Mark Metherell
February 15, 2012 -

About 2 million people face higher health insurance premiums after the Gillard government finally secured passage through the House of Representatives of its plan to means test the health insurance rebate.   :)

The measure, which has still to pass the Senate — expected to be a formality — will mean that single people on incomes above $83,000 a year and families above $166,000 a year will begin to lose the rebate, typically worth $1000 a year to families.

Under the measures, to take effect next financial year, the rebate cuts out altogether for singles on $129,000, and families on $258,000.   :)


Opposition Leader Tony Abbott this morning committed to restoring the full rebate for all, when financial circumstances permit a Coalition government to do so.

"Private health insurance is in our DNA," he told Macquarie Radio.   ;D

"It is our raison d'etre, that is why we exist as a political movement, to give more support and encourage for people who want to get ahead."



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/means-test-on-private-health-rebate-finally-passes-lower-house-20120215-1t557.html#ixzz1mPPIXOaL

There's one good policy from the Gillard government.

All govt handouts should be means tested and anyone that disagrees is just addicted to middle class welfare.

Congratulations labor and the Australian Greens.  Good news.  Well done.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]   

Quote:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott this morning committed to restoring the full rebate for all, when financial circumstances permit a Coalition government to do so.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The ALP and Greens have just re-ignited the class wars

Don't get me wrong - I am all for it. But it could have been handled alot better

Maqqa wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:22am:

The ALP and Greens have just re-ignited the class wars

A war on welfare leeches more like it.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:19am:

All govt handouts should be means tested and anyone that disagrees is just addicted to middle class welfare.

Couldnt agree more.   This is not a view I get because I am in the "lower" classes.  I'm well into middle to upper in terms of income.
But this middle class welfare brought about by the howard government is the biggest hurdle this country faces. Billions of tax payer money is wasted.

Health is just the start.  Excessive tax payer financing of elitist private schools, and limitless negative gearing are the other "reverse" taxation issues which distribute tax dollars to the rich.

It will take decades to unravel the mess Howard made by buying votes over the decade of his tenure.

Im getting a sick and tired of Abbott promising to recind everything the Greens put in place, even if its a good idea.

I have no problems recinding poor policy, but you shouldnt recind bad.

This, and the mining tax are good policy.

Cant believe labor policies at all.

The opposition launched an attack yesterday on the means test, saying it was in breach of Julia Gillard's ''ironclad'' promise before the 2007 election not to touch the insurance rebate.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:22am: The ALP and Greens have just re-ignited the class wars A war on welfare leeches more like it.

Macca, made a good point, but nice work to smear there crowy.

Like he said, its a good policy handled poorly.

Macca deserves a pat on the back for bipartisanship for the first time in a while, and you make a sly backhander.

No wonder this board turns into a right versus left as opposed to good policy versus bad.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

Cant believe labor policies at all. The opposition launched an attack yesterday on the means test, saying it was in breach of Julia Gillard's ''ironclad'' promise before the 2007 election not to touch the insurance rebate.

got a link ?

You do realize, even if true, that is 2 elections ago. 

Verge wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:00pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:24am: Maqqa wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:22am: The ALP and Greens have just re-ignited the class wars A war on welfare leeches more like it. Macca, made a good point, but nice work to smear there crowy. Like he said, its a good policy handled poorly.

How is it handled poorly ?

The only way it could be handled better would be by bipartisan approval.   That seems to be an impossibility  in the present term.

As a doctor said on tv yesterday...I pay more to insure my car than it costs for my health insurance and the govt doesnt subsidise me to do that so why should they subsidise my health insurance.

A familiy 4 on 168,000.....

Yeah, sock it to that middle calss leech.

::)

Verge wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

Im getting a sick and tired of Abbott promising to recind everything the Greens put in place, even if its a good idea. I have no problems recinding poor policy, but you shouldnt recind bad. This, and the mining tax are good policy.

Agreed. Was just thinking along similar lines myself.

Kat wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Verge wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:58am: Im getting a sick and tired of Abbott promising to recind everything the Greens put in place, even if its a good idea. I have no problems recinding poor policy, but you shouldnt recind bad. This, and the mining tax are good policy. Agreed. Was just thinking along similar lines myself.

He is going to spend 3 yrs wiping the previous 6 yrs off the face of the earth instead of getting on with the job and governing without explaining what he is going to replace everything with.
Expensive, wastefull and time consuming comes to mind.

Any Policy that redirects money from the Mining sector to the welfare of the Political class or other corporate welfare sectors should be rescinded.  If this revenue is to be used for the common good, then I am all for it, but no corporate welfare scams at the tax payers expense. 8-)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:58am: Cant believe labor policies at all. The opposition launched an attack yesterday on the means test, saying it was in breach of Julia Gillard's ''ironclad'' promise before the 2007 election not to touch the insurance rebate. got a link ? You do realize, even if true, that is 2 elections ago.

yet you claim the 2007 election was a mandate for an ETS. yu cant haev it both ways.

Quote:

Private Health Means Test - Its PASSED

Groovy man - chew on that Longweakend you bitter small minded person. 8-) ;D

Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed.

The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands.

He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independant.

WORTHLESS

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:22pm:

Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independent. WORTHLESS

Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....Abbott has nothing to offer the Australian people!!!

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

Quote: Private Health Means Test - Its PASSED Groovy man - chew on that Longweakend you bitter small minded person. 8-) ;D

firstly, it doesnt apply to me and secondly, I can leave my own house without a double axle trailer to carry me - unlike you. AND i dont have to get committed twice a year as you do.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independent. WORTHLESS Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....Abbott has nothing to offer the Australian people!!!

how about we leave such assessments to the next electio where the voters will finally be able to cast THEIR judgment. do you expect ANY of those independents to survive? no one else does.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:22pm:

Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independant. WORTHLESS

Why is it a surprise that Wilkie would support the beginning of the dismantling of middle class welfare?
Good on him..he's one of the few decent honest pollies in our federal parliament.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

. A few FACTS - to dispel a lot of MYTHS From 1 July 2010, the Government will introduce three new ‘Private Health Insurance Incentive Tiers’ – • Tier 1: for singles earning more than $75,000 (couples $150,000), the Private HealthInsurance Rebate will be 20 per cent for those up to 65 years (25 per cent for those over65, and 30 per cent for those over 70 years). The Surcharge for avoiding private healthinsurance will remain at one per cent. • Tier 2: for singles earning more than $90,000 (couples $180,000), the Private HealthInsurance Rebate will be 10 per cent, for those up to 65 years (15 per cent for thoseover 65, and 20 per cent for those over 70 years). The Surcharge for avoiding privatehealth insurance will be increased to 1.25 per cent. • Tier 3: for singles earning more than $120,000 (couples $240,000), no Private HealthInsurance Rebate will be provided. The Surcharge for avoiding private health insurancewill be increased to 1.5 per cent. All income thresholds would continue to remain indexed to wages, keeping these changesfair and sustainable into the future. These changes will affect around 10 per cent of Australian adults. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/budget/publishing.nsf/Content/D150DB5236393187CA2575B2003B5C8E/$File/hmedia13.pdf

I wonder if Abbott is going to help Australias wealthy insure their new Mercs and BMWs because if he doesnt they might drop their insurance.
Abbott reckons Australias wealthy are going to drop their health insurance simply because they cant suck at the teat of the poorest in our community..thats another blatent lie from Abbott.

Abbott has already said he will wind back the policy if he wins Government and restore the rebate to high income earners.....The hole is getting bigger for the Mad Monk......Pretty soon budget revenue will be solely for the purpose of supporting the wealthy if Abbott keeps going the way he is.....Australia cannot afford Tony Abbott!!!

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independent. WORTHLESS Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....Abbott has nothing to offer the Australian people!!! how about we leave such assessments to the next electio where the voters will finally be able to cast THEIR judgment. do you expect ANY of those independents to survive? no one else does.

Shouldnt you wait until we see Abbotts policies and costings before you predict the make up of the next parliament?
So far he has to find more than 100 billion just to wind back all of Labors policies before he even starts on his own.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independent. WORTHLESS Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....Abbott has nothing to offer the Australian people!!!

I wish they were more like Tony Abbott. Maybe we would not be in so much debt. I so look forward to having to pay labor incompetency back.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independent. WORTHLESS Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....Abbott has nothing to offer the Australian people!!! How about we leave such assessments to the next election where the voters will finally be able to cast THEIR judgment. do you expect ANY of those independents to survive? no one else does.

I fail to see what argument you are trying to make as usual.....The Independents are having an affect on policy NOW which is what I said.....You are trying to deflect to the next election which is irrelevant to the context of the how much influence the Independents are having on policies now......Abbott has to convince Australians the wealthy deserve more taxpayer funds to support their lifestyles...I think he will find his support will start to decline when he puts forward that argument!!!

Sooner or later Abbott is going to have to make some tough decisions..he cant be a popularist forever. Turnbull will run against Rudd at the next election

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independent. WORTHLESS Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....Abbott has nothing to offer the Australian people!!! I wish they were more like Tony Abbott. Maybe we would not be in so much debt. I so look forward to having to pay labor incompetency back.

So do I.

But not by simply replacing it with Coalition incompetence.

And I fear that's what an Abbott govt would be.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

Sooner or later Abbott is going to have to make some tough decisions..he cant be a popularist forever. Turnbull will run against Rudd at the next election

Amen to that.
Hopefully with a Turnbull victory.

Kat wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independent. WORTHLESS Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....Abbott has nothing to offer the Australian people!!! I wish they were more like Tony Abbott. Maybe we would not be in so much debt. I so look forward to having to pay labor incompetency back. So do I. But not by simply replacing it with Coalition incompetence. And that's what an Abbott govt would be.

And how would you know that  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

How do we know Abbott wont get us into more debt?
After all the only Liberal Treasurer I know of thats ever had a surplus was Costello and hes long gone.
Judging from Abbott and Hockeys wierd comments on economics I reckon they will be even worse than Julia and Wayne.

Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....


And who is the arbiter of good policy?  YOU?

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:56pm:

How do we know Abbott wont get us into more debt? After all the only Liberal Treasurer I know of thats ever had a surplus was Costello and hes long gone. Judging from Abbott and Hockeys wierd comments on economics I reckon they will be even worse than Julia and Wayne.

Thats not possible     ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

FRED. wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:52pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independent. WORTHLESS Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....Abbott has nothing to offer the Australian people!!! I wish they were more like Tony Abbott. Maybe we would not be in so much debt. I so look forward to having to pay labor incompetency back. So do I. But not by simply replacing it with Coalition incompetence. And that's what an Abbott govt would be. And how would you know that  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Because I've seen and heard it ALL before.

Two words.......Fraser/Howard.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

Sooner or later Abbott is going to have to make some tough decisions..he cant be a popularist forever. Turnbull will run against Rudd at the next election

This is a very real possibility.

Looking at the legislation its quite interesting - I would have got the full amount back.

They are using gross income post taxable adjustment allowances.

My last year in Australia my taxable income was under $37,000 as I had been able to knock out well over $150k.

If it was gross pre adjustments I'd not pass.

An interesting route they have taken.

Kat wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

FRED. wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:52pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:43pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: Well in his first opportunity to show what kind of backbone he had, Andrew Wilkie showed why both sides of politics think he has the spine of a jellyfish. Fresh from having his own legislation torpedoed and the raison d etre for support Gillard in the first place, broken, his first act is to support her in legislation he previously opposed. The man is a wimp, with no apparent policy position. But then what do you expect from a man who finished in third place in his electorate on primaries yet has the audacity to make demands. He is in the Rob Oakeshott mold of independent. WORTHLESS Yet they are having more of an affect on policy than Tony Abbott who is opposing everything even good policies....Abbott has nothing to offer the Australian people!!! I wish they were more like Tony Abbott. Maybe we would not be in so much debt. I so look forward to having to pay labor incompetency back. So do I. But not by simply replacing it with Coalition incompetence. And that's what an Abbott govt would be. And how would you know that  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Because I've seen and heard it ALL before. Two words.......Fraser/Howard.

