Jacqueline Maley
February 11, 2012



THE Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has pledged to fight government plans to means test the private health insurance rebate ''every step of the way'' but refused to commit to rescinding the measures if elected to government.   :(

Asked whether he would get rid of the means test if elected to government, Mr Abbott said: ''We're going to fight it. Ask me that question if we come to that situation.''   :(

The government this week introduced to Parliament legislation to means test the private health insurance rebate, a policy that will increase health costs for wealthier families by up to $1300 a year.


The means testing measures have twice been rejected by Parliament, but the government is understood to have secured the numbers to finally push them through with the expected support of the crossbenchers Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie, and the Greens' Adam Bandt.   :)

The Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, is selling the changes as an equity measure but the opposition says the government is just desperate to make savings to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13 as it has repeatedly promised it would.

The changes are estimated to deliver $2.4 billion to government coffers, a much-needed boost to the budget bottom line.   :)

The opposition health spokesman, Peter Dutton, also refused to be drawn on whether the Coalition would abolish the measures if elected. ''I think we can actually do better if Labor gets this through,'' he said on Adelaide radio.

''I've actually got some exciting things to do in private health insurance to make it more popular.''

An abolition would effectively return the system to the status quo but cancel the $2.4 billion saving.

The government and opposition are also at odds over the number of people expected to drop out of private health insurance if the means test measures are passed.

According to Treasury modelling, the changes will cause 0.3 per cent of private health insurance holders, or 27,000 people, to drop out of private health altogether and fall back on the public health system.

According to the modelling, all of the drop-outs would be from the first tier of those eligible for the means test, singles on $83,000 to $96,000 a year (excluding super) and families on $166,000 to $192,000 a year.

This is because these people are on a low-enough income that they will not be slapped by the Medicare levy surcharge if they drop out of private health insurance, but a high-enough income to be affected by the means test.

But, a Deloitte report commissioned by Private Healthcare Australia estimates that 175,000 people from the ''tiers'', as in those affected by the rebate changes, will drop out of private hospital cover in the first year alone.

Over the following four years, a total of 1.6 million consumers would drop their private hospital cover, including those who are still able to claim the full 30 per cent, because overall premiums will have risen. All these consumers would be pushed onto the public hospital system.

The government disputes the report. Ms Plibersek's office said that, according to historical data, price fluctuations do not cause people to drop out of private health cover.   ;)

The same report says that the changes will cause private health insurance premiums to rise 10 per cent above what would otherwise be expected, affecting all consumers.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-silent-on-coalition-plans-for-health-means-test-20120210-1skut.html#ixzz1m3ZIa0YP

Structural weaknesses only get worse...

KNOCK KNOCK!!! who's there?? SOMEONE WHO GIVES A RATS ABOUT AN ECONOMIC PLAN I.E. MALCOLM TURNBULL!!

Yes of course you will fight it Mr Abbott.  Its the liberal way is it not?.  Always look after the well off, and the big end of town.   :(

wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Yes of course you will fight it Mr Abbott.  Its the liberal way is it not?.  Always look after the well off, and the big end of town.   :(

actually, its called the WORKING end of town. No surprise you dont recognise it.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 5:55pm:

wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Yes of course you will fight it Mr Abbott.  Its the liberal way is it not?.  Always look after the well off, and the big end of town.   :( actually, its called the WORKING end of town. No surprise you dont recognise it.

Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;D ;D ;D

This shouldn't surprise anybody, Abbott has made it perfectly clear with his history already that he despises the Medical sector.

I'm sure if he thought he would get away with it without having his political balls ripped off, he would rescind Medicare itself and put us in the same f*cked up position the Americans are in.

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

This shouldn't surprise anybody, Abbott has made it perfectly clear with his history already that he despises the Medical sector. I'm sure if he thought he would get away with it without having his political balls ripped off, he would rescind Medicare itself and put us in the same f*cked up position the Americans are in.

Gillard also shoudlnt surprise us since her word is obviously worthless.

