare levy to 3% with the aim to have no more than 1 week wait list (non cosmetic procedures) available to all Australians (I am in the highest private health fund and still to prefer to go public as the staff seem more efficient and better medically all round educated)
3. Infrastructure - Water Recycling (need to stop pumping 70% of water into the ocean by using reusable water after Class A filtering and pumping back all the filtered water into our dams and farming community dams and rivers)
4. Infrastructure - Stimulating car companies to produce nice looking hybrid cars with grants to manufacturers and tax deductions for companies and governments or novated leases that purchase hybrid vehicles (battery and petrol hybrid cars as 70% of the petrol consumption and pollution is at low speeds going to and from work) thus eventually doubling the money in peoples pockets buy reducing petrol by 50% to 70% in consumption and pollution by half.
5. Family - Parents should be able to have their Child Care taken before tax out of their pay as Salary Sacrifice just like you can now do with Super. The kids of today will be tomorrow?s tax payers and we need to encourage two kid families to to at least replace the two people who will eventual die and since we have an ageing population thanks to medicine we need to encourage both parents to work to pay for their super and taxes to pay for the old age pension and their health care.
Add the last five points and we have a very healthy budget, economy and very lucky country
- Posted by: Neil on May 10, 2006 2:01 PM
If so many are so unhappy with this government and all that they stand for, then how is it that they keep getting re-elected.
- Posted by: Greg on May 10, 2006 2:01 PM
I wonder how long it will be before this government privatises parliament and budget surpluses become known as profits? Based on the announced superannuation benefits, the financial director just gave himself, his chairman and all the members of the board (parliament)a bigger tax benefit than anyone in the community - even those earning $1 million pa.
How much "spin" can you put on self interest?
- Posted by: Glenn Hobble on May 10, 2006 2:02 PM
The budget is getting Howard and his Childcare shareholder colleages richer and richer, the poor becomes poorer and poorer!
- Posted by: Anti-Howard Group on May 10, 2006 2:02 PM
The definition of rich is not people who WORK and earn $150,000.00.. It is the people who dont have to WORK to earn $150,000.00. I earn $195,000.00, but let me assure you that I am not rich. Two months without work would see me selling the family home and trading the Prado for a Commodore.
What do I think of them cutting my tax down from $3667.00 to $3367.00 per fortnight Woooo Hooo!!! Still paying a lot of tax though hey??
Mr D
- Posted by: Dave on May 10, 2006 2:03 PM
Poor Mark - you work so hard, have no life and then you think you're making a bright comment on the SMH and you get slated by the majority. Perhaps re-evaluate, stop looking for so much recognition and start standing up for yourself. Sounds like your employer has you bent over good and proper with your wage given you are on call 24/7, have such huge responsibilities and work such long hours. You seem to equate all your worth by the fact you made "something" of yourself and have this fabulous salary. Seems sad by anyone elses calculations. xx
- Posted by: Kat on May 10, 2006 2:03 PM
Good for me, bad for the country and interest rates.
- Posted by: John Woodward on May 10, 2006 2:05 PM
I hope that child-care relief in this budget is, indeed, 'smoke and mirrors.' With FBT and child-care credits, families with children are doing much better than couples without children, and singles. I disagree with subsidising adults' choice to procreate.
- Posted by: Jacqueline on May 10, 2006 2:06 PM
RBA will will surely step in again and raise interest rates. Good on them if they do because like a spoilt child who needs a good spanking, we've had it too good for too long and someone has to make us smell the roses and stop spending other people's money like there's no tommorrow. Early pain now will save most from deeper hardship and misery. If the RBA had increased rates by 1 percent 2 years ago, I'm sure there would be hardly any whingers out there complaining about last nights tax cuts. It might even force most of us to have a reality check and reassess what's important in life..
