ABOUT 132,100 Victorian families will get up to $4200 more in Tuesday's federal Budget to meet the cost of raising older teenagers.

And several thousand low-income households could get as much as $10,700 if they qualify for a triple windfall including extra welfare and rent assistance.

Despite predicting a horror Budget and painful cuts, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has decided to press ahead with a $772 million five-year election promise to increase family tax benefit payments for households with children aged 16 to 18.

At the moment, the maximum Family Tax Benefit Part A payment dives from $6161 to $2062 a year when a child turns 16 yet the Henry tax review found older teenagers cost up to 43 per cent more than younger teens.

Treasurer Wayne Swan said paying up to $6161 for kids aged 16, 17 and 18 was aimed at helping with family budgets stretched by the demands of teenagers.


"This Budget will deliver extra cost-of-living help to recognise that bringing up teenagers isn't cheap, with around 650,000 families standing to benefit over the next five years," he told the Herald Sun.

The money will be paid from January 1 and children will need to be in full-time secondary study or the vocational equivalent.

Analysis by the Department of Families shows it could deliver a triple windfall to several thousand families who may qualify for up to $2900 in Family Tax Benefit Part B and up to $3600 a year in rent assistance.

A single-income family earning less than $45,000 and paying rent could get the full $10,700.

The sharp fall in welfare when a child turns 16 provokes more complaints at Centrelink than any other family payments policy.

About 670,000 families will also be able to claim part of the cost of school uniforms from July 1 under a $110 million expansion of the education tax refund scheme.

The Government yesterday made three early Budget announcements, including $200 million to provide extra support for 164,000 students with a disability, a $65 million cancer centre in Albury-Wodonga and a $100,000 grant for the Flying Fruit Fly Circus.

In a speech in Melbourne today, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will say the Budget must show spending discipline, pay off debt, come clean on the cost of policy failures, and reveal the real price tag of the National Broadband Network. "The Government is on trial for its life," Mr Abbott said.



Comments on this story

   *
     Hooker of Laverton Posted at 7:05 AM Today

         I resent my taxes going on illiterate, disrespectful, self-centred, foul-mouthed teenage airheads. If they want more money, they can get a job at Maccas or Woolies. The government is wrong if they think they'll get more votes from this. Only morons would consider it a good thing and morons already vote Labor.

   *
     Kevin of the hills Posted at 6:36 AM Today

         Why do a few have to support the lfestyle choices of so many, If you can't afford kids, don't have them. And now we have a baby bonus making the future situation even worse.   :(

   *
     Fed Up of Berwick Posted at 6:33 AM Today

         SWAN is an idiot! Most kids that age have part time jobs!!!! So they assist parents & themselves with their own financial means. Typical LABOR - wasting MORE Taxpayers money........

More handouts for those that have no urge or will to support their own families....... and yet a 20 year old who has 2 parents working is unable to get newstart if they have not earned a certain amount and can be classed as independent!!

You now have to be 21 to get the DOLE.......

Well it's not easy raising the modern day teen. They must have a mobile phone and the account that goes with it, a laptop computer....gotta keep in touch with the 800 virtual friends, endless games and gadgets to keep their minds off reality, can't let them get too educated, they might see through the con the bureaucracy is....the list goes on.............gotta keep up the wealthfare.

Besides who cares if the old and the unemployed starve to death, any compassionate government wouldn't want to see people living in misery. They might give some wisdom back, but that's not going to help the rich get richer is it?

As Kevin of the hills says, if you cant afford kids, then don't have them.  :(

beware wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 7:54am:

More handouts for those that have no urge or will to support their own families....... and yet a 20 year old who has 2 parents working is unable to get newstart if they have not earned a certain amount and can be classed as independent!! You now have to be 21 to get the DOLE.......

Welcome to Australasia

I've actually seen a couple of beggars lately, they've joined the buskers. Wouldn't you think they would do something for their money.....I mean earn it, tell a joke or something.

It's a bit of a worry with the under 21's, young, active and ready to climb through your window and steal away with your goodies. Get that Alsatian trained.

wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 8:05am:

As Kevin of the hills says, if you cant afford kids, then don't have them.  :(

Yeah! but it's a bit late to put them back when they're 17.

