Despite the spin about sharing the burden, the truth is out. The Abbott governments budget is designed to make the poorest sections of the community carry the can of budget cuts, whilst protecting the rich from any real monitory pain. This is not some political point scoring by the opposition Labor Party, but facts supplied by the impartial Treasury, facts Abbott and Hockey have been trying to hide from the Australian people, but the truth is now out... The analyst’s reveals low income households would be $842 a year worse off, because of the budget measures, while the average high income family will lose only a paltry $71 a year. This does not include the $7 Medicare co-payment, which would see the poor even worse off.
Hopefully the Senate cross benches will call the government to account, and force the conservatives to see the reality of the injustices they are trying to force upon the poorest members of society, and change their ways, before it’s too late. We can only hope.

I's a dud...

Which is why Eleventy Joe is still trying to sell his Budget in August.....when it was delivered in May.

(Lol!)

Poverty is a result of lack of imitative in Australia; unless disabled, aged or suffer from ill health. These are the responsibility of taxpayers to support. The young, healthy able bodied should work and make a contribution to society. Taxpayers can contribute to a work for the dole scheme to assist the young get started in work disciplines.

Ar yes, playing the victim again.

You know Paul, the rich would be a little more recipient of the poor if the poor, just for once, appreciated that their very existence and way of life, is provided for, by the rich.

While I'm no longer a high income earner, I do appreciate that my kids can get the support they rely on for their kids, simp,y because we have people in society who go that extra mile, earn the big bucks, and pay the huge taxes that make our provided lives what they are.

Might I remind you that,
The rich don't get a health care card, a rebate on their car rego, or a discount on their rates, subsidized child care, or health care. In fact, they get pretty much NOTHING.
Apart from what they provide FOR THEM SELVES!
So, how about you set about educating the poor to be grateful for the fact that we do live in a society that takes from the rich, to support the poor.

Besides, i doubt the figure that's being circulated takes in to account the amount of hand outs that the poor get. Not from the government by the way, but from the rich. The very ones you seem to despise.

you would think after Labour/Greens total incompetence that they would shut up. See the NBN was another white elephant that has put future generations in debt and will deny young people jobs. No they will keep yapping showing they have no clue.

According to economic experts -

"The miners get a tax cut while the rest of us
get services cut. Scrapping the mining tax will cost
the budget 5.3 billion and will go mainly to the
biggest mining companies."

We're told that, "while this undoubtedly makes voters
like Gina Rhinehart, Twiggy Forrest and Clive Palmer
happy -the rest of us make do with less money funding
health, education and income support for the most
vulnerable."

We're also told that "to replace some of the lost revenue,
the government is planning to hit 300,000 people,
all of them very high income earners - with a deficit
levy."

"Robbing the rich to give to the super rich doesn't
seem to make much sense. But it makes evenless sense
when you realise the so-called debt levy doesn't even
fully pay for the mining tax cut, and it's only temporary.
(It lasts 3 years)."

"So to pay for the miners tax the government is forced into
other tough measures. It will cut $1.9 billion from
pensions, half a billion from Indigenous Affairs and 1.2
billion from unemployment for people under 30. These
effectively rob from the poor to give to the super rich."

Foxy, please tell me, where is the $5+ billion that will be lost through the mining tax, because I was of the understanding it raised sweet F all.

Also, before throwing mud at the miners, do an exercise and remove all mining revenue a d expenses, along with every single jobs created by them, either directly, or indirectly, then see where we end up.

In strife I would suggest.

"Also, before throwing mud at the miners, do an exercise and remove all mining revenue a d expenses."
Let us not forget that the miners get away with a lot more than the eye sees
While state coffers are boosted by royalties, analysis by the Australia Institute shows that in some cases well over half of that money is handed straight back through direct and indirect grants. The findings fly in the face of the longtime rhetoric from politicians and mining magnates alike, that Australian industry should ‘stand on its own two feet’.
States giving billions away to mining sector, finds report
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/states-giving-billions-away-to-mining-sector-finds/5545766

So what about the taxes paid through the jobs they create Robert. I work in a mining town and I can tell you the streets are full of their utes every night of the week and, they are all spending money, money which by the way has been earned from their employers, either directly, or indirectly.

Without these mines, not only would the utes not have been sold, but they wouldn't be here either, as was the case some six or so years back.