How will Tony Abbott fund anything if he becomes PM.....Howard and Costello reduced budget revenue by delivering successive tax cuts that have eroded the integrity of the budget and created a situation where the budget cannot support the expensive wealthfare Howard used to bribe the electorate.....Either Abbott will have to increase taxes to pay for his policies or cut spending to big budget items like health education or defense!!!

As Abbott has already said he will not raise taxes apart from his tax on business to pay for his maternity leave scheme so he will have to cut funding to services and funding to the States.....Australia cannot afford to have Tony Abbott cut funding to public services that have already seen billions of taxpayer dollars diverted to the private sector to support the wealthy!!!

Of course it should be means-tested, no question.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

How will Tony Abbott fund anything if he becomes PM.....Howard and Costello reduced budget revenue by delivering successive tax cuts that have eroded the integrity of the budget and created a situation where the budget cannot support the expensive wealthfare Howard used to bribe the electorate.....Either Abbott will have to increase taxes to pay for his policies or cut spending to big budget items like health education or defense!!! As Abbott has already said he will not raise taxes apart from his tax on business to pay for his maternity leave scheme so he will have to cut funding to services and funding to the States.....Australia cannot afford to have Tony Abbott cut funding to public services that have already seen billions of taxpayer dollars diverted to the private sector to support the wealthy!!!

Taxes will have to increase AND Expenditure will have to be reduced!

However, saying that, is the easy part, because Health Costs are set to increase dramatically, owing to the aging Baby Boomers & I think Defense may actually be needed (even more) in the years ahead, so it will be very difficult to lower Defense spending.

In terms of Increasing taxes, that is THE PRIMARY reason why Labor went for the CARBON TAX, because it will generate large chunks of Tax, at exactly the time when "normal Tax Revenues" are set to Decline, as GFC2 starts to impact, from this year!

That said, increasing the Tax base is going to be a "hard road"! 

So, whilst I agree generally with what you said, IT WILL BE EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY DO, as everything will have pressures coming and the old general AUS-terity will simply make things worse, which means a great deal of care & selectivity will be required!  

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:17pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 7:52pm: How will Tony Abbott fund anything if he becomes PM.....Howard and Costello reduced budget revenue by delivering successive tax cuts that have eroded the integrity of the budget and created a situation where the budget cannot support the expensive wealthfare Howard used to bribe the electorate.....Either Abbott will have to increase taxes to pay for his policies or cut spending to big budget items like health education or defense!!! As Abbott has already said he will not raise taxes apart from his tax on business to pay for his maternity leave scheme so he will have to cut funding to services and funding to the States.....Australia cannot afford to have Tony Abbott cut funding to public services that have already seen billions of taxpayer dollars diverted to the private sector to support the wealthy!!! Taxes will have to increase AND Expenditure will have to be reduced! However, saying that, is the easy part, because Health Costs are set to increase dramatically, owing to the aging Baby Boomers & I think Defense may actually be needed (even more) in the years ahead, so it will be very difficult to lower Defense spending. In terms of Increasing taxes, that is THE PRIMARY reason why Labor went for the CARBON TAX, because it will generate large chunks of Tax, at exactly the time when "normal Tax Revenues" are set to Decline, as GFC2 starts to impact, from this year! That said, increasing the Tax base is going to be a "hard road"!  So, whilst I agree generally with what you said, IT WILL BE EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY DO, as everything will have pressures coming and the old general AUS-terity will simply make things worse, which means a great deal of care & selectivity will be required!

Of course the mining tax will also provide revenue to support our aging population if Abbott does not scrap it and the NBN is set to return a sizable dividend once it has paid back the cost of its implementation if Abbott does not scrap it and means testing health rebate will provide much needed revenue if Abbott does not scrap it!!!

The ALP should also look at the concessions to superannuation that also cost the taxpayer billions of dollars and is growing....It would be cheaper to scrap the superannuation concessions all together and give everyone the pension instead of letting them squirrel away millions tax free!!!

I gree with having this means tested and also agree that the number of drop outs would be higher than expected. I think that they set the level a bit low on this.

I would certainly consider dropping out as I pay just under $300 a fourtnight with the rebate and get very little value for it. This would mean a considerable increase which I could not justify paying.