Whitlam/Cairns/Connor/

Next step: private school funding.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

As a doctor said on tv yesterday...I pay more to insure my car than it costs for my health insurance and the govt doesnt subsidise me to do that so why should they subsidise my health insurance.

It costs me $520 to insure my car, it was costing me $2,340 for health insurance, AFTER the rebate, and we are only a young couple, and didnt have our child on it.

No wonder we dropped it.

Dont know what kind of car the Doc drives, but I would like to take it for a spin.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

Abbott has already said he will wind back the policy if he wins Government and restore the rebate to high income earners.....The hole is getting bigger for the Mad Monk......Pretty soon budget revenue will be solely for the purpose of supporting the wealthy if Abbott keeps going the way he is.....Australia cannot afford Tony Abbott!!!

"..budget revenue will be solely for the purpose of supporting the wealthy..."

solely means 100% of the Budget revenue

You've not looked at the Budget spending then

Lets say the Medicare and other Health items compared to the $2.5B rebate savings over 4 years

Verge wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:08pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:04pm: As a doctor said on tv yesterday...I pay more to insure my car than it costs for my health insurance and the govt doesnt subsidise me to do that so why should they subsidise my health insurance. It costs me $520 to insure my car, it was costing me $2,340 for health insurance, AFTER the rebate, and we are only a young couple, and didnt have our child on it. No wonder we dropped it. Dont know what kind of car the Doc drives, but I would like to take it for a spin.

Like most doctors and like most wealthy Aussies..a top of the range BMW

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Looking at the legislation its quite interesting - I would have got the full amount back. They are using gross income post taxable adjustment allowances. My last year in Australia my taxable income was under $37,000 as I had been able to knock out well over $150k. If it was gross pre adjustments I'd not pass. An interesting route they have taken.

Its always on taxable income.  You cant exclude someone if they have allowable deductions, unless the deductions are for things like rental properties.

Verge wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:08pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:04pm: As a doctor said on tv yesterday...I pay more to insure my car than it costs for my health insurance and the govt doesnt subsidise me to do that so why should they subsidise my health insurance. It costs me $520 to insure my car, it was costing me $2,340 for health insurance, AFTER the rebate, and we are only a young couple, and didnt have our child on it. No wonder we dropped it. Dont know what kind of car the Doc drives, but I would like to take it for a spin.

I have private healthcare in the US.

You know what though Verge - I pay $10,000 less in tax than Aussies on the same wage do.

Australia - Land of the Rip off and the targetting of middle incomes.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

Verge wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:08pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:04pm: As a doctor said on tv yesterday...I pay more to insure my car than it costs for my health insurance and the govt doesnt subsidise me to do that so why should they subsidise my health insurance. It costs me $520 to insure my car, it was costing me $2,340 for health insurance, AFTER the rebate, and we are only a young couple, and didnt have our child on it. No wonder we dropped it. Dont know what kind of car the Doc drives, but I would like to take it for a spin. Like most doctors and like most wealthy Aussies..a top of the range BMW

And that BMW costs you 3 times more in Australia than it does in San Diego.

Why bother with private health insurance at all?

You always end up in public hospitals, and you always have to pay on top for everything.

The doctors I've spoken to recommend you just stick with Medicare.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

Verge wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:08pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:04pm: As a doctor said on tv yesterday...I pay more to insure my car than it costs for my health insurance and the govt doesnt subsidise me to do that so why should they subsidise my health insurance. It costs me $520 to insure my car, it was costing me $2,340 for health insurance, AFTER the rebate, and we are only a young couple, and didnt have our child on it. No wonder we dropped it. Dont know what kind of car the Doc drives, but I would like to take it for a spin. I have private healthcare in the US. You know what though Verge - I pay $10,000 less in tax than Aussies on the same wage do. Australia - Land of the Rip off and the targetting of middle incomes.

We have far less national debt because we pay higher taxes..I see no problem with it as long as its spent wisely.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

Verge wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:08pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:04pm: As a doctor said on tv yesterday...I pay more to insure my car than it costs for my health insurance and the govt doesnt subsidise me to do that so why should they subsidise my health insurance. It costs me $520 to insure my car, it was costing me $2,340 for health insurance, AFTER the rebate, and we are only a young couple, and didnt have our child on it. No wonder we dropped it. Dont know what kind of car the Doc drives, but I would like to take it for a spin. I have private healthcare in the US. You know what though Verge - I pay $10,000 less in tax than Aussies on the same wage do. Australia - Land of the Rip off and the targetting of middle incomes.

And yet look at how much better our economy is than that of the US.  Look at our housing market, our financial services markets, our employment markets.

Oh nevermind, go the US.

Well, all I can say is congratulations to Labor for getting yet another sensible policy through. Despite the interminable dummy spits and obstructionism from the coalition, the government continues to do its job even in the most difficult of parliaments.

Also to say well done to a couple of the otherwise righties (esp. chook and maqqa) for their bipartisanship in this case. Never thought I'd be complimenting maqqa...  :)

The only people who pay less in the US are those on high incomes who can afford it: Bush/Rumsfeld economics.

Middle income earners pay about the same as Australians.

Verge wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:15pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Verge wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:08pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:04pm: As a doctor said on tv yesterday...I pay more to insure my car than it costs for my health insurance and the govt doesnt subsidise me to do that so why should they subsidise my health insurance. It costs me $520 to insure my car, it was costing me $2,340 for health insurance, AFTER the rebate, and we are only a young couple, and didnt have our child on it. No wonder we dropped it. Dont know what kind of car the Doc drives, but I would like to take it for a spin. I have private healthcare in the US. You know what though Verge - I pay $10,000 less in tax than Aussies on the same wage do. Australia - Land of the Rip off and the targetting of middle incomes. And yet look at how much better our economy is than that of the US.  Look at our housing market, our financial services markets, our employment markets. Oh nevermind, go the US.

Unless you want to live in south central LA or downtown Detroit, work in financial services or recruiting what's your point?

Where I live in a gated community in La Jolla, CA the houses have appreciated, I am paid more here than in AUS and we have private healthcare and private schooling because we have much greater net wealth from lower taxes.

Add the fact that our cost of living is 60% of that in Australia and my personal situation has never been better.

We look after ourselves in this world verge, if you go around worrying about everyone else you'd have a bad life.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

Verge wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Verge wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:08pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:04pm: As a doctor said on tv yesterday...I pay more to insure my car than it costs for my health insurance and the govt doesnt subsidise me to do that so why should they subsidise my health insurance. It costs me $520 to insure my car, it was costing me $2,340 for health insurance, AFTER the rebate, and we are only a young couple, and didnt have our child on it. No wonder we dropped it. Dont know what kind of car the Doc drives, but I would like to take it for a spin. I have private healthcare in the US. You know what though Verge - I pay $10,000 less in tax than Aussies on the same wage do. Australia - Land of the Rip off and the targetting of middle incomes. And yet look at how much better our economy is than that of the US.  Look at our housing market, our financial services markets, our employment markets. Oh nevermind, go the US. Unless you want to live in south central LA or downtown Detroit, work in financial services or recruiting what's your point? Where I live in a gated community in La Jolla, CA the houses have appreciated, I am paid more here than in AUS and we have private healthcare and private schooling because we have much greater net wealth from lower taxes. Add the fact that our cost of living is 60% of that in Australia and my personal situation has never been better. We look after ourselves in this world verge, if you go around worrying about everyone else you'd have a bad life.

The US is in massive debt because it does not collect enough taxes to support its economy....It might help get elected to keep taxes low but sometime the piper will want to be paid his money....There is no such thing as a free lunch Andre and the USA will suffer for short term policy over long term fiscal responsibility!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:22pm:

It might help get elected to keep taxes low but sometime the piper will want to be paid his money!!!

Then I would just leave Phil.

;D

I bet you have lovely lawns inside that gated community, A.H - golf carts to drive around on, stairmasters in the gym.

Keeps the blacks out too.

What would you rather have - subsidised public housing or gated communities?

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

I bet you have lovely lawns inside that gated community, A.H - golf carts to drive around on, stairmasters in the gym. Keeps the blacks out too. What would you rather have - subsidised public housing or gated communities?

No need to bring race into it.
It's not 1961 Johannesburg.

It's just a regular community where house prices have appreciated and life is good.

Despite what some would have you believe.

To bring it back to the topic - we have no need for a private health rebate in the US BECAUSE we are able to fund our own healthcare due to lower taxation.

Why would I get my own healthcare but also have to fund some deadbeat who pays in nothing?
How is that fair on me?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:22pm: It might help get elected to keep taxes low but sometime the piper will want to be paid his money!!! Then I would just leave Phil. ;D

And no doubt you will return to Australia where the economy is stable and the lifestyle is comparable.....Fair enough for an opportunist to seek opportunity in other people's stupidity I guess....It still beggars belief that the United States thinks that China will not bring their economy to its knees if they fail to address the debt they are incurring!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:24pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:22pm: It might help get elected to keep taxes low but sometime the piper will want to be paid his money!!! Then I would just leave Phil. ;D And no doubt you will return to Australia where the economy is stable and the lifestyle is comparable.....Fair enough for an opportunist to seek opportunity in other people's stupidity I guess....It still beggars belief that the United States thinks that China will not bring their economy to its knees if they fail to address the debt they are incurring!!!

Why bring the economy to its knees when you can buy it cheap?

The Chinese can aggregate all its US Bond holdings into one company and leverage it 5 to 6 times. The Banks have been doing it for years

With the money they can buy whatever they want

Dunno about returning to Australia Phil.

The country's nice enough but I am not so sure about its people.....

;)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:35pm:

Dunno about returning to Australia Phil. The country's nice enough but I am not so sure about its people..... ;)

Macca is not that bad Andre.....some of his mates are a bit shallow though!!!   ;)

Maqqa wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:34pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:24pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:22pm: It might help get elected to keep taxes low but sometime the piper will want to be paid his money!!! Then I would just leave Phil. ;D And no doubt you will return to Australia where the economy is stable and the lifestyle is comparable.....Fair enough for an opportunist to seek opportunity in other people's stupidity I guess....It still beggars belief that the United States thinks that China will not bring their economy to its knees if they fail to address the debt they are incurring!!! Why bring the economy to its knees when you can buy it cheap? The Chinese can aggregate all its US Bond holdings into one company and leverage it 5 to 6 times. The Banks have been doing it for years With the money they can buy whatever they want

When they own it all they will come knocking to get their money back....Anything can happen but rest assured the piper will come calling one day wont he Macca???

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:27pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:24pm: I bet you have lovely lawns inside that gated community, A.H - golf carts to drive around on, stairmasters in the gym. Keeps the blacks out too. What would you rather have - subsidised public housing or gated communities? No need to bring race into it. It's not 1961 Johannesburg. It's just a regular community where house prices have appreciated and life is good. Despite what some would have you believe. To bring it back to the topic - we have no need for a private health rebate in the US BECAUSE we are able to fund our own healthcare due to lower taxation. Why would I get my own healthcare but also have to fund some deadbeat who pays in nothing? How is that fair on me?

Well, they have this thing called epidemiology and public health, A.H. It became popular after the Spanish Influenza of 1911.

The theory is that many diseases are contageous. If you don't treat the deadbeats, the rest of the population gets sick.

Yes, you and I know it's just the doctors trying to create a nanny state and gain control, but try telling them that.

They give you all these reasons why you shouldn't let the deadbeats drop dead, their corpses left to attract the flies.

The politicians give in to them every time.   