- Posted by: Chocsta on May 10, 2006 2:08 PM
To me $150,000 is rich (esp. if thats one persons income). I (and many other people) am a uni student. Most of us live on somewere between $10,000 and $20,000 p/a depending on whether we are fortunate enough to have jobs or what sort of Centrelink allowance we receive or if partnered etc. Student poverty seems to be invisible and somewhat accepted in this country and the silence from all major political parties on the issue is deafening esp. as the Liberals have recently successfully smashed our student unions and want to steal our rights at work when we get professional jobs and we are saddled with Increasing HECS debts. Almost half of my (and many others) income goes on rent alone, I dont own a car (if I did i'd be in financial ruin). To allow people to live 40% below the Henderson poverty line is completely unacceptable!
- Posted by: Dan K on May 10, 2006 2:09 PM
There is some debate on who or what is 'rich'. As Australians we are all rich. Any tax relief is welcome, however unlike many countries we are rich with services. As an Aussie in the USA, the health 'system' here is non-existent. As bad as Medicare and the hospital system seems to be in Australia, no one will be bankrupted for two generations as a result of a trip to the hospital. On the other hand look at countries in central Africa, their problems make our issues seem petty by comparison. I feel that the present administration is better than the alternative, however at this time there needed to be a tightening on the welfare side of the equation not the IR side. There is not a reader out there that can justify the dole for life. As harsh as it sounds there needs to be a cut off point for unemployment, then those savings can be passed on to the worker (taxpayer) and only then can some of the issues relating to IR can be looked at, as the longterm unemployed come on line in the work place market. Trust me Mexicans only come to the USA because things are so bad in Mexico. There are not 12 million Canadians crossing the border to get to the USA.
- Posted by: Richard Ward on May 10, 2006 2:10 PM
When you dance with the devil you can't stop.
How to dumb down Australia: Give the Me Me Mes' more crispy notes to spend now at the expense of improving the fundamentals of our society.
Health... duped.
Education... duped.
Environment... duped.
Apprenticeships... duped, while fed working guest visas are increased.
This is what the majority of people voted for, well you're getting it and I reckon you don't care since your wallet is bigger.
Howard hates the fact it's all Labor run state governments and will do anything to undermined them. Limit the funds of your adversaries and they will fall, not fair.
- Posted by: I'm All Right Jack. on May 10, 2006 2:11 PM
I think my extra $10 a week will come in very handy but ideally I would have liked to see this windfall spent on building an amazing future for when the times are leaner, perhaps through investment in innovation and technology with the reliance on fossil fuels causing such problems and research.
I just think a "once in a life time" windfall could have really created some amazing opportunities in the future.
- Posted by: Kat on May 10, 2006 2:12 PM
Sam Hewett - you are a drongo if you think that every budget of Peter Costello's has favoured the rich. Tax rates for middle income australia have been the focus of almost every budget.
The rich - as you refer to them, and I am not one of them mind you, have had no relief at all, despite considerable 'gifts' elsewhere. On average the 'rich' take very little from the system. usually they have private health care, they educate their kids privately, do not use public transport and do not receive welfare. As such they are already paying for services they don't need nor use. So in your opinion they should pay more than everyone else, yet not use what they pay for, and they should pay for it because they have more money?
This is genuine nonsense. You want people to pay more just because they have more, then when they get a 'break' you say it is unfair.
Well I suggest that you consider a really fair economy where it is user pays, after all that is total equity and fairness.
- Posted by: James Dickson on May 10, 2006 2:13 PM
From the look of all the responses the public is of one mind. Costello & the public service have looked after themselves & their mates.
"The rich are getting richer, the poor poorer".
A bumper budget wasted.
- Posted by: J.Corbett on May 10, 2006 2:13 PM
Richard, you have no sense of reality if you don't think 150k is rich. 150k means you earn more than 98 PERCENT of Australians. Sure it doesn't mean you're a millionaire and your lifestyle adjusts accordingly in day to day things but you have your head up your ass if you don't think so.
the first time I broke 100k/yr was after a previous year of earning a fair bit less rather than a slow and gradual process. I can tell you the difference between an average wage and 100k is night and day even if you pay large amounts of tax. And this is from someone who will probably earn more this year than you and your wife put together.
