What are your thoughts on the performance of the Rudd government so far?

I thought you'd be happy with the Labor government. Very family and 'battler' friendly.

 

Most families I know would completely disagree. And 'battler' is actually Labor's word for 'bludger'.

 

Me and my wife have a combined income of less than $150,000 which makes us eligible. We pay tax and we're not bludgers. So I guess you're wrong!

 

Well, the wealthy get hit!

I can't say that I am surprised. The leftist media is all on about the wealthy being hit, so the battlers can get a hand.

Trouble is, the definition of wealthy is tied to taxable income, which history shows is suspect at best.

My best example was a tax year long, long ago. That was the particular year that I paid the most tax of my life, $82,000. I certainly did well that year, earning nearly $190,000 taxable income. That makes me wealthy right?

Well, many years later, I read in the paper that Kerry Packer had finalised his tax for that same year, after much struggle by the ATO to get anything. He earned a profit of $500,000,000 that year, and he and the ATO eventually reached agreement that he should pay tax of $30,000. The following year was a bad one for poor old KP. He only earned a profit of $150,000,000, so the tax office gave him money that year. I guess KP would have qualified for a baby bonus in both those years if it had existed then.

When wealth is defined by taxable income, the whole issue is distorted. Guess what, I am not 2.73 times as wealthy as Kerry Packer was.

IMHO, there are incentives in this budget for "battlers' to get a job. However, they come from those parts of the budget that relate to ALP policies copied from the Coalition during the election campaign. The original bits of this budget amount to very, very little incentive.

Now, let's see. If I give up that second job, I might qualify as a battler. Would I be better off working less? NO, NO. I must not bludge on my fellow countrymen. I must try to pull my weight, no matter what the provocation, or incentives to do otherwise.

 

:whistling :wax:

 

1.34 here business as usual. But record highs in oil wouldn't help:whistling

But you need to be very careful on this side. My sister had 2 kids to a guy, They lived together for 10 years, He almost killed her 20 times, She was in no position to make decision she wasn't allowed to work, She wasn't allowed family, She wasn't allowed money, She stole food and was caught doing it to provide for her kids, Maybe today things are different but back then and this was sometime back people like this got away with it.
Now today with him finally gone she meet another man after almost giving up. They have been together now for 2 years,
They have twins that are 3 months old. When setting out money wise they were tight and still are, But after falling pregnant which was a shock, Later on she found she was having twins, Preparing for 1 is hard then 2?.
Then bad things started to happen.
He was involved in a accident playing cricket and ****ed his shoulder, Lost his job, Too 3 moths to be operated on, So the baby bonus came at a wonderful time when the kids were born, Still they don't live well but they manage, And she still has half the bonus in the bank it is solely for the kids in anything and everything they need. I know the ones that do it for the money, But as children I'll leave them out of it, They are the innocent in this, It's the parent or parents that are the guilty party.

The whole idea of the baby bonus honestly wasn't thought out to well,
In truth it keeps people of welfare and could get people on it, All to boost numbers?. We had many men and women out in the work force leaving family's till later after they establish themselves in the workforce. Now you could start up a family and move into work later if you feel like it?.

Hey that's pretty funny:yeah:



Budget.

Hasn't anyone seen anything other then there pocket's yet? Come on there has got to be something else to see?.
Conservatives, This was laughed at once as a joke, But this budget is conservative, Might i wont say hurt but I'll say slap more wealthy people, But if the shoe was on the other foot I'm sure there wouldn't be much rumble.
Cutting spending or irresponsible spending will help, Many in the know are right behind inflation to drop, Can't say that wont help intrest rate drop in the next 12-18 months?.

Now pretty much all election promises are in place and are a go.
Seems like they were only waiting for the budget to introduce them?.

GST to rise and work for the dole to be scrapped?, Who made that **** up:yeah:.

Good to finally see some money being funded to Infrastructure , It's a start and much more will be needed.
Climate change and water another good boost financially.
Be nice to find other alternative other then just nuclear power. Cutting trucks form roads with building rail links will be a boost for the environment and cut long delivery times down. Much safer way also.
What else they got some plans on roads and ports docks etc.
With education and health coming in big.

It's a start and as long as the money is pent wise and it's moved along, But something easier to consider is the fed and state governments now communicate, So it wont be a Toyota Ad with nothing much said which will cut communication hassles and speed things up.
I'm sure in 10 years we will see benefits from some of the long term policy's introduced.
But word is it will take some 400 billion to build Infrastructure that this country needs, And is it to late why hasn't there been an investment such as this in the past?.

Anyway that's about it for now sick of reading.:thumbsup:

 

you're proposing social engineering. there's no absolute right or wrong on this, but i'm libertarian on the issue. i don't think people should be paid to have babies. it's a personal decision, not something the state should intervene in with incentives. the high age population is not that big a deal to me.

 

Ummh........that is the way all tax in this country works isnt it, socialist it may be. The idea isnt that everyone should only get benefits returned according to what tax they have contributed.
Personally, i see people on incomes up to $150000 still getting the baby bonus as still a very generous arrangement.

 

Why should I not be entitled to a government handout simply because I am more successful than someone else? I've worked hard to get where I am but am no not elligible simply because I earn more than someone else?

Why is that fair?

 

Its not fair, simple as that.

As predicted, all the welfare groups were impressed by the budget. Hell, if I thought that the high income earners in this country owes me a living, then I would be impressed too.

Typical Labor though, rewarding all the parasites at the expense of those who work their ass off. There is simply no justification for it, no matter what the left wingers say.

Tall poppy syndrome at its best, and set to grow.

 

Seriously considering moving overseas for a few years...

 

Whilst the parasites you refer to will benefit from this, I think that most people in lower wage brackets are not parasites. There are plenty of hard-working Australian families on $50,000 - $70,000 who do need some help from time to time. Not all low income earners are dole-bludging druggies! I think that is a bit harsh.

 

I didn't say that.

Parasites generally refer to people who are happy to sit around and let/expect the tax payer to subsidise their carefree lifestyle, and that is a core Labor principle.

Of course most families on 50-70k will find it difficult, I don't dispute that. Should they be helped financially? Probably. Should I be the one that is forced to pay more tax to help them out? No.

Swan has clearly made out that if you are on over $150,000 a year, then you should be slugged extra to help 'working families' because you can afford it. Its comments like that which make me want to jump through the TV and strangle the son of a bitch.

Most people do not realise the effort and sacrifice required to reach that income level. In my case it was 8 years of uni (forfeiting over $400,000 in salary for 4 years of post grad study), starting at the bottom and working my way up. Earning that type of money does not come easy, and to get excessively penalised for it will, of course, **** people off.

But because we are in the minority, we are just expected to cop it.

 

All though my family will be a long way under the Baby Bonus cut off, it is my opinion that there should be no cut off. Why should those with a decent income not be incoraged to have children. Generally speaking I would say it is the families with a higher income that choose to have very few or sometimes not to have any children. I would think that they are in a better position to provide a better education and basic living. Higher income earns are usually intelligent and hard workers or at least smart workers and that usually passes on to their children yet we aren't giving them any encouragement.

Maybe the plot line to the movie Idiocracy is too far fetched after all.

I just think that the Labour Rudd government like the Liberal government is just a dog and pony show with lots of glitter and special lighting and whoever can entertain the biggest crowd get into power.

Rudd reminds me of a car salesman, smooth talking and his only tools are duct tape, zip-ties and a can of export paint.

 

Bloody oath, should have been that way from the start.

I am happy about the 50% CCB...