But, this is not so much about miners, it's about the usual lack of respect shown by the poor, for the efforts of the rich, which provides many of the every day needs of the poor, much of which is taken for granted. You know, the entitlement mentality.

rehctub,

"...it's about the usual lack of respect shown by the poor, for the efforts of the rich, which provides many of the every day needs of the poor..."

Not to mention....."it's about the usual lack of respect shown by the rich, for the efforts of the poor, who provide many of the every day riches for the rich."

Hockey has only himself to blame for his gigantic budget mess.

Savings need to be made, and BOTH the coalition and Labor admit that. So the argument is NOT about savings.

The argument is about the distribution of those savings. The fact remains that it's been empirically and mathematically proven with the report, that the poor will lose more dollars than the rich. The mathematics are empirical, proven and fact. No political spin can change the facts.

If the budget had spread the dollar loss evenly across the various incomes, then there would be absolutely no problem whatsoever with the budget. But Hockey and Abbott are too incompetent, and couldn't care less about the poorer classes, that support the rich via their consumption.

The result being an incompetent, un-Australian budget based on clearly seen unfairness. A budget that's impossible to sell to the Australian people and Australian parliament.

What a hopelessly inept PM and treasurer.

Bring on the election.

Hey Folks,

Here's something you won't read about in
the Murdoch papers - where the News is Limited:

http://newmatilda.com/2014/08/05/another-hockey-stumble-reveals-budget-hits-poor-hardest

Hi Foxy, yes it shows how deceitful this government is. Not only in the fiscal area like the budget, where lies and hypocrisy are the order of the day. Since their election we have been subjected to all kinds of lies and deception from Abbott and his cohorts. Look at the unchristian Morrison, and his lies about asylum seekers, The bigot, Brandis and his attempts to trample human rights! This government is a total disgrace.

Abbott and company won't last long. Trouble is the replacement government will only be marginally better. There's no "real" choice in Australian politics these days.

Hey Jay, that’s almost a sensible post!

Its the first one I've ever seen from you. So it begs the question: if you can write stuff like that, then why do you carry on like and absolute porkchop expressing seething hatred and gross illogicality elsewhere on OLO?

Ok, let’s see if you are actually capable of a bit of sensible debate, which addresses the subject WITHOUT personal attacks:

<< Bring on the election. >>

Why?? Who’s there to vote for who’d be any better?

One of the very first things Hockey did after the election was to restore the Superannuation advantages for the very rich while removing them from the poor.

It's still the discredited trickle-down theory that suggests the poor live off the crumbs that fall from the tables of the rich and the best way to feed the poor is to give the rich larger meals.

Before we cry too many crocodile tears for the rich it's a historic and economic fact that economic growth (including job creation) comes from the consumption by the middle class and not from the very wealthy.

It was a well-paid workforce and it's rate of consumption that drove our post WW2 growth and continues to do so.

A corporate CEO may earn 3000 times as much as his average worker but he doesn't consume 3000 times as much but only accumulates more and more wealth, while outsourcing more and more jobs and attacking the conditions of his workers (and thereby cutting the purchasing power of his own customers).

As for the Mining Tax, why so much hysteria over something that allegedly raises so little? Could it be because the Mining Corporations have made all their deductions up front and will later be liable for more tax?

It would be better to just drop the $8.5 billion in subsidies we pay them to take our rocks away plus the road and rail infrastructure we provide on their behalf.

Like the stuff they dig up and ship out, the money goes overseas as well and eventually all we will have is a big empty hole in the ground.

That's right Wobbles. It's the consumption of products and services that drives our country's economic welfare, and the poor and middle class are the major consumers by FAR. The rich couldn't possibly be rich if it was not for their dependence on the poor and middle class.

This is a basic fact of life, that all the right wing spin in the world can't hide.

Yes Poirot, like a paid job, or a subsidized life. Who do you think pays these subsidies, certainly not the governments, as they simply redistribute the funds paid to them by the rich.

Jay123, do the figures take in to consideration the subsidies provided to the poor, by the rich, because if they don't, then they are not the true figures, are they!

Of you wish to compare apples with apples, you have to lay everything on the table.

While I'm not a high income earner at present, I still pay $60 to see my GP, while the poor pay zero. So just five or six visits to the doctor, by a poor family would balance the books, and that's not taking in to consideration the discounted, or even free meds.

As I say, you have to put it all on the table if you wish to make a fair comparison, not just the juicy bits.

Savings need to be made you say, yes well, why do you recon that is! The last time I saw a change of government we had some $20billion in the bank and ZERO DEBT.

