This is a article on the same subject:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/what-was-once-labelled-absurd-is-now-government-policy-in-wayne-swans-world/story-fn59niix-1226335431317

Note that the government has promised strict budget cuts for 3 years running and not delivered. The deficit in 2011/12 was budgeted for $12n and is now looking at $40bn. If Swan presents a budget surplus of $1.5bn, the reality would be a deficit of $30bn.

a lot of countries have been suffering bankruptcy nowadays becasue they have to have another debt to pay for a debt that they had prior to that which is why it will only become a vicious cycle that these countries really suffer a lot economically speaking. it is really difficult to recover from debts and it will really take a lot more than a good leader to be able to solve this problem.

If Swan and co hadn't been in denial for so long, sprouting the old, how clever are we line, things may be a little easier to swallow.

I say again, brace yourselves, as we are in for a rocky road.

Since pelican’s suggestion that the Liberal Party will pork-barrel the middle class, this thread has digressed into a discussion on so-called middle class welfare. We have heard that the middle class is showered with such benefits as private health cover rebates and negative gearing for investment properties. This is in the context where the federal Labor government has been spinning the concept of “working families” and how low income earners have been “subsidising the rich”.

Let’s run the numbers by comparing two hypothetical taxpayers – equal in all fundamental ways related to costs of living (eg married with 2 kids, etc) except one earns $50,000pa and the other $150,000pa. The first has no private health cover and the second has private cover and an investment property. All amounts stated are “per year” unless otherwise noted and male gender used for convenience only.

Mr $50,000 pays $8,550 PAYG income tax and $750 Medicare levy. His 9% super contributions taxed at 15% also add $675 to the coffers – a total contribution to “the system” of $9,975.

Mr $150,000 pays $43,450 PAYG income tax and $2,250 Medicare levy. His 9% super contributions taxed at 15% also add $2,025 to the coffers – a total contribution to “the system” of $47,725.
But his private health cover attracts a rebate of $1,389 (ie. he pays a net of $270 per month). Also, his $500,000 investment property fully financed at 6% is rented at $350/week with $10,000pa expenses runs at a “loss” of $30,458pa, which reduces his tax bill by $11,269 at the marginal tax rate of 37%.
Hence his net contribution to “the system” is $35,067.

Mr 50k contributes $750 to the health system; Mr 150k contributes $5,490. Presumably there is no discrimination on who gets sick more.

I have not included the range of additional benefits available to Mr 50k denied to Mr 150k by means testing (eg family benefits, child care rebates) nor have I included the fact that Mr 150k will pay $750 to the flood levy fund this year while Mr $50k pay nil.

Now, who is subsidising who again?

Peter Mac, this 'tall poppy' thing is always there.

Those who despise the $150K'ers seem to forget the fact that they (the $150K'ers) also provide for many $50K'ers.

It is fast becoming a case of 'why bother'for many, because, rather than being respected for having a go, they often just get ridiculed.

As I have said many times over, we are all presented with an equal opportunity to fail.

I remember reading a report about welfare gained vs income tax, and for someone earning about $55k the welfare received equalled the tax paid. The gist of this is that anyone on $55k or lower is subsidizing no one.

Those on >$150k pay vastly more in tax and get almost nothing in return. a couple starting a family now get no more than a couple with no kids. If your cost of living increases with the carbon tax, suck it up. If your mortgage increases because of government waste, suck it up. If you get hit with a flood levy, suck it up.