I say well done to Labor; f*ck these greedy pricks who leave their savings untouched while benefiting from taxpayers money that on ANY other occasion, they'd be calling Socialism in sheeps clothing.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:43pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 1:35pm: Dunno about returning to Australia Phil. The country's nice enough but I am not so sure about its people..... ;) Macca is not that bad Andre.....some of his mates are a bit shallow though!!!   ;)

I'm not surprised you aren't keen on coming back, you're in a country that is infamous for sucking up the a*se of high income earners.

Well that's totally fair. I will be making over $200,000. How dare I? Shame on me!

matty wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

Well that's totally fair. I will be making over $200,000. How dare I? Shame on me!

Sock!!!

matty wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

Well that's totally fair. I will be making over $200,000. How dare I? Shame on me!

Yes, but that's when you get elected, Matty. We still need to get past the preselection.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:21pm:

matty wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:12pm: Well that's totally fair. I will be making over $200,000. How dare I? Shame on me! Sock!!!

No thanks, Phil. I am not cold.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

matty wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:12pm: Well that's totally fair. I will be making over $200,000. How dare I? Shame on me! Yes, but that's when you get elected, Matty. We still need to get past the preselection.

I am talking about when I am a specialist, Karnal.

matty wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:44pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:25pm: matty wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:12pm: Well that's totally fair. I will be making over $200,000. How dare I? Shame on me! Yes, but that's when you get elected, Matty. We still need to get past the preselection. I am talking about when I am a specialist, Karnal.

Yes, but you'll need a stint in parliament before you can get into the lucrative consulting work, Matty.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

matty wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:44pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:25pm: matty wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:12pm: Well that's totally fair. I will be making over $200,000. How dare I? Shame on me! Yes, but that's when you get elected, Matty. We still need to get past the preselection. I am talking about when I am a specialist, Karnal. Yes, but you'll need a stint in parliament before you can get into the lucrative consulting work, Matty.

No, I will be earning over $200,000 from what I am studying now. It has nothing at all to do with Parliament.

Do they teach specializing at uni these days, Matty?

Which course are you taking for that?

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:54pm:

Do they teach specializing at uni these days, Matty? Which course are you taking for that?

I believe he is studying becoming an artist in bovine excrement!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:54pm: Do they teach specializing at uni these days, Matty? Which course are you taking for that? I believe he is studying becoming an artist in bovine excrement!!!

Hands down the 2 most boring wankers on here.

Get a life haters.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:22am:

The ALP and Greens have just re-ignited the class wars Don't get me wrong - I am all for it. But it could have been handled alot better

Toni Abbott ignited the class wars by continually dragging up the subject.
Now what is required is some cutting of the unaffordable bonuses like FTB and baby bonus. They are far too costly. These sorts of cash payouts must go so intelligent reforms such as disability insurance and dental care can be introduced. Such reforms will improve quality of life for the disadvantaged and help improve health care outcomes without handing out cash so that Gerry Harvey can sell more wide screens.

FriYAY wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:58pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:54pm: Do they teach specializing at uni these days, Matty? Which course are you taking for that? I believe he is studying becoming an artist in bovine excrement!!! Hands down the 2 most boring wankers on here. Get a life haters.

How rude!!!

[smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=beer.gif]

FriYAY wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:58pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:54pm: Do they teach specializing at uni these days, Matty? Which course are you taking for that? I believe he is studying becoming an artist in bovine excrement!!! Hands down the 2 most boring wankers on here. Get a life haters.

Thanks fri. If it's anyone's business, I am studying medica science, and am going to be a specialist.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:54pm: Do they teach specializing at uni these days, Matty? Which course are you taking for that? I believe he is studying becoming an artist in bovine excrement!!!

Phil, Matty said he isn't going into politics now.

Anyway, he stopped going to Greens meetings when he fell out with Toni Wright-Turner of the Hornsby Greens. I think it was an animal welfare issue.

Matty, what career will you be doing instead? Life after politics is really hard for most. Which course are you doing?

matty wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 5:15pm:

Thanks fri. If it's anyone's business, I am studying medica science, and am going to be a specialist.

Medica? That a some kind of US health insurance company isn't it? I'm sure insurance sales can be lucrative but I didn't realise they could make that much. Good on you Mathew.

If they have cheap rates I'm sure Andrei would love to pick up a policy. Just ignore the sign about deadbeats on the way in, I'm sure it isn't aimed at you.

matty wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 5:15pm:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 5:02pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:58pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:54pm: Do they teach specializing at uni these days, Matty? Which course are you taking for that? I believe he is studying becoming an artist in bovine excrement!!! Hands down the 2 most boring wankers on here. Get a life haters. Thanks fri. If it's anyone's business, I am studying medica science, and am going to be a specialist.

Have you thought of what to specialise in yet, Matty? They make you do a degree in medicine and then more post-grad study before they let you become a specialist.

You could make a lot more in politics, I reckon.

Gist wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 5:31pm:

matty wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 5:15pm: Thanks fri. If it's anyone's business, I am studying medica science, and am going to be a specialist. Medica? That a some kind of US health insurance company isn't it? I'm sure insurance sales can be lucrative but I didn't realise they could make that much. Good on you Mathew. If they have cheap rates I'm sure Andrei would love to pick up a policy. Just ignore the sign about deadbeats on the way in, I'm sure it isn't aimed at you.

Don't heckle, Gits,  you can't even spell your own name.

Soren wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Gist wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 5:31pm: matty wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 5:15pm: Thanks fri. If it's anyone's business, I am studying medica science, and am going to be a specialist. Medica? That a some kind of US health insurance company isn't it? I'm sure insurance sales can be lucrative but I didn't realise they could make that much. Good on you Mathew. If they have cheap rates I'm sure Andrei would love to pick up a policy. Just ignore the sign about deadbeats on the way in, I'm sure it isn't aimed at you. Don't heckle, Gits,  you can't even spell your own name.

Is Today Tonight over already, old boy?

Or is it the anti-climax where they promise you a great story after the break and when it comes back on they tell you it's on tomorrow night?

I never understand how people can fall for it every single night.

Soren wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Gist wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 5:31pm: matty wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 5:15pm: Thanks fri. If it's anyone's business, I am studying medica science, and am going to be a specialist. Medica? That a some kind of US health insurance company isn't it? I'm sure insurance sales can be lucrative but I didn't realise they could make that much. Good on you Mathew. If they have cheap rates I'm sure Andrei would love to pick up a policy. Just ignore the sign about deadbeats on the way in, I'm sure it isn't aimed at you. Don't heckle, Gits,  you can't even spell your own name.

;D

Don't heckle, Sorell, you can't even come up with a good name to heckle with.

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:48pm: Sooner or later Abbott is going to have to make some tough decisions..he cant be a popularist forever. Turnbull will run against Rudd at the next election This is a very real possibility.

id be prepared to stake my house on that being totally ludicrous. Turnball is a better bet for the next leader of the LABOR party rather thant the libs and Rudd is hated by almost everyone in his party.

Only just caught onto this whole thing now, but why is removing the rebate a good thing? Given the current state of the public health system I would have thought anything to relieve the pressure off public hospitals would be a good thing?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 12:48pm: Sooner or later Abbott is going to have to make some tough decisions..he cant be a popularist forever. Turnbull will run against Rudd at the next election Amen to that. Hopefully with a Turnbull victory.

Yes.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Only just caught onto this whole thing now, but why is removing the rebate a good thing? Given the current state of the public health system I would have thought anything to relieve the pressure off public hospitals would be a good thing?

Exactly.
This has NOTHING to do with helping the public health system.

It has EVERYTHING to do with Labor's burning hatred of the middle income bracket.

How does diverting funds from the cash strapped public sector to the most wealthy in our society be considered good policy......If the wealthy want to drop out of private health insurance and pay a higher medicare levy and be penalised if they want to rejoin then the public system will still be stronger.....We have 18 months to see if the wealthy dump their private health insurance and go onto public waiting lists behind everyone else....My guess is most people will understand the gravy train has left the station and it is still better to have private health insurance if you can afford it!!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Only just caught onto this whole thing now, but why is removing the rebate a good thing? Given the current state of the public health system I would have thought anything to relieve the pressure off public hospitals would be a good thing? Exactly. This has NOTHING to do with helping the public health system. It has EVERYTHING to do with Labor's burning hatred of the middle income bracket.

In the words of the late Eric Morecombe....


"Rubbish!"

Kat wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Only just caught onto this whole thing now, but why is removing the rebate a good thing? Given the current state of the public health system I would have thought anything to relieve the pressure off public hospitals would be a good thing? Exactly. This has NOTHING to do with helping the public health system. It has EVERYTHING to do with Labor's burning hatred of the middle income bracket. In the words of the late Eric Morecombe.... "Rubbish!"

*Private healthcare rebate
*Superannuations offset cut
*Baby bonus means tested
*First Homebuyer grant restriction
* Giving out $1,000 to the lower people and excluding those over $100k


Notice which demographic are hit by all this??

Yep those of us in the middle.
The people who pay tax to support the likes of the welfare bludgers that Labor love to help so much.

Quote:

Private Health Means Test - Its PASSED

A true accomplishment the Government can put in the tick column.... 8-) ::)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 10:20pm:

Quote: Private Health Means Test - Its PASSED A true accomplishment the Government can put in the tick column.... 8-) ::)

And bang another nail into the coffin that is their re-election hope.

This has been a disastrous Government led by a very unpopular Prime Minister.

Abbott has basically cooked his own goose committing himself against this policy - he is giving people the reason not to vote for him. ::) 8-)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 10:22pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:20pm: Quote: Private Health Means Test - Its PASSED A true accomplishment the Government can put in the tick column.... 8-) ::) And bang another nail into the coffin that is their re-election hope. This has been a disastrous Government led by a very unpopular Prime Minister.

Lol - working families that were conned and forced onto Private healthcover by Howard are cheering from the rafters at this reform.   8-) ::)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 10:11pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:05pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Only just caught onto this whole thing now, but why is removing the rebate a good thing? Given the current state of the public health system I would have thought anything to relieve the pressure off public hospitals would be a good thing? Exactly. This has NOTHING to do with helping the public health system. It has EVERYTHING to do with Labor's burning hatred of the middle income bracket. In the words of the late Eric Morecombe.... "Rubbish!" *Private healthcare rebate *Superannuations offset cut *Baby bonus means tested *First Homebuyer grant restriction * Giving out $1,000 to the lower people and excluding those over $100k Notice which demographic are hit by all this?? Yep those of us in the middle. The people who pay tax to support the likes of the welfare bludgers that Labor love to help so much.

And EVERY BIT of it is WEALTHFARE.

YOU are  rich enough to not NEED it, so YOU shouldn't GET it.

And if it hadn't been for Howard buying votes, you would never
have HAD nit in the first place.

ALL wealthfare should be means-tested, and the cutoff point
should be well below what you claim to earn.

And the money saved should go to the WELfare
recipients that you despise so much.

Tony Abbott will have to argue why high income earners deserve a taxpayer funded hand out for their private health insurance and tell taxpayers what he will cut to provide this necessity.....I doubt he will convince the majority of people he is correct!!!

You're pretty much correct Kat.

All this is is undoing the unfairness Howards reforms swept into the Healthcare system. Why should the taxpayer pay to keep others rich?

Here is my point though Kat.

What have these people done to deserve to get all this and the rest of us should get nothing?

What help did I get from the Government in my life?

My schooling was paid for by my parents, so the Government provided nothing there.

My university was paid by my parents - so again nothing from the Government there.

My professional qualifications were paid for by my employer - no Government help.

What have the Labor Government ever done for me??

Nothing but take things off me.

Then give to people who, with the greatest respect, are not more than scum.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

Here is my point though Kat. What have these people done to deserve to get all this and the rest of us should get nothing? What help did I get from the Government in my life? My schooling was paid for by my parents, so the Government provided nothing there. My university was paid by my parents - so again nothing from the Government there. My professional qualifications were paid for by my employer - no Government help. What have the Labor Government ever done for me?? Nothing but take things off me. Then give to people who, with the greatest respect, are not more than scum.