So yes, thanks to labors incompetence, savings do have to be made and of cause, the rich, after having provided most of the wasted funds in the first place, are now left carrying the can. As usual!

Of cause we could go the other way and give the poor their $800 bucks or so a year back, then remove all subsidies.

At least then it's every man for himself with a perfect user pays system.

You conveniently forget that the ONLY WAY so many poor families have so many kids, is because the rich pay for them.

It would be nice if the poor respected that.

So I say to you all, how do you think the poor would be if the rich simply stopped being rich, sat on their hands and lived of their trust funds. No businesses, no job creation, nothing.

Wobbles, a very good post, could not agree more. The theory of trickle-down economics, which was very much in vogue in the nineteenth century and a center piece of 'Reaganomics' from that bozo himself Ronnie Reagan in the 1980's has been well and truly debunked, belongs on the 'Mythbusters' program.
Those who still cling to this failed theory would be better off embracing some of the perverted aspects of Protestantism, particularly the one which states the poor are only poor because of their past sins against god. Sound good, what do you think Butch?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

We can’t meaningfully talk about the budget and the difficulties in balancing it without mentioning the enormous constantly increasing demand for all the basics as a result of very high immigration.

All this sort of economic growth, which contributes to our GDP, is seen as being good for our economy. But it is NOT! It is an enormous BURDEN!

The bottom line of economics is to match supply and demand, and to make sure that the supply capability can meet the demand, in an ongoing manner, with a big safety margin.

But what are we doing? We are constantly increasing the demand for everything. We need a constantly increasing rate of economic growth, of mining, of basic infrastructure, etc, just to stand still in terms of real per-capita economics.

There is a strong desire to uphold and even increase immigration, because it creates economic growth. And as our budgetary woes worsen, there are many wonky thinkers out there who will no doubt be pushing this line more and more.

But what we need is EXACTLY the opposite!

We need to pull right back on this rapid increase in demand for everything, head towards a stabilisation of demand, and allow ouselves to catch up with all the basic infrastructure and services.

All the discussion around the budget is about tax and who is copping the biggest burden, and related things. Well if were to magically fix all of this taxation stuff, and make all our politicians much more frugal and stop subsidising the mining industry, etc, etc, we would still right up against it for as long as we maintained very high immigration and hence a very high rate of increase in the demand for everything.

Now, in light of the budgetary issues and the seeming impossibilities of balancing the budget, let alone even pulling back at all from the enormous rate of borrowing and hence increasing debt, is the time to work directly towards STOPPING the demand side of the economic equation from ever-rapidly increasing.

Surely this is of PARAMOUNT importance.

Yeah, rehctub, we're all familiar with your Ebenezer Scrooge routine.

Nothing new there!

Here yer go...

http://m.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/sorry-treasurer-but-your-tax-figures-are-a-long-way-wide-of-the-mark-20140805-3d6mq.html

"The Treasurer has made a big mistake.

"Higher-income households pay half their income in tax," Mr Hockey told Channel Nine this week while defending his budget.

He said it twice: "Higher-income households pay half their income in tax".

It's a simple enough mistake. Australians on the top tax rate do indeed pay 45 cents in the dollar. The rate cuts in at $180,000. They also pay the temporary deficit reduction levy (another 2 per cent), the Medicare levy (yet another 2 per cent) and the Medicare surcharge where applicable (a further 1.5 per cent). The total comes to 50.5 cents in the dollar.

But the amount of tax actually collected from those Australians is nothing like that much, as a quick workout of the Australian Tax Office calculator makes clear.

An Australian earning $200,000 pays around 36 cents in the dollar including the Medicare levy and the deficit surcharge, far short of the claimed 50. Even an exceptionally high earner on $500,000 pays no more than 44 cents in the dollar."

Eleventy Joe isn't a Treasurer's bootlace.

Paul

If you're not distinguishing between money people have because the government didn't take it off them, and money people have because the government took it from someone else and gave it to them, you're just spouting moral and intellectual gibberish, and are not competent to express an opinion on anything to do with political economy.

Jardine, those 3 lines from you sound like moral and intellectual gibberish, so I guess you're not competent to express an opinion on anything to do with political economy ... whatever "political economy" is, ha ha.

Hi Foxy, the FIFO market is gradually and effectively being eroded by the job shops that operate here in Oz - primarily from overseas bases with branches in most major cities and regional offices nearer to the mining centres. A commensurate wage or hourly rates is not indexed to anything resembling fair payment.