Maybe just stay in and drop to the lowest scale - would need to crunch the numbers against benifits.

wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Yes of course you will fight it Mr Abbott.  Its the liberal way is it not?.  Always look after the well off, and the big end of town.   :(

--------

Why would the big end of town worry about a rebate of a couple of thousand dollars per year? These people wouldn't even bother with premiums - they'd have enough assets to cover treatment with a credit card.

It would be the struggling families who'd be cutting down on essentials in order to pay health insurance knowing, that Medicare can only stretch so far -  hospitals are chockablock and insurance can make the difference between life or death, or between suffering the pain of osteoarthritis for a couple of years before  A BED IS AVAILABLE!

And even this bed might become unavailable because some drunk had caused a major road accident!

olde.sault wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Yes of course you will fight it Mr Abbott.  Its the liberal way is it not?.  Always look after the well off, and the big end of town.   :( -------- Why would the big end of town worry about a rebate of a couple of thousand dollars per year? These people wouldn't even bother with premiums - they'd have enough assets to cover treatment with a credit card. It would be the struggling families who'd be cutting down on essentials in order to pay health insurance knowing, that Medicare can only stretch so far -  hospitals are chockablock and insurance can make the difference between life or death, or between suffering the pain of osteoarthritis for a couple of years before  A BED IS AVAILABLE! And even this bed might become unavailable because some drunk had caused a major road accident!

And thats the big lie you guys keep pushing.
$83K for a single person, is double the average wage BTW is only the STARTING point so they would still get 90% of it.
Singles lose the rebate at $122K.
$166K for a family is the STARTING point, you have to earn over $258K BEFORE YOU LOSE IT TOTALLY.

How many couples do you know on a quarter of a million yearly Saulty?
1, 10 , 100
Better be the hundred the way you are carrying on.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 7:34pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 6:26pm: This shouldn't surprise anybody, Abbott has made it perfectly clear with his history already that he despises the Medical sector. I'm sure if he thought he would get away with it without having his political balls ripped off, he would rescind Medicare itself and put us in the same f*cked up position the Americans are in. Gillard also shoudlnt surprise us since her word is obviously worthless.

SLAVES HAVE NO CHOICES slaves have no choices SLAVES HAVE NO CHOICES!!

::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

How will Tony Abbott fund anything if he becomes PM.....Howard and Costello reduced budget revenue by delivering successive tax cuts that have eroded the integrity of the budget and created a situation where the budget cannot support the expensive wealthfare Howard used to bribe the electorate.....Either Abbott will have to increase taxes to pay for his policies or cut spending to big budget items like health education or defense!!! As Abbott has already said he will not raise taxes apart from his tax on business to pay for his maternity leave scheme so he will have to cut funding to services and funding to the States.....Australia cannot afford to have Tony Abbott cut funding to public services that have already seen billions of taxpayer dollars diverted to the private sector to support the wealthy!!!

Interesting comments by Laurie Oakes in todays Sunday Times(W.A.) regarding tax and the Howard era compared to the Rudd/Gillard era!

V. Interesting, but of course, it has alraedy been well mentioned on this forum!!

Take the area of taxation. Abbott gets traction when he proclaims that "the Labor Party believes in higher taxes" while the Coalition stands for low taxes.

The truth is that taxation as a proportion of the economy is lower now than it was under John Howard's government. The tax to GDP ratio, 23.7 per cent when Labor came to office, is now 21.2 per cent.

According to figures that came across my desk yesterday, had the ratio remained at the 2007-08 level that Labor inherited, tax receipts would have been $21.4 billion higher in 2012-13 than they are projected to be.

Returning the Budget to surplus would not be an issue. The Government would not only be looking at a surplus of $22.9 billion next financial year, but would have been back in the black by more than $3 billion in 2010-11.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/truth-gets-lost-in-canberra-spin/story-fn56baaq-1226268242593

Oh looky, I found it in the herald sun aswell!!

..and how does the article end(it looks like a different ending to the Sunday Times thing I read this morning btw,... but I've had a few by now!!

