Australia takes from the poor to give to the rich   :(

Canberra Times
April 10 2018


Last year, as the government prepared another round of welfare crackdowns, Minister Michaelia Cash said she expects “that those who can work should work and our welfare system should be there as a genuine safety net, not as something that people can choose to fund their lifestyle.”

The subtext was clear – those who need help are a drain on the rest of us.

This rhetoric is familiar, but it is wrong. It is the wealthiest Australians who enjoy the most support.

Research commissioned by Anglicare Australia shows that each year, a staggering $68 billion is spent keeping the wealthiest households wealthy. That is greater than the cost of Newstart, disability support, the age pension, or any other single welfare group.   :(

The Cost of Privilege report, prepared by Per Capita, models four household types to show how these concessions and tax breaks work. One of the couples we modelled, Tim and Michelle, own their own home. They have two children in private schools, top health insurance, and two investment properties. Michelle doesn’t work, and Tim runs a small business. Each year, Tim and Michelle get $99,708 in concessions from the taxpayer, or $1917 per week. That is well over twice as much as a couple with two children on Newstart, and nearly three times as much as a family with one parent on the Disability Support Pension. Tim and Michelle do this by getting concessions on their superannuation, negatively gearing their investment properties to minimise their taxable income, and getting tax breaks for private schools and private health insurance. They also get generous Capital Gains Tax exemptions.

Each year, thousands of Australia's wealthiest households profit from these loopholes and subsidies. Our report finds that tax exemptions on private healthcare and education for the wealthiest 20 per cent cost more than $3 billion a year. Superannuation concessions to them cost over $20 billion a year, and their Capital Gains Tax exemptions cost an astonishing $40 billion a year. Compare that to the annual cost of Newstart, which comes in at just under $11 billion a year.

Importantly, nothing that Tim and Michelle are doing is wrong or illegal. This is not a broken system. It is a system working exactly the way it was designed to work, supporting the wealthiest at the expense of the rest of us.   :(

These numbers tell us that something has gone badly wrong. The eighties were the decade of trickle-down economics, where taxes were cut for the richest with the promise that everyone else would soon feel the benefits. But now it’s worse – we’re in an era of trickle-up economics where subsidies, tax breaks and concessions for the richest are paid for by everyone else.   :(

At the same time as some people are enjoying generous support because of their wealth, those who have the least are being targeted. Parliament has just passed a set of welfare crackdowns that will include a demerit system for Centrelink recipients, expanding the cashless welfare trial, penalising job seekers who miss appointments, and forcing people to run down their bank account before they can seek help.

Other changes mean that personal crises, like relationship breakdown or a family death, can’t be considered when people have problems completing their paperwork. And to top it off, hundreds of millions of dollars is being cut from social security.   :(

All of this shows us an uncomfortable truth. We have become a country that cuts from the poorest to give to the richest – a fact borne out by the government’s obsession with corporate tax cuts.

Some parts of the media have taken issue with the report, but they have missed the point. Anglicare Australia has never said that we should abolish all concessions and subsidies. We are simply making the point that if we can afford to forego such staggering amounts of money to support the very wealthiest people, then we can afford to support those doing it tough too.

If we want to tackle inequality in Australia, the answer is simple. First, we need to end the trickle-up economics by winding back some tax breaks to the very wealthiest people. Next, we need to lift income support. The OECD has already warned that our income support payments are far too low. They are being outstripped every year by the cost of living.   :(

And finally, we need to stop demonising people who need help. Cutting from the poorest must stop.

It is well past time that we end the trickle-up economics, and build a tax system that works for everyone.

Kasy Chambers is the executive director of Anglicare Australia.

Don't expect anything to change with these ass holes in charge....The age of entitlement is thriving under the Coalition!!!

>:( >:( >:(

its the matthew principle.

from those who have little , even this will be taken
to those who have much, more will be given.

its just how the world works

when you have little, when you live in scarcity, when you are just trying to cope, you are full of toxic negative taker energy.  and people feel repulsed by the "taker' vibe that you are giving off.

when you are in abundance (when your cup runneth over) , you are in positive joyful grateful contribution and people are drawn to you and keep giving you more and more opportunities.

surely you have heard...the rich get rich and the poor get poorer.

you cant fight this.

you have to become grateful, positive, joyful, outgoing and expansive if you want to walk the "narrow road to success",


being butthurt ,sad, miserable and frustrated will drive opportunities away.
its just not fruitful.

whiteknight wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:20am:

The Cost of Privilege report, prepared by Per Capita, models four household types to show how these concessions and tax breaks work. One of the couples we modelled, Tim and Michelle, own their own home. They have two children in private schools, top health insurance, and two investment properties. Michelle doesn’t work, and Tim runs a small business. Each year, Tim and Michelle get $99,708 in concessions from the taxpayer, or $1917 per week. That is well over twice as much as a couple with two children on Newstart, and nearly three times as much as a family with one parent on the Disability Support Pension. Tim and Michelle do this by getting concessions on their superannuation, negatively gearing their investment properties to minimise their taxable income, and getting tax breaks for private schools and private health insurance. They also get generous Capital Gains Tax exemptions.