Viz a viz the salaries/wages of a Pilbara worker in skilled trades could pay off an 'average house' i.e. 3 bedroom brick venereal anywhere around the country in around 3 years on their pay packet - even with mum at home looking after the crew while dad went away to the far flung outposts of the empire.

Let's say a 1926 built post Federation in Gladesville in 1972 cost $25 K, a new Kingswood say $4,500 and an electrician was paid $5 per hour on an 80 hour week ? 3 weeks on, 1 week off roster.

Compare that with today, and the same house in Gladesville is worth $1.2 Million and a FIFO gets $190 k p.a. It takes twice as long for that house to be paid off. The school aged hoomans at home getting ready for uni are looking at another 10 - 15 year paying off HECS debts whereas HECS didn't exist in 1972.

Really are we much better off under a Liberal (fascist) Government, but are we better off under a Labor (communist) government?

I think we desperately need another viable option here !

Albie, ya had me until your second last sentence. The days of a left/right political discourse between the 2 major parties disappeared long ago. The 2 parties have been close to identical on most issues since the mid 80s. Unfortunately the left alternative, the inept Greens, are a very minor influence indeed and are economic illiterates. We need a powerful, left of centre party that can garner votes via "competent" economic and social policies, and present itself as a viable, alternative government. That won't happen in our lifetime, as Australia, just like our master the USA, is now firmly entrenched in far right wing ideology. The wonderful hippy movement of the 60s has dismally failed to change society long term.

Rehctub, one can just as easily and legitimately say, "do the figures take into consideration the subsidies and tax breaks provided to the business activities of the rich, paid for by middle/lower class taxes, because if they don't, then they are not the true figures are they". See rehctub, it works BOTH ways.

Equity between rich and poor is beside the point, what matters is what wealth is and how it is created.

Wealth is goods, services and the bounty of nature. Nothing else.

Goods and services are created by labour. Not by anything else.

Consumption creates no wealth. To the extent to which it consumes non-renewable resources it actually destroys wealth.

Investment creates no wealth – merely allocates wealth created by labour. Profits from investment consume, do not create, wealth.

How should this wealth be distributed? (1) to those who create it – repaid to them in their lifetime before and after they retire. (2) to the costs of maintaining a society – obtained by taxation of the wealth creators. (3) to those who are denied by circumstances the opportunity of creating wealth by their labour (this cost is part of maintaining a society). (1), (2) and (3) are not a rank order.

A very large proportion of the created wealth is being distributed as profits to those who create nothing but acquire great wealth and a great foghorn for bellowing the mantra that they have first entitlement when in fact they have none. The only honest redistribution of wealth is from the takers to the makers, until the economy evolves to the extent that there are no takers, only makers. That’s a worthwhile future to work for while tuning out the entitlement braying of the acquisitions community and the “useful idiots” who internalise and propagate its pretensions.

JKJ, Gee, sorry, didn't know I was privileged to be in the presence of Economic Royalty, your good self no less! What do you do when your not advising Wall Street, or the IMF? Cleaning public toilets with a toothbrush? Get you hand off it kid, you'll go blind. Back into your dog box,fool!

Julian, I'm here to inform you that "no consumption" equals "no wealth".

Let's say you are a dairy farmer or miner. Economically, what happens if people don't consume your milk, or don't consume your coal? That's right -- you go BROKE. Ok, so you start up another business, maybe a supermarket, a guitar shop or a taxi, now what happens if people don't consume food, don't consume guitars and don't consume taxis? That's right -- you again go BROKE.

So, without "consumption" wealth simply DOESN'T EXIST.

Consumption creates wealth, because without consumption wealth is NON EXISTENT.

Sure, other things relate to wealth accumulation too, but the FACT remains that without consumption specifically, wealth can't exist. For example, say you win Lotto. You can only win Lotto via consumption. In other words you bought a Lotto ticket. You partook in "consumption". If you did not consume, then someone else consumed by buying you a Lotto ticket. Nobody can win Lotto without "consumption". The same applies to every single human activity and every single dollar.

No consumption = no wealth.

A poor man never payed tax to support another poor man. Tax high profit companies who are reducing staff

Jay 123, I have o problem with accepting that it works both ways, however, uless all the cards are on the table, how do we make an informed opinion.