-->>But a Coalition that has made such an art form of outrageous statements on the economy is in no position to complain.

Laurie Oakes is political editor for the Nine Network

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 3:37pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 7:52pm: How will Tony Abbott fund anything if he becomes PM.....Howard and Costello reduced budget revenue by delivering successive tax cuts that have eroded the integrity of the budget and created a situation where the budget cannot support the expensive wealthfare Howard used to bribe the electorate.....Either Abbott will have to increase taxes to pay for his policies or cut spending to big budget items like health education or defense!!! As Abbott has already said he will not raise taxes apart from his tax on business to pay for his maternity leave scheme so he will have to cut funding to services and funding to the States.....Australia cannot afford to have Tony Abbott cut funding to public services that have already seen billions of taxpayer dollars diverted to the private sector to support the wealthy!!! Interesting comments by Laurie Oakes in todays Sunday Times(W.A.) regarding tax and the Howard era compared to the Rudd/Gillard era! V. Interesting, but of course, it has alraedy been well mentioned on this forum!! Take the area of taxation. Abbott gets traction when he proclaims that "the Labor Party believes in higher taxes" while the Coalition stands for low taxes. The truth is that taxation as a proportion of the economy is lower now than it was under John Howard's government. The tax to GDP ratio, 23.7 per cent when Labor came to office, is now 21.2 per cent. According to figures that came across my desk yesterday, had the ratio remained at the 2007-08 level that Labor inherited, tax receipts would have been $21.4 billion higher in 2012-13 than they are projected to be. Returning the Budget to surplus would not be an issue. The Government would not only be looking at a surplus of $22.9 billion next financial year, but would have been back in the black by more than $3 billion in 2010-11. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/truth-gets-lost-in-canberra-spin/story-fn56baaq-1226268242593 Oh looky, I found it in the herald sun aswell!! ..and how does the article end(it looks like a different ending to the Sunday Times thing I read this morning btw,... but I've had a few by now!! -->>But a Coalition that has made such an art form of outrageous statements on the economy is in no position to complain. Laurie Oakes is political editor for the Nine Network

So can you tell me which taxes Juliar has dumped since her becoming PM!!!

They cut your income tax
Come July you'll be able to make $17999.99 before paying any tax instead of $5999.99.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 3:29pm:

olde.sault wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 3:22pm: wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Yes of course you will fight it Mr Abbott.  Its the liberal way is it not?.  Always look after the well off, and the big end of town.   :( -------- Why would the big end of town worry about a rebate of a couple of thousand dollars per year? These people wouldn't even bother with premiums - they'd have enough assets to cover treatment with a credit card. It would be the struggling families who'd be cutting down on essentials in order to pay health insurance knowing, that Medicare can only stretch so far -  hospitals are chockablock and insurance can make the difference between life or death, or between suffering the pain of osteoarthritis for a couple of years before  A BED IS AVAILABLE! And even this bed might become unavailable because some drunk had caused a major road accident! And thats the big lie you guys keep pushing. $83K for a single person, is double the average wage BTW is only the STARTING point so they would still get 90% of it. Singles lose the rebate at $122K. $166K for a family is the STARTING point, you have to earn over $258K BEFORE YOU LOSE IT TOTALLY. How many couples do you know on a quarter of a million yearly Saulty? 1, 10 , 100 Better be the hundred the way you are carrying on.

Again, well said, Smithy.

Actually, this is exactly the sort of wealthfare that needs to be cut back.

In fact, as we seem to be stuck with wealthfare in general, I say 'Means-test
it ALL!'. Make sure it goes to those who need it, not those who WANT it.

A bit of wealth-fare for a young family on $75K a year, I have no problem
with, but as for those on $200K+, if they NEED wealthfare, then they're
doing something wrong, and have ample scope for belt-tightening.

Funny that the Coalition opposes means-testing it, because it was one
of THEIR policies leading up to the 1993 election (as was a GST).

Funny, too, that was the last time I ever voted for the Coalition.