Keep peddling that sweeping generalisation if it lets you sleep well at night.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

Only just caught onto this whole thing now, but why is removing the rebate a good thing? Given the current state of the public health system I would have thought anything to relieve the pressure off public hospitals would be a good thing?

But Matty, you were talking to us just a minute ago. What happened?

You were going to give up politics and become a specialist, remember?

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 10:44pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:42pm: Here is my point though Kat. What have these people done to deserve to get all this and the rest of us should get nothing? What help did I get from the Government in my life? My schooling was paid for by my parents, so the Government provided nothing there. My university was paid by my parents - so again nothing from the Government there. My professional qualifications were paid for by my employer - no Government help. What have the Labor Government ever done for me?? Nothing but take things off me. Then give to people who, with the greatest respect, are not more than scum. Keep peddling that sweeping generalisation if it lets you sleep well at night.

I sleep soundly thanks young man.

Most people on here who support do not reflect the majority out there in Australia.

When you look at it - you have lower echelon folk, youngsters who have never really lived or run a family and dropouts like Buzz.

Real everyday families who will be excluded with this stupid decision will not be happy.

In short this Government has not a cat's chance in hell of re-election.

Of course. You have a uniformed security guard on the gate.

What time is it in America right now, A.H?

We do not have gates with uniformed guards.

Learn a bit more about the communities.

Right now it would be about 5am or so. I look forward to returning home next week. This visit has again opened my eyes to what a basket case of a country this is.

You can't have had too much sleep then, A.H, but you sound a bit confused about which country you're in.

If you did grow up in Australia, your schooling and university would have been paid for by the government. Yes, even private schooling. Generous, un-means tested family payments for your parents too.

If you didn't, why are you posting all this from a gated community with a naked security guard at five am?

I didn't grow up in Australia, but that is not relevant.

I post as an Australia (currently in Australia until Monday) but always wanting the best for my country of citizenship and birth.

It's principle. It drives who I am.

Do you? The country's a basket case under the current socialist government sounds a bit like - well...

Class war.

Don't accept this rubbish from Andrei as the truth of it. He goes to wherever the Government will bend over to suit his own interests the most.

Yes, an international model of class warfare based on principle alone.

A class without timezones, but rich parents and security guards without uniforms.

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:

Don't accept this rubbish from Andrei as the truth of it. He goes to wherever the Government will bend over to suit his own interests the most.

Shock as person takes a role in a different country in order to provide a higher income to look after his family.

Shock, horror!!!!!

Maybe you had an Australian nanny.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:17pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:11pm: Don't accept this rubbish from Andrei as the truth of it. He goes to wherever the Government will bend over to suit his own interests the most. Shock as person takes a role in a different country in order to provide a higher income to look after his family. Shock, horror!!!!!

So you and your family are like Locusts. Fair enough, a fair comparison.

Don't get him started on immigration.

Products of global market capitalism.

Highly skilled workers, utilizing the supply and demand curve to provide the highest revenue and quality of life for our family unit.

I obviously want what is best for Australia - I just don't necessarily want to live there whilst my demographic seems so poorly treated compared to in the United States.

The USA provides us a better life, that's not in doubt.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:25pm:

Don't get him started on immigration.

I don't hold an opinion on immigration in the USA.
The United States is not my country, I am a mere guest - hence I do not involve in the politics of it.

As for Australia, I am merely in favour of skilled migration from culturally suitable nations.
Hardly an extreme position.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:27pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 11:25pm: Don't get him started on immigration. I don't hold an opinion on immigration in the USA. The United States is not my country, I am a mere guest - hence I do not involve in the politics of it. As for Australia, I am merely in favour of skilled migration from culturally suitable nations. Hardly an extreme position.

Just as long as you get to engage in elitist corporate class war eh... :-X

Try and get some sleep, A.H. Should be a busy day at the office today.

REPOST ...





buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 7:40pm:

. When "Miss Piggy" Rinehart and "Porky" Palmer - the Rudds and the Turnbulls - are receiving government assistance to help them "make ends meet" on the cost of private medical insurance - there is OBVIOUSLY something VERY wrong with the Howard Government introduced rebate model The portion of the health budget being given to the wealthy ( ... and MEGA-wealthy), could be WAY better allocated ELSEWHERE

Kat wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 10:35pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:11pm: Kat wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:05pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Only just caught onto this whole thing now, but why is removing the rebate a good thing? Given the current state of the public health system I would have thought anything to relieve the pressure off public hospitals would be a good thing? Exactly. This has NOTHING to do with helping the public health system. It has EVERYTHING to do with Labor's burning hatred of the middle income bracket. In the words of the late Eric Morecombe.... "Rubbish!" *Private healthcare rebate *Superannuations offset cut *Baby bonus means tested *First Homebuyer grant restriction * Giving out $1,000 to the lower people and excluding those over $100k Notice which demographic are hit by all this?? Yep those of us in the middle. The people who pay tax to support the likes of the welfare bludgers that Labor love to help so much. And EVERY BIT of it is WEALTHFARE. YOU are  rich enough to not NEED it, so YOU shouldn't GET it. And if it hadn't been for Howard buying votes, you would never have HAD nit in the first place. ALL wealthfare should be means-tested, and the cutoff point should be well below what you claim to earn. And the money saved should go to the WELfare recipients that you despise so much.

Kat, why should people who don't earn as much be more deserving? It's their own fault. Why punish people for actually studying and being in the middle/upper class?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

Tony Abbott will have to argue why high income earners deserve a taxpayer funded hand out for their private health insurance and tell taxpayers what he will cut to provide this necessity.....I doubt he will convince the majority of people he is correct!!!

Maybe that upper and middle should not have to pay more tax, and not be deserving of the health care rebate, just because we earn more?

matty wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:54pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:42pm: Tony Abbott will have to argue why high income earners deserve a taxpayer funded hand out for their private health insurance and tell taxpayers what he will cut to provide this necessity.....I doubt he will convince the majority of people he is correct!!! Maybe that upper and middle should not have to pay more tax, and not be deserving of the health care rebate, just because we earn more?

Prolly upper incomes need to be slashed to sustainable levels... 8-)

matty wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:53pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:35pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:11pm: Kat wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:05pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:49pm: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:43pm: Only just caught onto this whole thing now, but why is removing the rebate a good thing? Given the current state of the public health system I would have thought anything to relieve the pressure off public hospitals would be a good thing? Exactly. This has NOTHING to do with helping the public health system. It has EVERYTHING to do with Labor's burning hatred of the middle income bracket. In the words of the late Eric Morecombe.... "Rubbish!" *Private healthcare rebate *Superannuations offset cut *Baby bonus means tested *First Homebuyer grant restriction * Giving out $1,000 to the lower people and excluding those over $100k Notice which demographic are hit by all this?? Yep those of us in the middle. The people who pay tax to support the likes of the welfare bludgers that Labor love to help so much. And EVERY BIT of it is WEALTHFARE. YOU are  rich enough to not NEED it, so YOU shouldn't GET it. And if it hadn't been for Howard buying votes, you would never have HAD nit in the first place. ALL wealthfare should be means-tested, and the cutoff point should be well below what you claim to earn. And the money saved should go to the WELfare recipients that you despise so much. Kat, why should people who don't earn as much be more deserving? It's their own fault. Why punish people for actually studying and being in the middle/upper class?

You're NOT being punished.

You're merely being required to pay YOUR FAIR SHARE.

Which, thanks to Howard, has NOT been the case.

Oh, BTW, it is NOT a 'fault' to not earn as much as someone else.

That comment was offensive and stupid.

All welfare payments should be means tested, end of story.
The taxation system being too erratic and fragmented to properly oversee the collection of fair and proper amount of Tax from far too many of the wealthy, is the reason that we see so much of the Tax burden unfairly imposed on the Middle Classes with dual salaries.

I would also like to see the age pension means tested again, despite the Labor Party argument that those at the top end have contributed so much that they deserve to get the pension, even if they do not need it.
Labor were wrong to have removed that means testing, and because of the GFC, lots of those magnanimous type gestures from yesteryear, need to be revisited.

mozzaok wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 6:20am:

All welfare payments should be means tested, end of story. The taxation system being too erratic and fragmented to properly oversee the collection of fair and proper amount of Tax from far too many of the wealthy, is the reason that we see so much of the Tax burden unfairly imposed on the Middle Classes with dual salaries. I would also like to see the age pension means tested again, despite the Labor Party argument that those at the top end have contributed so much that they deserve to get the pension, even if they do not need it. Labor were wrong to have removed that means testing, and because of the GFC, lots of those magnanimous type gestures from yesteryear, need to be revisited.

Actually, Mozzaok, WELfare payments ARE means-tested.

Savagely, in the case of no-Start recips, less-so for other types.

This system where the neediest get the least, while elitists like Andrei pocket
a motza while screaming for more, is totally skewed the wrong way.

As i said earlier, I'm MUCH more comfortable with MY tax-dollars going to a
pensioner or someone who's on the dole, than I am with it going to the
well-to-do as Howard-era bribes.

And it sickens me that the right continue to view this as a legitimate
entitlement, while begrudging the neediest a modest $50/week increase
in the criminally-inadequate No-Start payment.

Kat wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 6:33am:

mozzaok wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 6:20am: All welfare payments should be means tested, end of story. The taxation system being too erratic and fragmented to properly oversee the collection of fair and proper amount of Tax from far too many of the wealthy, is the reason that we see so much of the Tax burden unfairly imposed on the Middle Classes with dual salaries. I would also like to see the age pension means tested again, despite the Labor Party argument that those at the top end have contributed so much that they deserve to get the pension, even if they do not need it. Labor were wrong to have removed that means testing, and because of the GFC, lots of those magnanimous type gestures from yesteryear, need to be revisited. Actually, Mozzaok, WELfare payments ARE means-tested. Savagely, in the case of no-Start recips, less-so for other types. This system where the neediest get the least, while elitists like Andrei pocket a motza while screaming for more, is totally skewed the wrong way. As i said earlier, I'm MUCH more comfortable with MY tax-dollars going to a pensioner or someone who's on the dole, than I am with it going to the well-to-do as Howard-era bribes. And it sickens me that the right continue to view this as a legitimate entitlement, while begrudging the neediest a modest $50/week increase in the criminally-inadequate No-Start payment.

-------

There is a saying "Poor men don't pay wages".

Don't have to like your employers but they are a necessary evil while we could do without drunks, drug addicts, gamblers, the bone lazy and those who arrive on boats without documents.

olde.sault wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Kat wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 6:33am: mozzaok wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 6:20am: All welfare payments should be means tested, end of story. The taxation system being too erratic and fragmented to properly oversee the collection of fair and proper amount of Tax from far too many of the wealthy, is the reason that we see so much of the Tax burden unfairly imposed on the Middle Classes with dual salaries. I would also like to see the age pension means tested again, despite the Labor Party argument that those at the top end have contributed so much that they deserve to get the pension, even if they do not need it. Labor were wrong to have removed that means testing, and because of the GFC, lots of those magnanimous type gestures from yesteryear, need to be revisited. Actually, Mozzaok, WELfare payments ARE means-tested. Savagely, in the case of no-Start recips, less-so for other types. This system where the neediest get the least, while elitists like Andrei pocket a motza while screaming for more, is totally skewed the wrong way. As i said earlier, I'm MUCH more comfortable with MY tax-dollars going to a pensioner or someone who's on the dole, than I am with it going to the well-to-do as Howard-era bribes. And it sickens me that the right continue to view this as a legitimate entitlement, while begrudging the neediest a modest $50/week increase in the criminally-inadequate No-Start payment. ------- There is a saying "Poor men don't pay wages". Don't have to like your employers but they are a necessary evil while we could do without drunks, drug addicts, gamblers, the bone lazy and those who arrive on boats without documents.

I didn't mention employers, or whether I liked them or not.

