I have never agreed with the first home owners grant.
When even the most modest home sees you paying tens of thousands in stamp duty, and they will "give" you a grant of $4000 from it??

Quote:


If you're paying approximately $1,000 per week in taxes - of course you deserve something back if you ever you need it - but what if you don't need welfare but just want it because you're entitled to it?

A lot of people are annoyed at the amount of tax they pay.  A true example:

The husband worked up near the top of a large Australian company for many years, but their fifth child was disabled.  The wife was always complaining about the tax her husband paid - yet she didn't take into consideration the disability pension their last child received for more than 30 years.  In the last few years another child has become chronically ill and is now on benefits.  There are no children to carry on the tax burden for these 2 disabled adults and the parents are now on pensions.

The dole is not as easy to get as people think - Howard reformed it stringently and most people who are unemployed these days are usually unemployable.

The tax system is unfair to working people without children - but if they have an accident or become too ill to work, there is a safety net and so there should be.  But if you are a healthy person, there is no reason to believe you're entitled to welfare.

This is where Howard stuffed up.  He took from those at the bottom and gave it to families all the way up to the top.  He claimed he was being fair, but instead he's exacerbated the welfare mentality and Rudd is going to have a hard time convincing people to give up their handouts.

I think we should call them the whinging class. Why is the Australian buying into this nonsense? This was on the front page today. As this guy shows, you can comfortably support a wife and 7 children on $100 000. They find the most extreme example they can and they still can't make a case that he is doing it tough. But now he is complaining because of cuts to his welfare that will mean he is no longer able to invest an extra $10 000 of his income each year into super.

Boo smacking hoo.

Hard-working household feels the pinch

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23881940-2702,00.html

SIMON Dorries and his wife, Sonya, have seven children under 15 and another on the way. As a manager in a timber firm in Brisbane, Mr Dorries earns a bit above $100,000 a year, while his wife, who works hard at home, does not have an income.

The Dorries see themselves as the quintessential "working family", the kind that cheered Kevin Rudd's observation that people earning $100,000 were not rich and that the income level for the Medicare surcharge should be raised to $150,000.

The family budget is tight but they are not complaining. "I am very fortunate to have a well-paying job which, until recently, despite the size of my family, was enough to live on with a modest but comfortable quality of life," Mr Dorries told The Australian yesterday.

In recent months, though, the budget began to be pinched by rising grocery, fuel and mortgage costs. The fuel and food bill alone in most weeks is more than $600 and has been rising. "Since Christmas, we have gone from a situation where we were making ends meet, to a situation where we have been relying on savings to get by," Mr Dorries said.

Of course, Mr Dorries realised it was not sustainable and, like other working families, looked for relief in the May budget. But he has discovered that income-assessment changes from July 1 next year will wipe out most of his government support through family payments, which are now at about $300 a week under Family Tax Benefit Part A.

From the middle of next year, Mr Dorries's $10,000-a-year superannuation payment, which he makes through a salary sacrifice, will be included in his assessable income for the first time, giving him an annual assessable income of between $110,000 and $120,000.

Mr Dorries has calculated this means the loss of most of his family's $600-a-fortnight Family Tax Benefit A - about $15,600 a year. "This will take significant income from my family," he said.

Mr Dorries said that to make up the difference he will have to stop salary-sacrificing for his superannuation.

He estimates he will get about $6000 a year, after tax, by no longer contributing the $10,000 as superannuation. "This means we'll lose $300 a week in family payments and replace it with about $120 a week in after-tax pay," he said.

As well, he said, "I will no longer be able to save for my retirement and would have to depend on an age pension."

"My wife and I have no idea how we will survive come July 2009," he said.

Mr Dorries said it was particularly upsetting because the family tax benefits had been lifted to compensate families for the introduction of the GST. "Now we won't have family benefits and we still have the GST," he said.

Quote:


This is becoming pathetic and there are more sob stories out today.  So for example a person can salary sacrifice $50,000 for their retirement and be entitled to the same benefits as someone on $50,000 less.  Howard has got a lot to answer for.  Good on Rudd for ploughing through these loopholes and closing them.  

Quote:


So true Sappho - there are a few in my area and they haven't got the mental capacity to help themselves.  Because they are on unemployment benefits, they often don't get their fortnightly dole because they haven't got the ability to follow Centrelink protocol.  The procedure to claim a DSP is a complicated one and for those mentally incapacitated they need help to apply - often these poor souls have no-one who cares to assist them.

I think middle class welfare is a poorly thought out popularity grab that both sides use mercylessly. 

I think it will be around for some time to come.

Bill

Welcome to OzPolitic Billy.

I don't mind being a salary earner, and I don't mind paying taxes, but I would rather have my taxes cut than have the government give me my tax dollars back in some welfare payment.

As for the guy who is complaining about not being able to place $10k in his super through salary sacrifice any more because it will cost him $15k in family benefits, are you kidding?

Bill

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2008 at 2:16pm:


How egalitarian of them.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
ANATOLE FRANCE

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2008 at 2:16pm:


Ironically, theft and crime, that has strong links to poverty, is positively great for the economy. Helps build the GDP figures because of insurance, goods being repurchased and the security and investigative personel required to stop it.