- Posted by: andrew on May 10, 2006 2:16 PM
Having read what so many have said, there is very little left for me. However, I strongly feel that this is a Government for the rich and well off. Peter Costello and John Howard are clearly giving the 'finger' to middle Australia for having elected them last time and that too with a majority in the senate. God knows what else is in store for the average Aussie!? Hope everyone sees beyond the smokescreens and boot this government out at the next opportunity so the new elected representatives can undo the social damages of the past decade.
- Posted by: karamirch on May 10, 2006 2:16 PM
Andy, you prat. Which bit of which post suggested I don't work?
- Posted by: Joseph on May 10, 2006 2:16 PM
Is it just me or are a lot of people on here complaining about the Government not helping them to live their lives the way they have chosen???? Wake up and get real, we all need to live within our means. If you choose to over-extend yourself with an enormous mortgage and have 7 children, then more fool you I say. Why should the Government (whether Labor or Liberal) help you out more than the next person because you CHOSE to have the huge mortgage and family???? It's time to get back to basics and have some common sense.
And before I get lambasted, I earn $45,000 a year and repay a mid-sized mortgage by myself, have 2 kids and a medium sized car to drive. I live very comfortably, certainly not rich in monetary terms but am LOADED in terms of happiness with my lot in life.
- Posted by: Jen on May 10, 2006 2:17 PM
Yet another perk for the baby boomers.
Nothing for families just trying to get by.
Nothing but more fodder for the "me me me" mean spirited, money-grubbing mentality the government has worked so hard to foster over the last decade.
Nothing that builds greater social cohesion and that sense of looking after each other.
This isn't about bludgers not working hard and all those senior executives slaving away over huge hours, this is about creating a system that ensures no-one gets left behind (note to those who equate low wage earners with bludgers or laziness - walk one day, one week, in their shoes and tell me they are lazy).
When will the govt - any govt - realise a one-off payment is not good management or policy -
Where are the support programs for carers?
Where are the comprehensive national early intervention policies for kids w/ special needs- those that every single piece of international research show that for a $1 spent on early intervention you save $17 when they are adults?
Where is our fair, accessible (I've given up on it ever being free) education system?
Where are the policies and funding to ensure we have a first-rate health system for everyone, regardless of what tax bracket they fall into?
Where are the well-thought-out policies and funding announcements on ensuring our children have access to safe and nurturing child care facilities, staffed by well-trained carers?
It's an awesome budget for the mean-spirited, racist, frightened, selfish Australia this government has worked so hard to create.
- Posted by: Despairing on May 10, 2006 2:18 PM
Watch the interest rates rise now.
Another lie.
No government has ever had such favourable terms of trade yet our foreign debt continues to break records every quarter.
This bugdet cements Peter Costello's reputation as the Sheriff of Nottingham, stealing from the middle classes and giving to the rich.
All Labor has to do is sack Kim Beazley and they will win the next election in a landslide.
- Posted by: Michael B on May 10, 2006 2:19 PM
Super Reforms???
I truly wonder the reasoning of not abolishing the 15% contributions tax. This would promote people to save for their retirement.
People are now going to be more likely to cash out their super balance when they retire, spend it then go on to Centrelink Support. There is no real incentive to begin an income stream with superannuation savings, apart from any growth being tax free, but how many people will know this when they retire?
Who will seek professional advice before retirement?
Super needed a face lift, however at the contribution end, not the benefit end.
- Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 2:20 PM
Jeff, more than happy to swap tax rates. I'm on the highest - you somewhere above that? Don't assume everyone who has an opinion has a vested self-interest and a ME attitude.
- Posted by: Joseph on May 10, 2006 2:21 PM
I pity the the people tied into salary sacrifice deals... suddenly they aren't getting a good deal.
Imagine those earning $140k with say $40k tied up in fringe benefits attracting full fbt now those people are paying 46.5% tax on benefits they would otherwise be paying for out of their 41.5% taxed income.
Ouch $2000 wasted, and damn those on $100k were only $2700 better off. $700, $13 a week, that will make a difference.
If this keeps up is there a future for salary packaging in Aus? Admittedly there is only a $55k range and a max 5% impact, or $2750. But still there is the potential to be worse off $50 (unlikely) or simply less better off than the changes would have people believe.