And I have been known to pay wages in my time.

I stand by my wish to see MY tax-dollars go to someone on $13,000
a year rather than to someone on $200,000 a year.

And for someone on $200,000 a year to claim  that they should be
MORE entitled to that money is simply obscene.

Kat wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 6:33am:

mozzaok wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 6:20am: All welfare payments should be means tested, end of story. The taxation system being too erratic and fragmented to properly oversee the collection of fair and proper amount of Tax from far too many of the wealthy, is the reason that we see so much of the Tax burden unfairly imposed on the Middle Classes with dual salaries. I would also like to see the age pension means tested again, despite the Labor Party argument that those at the top end have contributed so much that they deserve to get the pension, even if they do not need it. Labor were wrong to have removed that means testing, and because of the GFC, lots of those magnanimous type gestures from yesteryear, need to be revisited. Actually, Mozzaok, WELfare payments ARE means-tested. Savagely, in the case of no-Start recips, less-so for other types. This system where the neediest get the least, while elitists like Andrei pocket a motza while screaming for more, is totally skewed the wrong way. As i said earlier, I'm MUCH more comfortable with MY tax-dollars going to a pensioner or someone who's on the dole, than I am with it going to the well-to-do as Howard-era bribes. And it sickens me that the right continue to view this as a legitimate entitlement, while begrudging the neediest a modest $50/week increase in the criminally-inadequate No-Start payment.

Not all welfare payments are means tested Kat. my argument is that I think they ALL should be.

mozzaok wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 6:55am:

Kat wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 6:33am: mozzaok wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 6:20am: All welfare payments should be means tested, end of story. The taxation system being too erratic and fragmented to properly oversee the collection of fair and proper amount of Tax from far too many of the wealthy, is the reason that we see so much of the Tax burden unfairly imposed on the Middle Classes with dual salaries. I would also like to see the age pension means tested again, despite the Labor Party argument that those at the top end have contributed so much that they deserve to get the pension, even if they do not need it. Labor were wrong to have removed that means testing, and because of the GFC, lots of those magnanimous type gestures from yesteryear, need to be revisited. Actually, Mozzaok, WELfare payments ARE means-tested. Savagely, in the case of no-Start recips, less-so for other types. This system where the neediest get the least, while elitists like Andrei pocket a motza while screaming for more, is totally skewed the wrong way. As i said earlier, I'm MUCH more comfortable with MY tax-dollars going to a pensioner or someone who's on the dole, than I am with it going to the well-to-do as Howard-era bribes. And it sickens me that the right continue to view this as a legitimate entitlement, while begrudging the neediest a modest $50/week increase in the criminally-inadequate No-Start payment. Not all welfare payments are means tested Kat. my argument is that I think they ALL should be.

I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be, Mozzaok.

But I AM arguing that, if WELfare payments are means-tested, then
so, too, should WEALTHfare payments be means-tested, as Labor
have done with the health rebate.

It seems only logical, to me, and I applaud Labor
for finally getting something right..

CAN ANYONE TELL ME IF THE POOR PEOPLE WILL GET CHEAPER HEALTH CARE OUT OF THIS...

OR IS IT JUST TO BALANCE SWANS BUDGET AND HELP HIS SURPLUS?


WE KEEP BEING TOLD...

THE POOR HAVE BEEN SUBSIDISING THE RICH...


SO SHOULDNT THEY BE GETTING IT CHEAPER NOW?

By chief political correspondent Emma Griffiths

Updated February 14, 2012.


The Federal Government and the Greens have hailed a deal over private health insurance as a "win for fairness".   :)

Health Minister Tanya Plibersek has secured Greens support for the Government's health legislation with a $165 million package to provide dental services to low-income earners.   :)

The legislation will allow means-testing of the private health insurance rebate and an increase in the Medicare Levy surcharge.

The Government still needs the votes of cross-bench MPs, but Ms Plibersek believes the bill could pass the House of Representatives as early as tonight.

"It means that low-income Australians won't be subsidising the private health insurance rebates of much higher-paid Australians," she said.   ;)

"I'm going to let the other crossbenchers speak for themselves, but what I can say is that I feel confident that this legislation will now pass in an unamended form."

The money for dental care will be funded by an increase in the Medicare Levy surcharge for people on higher wages who do not hold private hospital cover.

But the main plank of the legislation will means-test the private health insurance rebate, with reductions beginning for a single person earning more than $80,000 and families on $160,000.

The rebate will cut out completely for singles who earn more than $124,000 and families on more than $248,000.

Labor has been trying to means-test the private health insurance rebate for nearly three years. It represents a $2.4 billion boon to the budget.

Ms Plibersek says the changes are fair.

"Instead of subsidising the private health insurance of people on $250,000 a year, $500,000 a year, $1 million a year, it will instead be used on the sort of things that we're talking about today - the dental health needs of some of our most disadvantaged Australians," she said.   :)

matty wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:54pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:42pm: Tony Abbott will have to argue why high income earners deserve a taxpayer funded hand out for their private health insurance and tell taxpayers what he will cut to provide this necessity.....I doubt he will convince the majority of people he is correct!!! Maybe that upper and middle should not have to pay more tax, and not be deserving of the health care rebate, just because we earn more?

Yes, Matty, that's pretty much what this new member said a page or so back. Piggy Baldwin? Sounds like he's been to boarding school, doesn't it?

When we upper classes get into medicine, pass all the exams, do ten more years of study and medical residency, and are then admitted to the specialist college to become a specialist, we can start earning the big bucks and learn to avoid paying tax.

Until then, we're just grunts like everbody else.

I see the screeching from the right is still at fever pitch, "how dare those socialists take away our welfare". ::)

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 11:40pm:

REPOST ... buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 7:40pm: . When "Miss Piggy" Rinehart and "Porky" Palmer - the Rudds and the Turnbulls - are receiving government assistance to help them "make ends meet" on the cost of private medical insurance - there is OBVIOUSLY something VERY wrong with the Howard Government introduced rebate model The portion of the health budget being given to the wealthy ( ... and MEGA-wealthy), could be WAY better allocated ELSEWHERE

when a person like reinhardt whose personal income tax is more than the welfare bill of a small city, isnt entitled to a small and trivial rebate, then something is wrong.

skippy. wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 8:26am:

I see the screeching from the right is still at fever pitch, "how dare those socialists take away our welfare". ::)

It's class warfare. Andre has taken to calling his international tax-avoiding class his "demographic."

And Matty is madly creating socks to agree.

Expect to see a huge increase in company directors resigning from their boards to go and live on the dole at $16 a day. Instead of paying a few dollars extra for their premium healthcare coverage.

It is in the Liberal Party's  DNA- say's Mr Abbott . Extra taxpayer money for the rich to maintain their privileges over everyone else. American healthcare.

Be aware.

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:21am:

It is in the Liberal Party's  DNA- say's Mr Abbott . Extra taxpayer money for the rich to maintain their privileges over everyone else. American healthcare.

Totally, totally not understanding people's point as usual.

It is not the 'rich' who suffer with this.

No Director is going to resign etc as your hysterical response notes.

It is those of us in the middle incomes, those of us struggling with a family, high interest rates, mortgages, children to send to school etc.

Those of us in the middle bracket of between $180,000 and $250,000 per annum single wage earner.

The Rich will not suffer. Those like my boss on $450k + 50% bonus are not going to give a monkey's toss about this change. He can afford it.

Those of us on the middle bracket - this is a big change.

Stop looking at it as "The Rich" - they will escape fine. We will not.

Those of us on the middle bracket - this is a big change.

Stop looking at it as "The Rich" - they will escape fine. We will not.
Yes and start thinking about the poor.   :(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:24am:

Those of us in the middle bracket of between $180,000 and $250,000 per annum single wage earner.

!

Longy wrote

Quote:

when a person like Rinehart whose personal income tax is more than the welfare bill of a small city, isnt entitled to a small and trivial rebate, then something is wrong.

It is small and trivial to Gina Rinehart but it costs the budget billions of dollars a year.....I fail to see why you have any sympathy for people like her mate.....When some kid is waiting for an operation to save his life but must wait because the public system cannot cope I have no problem seeing the system changed to support people who NEED the help???

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12805697/son-breaks-his-silence-in-rinehart-battle/

Mr Hancock said he was prompted to speak after his mother used a security consultancy report- code-named Project Tara - to argue that her four children and five grandchildren faced heightened security risks, including kidnapping, murder and terrorism as a result of publicity surrounding the case.

"I can support my wife and children in a modest manner from the work I do but I can't provide the level of funds required to deal with security issues - real or imagined - associated with being the son of a woman worth more than $20 billion," he said in a statement.

"When my mother buys a few hundred million dollars worth of Fairfax, it's going to draw some attention.

"But she won't share a penny to help protect her grandchildren from the risks she - the trustee of our family trust - is creating by her own actions.

"Even the production of this expensive report causes more problems - her very conduct puts us in more jeopardy.

"What more can I do than communicate to any kidnappers out there - over my dead body and you will be wasting your time anyway. If you think you're going to get anything from my mother, good luck."

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:28am:

Those of us on the middle bracket - this is a big change. Stop looking at it as "The Rich" - they will escape fine. We will not. Yes and start thinking about the poor.   :(

People are poor for a reason mate, usually their own doing.
I wasn't given any extra help by the Government in my life yet I knuckled down and attained the qualifications needed not to be a toilet cleaner.

There is too much "something for nothing" in today's society.
Look after yourself and then look to others.

I get sick and tired of sob stories from losers.

And upper class specialist, Matty, is currently getting youth allowance of -

How much are you getting, Matty?

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:24am: Those of us in the middle bracket of between $180,000 and $250,000 per annum single wage earner. !

You add it up.
When living in Melbourne our mortgage was over $4,500 per month.
Add on school fees, health insurance, energy bills to run that home, petrol, two cars etc etc.

You would be surprised (well you shouldn't be) that it is NOT plain sailing on that wage by any means.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

And upper class specialist, Matty, is currently getting youth allowance of - How much are you getting, Matty?

It's not about class.
I am a working class kid. It's about fairness.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:33am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:31am: And upper class specialist, Matty, is currently getting youth allowance of - How much are you getting, Matty? It's not about class. I am a working class kid. It's about fairness.

What about your current "demographic"?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:32am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:29am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:24am: Those of us in the middle bracket of between $180,000 and $250,000 per annum single wage earner. ! You add it up. When living in Melbourne our mortgage was over $4,500 per month. Add on school fees, health insurance, energy bills to run that home, petrol, two cars etc etc. You would be surprised (well you shouldn't be) that it is NOT plain sailing on that wage by any means.

When you live beyond your means do not expect taxpayers to support your lifestyle.....I heard a couple in Sydney crying poor when the GFC hit because they could not afford to keep up the payments on their $750 000 dollar investment property.....I have no sympathy for people who think they are entitled because they are wealthy.....Pay for your own extravagant lifestyle or live within your means like the rest of us FFS!!!

You add it up.
When living in Melbourne our mortgage was over $4,500 per month.
Add on school fees, health insurance, energy bills to run that home, petrol, two cars etc etc.

You would be surprised (well you shouldn't be) that it is NOT plain sailing on that wage by any means.
Is it plain sailing for someone on the minimum wage of $15.51 an hour?.  I think you would be surprised also.   :(

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:31am: And upper class specialist, Matty, is currently getting youth allowance of - How much are you getting, Matty? It's not about class. I am a working class kid. It's about fairness. What about your current "demographic"?

Single wage, family of 4, middle income with a house and 2 cars?

Doing it pretty hard - particularly when you consider a Government with a burning hatred of said demographic seem determined to remove our entitlements from us with each passing week.

The overall view I have - why would you deny people who pay into the country and hand it to deadbeats who pay in such little??

Then throw in the fking boat people into the mix who we seem to have to support and you have one basket case of a country system.