Yes I guess it is pansi1951,  I never thought of that one.   ;D  

wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 8:05am:

As Kevin of the hills says, if you cant afford kids, then don't have them.  :(

At 18, the law wants to treat them as adults. They can do what they want, but are still dependent on their parents. If this is the way it is, and it is, then there is little incentive to get lazy children out of the house to look for work and or study.

wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 8:05am:

As Kevin of the hills says, if you cant afford kids, then don't have them.  :(

And yet you are a middle aged man and cant support yourself, but we dont deny you do we.

If families get the money, it allows the kids to focus on school work instead of trying to find part time work.

Hopefully a better education leads to a better job, better job leads to better pay which leads to more tax revenue.

How can you imcrook make such a claim as not wanting to provide additional assistance to families yet you want to make university education free?  

wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 8:05am:

As Kevin of the hills says, if you cant afford kids, then don't have them.  :(

I agree with that mate.

We have stopped at two children, because we feel that we can best provide for the two girls for their childhood, schooling - whilst also keeping the lifestyle we like and these girls will fit in nicely with it.

They will get everything they like (within reason).

Now I know some people who earn a lot less than we do and they are trying for a third and some wanting a fourth child.

It's wrong and its not fair.

I believe in the baby bonus because I believe in giving people a start in having a family but people should also be responsible for the lifestyle and families they plan.

In general, I would not recommend now, as being the best time to be introducing additional benefits, unless they are clearly a cost/plus economic benefit, which this would not appear to be.

perceptions_now wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 12:06pm:

In general, I would not recommend now, as being the best time to be introducing additional benefits, unless they are clearly a cost/plus economic benefit, which this would not appear to be.

As Dangerous Dave Cameron put it the other week on tv -

"This is a time for a bit of responsibility, for tightening the belt, for everyone mucking in and getting out of this awful situation that a decade of Labour rule and waste has left us"

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 12:11pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 12:06pm: In general, I would not recommend now, as being the best time to be introducing additional benefits, unless they are clearly a cost/plus economic benefit, which this would not appear to be. As Dangerous Dave Cameron put it the other week on tv - "This is a time for a bit of responsibility, for tightening the belt, for everyone mucking in and getting out of this awful situation that a decade of Labour rule and waste has left us"

its interesting that whilst they are helping out proplr with teenagers.. they are also after the disabled.. and basically calling them freeloaders.. get out and get a job!!!.. even though not many wish to employ the disabled..

my 15 yr old grandson has just started working casual at KFC..

and we are all very happy for him he would like to go to Uni so this way it helps him to plan ahead and give him responsibility and independents..

now his mum and dad have pushed him to get a job.. will they do that now??..once the tax kicks in... I am sure a lot of parents wont as some teens can cause havoc just trying to get them out of bed..

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 8:07am:

wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 8:05am: As Kevin of the hills says, if you cant afford kids, then don't have them.  :( Yeah! but it's a bit late to put them back when they're 17.

Dunno about anyone else, but I had severely-underestimated the financial and social impacts of starting a family...

It is not just the nominal costs that mount but also the opportunity costs that compound...

Now, back to the FTB announcement for 16-18 year olds - does anyone know where this fits in with the existing Youth Allowance!?

Equitist wrote on May 4^th, 2011 at 9:48pm:

Now, back to the FTB announcement for 16-18 year olds - does anyone know where this fits in with the existing Youth Allowance!?

Besides it being tied to parents income unless they have worked a min of 15 hours a week for how ever long it is. Nope sorry.

Deborahmac09 wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 6:07pm:

Equitist wrote on May 4th, 2011 at 9:48pm: Now, back to the FTB announcement for 16-18 year olds - does anyone know where this fits in with the existing Youth Allowance!? Besides it being tied to parents income unless they have worked a min of 15 hours a week for how ever long it is. Nope sorry.

Actually, the existing Youth Allowance payments are quite a bit more complicated than that - not least because there are different rules for students and 'jobseekers' (and disabled youth deemed to have a partial capacity for work)...

That said, what I was wondering was: why the Govt is (re-)announcing(?) specific changes to FTB payments for a specific sub-group of youth but not mentioning anything about Youth Allowance per se...