Kat wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 3:29pm: olde.sault wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 3:22pm: wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Yes of course you will fight it Mr Abbott.  Its the liberal way is it not?.  Always look after the well off, and the big end of town.   :( -------- Why would the big end of town worry about a rebate of a couple of thousand dollars per year? These people wouldn't even bother with premiums - they'd have enough assets to cover treatment with a credit card. It would be the struggling families who'd be cutting down on essentials in order to pay health insurance knowing, that Medicare can only stretch so far -  hospitals are chockablock and insurance can make the difference between life or death, or between suffering the pain of osteoarthritis for a couple of years before  A BED IS AVAILABLE! And even this bed might become unavailable because some drunk had caused a major road accident! And thats the big lie you guys keep pushing. $83K for a single person, is double the average wage BTW is only the STARTING point so they would still get 90% of it. Singles lose the rebate at $122K. $166K for a family is the STARTING point, you have to earn over $258K BEFORE YOU LOSE IT TOTALLY. How many couples do you know on a quarter of a million yearly Saulty? 1, 10 , 100 Better be the hundred the way you are carrying on. Again, well said, Smithy. Actually, this is exactly the sort of wealthfare that needs to be cut back. In fact, as we seem to be stuck with wealthfare in general, I say 'Means-test it ALL!'. Make sure it goes to those who need it, not those who WANT it. A bit of wealth-fare for a young family on $75K a year, I have no problem with, but as for those on $200K+, if they NEED wealthfare, then they're doing something wrong, and have ample scope for belt-tightening. Funny that the Coalition opposes means-testing it, because it was one of THEIR policies leading up to the 1993 election (as was a GST). Funny, too, that was the last time I ever voted for the Coalition.

In a bid to dampen anger over substantial increases to the household budget, Prime Minister Julia Gillard  announced $7 billion in tax cuts and structural changes marketed as major reform.

However, individuals earning more than $80,000 a year will receive a marginal saving of $3 per year from July 1, 2012, which will increase to $13 three years later.



So on that tax cut i should do well....... I lose my health refund, I get NOTHING for the carbon price, I get nothing for paying my way and paying for my family!!!

Yeah, Julia is great isn't she....... that must mean one thing... quit my job, pick up all the handouts and I should be about the same as now except I wont have to pay the cost of going to work!!

beware wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 4:55pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 3:29pm: olde.sault wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 3:22pm: wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Yes of course you will fight it Mr Abbott.  Its the liberal way is it not?.  Always look after the well off, and the big end of town.   :( -------- Why would the big end of town worry about a rebate of a couple of thousand dollars per year? These people wouldn't even bother with premiums - they'd have enough assets to cover treatment with a credit card. It would be the struggling families who'd be cutting down on essentials in order to pay health insurance knowing, that Medicare can only stretch so far -  hospitals are chockablock and insurance can make the difference between life or death, or between suffering the pain of osteoarthritis for a couple of years before  A BED IS AVAILABLE! And even this bed might become unavailable because some drunk had caused a major road accident! And thats the big lie you guys keep pushing. $83K for a single person, is double the average wage BTW is only the STARTING point so they would still get 90% of it. Singles lose the rebate at $122K. $166K for a family is the STARTING point, you have to earn over $258K BEFORE YOU LOSE IT TOTALLY. How many couples do you know on a quarter of a million yearly Saulty? 1, 10 , 100 Better be the hundred the way you are carrying on. Again, well said, Smithy. Actually, this is exactly the sort of wealthfare that needs to be cut back. In fact, as we seem to be stuck with wealthfare in general, I say 'Means-test it ALL!'. Make sure it goes to those who need it, not those who WANT it. A bit of wealth-fare for a young family on $75K a year, I have no problem with, but as for those on $200K+, if they NEED wealthfare, then they're doing something wrong, and have ample scope for belt-tightening. Funny that the Coalition opposes means-testing it, because it was one of THEIR policies leading up to the 1993 election (as was a GST). Funny, too, that was the last time I ever voted for the Coalition. In a bid to dampen anger over substantial increases to the household budget, Prime Minister Julia Gillard  announced $7 billion in tax cuts and structural changes marketed as major reform. However, individuals earning more than $80,000 a year will receive a marginal saving of $3 per year from July 1, 2012, which will increase to $13 three years later. So on that tax cut i should do well....... I lose my health refund, I get NOTHING for the carbon price, I get nothing for paying my way and paying for my family!!! Yeah, Julia is great isn't she....... that must mean one thing... quit my job, pick up all the handouts and I should be about the same as now except I wont have to pay the cost of going to work!!