The well off don't need a rebate for private health insurance.  You are among the top 10 percent of income earners, therefore don't need the rebate.  Having said that though, what I would suggest is that you should try and make a budget.  I  think it would be good for you, and you might be pleasantly surprised if you do.   :)   

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:30am:

Longy wrote Quote: when a person like Rinehart whose personal income tax is more than the welfare bill of a small city, isnt entitled to a small and trivial rebate, then something is wrong. It is small and trivial to Gina Rinehart but it costs the budget billions of dollars a year.....I fail to see why you have any sympathy for people like her mate.....When some kid is waiting for an operation to save his life but must wait because the public system cannot cope I have no problem seeing the system changed to support people who NEED the help??? http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12805697/son-breaks-his-silence-in-rinehart-battle/ Mr Hancock said he was prompted to speak after his mother used a security consultancy report- code-named Project Tara - to argue that her four children and five grandchildren faced heightened security risks, including kidnapping, murder and terrorism as a result of publicity surrounding the case. "I can support my wife and children in a modest manner from the work I do but I can't provide the level of funds required to deal with security issues - real or imagined - associated with being the son of a woman worth more than $20 billion," he said in a statement. "When my mother buys a few hundred million dollars worth of Fairfax, it's going to draw some attention. "But she won't share a penny to help protect her grandchildren from the risks she - the trustee of our family trust - is creating by her own actions. "Even the production of this expensive report causes more problems - her very conduct puts us in more jeopardy. "What more can I do than communicate to any kidnappers out there - over my dead body and you will be wasting your time anyway. If you think you're going to get anything from my mother, good luck."

There is an old proverb - since you seem to like them. "Don't muzzle the ox as he is treading out the grain"

Gina reinhardt's mining companies pay enough tax to almost pay the entire australian health bill, yet you think she is therefore not entitled to the rebate?

I understand that she doesnt need it, but since when was that a satisfactory reason for anything? so of you here will have high mortgages and this rebate is an important component of your lives. there are others of you who have no mortagages and lower incomes who are in a better state but will keep the rebate. THATS the problem with means testing. it defines 'means' rather poorly.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:37am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:33am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:31am: And upper class specialist, Matty, is currently getting youth allowance of - How much are you getting, Matty? It's not about class. I am a working class kid. It's about fairness. What about your current "demographic"? Single wage, family of 4, middle income with a house and 2 cars? Doing it pretty hard - particularly when you consider a Government with a burning hatred of said demographic seem determined to remove our entitlements from us with each passing week. The overall view I have - why would you deny people who pay into the country and hand it to deadbeats who pay in such little?? Then throw in the fking boat people into the mix who we seem to have to support and you have one basket case of a country system.

Thanks, A.H. You raise some very interesting points.

You have said many times that people don't have "entitlements". You've worked hard all your life without government assistance and expect others to do the same.

You've also said you don't "pay in" through the tax system. You've made a point of this in many threads. And given you're based in the US, how could you?

The deadbeats who are let into this country are let in, on the whole, to become wage earners. They pay income tax, and the business lobbies fight the government hard to let them all in.

One hand washes the other: businesses get workers, and the government gets tax.

Political parties are kept happy too, and often put their support behind certain groups of immigrants who they think will vote for them: a key reason Malcolm Fraser supported anti-communist Vietnamese refugees in the 1980s, but not related to this argument.

Still, on the whole, these people have done it pretty hard. You've never had to flee with your life, leave everything behind, and start again in another country. You went to university, got a job, and settled in a gated community in a country with historically low tax rates for upper income earners.

Vietnamese workers and businesses pay income and business tax. You don't.

On the face of it, which "demographic" is turning this country into a basket case?

From my perspective, I don't really care that I'm losing the rebate. It was just a scam to have self reliant people become dependant of government hand outs.


The less I get from the government, the less I need the government.

The less I need the government, the less I care what the government does.

Kinda fits nicely with my aversion to voting for those self serving scumbags.


The rest of you suckers can spend the rest of your days worrying about when it is your turn to lose your 'entitlements'.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

From my perspective, I don't really care that I'm losing the rebate.

Why would you? The rebate was designed purely as a reward to the health insurers for their support of the Liberal Party.

Having private health insurance does not take people out of the public hospital system, even if they do claim. Doctors still need to treat you in public hospitals. Emergency care is still given in public hospitals.

And given the out-of-pocket expense of private health care, many go with the public system anyway.

On a cost-benefit analysis, public health is the best way to go. Australian medical care is reliant on public hospitals. Without them, the private system would cease to function.

I don't speak here from a personal point of view, I am thinking of others.

Others who would be in the same bracket as I would be, had I be living in Australia and paying tax solely within AUS and declaring all income in AUS.

Personally - I don't live in AUS so don't have to worry plus my time in Aus my grossed up income was less than $40k because of the double taxation offset relief where the rest of my salary was declared elsewhere.

My view here is of the demographic - not me personally.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:10am: From my perspective, I don't really care that I'm losing the rebate. Why would you? The rebate was designed purely as a reward to the health insurers for their support of the Liberal Party.

Well karnal, the rebate subsidised my health insurance costs when the insurers jacked up their prices. Now that I'm about to lose it, the prices will remain the same or higher and i will no longer be subsidised. See how that would normally have a financially adverse effect on myself.


So now it is no longer a reward for the insurers, it is a punishment for the financially self reliant.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

I don't speak here from a personal point of view, I am thinking of others. Others who would be in the same bracket as I would be, had I be living in Australia and paying tax solely within AUS and declaring all income in AUS. Personally - I don't live in AUS so don't have to worry plus my time in Aus my grossed up income was less than $40k because of the double taxation offset relief where the rest of my salary was declared elsewhere. My view here is of the demographic - not me personally.

Very generous of you, A.H. We know your views on the demographic.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:32am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:29am: I don't speak here from a personal point of view, I am thinking of others. Others who would be in the same bracket as I would be, had I be living in Australia and paying tax solely within AUS and declaring all income in AUS. Personally - I don't live in AUS so don't have to worry plus my time in Aus my grossed up income was less than $40k because of the double taxation offset relief where the rest of my salary was declared elsewhere. My view here is of the demographic - not me personally. Very generous of you, A.H. We know your views on the demographic.

Yes that they get utterly shafted by a Government that hates them in a time when they are struggling to get by.

High interest rates, high cost of living, salary downward pressure, high energy prices.

I know let's reduce their tax rebate further.....

Fking arseholes, I have always hated Labor for this reason.
Support scum but leave decent people high and dry.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:30am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:20am: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:10am: From my perspective, I don't really care that I'm losing the rebate. Why would you? The rebate was designed purely as a reward to the health insurers for their support of the Liberal Party. Well karnal, the rebate subsidised my health insurance costs when the insurers jacked up their prices. Now that I'm about to lose it, the prices will remain the same or higher and i will no longer be subsidised. See how that would normally have a financially adverse effect on myself. So now it is no longer a reward for the insurers, it is a punishment for the financially self reliant.

Sure, but would you call it a punishment?

Whether we like it or not, tax is about the redistribution of wealth. What's the point of taxing people and giving the money back to them?

There is only one benefit, and that's political.

Financial self-reliance means just that. If you're too young or too old or too sick to work, you can't be self reliant, no matter how hard you try.

Babies are not self-reliant. The elderly are not self-reliant. If all goes perfectly, the average human being has less than 50 years of self-reliance.

The reason we form communities (and pay taxes) is to manage the lack of self-reliance inherent in the human condition.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:32am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:29am: I don't speak here from a personal point of view, I am thinking of others. Others who would be in the same bracket as I would be, had I be living in Australia and paying tax solely within AUS and declaring all income in AUS. Personally - I don't live in AUS so don't have to worry plus my time in Aus my grossed up income was less than $40k because of the double taxation offset relief where the rest of my salary was declared elsewhere. My view here is of the demographic - not me personally. Very generous of you, A.H. We know your views on the demographic. Yes that they get utterly shafted by a Government that hates them in a time when they are struggling to get by. High interest rates, high cost of living, salary downward pressure, high energy prices. I know let's reduce their tax rebate further..... Fking arseholes, I have always hated Labor for this reason. Support scum but leave decent people high and dry.

Now now, we don't want to start a class war here, A.H.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 10:55am:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 9:30am: Longy wrote Quote: when a person like Rinehart whose personal income tax is more than the welfare bill of a small city, isnt entitled to a small and trivial rebate, then something is wrong. It is small and trivial to Gina Rinehart but it costs the budget billions of dollars a year.....I fail to see why you have any sympathy for people like her mate.....When some kid is waiting for an operation to save his life but must wait because the public system cannot cope I have no problem seeing the system changed to support people who NEED the help??? http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12805697/son-breaks-his-silence-in-rinehart-battle/ Mr Hancock said he was prompted to speak after his mother used a security consultancy report- code-named Project Tara - to argue that her four children and five grandchildren faced heightened security risks, including kidnapping, murder and terrorism as a result of publicity surrounding the case. "I can support my wife and children in a modest manner from the work I do but I can't provide the level of funds required to deal with security issues - real or imagined - associated with being the son of a woman worth more than $20 billion," he said in a statement. "When my mother buys a few hundred million dollars worth of Fairfax, it's going to draw some attention. "But she won't share a penny to help protect her grandchildren from the risks she - the trustee of our family trust - is creating by her own actions. "Even the production of this expensive report causes more problems - her very conduct puts us in more jeopardy. "What more can I do than communicate to any kidnappers out there - over my dead body and you will be wasting your time anyway. If you think you're going to get anything from my mother, good luck." There is an old proverb - since you seem to like them. "Don't muzzle the ox as he is treading out the grain" Gina reinhardt's mining companies pay enough tax to almost pay the entire australian health bill, yet you think she is therefore not entitled to the rebate? I understand that she doesnt need it, but since when was that a satisfactory reason for anything? so of you here will have high mortgages and this rebate is an important component of your lives. there are others of you who have no mortagages and lower incomes who are in a better state but will keep the rebate. THATS the problem with means testing. it defines 'means' rather poorly.

Yet you failed to respond to the fact the health system cannot afford to support people who really need the health system to save their lives let alone support people who are so well off they do not need the rebate....Should people die on waiting lists so people like Gina Rinehart can get a rebate???

The health system just cannot afford to pay people to have private health insurance (that makes billions of dollars profit) while the public system is broken.....Trying to spew the line that thousands of people will suddenly swamp emergency wards or hospitals will suddenly not be able to cope is just scare mongering bullshit!!!

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:34am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:32am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:29am: I don't speak here from a personal point of view, I am thinking of others. Others who would be in the same bracket as I would be, had I be living in Australia and paying tax solely within AUS and declaring all income in AUS. Personally - I don't live in AUS so don't have to worry plus my time in Aus my grossed up income was less than $40k because of the double taxation offset relief where the rest of my salary was declared elsewhere. My view here is of the demographic - not me personally. Very generous of you, A.H. We know your views on the demographic. Yes that they get utterly shafted by a Government that hates them in a time when they are struggling to get by. High interest rates, high cost of living, salary downward pressure, high energy prices. I know let's reduce their tax rebate further..... Fking arseholes, I have always hated Labor for this reason. Support scum but leave decent people high and dry. Now now, we don't want to start a class war here, A.H.

Class has nothing to do with it.

I am working class.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:32am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:29am: I don't speak here from a personal point of view, I am thinking of others. Others who would be in the same bracket as I would be, had I be living in Australia and paying tax solely within AUS and declaring all income in AUS. Personally - I don't live in AUS so don't have to worry plus my time in Aus my grossed up income was less than $40k because of the double taxation offset relief where the rest of my salary was declared elsewhere. My view here is of the demographic - not me personally. Very generous of you, A.H. We know your views on the demographic. Yes that they get utterly shafted by a Government that hates them in a time when they are struggling to get by. High interest rates, high cost of living, salary downward pressure, high energy prices. I know let's reduce their tax rebate further..... Fking arseholes, I have always hated Labor for this reason. Support scum but leave decent people high and dry.