This is not advice. I am happy to be corrected or see this FBT impact expanded.
- Posted by: Paul on May 10, 2006 2:21 PM
Dave you have big problems if you're on 200k a year and only have 2 months of savings or investments. You have a chance less than 2% of Aussies get - don't be stupid with your money, you owe it to yourself.
On the other hand it would be a good lesson for you the next time you get there again.
- Posted by: andrew on May 10, 2006 2:22 PM
As an overseas worker educated in the Australian University system - I guess one of the so called "brain drain" - I welcome this budget.
The cost of education in Australia, and in particular HECS, was never a disincentive to stay and work in Australia. I have paid my HECS debt in full. The disincentive to work in Australia has always been the comparatively high taxation levels. For a lot of expatriated Australians I believe this issues has been key. It is good to see a government finally taking some action on this point.
- Posted by: Pedro on May 10, 2006 2:23 PM
Why do so many people expect the government to look after their children and provide so much childcare? I stay home and look after my own children,so i am not a burden on society but what about all these women who want it all,they want the kids,they want the lifestyle AND they want the taxpayer to cough up for childcare.Maybe mum should be a mum for a few more years or not have kids til she can afford it? As a taxpayer why should i pay for someone elses childcare?
- Posted by: artemesia on May 10, 2006 2:24 PM
Capitalism has ripped out our humanity.We worship a false God
- Posted by: Alan Chamberlain on May 10, 2006 2:24 PM
Hoping all the self satisfied have invested heavily in the future way, way beyond retirement.
You haven't arrived guys this is all still training and apprenticeship mode.
How will you fare when the BIG budget is handed down?
- Posted by: SJM on May 10, 2006 2:24 PM
The ATO Pty Ltd has done well over the 15 year boom.
Time line:
1990 - 1996 Labor (pioneers)
1996 - 2006 Liberal (gate keepers)
- Posted by: 15 year boom on May 10, 2006 2:27 PM
Hmmm... I seem to remember hearing Costello assuring us that this was going to be "a budget for middle Australia". I had no idea that middle Australians earned so much!! I had been duped into believing that the average wage was around $50K - yet people earning this amount have been given a pithy, token reduction in the tax they pay. I'm happy that lower-income earners have received more, but am sick of the Howard Government pandering to blue-ribbon Liberal voters. It's an obvious vote garnering exercise. Why not spend more money on investing in the future (education, health, the environment), and less on BMWs for already wealthy investment bankers??
- Posted by: Leah on May 10, 2006 2:29 PM
Ahem. Backstep in progress.
Yes, I had a whinge earlier about nothing in this budget for single people, especially those of us blocked from owning our own homes. Why should I have to support childcare, schools, etc when I don't have kids and choose not to have any at all? Mutter, mutter, mutter!
But I'm in a much better position than many, including students here in Australia. I have a great job that pays decently (not huge, but enough). I rent a nice home near the city. OK, I don't have holidays and my car is old, small and cheap to run. But I have a great life and having $10 a week more will make a difference, however small.
In fact, it's going to make a difference to someone else - I've decided that my extra $10 will go to charity, instead of another couple of coffees.
We seem to have forgotten the euphoria and the warm-fuzzy feelings of yesterday when the miners were rescued and have reverted to whinging.
Have we turned into a nation of Poms????
C'mon Aussie! She'll be right!
- Posted by: CO on May 10, 2006 2:31 PM
Hey, it's the Liberal Party after all. They aren't there for low and middle income folk, they cater for the rich and the rich got catered for. Simple. As to social equity...hey, see my first point, etc. Australia, you got the government you deserved.
- Posted by: Jet on May 10, 2006 2:32 PM
Just because you earn a lot of money does not mean that you work harder than people who are eaning a middle income -nurses, teachers etc.!
Why do people equate eaning lots of $$$ to working the hardest.
There are some people out there who work because they love what they do, not because of how much they earn. The problem is that to buy a house in Sydney, you can't necessarily choose the career you want...