If you are going to quote the tax cuts for the Carbon tax you should be honest and also include the changes to the tax free threshold.


Quote:

quit my job, pick up all the handouts and I should be about the same as now except I wont have to pay the cost of going to work!!

Sure if you flip burgers or night shift at the servo.
Other than jobs along those lines, $12 to $15 bucks an hour oh and if thats what your on, the very modelling you use for the above average example also says you'll be $20 bucks ahead.
But go for it, come back and brag about your life of leisure.


Quote:

I get nothing for paying my way and paying for my family!!!

Sure if being a contributing member of society, personal esteem that comes from success, providing a good roll model as well as lifestlye to your family means nothing to you, are worthless amibitions.
But as we see above thats what they must be.


Quote:

I get nothing

Exactly why do you deserve anything, including MY tax dollars.

I don't expect anything but I am mighty sick of everyone else having my tax dollars!!!

:D :D :D :D

beware wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:

I don't expect anything but I am mighty sick of everyone else having my tax dollars!!! :D :D :D :D

Taxes are the necessary evil that keeps our society running.

beware wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:

I don't expect anything but I am mighty sick of everyone else having my tax dollars!!! :D :D :D :D

There are some that I'd rather see not receiving MY tax dollars, too.

The well-off pulling unjustified and undeserved wealthfare, all the while
begrudging others more deserving, are up near the top of that list.

IMO, the well-off DON'T pay their fair share of tax, but expect most
of what they DO pay to come staight back to them in wealthfare.

The country can go to the dogs, infrastructure can crumble and
decay, businesses can close or go offshore, unemployment can
rise, but do this mob care?

Nope! Just so long as they can continue to help themselves to
someone ELSE'S share of the tax dollars, they're happy.

THEY are the REAL bludgers in society.

Kat wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:

beware wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 9:53pm: I don't expect anything but I am mighty sick of everyone else having my tax dollars!!! :D :D :D :D There are some that I'd rather see not receiving MY tax dollars, too. The well-off pulling unjustified and undeserved wealthfare, all the while begrudging others more deserving, are up near the top of that list.

Nobody deserves any welfare.... people should live on what they earn.    ;D

Superannuation tax concessions will cost the budget $24.6 billion in 2008–09 (Treasury
2009), rivalling the $26.7 billion annual cost of the age pension and constituting a fifth of
income tax revenue ($130 billion per annum). Tax expenditures (see Definitions, Appendix A),
of which the super tax concession is by far the largest, are one of the fast growing
areas of total government spending.

Measured tax expenditures are projected to rise as a proportion of GDP from 5.3 per cent
in 2004–05 to 6.9 percent in 2011–12. They will fall in 2008–09, however, partly as a
result of personal income tax cuts and partly as a result of lower superannuation fund
earnings.

The growth in the cost of the tax concessions for superannuation will continue unless
current policy settings are changed significantly. This is because the age dependency ratio
(the proportion of the population aged over 65) is expected to almost double to 25 per
cent over the next 40 years, while the number of people with large superannuation
entitlements will also grow substantially as the superannuation guarantee system comes
to full maturity.

Australian superannuation fund assets, currently over $1 trillion, are expected to reach
almost $9 trillion in 2041 (Rothman and Tellis 2008). As the size of the tax concessions
are related to the size of the accumulated lump sum, by virtue of the low tax rate on fund
earnings, the forecast growth in superannuation assets ensures that there is a question
mark over whether the current system will be sustainable.