And yet I'm sure I've seen the words "Swinging Voter" used as self description. ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:44am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:34am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:32am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:29am: I don't speak here from a personal point of view, I am thinking of others. Others who would be in the same bracket as I would be, had I be living in Australia and paying tax solely within AUS and declaring all income in AUS. Personally - I don't live in AUS so don't have to worry plus my time in Aus my grossed up income was less than $40k because of the double taxation offset relief where the rest of my salary was declared elsewhere. My view here is of the demographic - not me personally. Very generous of you, A.H. We know your views on the demographic. Yes that they get utterly shafted by a Government that hates them in a time when they are struggling to get by. High interest rates, high cost of living, salary downward pressure, high energy prices. I know let's reduce their tax rebate further..... Fking arseholes, I have always hated Labor for this reason. Support scum but leave decent people high and dry. Now now, we don't want to start a class war here, A.H. Class has nothing to do with it. I am working class.

Ah - so that's what you meant by your demographic: the international proletariat.

I'm sorry, A.H, I completely misunderstood. That explains all the talk about struggle and class war.

No wonder you hate the Labor Party - they're a bourgeouise distraction from the historical telos of class struggle: placing the means of production into the hands of the working class.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

Sure, but would you call it a punishment? Whether we like it or not, tax is about the redistribution of wealth. What's the point of taxing people and giving the money back to them? There is only one benefit, and that's political. Financial self-reliance means just that. If you're too young or too old or too sick to work, you can't be self reliant, no matter how hard you try. Babies are not self-reliant. The elderly are not self-reliant. If all goes perfectly, the average human being has less than 50 years of self-reliance. The reason we form communities (and pay taxes) is to manage the lack of self-reliance inherent in the human condition.

Taxes have always been a punishment for working hard / smart / making money, most of which is wasted by the government anyway.

Everybody gets taxed and everybody gets some of it back, it's how our tax system works.

The poor pay bugger all tax and get the dole / subsidies with most of their income from taxpayer funded handouts, the rich pay huge amounts of tax and get rebates and refunds.

Actually I intend to be self reliant when I'm 'elderly' too; there is no way I want to be reliant on government 'services' at any point in my life, not public health and definitely not the pension.

Most people are born with their hand out, from cradle to grave, that's just not me; I don't want anything from the government. It's usually of poor quality and of insufficient quantity to be of any use anyway.

All I ask of the government is to p1ss off and leave me alone to live my life as I see fit; with our current nanny state mentality that ain't working out so well either.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 12:00pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:41am: Sure, but would you call it a punishment? Whether we like it or not, tax is about the redistribution of wealth. What's the point of taxing people and giving the money back to them? There is only one benefit, and that's political. Financial self-reliance means just that. If you're too young or too old or too sick to work, you can't be self reliant, no matter how hard you try. Babies are not self-reliant. The elderly are not self-reliant. If all goes perfectly, the average human being has less than 50 years of self-reliance. The reason we form communities (and pay taxes) is to manage the lack of self-reliance inherent in the human condition. Taxes have always been a punishment for working hard / smart / making money, most of which is wasted by the government anyway. Everybody gets taxed and everybody gets some of it back, it's how our tax system works. The poor pay bugger all tax and get the dole / subsidies with most of their income from taxpayer funded handouts, the rich pay huge amounts of tax and get rebates and refunds. Actually I intend to be self reliant when I'm 'elderly' too; there is no way I want to be reliant on government 'services' at any point in my life, not public health and definitely not the pension. Most people are born with their hand out, from cradle to grave, that's just not me; I don't want anything from the government. It's usually of poor quality and of insufficient quantity to be of any use anyway. All I ask of the government is to p1ss off and leave me alone to live my life as I see fit; with our current nanny state mentality that ain't working out so well either.

Here.....Here.....Australia needs hard workers who pay their due don't expect anything for nothing.....If money is not wasted on hand outs their is more to do the things that are required and taxes can be reduced for all hard workers!!!

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 12:00pm:

The poor pay bugger all tax and get the dole / subsidies with most of their income from taxpayer funded handouts, the rich pay huge amounts of tax and get rebates and refunds.

The problem is that the tax system is so inefficient. For every $1 taken in tax, only about 60 to 70c is able to be spent or refunded.

Far better to limit the amount of refunds and rebates, and reduce the taxation.

If a high income earner pays $50,000 and tax and gets $10,000 back in rebates.   Overall, the country would be better off with him paying $35,000 in tax and getting not rebates.  Government would be neutral. Bloke would be $5000 extra in his pocket, and the only loser would be a few bean counters at the tax department whose servcies are no longer required.

BigOl64:

Never caught a train? Used electricity or water? Been to a public school? University? Let's hope you don't need an ambulance or an emergency ward.

I agree it would be nice if we could get rid of government services and let the private sector do everything, but I just don't see how we can. Australia has a small population and doesn't have a a big enough demand for various essential services.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:59am:

don't speak here from a personal point of view, I am thinking of others.

karnal vs Hicks.

Two fictitious trolls, trolling each other.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:59am: don't speak here from a personal point of view, I am thinking of others. karnal vs Hicks. Two fictitious trolls, trolling each other.

You think he's a troll? If he is, he gets my full respect. He's managed to out-troll me.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 12:15pm:

BigOl64: Never caught a train? Used electricity or water? Been to a public school? University? Let's hope you don't need an ambulance or an emergency ward. I agree it would be nice if we could get rid of government services and let the private sector do everything, but I just don't see how we can. Australia has a small population and doesn't have a a big enough demand for various essential services.

Why do you always revert to a reductio argument, it's just friggen annoying and childish.

NEVER said that I wanted everything privatised or shut down, did I?

I JUST said ,the less government assistance in MY life the happier I am.

Look if you want to live a life of government handouts that's your business, I personally do not. 

I thought you could have worked out I don't give a flying rats @rse what the rest of you people do.

I'm losing my insurance rebate and I don't particularly care; I do my utmost to not have any need for government assistance; not too difficult to comprehend is it?

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 12:33pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 12:15pm: BigOl64: Never caught a train? Used electricity or water? Been to a public school? University? Let's hope you don't need an ambulance or an emergency ward. I agree it would be nice if we could get rid of government services and let the private sector do everything, but I just don't see how we can. Australia has a small population and doesn't have a a big enough demand for various essential services. Why do you always revert to a reductio argument, it's just friggen annoying and childish. NEVER said that I wanted everything privatised or shut down, did I? I JUST said ,the less government assistance in MY life the happier I am. Look if you want to live a life of government handouts that's your business, I personally do not.  I thought you could have worked out I don't give a flying rats @rse what the rest of you people do. I'm losing my insurance rebate and I don't particularly care; I do my utmost to not have any need for government assistance; not too difficult to comprehend is it?

C'mon Biggo get with the program, that's the argument for when Tony's PM not Gillard.
It's "I work hard yet I'm penalised" ATM
;)

:)

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:10am: From my perspective, I don't really care that I'm losing the rebate. Why would you? The rebate was designed purely as a reward to the health insurers for their support of the Liberal Party. Having private health insurance does not take people out of the public hospital system, even if they do claim. Doctors still need to treat you in public hospitals. Emergency care is still given in public hospitals. And given the out-of-pocket expense of private health care, many go with the public system anyway. On a cost-benefit analysis, public health is the best way to go. Australian medical care is reliant on public hospitals. Without them, the private system would cease to function.

i cant believe just how wrong you are in that assessment. almost every single statement is wrong. a cost-benefit analysis needs to include waiting 3 years for an operation that you 'need but wont kill you if you dont have it' which the private system wil give you in 3 days.

almost NO private insured patients choose the public system when they have an alternative. AND the public system depends on the private system for its survival. if there were no private system, the public system would collapse under a 50% higher demand, not to mention the doctors who supplement the lousy publci system pay with private health work.

Ever hear of 'waiting lists'?? there arent any inthe private system. build THAT into your cost-benefit analysis!

Private healthcare of the wealthy should not be tax payer subsidized in principle.... :)

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:30am: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:20am: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:10am: From my perspective, I don't really care that I'm losing the rebate. Why would you? The rebate was designed purely as a reward to the health insurers for their support of the Liberal Party. Well karnal, the rebate subsidised my health insurance costs when the insurers jacked up their prices. Now that I'm about to lose it, the prices will remain the same or higher and i will no longer be subsidised. See how that would normally have a financially adverse effect on myself. So now it is no longer a reward for the insurers, it is a punishment for the financially self reliant. Sure, but would you call it a punishment? Whether we like it or not, tax is about the redistribution of wealth. What's the point of taxing people and giving the money back to them? There is only one benefit, and that's political. Financial self-reliance means just that. If you're too young or too old or too sick to work, you can't be self reliant, no matter how hard you try. Babies are not self-reliant. The elderly are not self-reliant. If all goes perfectly, the average human being has less than 50 years of self-reliance. The reason we form communities (and pay taxes) is to manage the lack of self-reliance inherent in the human condition.

and finally someone is silly enough to say this. the tax system is NOT a means of wealth re-distribution. thats the socialist  in you talking. taxes are for the paying of government and society's services and needs including looking after the poor. it is NOT to be an instrument of penalising the rich as was in the UK and Europe in the 70s and 80s. All that did was drive the acheivers out elsewhere.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:

and finally someone is silly enough to say this. the tax system is NOT a means of wealth re-distribution. thats the socialist  in you talking. taxes are for the paying of government and society's services and needs including looking after the poor. it is NOT to be an instrument of penalising the rich as was in the UK and Europe in the 70s and 80s. All that did was drive the acheivers out elsewhere.

Sometimes LW, you can make very valid and correct points.
This is one such occasion where I agree with you.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 12:07pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 12:00pm: Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:41am: Sure, but would you call it a punishment? Whether we like it or not, tax is about the redistribution of wealth. What's the point of taxing people and giving the money back to them? There is only one benefit, and that's political. Financial self-reliance means just that. If you're too young or too old or too sick to work, you can't be self reliant, no matter how hard you try. Babies are not self-reliant. The elderly are not self-reliant. If all goes perfectly, the average human being has less than 50 years of self-reliance. The reason we form communities (and pay taxes) is to manage the lack of self-reliance inherent in the human condition. Taxes have always been a punishment for working hard / smart / making money, most of which is wasted by the government anyway. Everybody gets taxed and everybody gets some of it back, it's how our tax system works. The poor pay bugger all tax and get the dole / subsidies with most of their income from taxpayer funded handouts, the rich pay huge amounts of tax and get rebates and refunds. Actually I intend to be self reliant when I'm 'elderly' too; there is no way I want to be reliant on government 'services' at any point in my life, not public health and definitely not the pension. Most people are born with their hand out, from cradle to grave, that's just not me; I don't want anything from the government. It's usually of poor quality and of insufficient quantity to be of any use anyway. All I ask of the government is to p1ss off and leave me alone to live my life as I see fit; with our current nanny state mentality that ain't working out so well either. Here.....Here.....Australia needs hard workers who pay their due don't expect anything for nothing.....If money is not wasted on hand outs their is more to do the things that are required and taxes can be reduced for all hard workers!!!

so you are saying that we shoudl greatly reduce welfare across the board or (predictably) only for middle classes?

The Wealthy are quite happy to have the tax payers money distributed illegitimately to them, but for some reason it must not be distributed to people who most need it --ohhh no you mustn't do that thats evil socialism...idiots. ;D ;D ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:24pm: and finally someone is silly enough to say this. the tax system is NOT a means of wealth re-distribution. thats the socialist  in you talking. taxes are for the paying of government and society's services and needs including looking after the poor. it is NOT to be an instrument of penalising the rich as was in the UK and Europe in the 70s and 80s. All that did was drive the acheivers out elsewhere. Sometimes LW, you can make very valid and correct points. This is one such occasion where I agree with you.