- Posted by: Jus on May 10, 2006 2:32 PM
It is a budget that favours the rich. For those who say previous budgets have helped middle income earners and it is the turn of the rich, don't you think the rich are rich enough and it would be in the country's best interest to help middle Australia and the poor as much as possible.
Peter Costello and John Howard both say cutting tax for the rich will help encourage people to work harder.....do people honestly believe that a manager on $200,000 a year works any harder than a teacher on $50,000 a year, or a factory worker on even less?
Peter Costello has used this budget to fool people into thinking he has done something good, when all he has done is waste the fortune we are enjoying during an enormous boom. These boom times will not last forever, and what will people then say when taxes go up?
- Posted by: Daniel on May 10, 2006 2:33 PM
I think it is a fair budget. Why do people have to be such whingers and not see the positive side of it. Our Tax rates are really high compared to all developed countries in World. In U.S highest tax rate is 30% @ $350,000 p.a. I am not sure why people think that because you earn more should pay a higher percentage of tax. I understand its progressive taxation and we do try to help economy as well. But if people are not paid for there hard work why would they work hard.
I think its overall good budget
- Posted by: Monti Desai on May 10, 2006 2:34 PM
I know why there were no real child care benefits or incentives in the budget - It's simple really. That would allow more mums back into the workforce. How then would the Libs be able claim that they are addressing a skills shortage by allowing thier rich mates to bring in overseas workers who won't complain about Kevin Andrews' new workplace relations laws?? Silly of me really wasn't it?
- Posted by: Ben on May 10, 2006 2:36 PM
"If so many are so unhappy with this government and all that they stand for, then how is it that they keep getting re-elected."
Why do people continue to play poker machines?
Why do people pick at scabs?
Why do people smoke cigarettes?
- Posted by: Matt on May 10, 2006 2:37 PM
James Dickson: Did someone say 'drongo'? Sounds like a case of 'perception is projection'. If you had read closely, I did not assert that 'every' budget of Costello's has favoured the rich, just that he's at it again. You should get your facts straight. You should also argue a little more soundly. It is a nonsense to claim that "On average the 'rich' take very little from the system. usually they have private health care, they educate their kids privately, do not use public transport and do not receive welfare." To rebutt your silly generalisations: Recipients of private health care get a government rebate (the higher the cost of care, the higher the rebate); private schools receive government funding (as well as additional funding from those with higher incomes); private transport users drive on roads paid for mainly with government funding; and wealthy people DO receive welfare if you include the family tax benefits etc. Not to mention Australia's pervasive and expensive corporate welfare mentality - certainly the 'rich' benefit from this kind of welfare. As for your accusation that I am a drongo: they are nice birds, a little common, but with a strong sense of community - I am not insulted at all. I would rather be a drongo than an idiot who can't argue to save his life. I repeat: get your facts straight, then try and say something useful.
- Posted by: Sam Hewett on May 10, 2006 2:39 PM
Help for middle income families I think not! $10 a week can hardly be classified as a windfall. The one group that is getting the real windfall is the rich (yet again).
- Posted by: CT on May 10, 2006 2:39 PM
Alan ,(2.24pm)should that that be god with a lower case g?
- Posted by: mark preston on May 10, 2006 2:40 PM
Artemesia "I stay at home and look after my kids"...Excuse me. Are you saying that I am a burden on society because I work and my kids go to daycare. I think it is YOU who is a burden. I could be like you and stay at home and get a $250 a fortnight in FTB and send my kids to daycare for free for 3 days a week (as Government pays 100% for daycare for stay at home mums as they don't earn anything). Because I choose to work, I pay taxes, pay $110 A DAY in childcare costs for 2 kids and get $NIL FTB as I earn income and the Government won't pay me anything for FTB and my child care costs are not subsidised AT ALL by Government as our combined family income is more than $70,000 and therefore I pay 100% of my child care costs. SO WHO IS A BURDEN EXACTLY ?????
- Posted by: FK on May 10, 2006 2:43 PM
Working Parents complain about no childcare allowances.
Solution: Stay at home, like your mother did.
Working Parents compain about the quality of childcare.
Solution: Stay at home, care for your own kids.