Superannuation tax concessions have long been a bone of contention for the welfare
sector, which views them as redistributing scarce resources away from low-income
earners towards the secure and privileged well-off. This has created a political
battleground, with the welfare groups lining up against the super industry represented
most notably by ASFA. Reform options are canvassed, for example, in ACOSS 2002 and
2006 and the Brotherhood of St Laurence 2008.1 Other welfare and consumer bodies
have also argued for a fairer and more efficient system. Some of the specific reforms
suggested in this paper are very similar to those of ACOSS

This information was taken from a PDF file so I cannot provide the link!!!

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=superannuation%20concessions%20cost%20the%20budget%20billions&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tai.org.au%2Ffile.php%3Ffile%3Dsuper_tax_concessions_final.pdf&ei=h703T4Aap6OIB5TejZYM&usg=AFQjCNG5bOHIBYHKcoNN167xQhA714KlYw

What is the incidence of the concessions?

· The paper demonstrates that the tax concessions flow overwhelmingly towards
the well-off, with those earning less than $34,000 per annum receiving almost no
assistance and those earning over $180,000 per annum receiving the most.
Astonishingly, the top five percent of individuals account for 37 per cent of
concessional contributions.

· The current concessions provide almost no benefit to low- income earners,
including women working part-time, but an executive earning $300,000 per
annum with a million dollar retirement account can receive $37,000 of
concessions , 2.5 times the value of the age pension, for every year of their
working life.

· Tax concessions for superannuation provide substantially greater benefits for men
than women and this disparity will continue under current arrangements.

· Allowable contributions are such that high- income earners could easily retire with
$5 million in assets, which would then allow them to draw down around $500,000
a year in retirement, all tax- free.

· The system has become so skewed that the annual cost of providing
superannuation tax concessions to high- income earners is much greater than the
cost of simply paying those same individuals the age pension. Providing tax
concessions for superannuation as a mechanism to help insulate the budget from
the cost of providing for an ageing population is not sensible.

Quote:

The opposition health spokesman, Peter Dutton, also refused to be drawn on whether the Coalition would abolish the measures if elected. ''I think we can actually do better if Labor gets this through,'' he said on Adelaide radio. ''I've actually got some exciting things to do in private health insurance to make it more popular.''

Is he confirming that if Labor gets it through he already knows how he will spend the additional money?

Is he confirming that while they will carry on like pork chops over it in the end they want it to get through?

So you've read all the lies from the likes of mel/olde sault,but here's the facts, the extremists hate the facts.

Quote:

Wage indexation since 2009 means the rebate will start being reduced for singles earning more than $83,000 and at $166,000 for families. It will disappear altogether for singles on $129,000 and one-child families earning more than $258,000.Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/means-test-may-not-be-such-a-bitter-pill-this-time-around-20120212-1szkm.html#ixzz1mCo2gHj7

you gota love the rightards like longwhine, they bitch and whine about "socialism" but are the first to have a tanty when their government funds are removed, closet socialists. ::)

By the time it gets through it will be so watered down it wont matter anyway

beware wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 10:16pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 10:10pm: beware wrote on Feb 12th, 2012 at 9:53pm: I don't expect anything but I am mighty sick of everyone else having my tax dollars!!! :D :D :D :D There are some that I'd rather see not receiving MY tax dollars, too. The well-off pulling unjustified and undeserved wealthfare, all the while begrudging others more deserving, are up near the top of that list. Nobody deserves any welfare.... people should live on what they earn.    ;D

NEVER HEARD OF MARKET FAILURE I SEE!

That sure is an interesting observation!!  ;) ;)

skippy. wrote on Feb 13^th, 2012 at 7:34am:

So you've read all the lies from the likes of mel/olde sault,but here's the facts, the extremists hate the facts. Quote: Wage indexation since 2009 means the rebate will start being reduced for singles earning more than $83,000 and at $166,000 for families. It will disappear altogether for singles on $129,000 and one-child families earning more than $258,000.Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/means-test-may-not-be-such-a-bitter-pill-this-time-around-20120212-1szkm.html#ixzz1mCo2gHj7 you gota love the rightards like longwhine, they bitch and whine about "socialism" but are the first to have a tanty when their government funds are removed, closet socialists. ::)

The biggest laugh is they don't realise a technical world is a function of a subsidised skills base!