Property hoarders at it again !!

The needs of the greedy always outweigh the needs of the needy in this society :(

It's ironic that the needs of the greedy are helping to push house prices up :(

aquascoot wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 10:36am:

its the matthew principle. from those who have little , even this will be taken to those who have much, more will be given. its just how the world works when you have little, when you live in scarcity, when you are just trying to cope, you are full of toxic negative taker energy.  and people feel repulsed by the "taker' vibe that you are giving off. when you are in abundance (when your cup runneth over) , you are in positive joyful grateful contribution and people are drawn to you and keep giving you more and more opportunities. surely you have heard...the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. you cant fight this. you have to become grateful, positive, joyful, outgoing and expansive if you want to walk the "narrow road to success", being butthurt ,sad, miserable and frustrated will drive opportunities away. its just not fruitful.

Why give away a fortune to those who already have everything....Surely a more egalitarian society is what the Government should be providing....Not giving away taxpayers money to shore up their own supporter base???

:-? :-? :-?

Well, with most politicians having their snout in the same trout. Good luck getting the feed cut.

Trickle-Up works a treat, doesn't it?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 2:41pm:

Trickle-Up works a treat, doesn't it?

Yep. Never underestimate the power of greed.

whiteknight wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:20am:

Australia takes from the poor to give to the rich   :( Canberra Times April 10 2018 Last year, as the government prepared another round of welfare crackdowns, Minister Michaelia Cash said she expects “that those who can work should work and our welfare system should be there as a genuine safety net, not as something that people can choose to fund their lifestyle.” The subtext was clear – those who need help are a drain on the rest of us. This rhetoric is familiar, but it is wrong. It is the wealthiest Australians who enjoy the most support. Research commissioned by Anglicare Australia shows that each year, a staggering $68 billion is spent keeping the wealthiest households wealthy. That is greater than the cost of Newstart, disability support, the age pension, or any other single welfare group.   :( The Cost of Privilege report, prepared by Per Capita, models four household types to show how these concessions and tax breaks work. One of the couples we modelled, Tim and Michelle, own their own home. They have two children in private schools, top health insurance, and two investment properties. Michelle doesn’t work, and Tim runs a small business. Each year, Tim and Michelle get $99,708 in concessions from the taxpayer, or $1917 per week. That is well over twice as much as a couple with two children on Newstart, and nearly three times as much as a family with one parent on the Disability Support Pension. Tim and Michelle do this by getting concessions on their superannuation, negatively gearing their investment properties to minimise their taxable income, and getting tax breaks for private schools and private health insurance. They also get generous Capital Gains Tax exemptions.

Only 1 huge glaring problem with this fabricated family. Anyone pick it?

rhino wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 3:10pm:

whiteknight wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 8:20am: Australia takes from the poor to give to the rich   :( Canberra Times April 10 2018 Last year, as the government prepared another round of welfare crackdowns, Minister Michaelia Cash said she expects “that those who can work should work and our welfare system should be there as a genuine safety net, not as something that people can choose to fund their lifestyle.” The subtext was clear – those who need help are a drain on the rest of us. This rhetoric is familiar, but it is wrong. It is the wealthiest Australians who enjoy the most support. Research commissioned by Anglicare Australia shows that each year, a staggering $68 billion is spent keeping the wealthiest households wealthy. That is greater than the cost of Newstart, disability support, the age pension, or any other single welfare group.   :( The Cost of Privilege report, prepared by Per Capita, models four household types to show how these concessions and tax breaks work. One of the couples we modelled, Tim and Michelle, own their own home. They have two children in private schools, top health insurance, and two investment properties. Michelle doesn’t work, and Tim runs a small business. Each year, Tim and Michelle get $99,708 in concessions from the taxpayer, or $1917 per week. That is well over twice as much as a couple with two children on Newstart, and nearly three times as much as a family with one parent on the Disability Support Pension. Tim and Michelle do this by getting concessions on their superannuation, negatively gearing their investment properties to minimise their taxable income, and getting tax breaks for private schools and private health insurance. They also get generous Capital Gains Tax exemptions. Only 1 huge glaring problem with this fabricated family. Anyone pick it?