Working Parents compain about the costs of childcare.
Solution: Stay at home, look after your own kids.
Their your kids after all.
- Posted by: simon on May 10, 2006 2:46 PM
OMG. Aretmesia you cannot be serious. Do you honestly think wanting to be able to support yourself and your family is wanting too much? Not having children until they can afford it means not having children until you are in your late 30s for many women, or not at all. We do not all have the ability to survive on one income, emphisised the pure fact that most work places do not have paid maternity leave. And what consideration are you giving single mums? It seems staying at home too long warps your mind.
- Posted by: visy on May 10, 2006 2:47 PM
Another tax cut for rich Australia. Boohoo. Lets tax rich Australia more. Genius idea that!
Lets compare a Teacher vs Banker:
Two people go to the same school, both their parents had the same incomes and both had the same opportunities. One becomes a teacher and one becomes a banker.
The teacher gets $45k a year, gets months of leave annually, gets married and has two beautiful kids.
The banker gets $150k a year, works long hours, struggles to get a few weeks leave and has no wife, no kids and sometimes barely a social life. Both of them have equal access to this countries infrastructure, medical benefits and other government funded benefits.
Net effect (new tax rates):
The teacher pays $11k a year tax, plus gets family benefit payments from government, plus loads of leave, plus lots of personal fulfillment from a family life and generally is happy.
The banker pays $50k tax a year, works harder, gets less leave, but is still happy pursuing their ambitions.
These are two people with the same opportunity during childhood and receiving the same benefits from the country. The teacher pays much less tax ($11k vs $50k), gets more leave and has a good family life.
A bit greedy to say the rich are getting such a good break don't you think? I mean, you could give up those kids you love so much, work harder and become richer, but thats not what will make you happy, will it?
Remember, if the rich move to higher paid, lower taxed countries, who will make up the bankers $50k tax bill. Thats right, low and middle Australia. So ease up on the rich.
- Posted by: Komali on May 10, 2006 2:47 PM
I live in NZ. Here is my 10 cents. Get rid any taxs that are in place and set income tax at 10% for all income earners.
- Posted by: xpert11 on May 10, 2006 2:47 PM
I wanted better healthcare or better roads - not a little panacia of a couple of dollars in tax relief.
- Posted by: helen on May 10, 2006 2:49 PM
I think that Australians have become so dependent on the Government to spoon feed them that they have forgotten how to look after themselves, this is the luckiest country on earth, how about we start giving something instead of taking, we have such a materialistic lifestyle and it costs money for this type of life. Lets be thankful sometimes. Howard-Costello are doing a great job, not a perfect job but still a good job.
- Posted by: tim on May 10, 2006 2:49 PM
I earn about $35,000 a year. I don't want any money back from the Government. I'd prefer they keep it and spend it to fix up our hospitals, Medicare, education, infrastructure. We wouldn't care how much we got in tax cuts if all these things were running like they do in Sweden, etc.
- Posted by: peter on May 10, 2006 2:50 PM
I don't think the tax cuts are excessive or will lead to diminished services. Why do all these professional women expect the government to fund their childcare decisions? Surely these women aren't working out of charity but in the hope of making a profit. Why can't they see that if they want a service and believe that they will benefit from it (professionally and financially), then they should be expected to pay for it? How can the industry attract good childcare workers if there is not sufficient money from the clients to pay good wages? Just a lawyer expects her clients to pay her fees without whining (mostly without government funding), why should they be reluctant to pay for services which allow them to benefit?
- Posted by: Miriam on May 10, 2006 2:51 PM
Yesterday's federal budget confirms that the most significant economic achievement of the Howard/Costello government is to create a cargo cult mentality in Australia. Being awash with money from the commodities boom, what an opportunity for our government to put in place new policies for the long term development of education, training and national infrastructure. What we see are vote-buying handouts to a community that has become used to annual tax cuts to help stave off the next household financial crisis. The commodities boom will end, as it must, and we will have squandered this rare chance to make Australia a better place for our children and grand children.
- Posted by: Alex McDonnel on May 10, 2006 2:54 PM