And while the rich may well get tax breaks, they also do something the poor don't, they create jobs, jobs, that if not created, many by rich people taking risks, the poor would have a lot more to complain about.

While the poor complain about a $7 payment to see a doctor, the not even rich, people like myself pay $60, that's after paying 2% of my income towards Medicare, the system many contribute to but get little out of, all so the poor can at least afford to see a doctor.

A rich man or woman is never "self-made." They are made by everyone else - until their idea/product/invention becomes redundant.

The latest from that cigar chomping Treasure, 'Horrible Joe Hockey' The poor should NOT drive a car. This out of touch fool claims that his new fuel TAX will only target the rich! As far as Joe is concerned, the poor can walk. Has Horrible Joe forgot about Australia's battlers, the millions living in the burbs, the working poor, with no alternative but to be forced into their cars everyday to make the hard slog to a job, providing they still have a job as this government is setting new records for unemployment.
Hockey is totally out of touch with ordinary Australians and should be replaces ASAP, for the sake of the country!

Jay 123: Consumption doesn’t create wealth, it consumes it. If nobody creates any wealth nobody can consume any. At best, consumption can motivate creation of wealth, by the makers not by the takers.

How bad is Abbott? Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent bolstering the RAAF’s fleet — A big proportion of it is earmarked for the prime ministers personal jet. Abbott has put himself in line for a new long-range jet, promising uninterrupted luxury global travel.
It will take the PM to important functions, friends birthday parties, weddings, bicycle fun rides, flying his kids around the world, etc etc.

The poor can walk! (to the no dole office) So thinks Horrible Joe Hockey!

Paul,

You might enjoy this...titled "No more Mr Nice Joe"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/cassidy-no-more-mr-nice-joe/5671428

"The once popular Treasurer now trudges around the country alone and unloved. Not all of the criticisms are entirely fair, but then neither is the budget he's struggling to spruik, writes Barrie Cassidy.

A funny thing happened while I took a three months break from the daily grind of politics. The experience does concentrate the mind on what really has shifted since those pre-budget days in early May.

That the budget is still the dominant political topic is surprising enough. But more surprising is Joe Hockey's extraordinary fall from grace.

What happened to one of the most popular ministers in the Government? Jovial Joe. Affable Joe. The heir apparent by a long way; the minister best equipped to launch an attack on the age of entitlement, repair the budget, and persuade the country that it was in their best interests to do so."

Etc....

Poirot, thanks for that link , that's Horrible Hockey alright. After been shown up as the uncaring elitist cigar chomping fool he is, Hockey is now trying to back peddle with an insincere apology about his "poor" comments LOL

Paul1405: "Hockey is totally out of touch with ordinary Australians and should be replaced ASAP, for the sake of the country!"

What: with ANOTHER Lib?

Repay 1975: Block Supply

In an interview by the forum journalist, some interesting stats came up which raises curiousity.
There are 1.9 million public servants. $134 billion annual salary.
Equates to the population of Perth and $100 per week per Australian resident.
Im wondering if the above mentioned annual salary includes the Politicians in parliament house and if not would it be disclosed to the tax payers, and if not Why? Those hit with the budget would be super curious. Along with the rest of us who were told we'd have to pull in our belts.
There is also a list of spending by different depts.
One $12000.00 coffee machines and contracted coffee machine servicer.
A staggering $4.6 mill for new logos at no other than Centrelink.
$16 mill donation to a profitable corporate to upgrade a chocky factory.

Since Abbot took up his position as leader in September there have been daily tax hikes of $23mill, this doesnt include the tobacco tax.
No listings of other departments spendings.

Once again Abbott and Hockey have stuck it up the workers with the assistance of mining magnate, come political animal, Big Clive Palmer. The hard done by mining billionaires will kiss the Mining Tax goodbye, and receive a big bonus to their bottom line at the same time, whilst struggling workers could be slugged with a cut of up to $100,000 in their future superannuation payout.
"As a result of this initiative passing through the Parliament today, the budget overall will be around $50 billion better off over the next decade. In the short term, it will have a negative impact on the budget over the next four years of around $6.5 billion, but that will be recovered by delaying the increase in the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent as an offset in the overall cost over the medium term," so said Hockey.
It must be great to be able to buy your way into parliament and then get a gigantic tax refund in your favor, while the workers carry the can, thanks Clive.

Paul,
That problem can be solved by salary sacrifice by you putting more of your pay into superannuation, instead of you employer.