The Super?

Capital gains exemption factored in which can only be realised when and if property is sold for a profit. The other point to make is that negative gearing only works if you make a loss on the property, this effectively means they are subsidising the renters on these properties. 

rhino wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 3:21pm:

Capital gains exemption factored in which can only be realised when and if property is sold for a profit. The other point to make is that negative gearing only works if you make a loss on the property, this effectively means they are subsidising the renters on these properties.

then get rid of it. What's the problem ??

rhino wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 3:21pm:

Capital gains exemption factored in which can only be realised when and if property is sold for a profit. The other point to make is that negative gearing only works if you make a loss on the property, this effectively means they are subsidising the renters on these properties.

No - they are subsidising their investment, and getting a tax concession for doing so.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:47pm:

rhino wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 3:21pm: Capital gains exemption factored in which can only be realised when and if property is sold for a profit. The other point to make is that negative gearing only works if you make a loss on the property, this effectively means they are subsidising the renters on these properties.  No - they are subsidising their investment, and getting a tax concession for doing so.

that's the obvious explanation but the ones with ulterior motives always want you to believe the complete opposite !!

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:31am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:47pm: rhino wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 3:21pm: Capital gains exemption factored in which can only be realised when and if property is sold for a profit. The other point to make is that negative gearing only works if you make a loss on the property, this effectively means they are subsidising the renters on these properties.  No - they are subsidising their investment, and getting a tax concession for doing so. that's the obvious explanation but the ones with ulterior motives always want you to believe the complete opposite !!

Yes - investors are Mother Theresa and putting a roof over the heads of poor struggling renters..... out of the goodness of their hearts...

Now way are they playing the market to the hilt, often fudging tax deductions, manipulating the market, cutting their outlay to the bone by any means, exploiting the desperation of people in need of some homing, and relying on a concessional capital gain at the end of the day to give them even more cash out of the venture.

For those ready to whine now about the cost of 'bad renters', that's the market you entered... that's the game you play, and no business is risk free - sometimes, senor, the bull wins!

NONE of them is actually enduring market forces pure and simple, but are riding on stupid and mindless government subsidies which are only promoting the cost of housing, rather than assisting it in any way.

Withdraw the unbalanced subsidies immediately, and the market will settle down - at a lower rate - not a higher one... because genuine market forces would come into play.

Socialism for capitalists only...... it's called wealthfare.

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:06pm:

rhino wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 3:21pm: Capital gains exemption factored in which can only be realised when and if property is sold for a profit. The other point to make is that negative gearing only works if you make a loss on the property, this effectively means they are subsidising the renters on these properties.  then get rid of it. What's the problem ??

Im pointing out that factoring in an unrealised, unknown capital gains exemption makes the article a sham.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:47pm:

rhino wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 3:21pm: Capital gains exemption factored in which can only be realised when and if property is sold for a profit. The other point to make is that negative gearing only works if you make a loss on the property, this effectively means they are subsidising the renters on these properties.  No - they are subsidising their investment, and getting a tax concession for doing so.

The tax concession only exists if they lose money. You cant have it both ways, either they are getting rich and making money = getting no concessions or if they are getting concessions they are losing money.

rhino wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 12:00pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:06pm: rhino wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 3:21pm: Capital gains exemption factored in which can only be realised when and if property is sold for a profit. The other point to make is that negative gearing only works if you make a loss on the property, this effectively means they are subsidising the renters on these properties.  then get rid of it. What's the problem ?? Im pointing out that factoring in an unrealised, unknown capital gains exemption makes the article a sham.

Yes, but the fact that there exists a concessional capital gains tax does affect the market... the issue is socialism for specified segments of capitalist activity in the West, which is a wide spread phenomenon - does every business get the same deal?

rhino wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 12:02pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 7:47pm: rhino wrote on Apr 10th, 2018 at 3:21pm: Capital gains exemption factored in which can only be realised when and if property is sold for a profit. The other point to make is that negative gearing only works if you make a loss on the property, this effectively means they are subsidising the renters on these properties.  No - they are subsidising their investment, and getting a tax concession for doing so. The tax concession only exists if they lose money. You cant have it both ways, either they are getting rich and making money = getting no concessions or if they are getting concessions they are losing money.

So you go into a business to lose money, and at the end of the day get a bonus for this poor management decision?

No wonder the national economy is in ruins.... with that kind of thinking driving the engine room of governments.