'welath redistribution' has been tried before. the USSR tried and and ended up with equality of poverty. the UK and Europe tried it and got a brain drain and a failing economy.

It hasnt yet occured to many except perhaps here and the USA that tax is essentially a punishment imposed for the experience of earning income. at low levels, it is just an annoyance. at high levels it IS a punishment. and having any govt benefits denied you because you are a major contributor to tax revenue is obscene.

Gina Rinehardt should have her health subsidy delivered to her in person by the PM. after all, she is paying almost teh entire national health budget out of her profits. a little bit of thanks every now and then wouldnt go astray!

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:28pm:

The Wealthy are quite happy to have the tax payers money distributed illegitimately to them, but for some reason it must not be distributed to people who most need it --ohhh no you mustn't do that thats evil socialism...idiots. ;D ;D ;D

perhaps they object to giving money to lazy nohoper layabouts like you who contribute NOTHING whatsoever to the nation. You even use up air and water that you dnot deserve. and as for food... you eat the same as any 4 other people.

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:

Private healthcare of the wealthy should not be tax payer subsidized in principle.... :)

The wealthy are the 'taxpayers' you clown.  ;D

The poor don't make ANY meaningful contribution to the tax kitty, they like you, only take from it.

If it wasn't for the wealthy taxpayers there would be no welfare for you to sponge off.

If you want a say in how taxes are distributed, try paying some.

What a load of fictitious crap, LW... ;D ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:24pm: Private healthcare of the wealthy should not be tax payer subsidized in principle.... :) The wealthy are the 'taxpayers' you clown.  ;D The poor don't make ANY meaningful contribution to the tax kitty, they like you, only take from it. If it wasn't for the wealthy taxpayers there would be no welfare for you to sponge off. If you want a say in how taxes are distributed, try paying some.

I would not classify the wealthy as legitimate tax payers, they just manipulate the levers of political and economic power for their benefit... 8-)

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:28pm: The Wealthy are quite happy to have the tax payers money distributed illegitimately to them, but for some reason it must not be distributed to people who most need it --ohhh no you mustn't do that thats evil socialism...idiots. ;D ;D ;D perhaps they object to giving money to lazy nohoper layabouts like you who contribute NOTHING whatsoever to the nation. You even use up air and water that you dnot deserve. and as for food... you eat the same as any 4 other people.

I definitely object to the wealth distribution to the wealthfare class - its an outrage, they have the global economy on the brink of collapse - the proof is in the fruits.... ;D ;D ;D

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

I would not classify the wealthy as legitimate tax payers, they just manipulate the levers of political and economic power for their benefit... 8-)

If you PAY more in taxes than you get in rebates, subsidies and other welfare handouts, then you are a TAXPAYER, doesn't matter what friggen 'class' you are. And the wealthy pay vast sums on taxes, either as personal or company taxes.


In this debate you are a nobody, just another whinging welfare recipient.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:24pm: Private healthcare of the wealthy should not be tax payer subsidized in principle.... :) The wealthy are the 'taxpayers' you clown.  ;D

True. Kerry Packer was a great donor to the public purse.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

i cant believe just how wrong you are in that assessment. almost every single statement is wrong. a cost-benefit analysis needs to include waiting 3 years for an operation that you 'need but wont kill you if you dont have it' which the private system wil give you in 3 days. almost NO private insured patients choose the public system when they have an alternative.

Your usual drivel.

Firstly Doctors dont give you an alternative. They say "do you have health insurance", As soon as you say "yes", you dont get a choice.
You have to forcibly say "I wish to go public".

And the waiting lists arent long.  A year or so back I had an elective surgery. Had to wrangle with the specialist for ages to get him to take me as public (one of the few that actually would), and was in hospital within 3 weeks.
Saved myself a motsa.  the doctor was spewing. He could only charge Medicare a lousy $100/hour, instead of my health fund $600/hour.

That $600 is funded, indirectly, through the rebate, and what would be my gap.  Why would we allow that ?

True. I needed to wait 6 weeks for an appointment after a referral to a private specialist.

I got into the public clinic in 2 weeks.

Anyway, you could do a simple comparison on the number of private versus public hospital beds. Very few patients actually get treated in private hospitals, insurance or not. They just don't have the beds.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:21pm: i cant believe just how wrong you are in that assessment. almost every single statement is wrong. a cost-benefit analysis needs to include waiting 3 years for an operation that you 'need but wont kill you if you dont have it' which the private system wil give you in 3 days. almost NO private insured patients choose the public system when they have an alternative. Your usual drivel. Firstly Doctors don't give you an alternative. They say "do you have health insurance", As soon as you say "yes", you don't get a choice. You have to forcibly say "I wish to go public". And the waiting lists arent long.  A year or so back I had an elective surgery. Had to wrangle with the specialist for ages to get him to take me as public (one of the few that actually would), and was in hospital within 3 weeks. Saved myself a motsa.  the doctor was spewing. He could only charge Medicare a lousy $100/hour, instead of my health fund $600/hour. That $600 is funded, indirectly, through the rebate, and what would be my gap.  Why would we allow that ?

I don't get that you have private health insurance, but deliberately took a public health surgery slot from someone who  could not afford to go 'private'.

Man that is mean.

The ONLY reason I have private health cover is so i don't have to go public, you for some unknown reason pay for health cover and then bludge off the public system anyway.

If you can do that, what's the point of subsidising private health insurance?

And why even have private health insurance?

Yeah bit surprised Jolly posted that.
More of a Andrei post :D

Jeee-Zus!!

Four pages of the well-off bitching about losing the wealthfare
they should NEVER have been given in the first place......and
that's just while I was at work.....

And you THINK that the unemployed are bludgers with a welfare mentality?

They have NOTHING on you lot when it comes to bludging and rorting.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 3:58pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:21pm: i cant believe just how wrong you are in that assessment. almost every single statement is wrong. a cost-benefit analysis needs to include waiting 3 years for an operation that you 'need but wont kill you if you dont have it' which the private system wil give you in 3 days. almost NO private insured patients choose the public system when they have an alternative. Your usual drivel. Firstly Doctors don't give you an alternative. They say "do you have health insurance", As soon as you say "yes", you don't get a choice. You have to forcibly say "I wish to go public". And the waiting lists arent long.  A year or so back I had an elective surgery. Had to wrangle with the specialist for ages to get him to take me as public (one of the few that actually would), and was in hospital within 3 weeks. Saved myself a motsa.  the doctor was spewing. He could only charge Medicare a lousy $100/hour, instead of my health fund $600/hour. That $600 is funded, indirectly, through the rebate, and what would be my gap.  Why would we allow that ? I don't get that you have private health insurance, but deliberately took a public health surgery slot from someone who  could not afford to go 'private'. Man that is mean. The ONLY reason I have private health cover is so i don't have to go public, you for some unknown reason pay for health cover and then bludge off the public system anyway.

Rubish, the only people I was hurting was the greedy doctor.   And I was helping myself by avoiding the gap, and the government from excessive rebate charges.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 4:15pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:58pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 3:21pm: i cant believe just how wrong you are in that assessment. almost every single statement is wrong. a cost-benefit analysis needs to include waiting 3 years for an operation that you 'need but wont kill you if you dont have it' which the private system wil give you in 3 days. almost NO private insured patients choose the public system when they have an alternative. Your usual drivel. Firstly Doctors don't give you an alternative. They say "do you have health insurance", As soon as you say "yes", you don't get a choice. You have to forcibly say "I wish to go public". And the waiting lists arent long.  A year or so back I had an elective surgery. Had to wrangle with the specialist for ages to get him to take me as public (one of the few that actually would), and was in hospital within 3 weeks. Saved myself a motsa.  the doctor was spewing. He could only charge Medicare a lousy $100/hour, instead of my health fund $600/hour. That $600 is funded, indirectly, through the rebate, and what would be my gap.  Why would we allow that ? I don't get that you have private health insurance, but deliberately took a public health surgery slot from someone who  could not afford to go 'private'. Man that is mean. The ONLY reason I have private health cover is so i don't have to go public, you for some unknown reason pay for health cover and then bludge off the public system anyway. Rubish, the only people I was hurting was the greedy doctor.   And I was helping myself by avoiding the gap, and the government from excessive rebate charges.

No actually you took a bed from someone who could not afford private health; that's what the public health system is for.

You still haven't answered why you are paying for private health but are bludging off the public system; it seems you are wasting money not saving it.

BTW, I bet your doctor would be happy to know what you think of him; these posts say a lot about you as a person and none of it is good.

So public hospitals are a form of charity?

Have you heard of the Medicare levy?

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

So public hospitals are a form of charity? Have you heard of the Medicare levy?

What the hell are you on about.

Haven't I spoken to you about deliberately 'misrepresenting' my posts, it doesn't become less annoying with repetition.


If I meant to say that public hospitals were a form of charity then that's is what i would have written.


Present your own argument instead of trying (poorly) to misrepresent that of others or I will start treating you like nails, greens, booby and corpulent whitey instead of an adult.

Why is it in  Australia many  mixing up Cost of living  with  cost of luxury !

I would like to thank LW for saying EXACTLY what I predicted he would and as a result, bolstering my ego.

I knew it was only a matter of time before the high-income earners gave up flinging s*it around like Monkeys on crack, and brought out the old copout chestnut "Socialism" boogeyman. That crap stopped being relevant when the Iron Curtain fell, so get with the times and come up with something original.

If you want to rort the system to suit yourselves and f*ck everybody else, there are nations that have built themselves for you, such as ther United States. Make like Andrei and go there if you don't like it.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 4:25pm: So public hospitals are a form of charity? Have you heard of the Medicare levy? What the hell are you on about. Haven't I spoken to you about deliberately 'misrepresenting' my posts, it doesn't become less annoying with repetition. If I meant to say that public hospitals were a form of charity then that's is what i would have written. Present your own argument instead of trying (poorly) to misrepresent that of others or I will start treating you like nails, greens, booby and corpulent whitey instead of an adult.

How would you like me to put it? If you pay the Medicare levy, you're as entitled to a public bed as anyone else.

Private hospitals are often not much more than sterilized hotels attached to public teaching hospitals. They usually use the same theatres, anaethetists and theatre nursing staff.

The private "system" is not a lot more than an add on to the public hospital system, and it was designed that way by people who saw a buck in it. The health lobbies are the biggest in the world, and political parties need their donations.

This is why we even have private health insurance following the creation of Medicare. The industry were worried the business model would collapse and furiously lobbied the government to offer rebates.

They called this "consumer choice."

They then marketed themselves with a few free acupuncture sessions thrown in as a bonus. They don't fully cover you unless you pay them more in premiums than what it would cost a healthy person to pay a doctor or dentist anyway, and if you aren't healthy, they don't give you full coverage either.

It's not an efficient form of public health, and it's not cheap. The profits go to shareholders rather than doctors and nurses. You can't syphon funds into non profit services like mental health. You end up with flashy patient rooms with plush carpet and nice pictures on the walls but effectively the same treatment as the public system.

It works in the US because they have an ailing public health system. There, there is no choice, and it's kept that way by healthy campaign donations.

In Australia, we have an entirely different model, and we should never cease to be grateful for it.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 11:48am:

The health system just cannot afford to pay people to have private health insurance (that makes billions of dollars profit) while the public system is broken.....Trying to spew the line that thousands of people will suddenly swamp emergency wards or hospitals will suddenly not be able to cope is just scare mongering bullshit!!!

::) ::) ::)

Kat wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Jeee-Zus!! Four pages of the well-off bitching about losing the wealthfare they should NEVER have been given in the first place......and that's just while I was at work..... And you THINK that the unemployed are bludgers with a welfare mentality? They have NOTHING on you lot when it comes to bludging and rorting.

The bludgers you will always have with you!!

:D :D