Re: Aus Federal Politics thread (XII)

[JGK]

Why we hate pollies:

[embee]

She should have just said she was using 'Pinko Maths' ...

[Bradman]

Nice rack though.

[skully]

PMSL. And she's at the "talented" end of the Pinko line-up.

[Bradman]

That just means the arts degree came from a sandstone uni, or she was spoon fed at some johhny-come-lately law school.

[lardbucket]

Why we hate pollies:

This happened a fair while ago.

I remember her rack from last year. And the SNAFU, of course.

[Fred Nerk]

Hadley has noisily declared an OZI (that'd be Ongoing Zero Interface) with Morro as of immediately.

Hmmm...which was Brad again, and which was Ange?

[JGK]

Hadley has noisily declared an OZI (that'd be Ongoing Zero Interface) with Morro as of immediately.

Hmmm...which was Brad again, and which was Ange?

It's like tribbing without the good bits.

[Red]

So a rise in the Medicare Levy is touted for the budget in May. As economists say, this is lazy and almost laughable when negative gearing is left in place. More people will desert private health insurance.

[JGK]

So a rise in the Medicare Levy is touted for the budget in May. As economists say, this is lazy and almost laughable when negative gearing is left in place. More people will desert private health insurance.

I rise in lieu of the abolition of the deficit levy surely.

[skully]

Why would people leave private health cover if the Medicare Levy goes up?? You avoid the 1.5% Medicare Surcharge Levy if you have private health cover. For me it's much cheaper to have Basic Hospital Cover and not pay the additional 1.5% surcharge.

[lardbucket]

exactly ... it's just another tax, and the tax is higher if you leave private cover

[Red]

Why would people leave private health cover if the Medicare Levy goes up?? You avoid the 1.5% Medicare Surcharge Levy if you have private health cover. For me it's much cheaper to have Basic Hospital Cover and not pay the additional 1.5% surcharge.

Agree with this, and it works for me, but there is also a proposal to abandon surcharge exemptions, i.e. those who pay private health insurance would also be subject to this charge. If they adopt this (the theory being it targets higher income earners more), people will drop out because there is no longer a financial incentive to take out private health insurance. The surcharge is unfair anyway because people are already paying Medicare charges according to their income. Given a lot of people minimise their taxable income below the threshold to avoid this (negative gearing etc.), there is an unfair burden on many PAYE taxpayers.

[Bradman]

Why would people leave private health cover if the Medicare Levy goes up?? You avoid the 1.5% Medicare Surcharge Levy if you have private health cover. For me it's much cheaper to have Basic Hospital Cover and not pay the additional 1.5% surcharge.

Is it like the Pay TV situation where you need have to have the basic and then pay more for the extras? I mean you can't just cherry pick the exxy add-ons and nix the basic?

They could probably make everything either cheaper and/or better if they root and branched medicare and told people they'd have to pay for Heather the holistic healer from halfway down the road themselves.

[embee]

"The surcharge is unfair anyway because people are already paying Medicare charges according to their income. Given a lot of people minimise their taxable income below the threshold to avoid this (negative gearing etc.), there is an unfair burden on many PAYE taxpayers."

wtf does that even mean?

three contradictions in three sentences ...do you write pinko policy?

[Bradman]

Well it's actually only two sentences but an inability to count giving you an inside running on fascist economic policy is neither here or there. I think what was meant is that the ability to reduce your income more or less negates the surcharge's effectiveness.

[embee]

sorry
three contradictions in two sentences
so much better

[Bradman]

Mind you. Apart from the fact the forum isn,y suffering from a surfiet of Hemingways you could argue whether there were any sentences.

[JGK]

Well it's actually only two sentences but an inability to count giving you an inside running on fascist economic policy is neither here or there.  I think what was meant is that the ability to reduce your income more or less negates the surcharge's effectiveness.

I think investment losses like negative gearing get added back in determining whether you hit the threshhold.

[Red]

Well it's actually only two sentences but an inability to count giving you an inside running on fascist economic policy is neither here or there.  I think what was meant is that the ability to reduce your income more or less negates the surcharge's effectiveness.

Precisely, though in essence it's complex.

I also agree with streamlining Medicare so that what it has to cover is more affordable in respect of the revenue generated.

Even things such as IVF are highly questionable as being covered under Medicare's umbrella. There are some types of plastic surgery for instance.

It's a bit like the welfare system in general. I'm a proponent of helping who it was originally introduced for way back after the second WW, but I know people who work in Centrelink offices who tell me that there are now about 144 different types of payments under the system. Some are questionable. The problem is, when Howard extended his largesse to those who didn't need it rather than focus on using the biggest government income ever to fund infrastructure etc., he probably didn't foresee how difficult it would be to claw back money from people who once, receiving a benefit will never forgo it.

[Bradman]

Don't know. Amy confusion would be indicative of our tax system amyway.

[Red]

Well it's actually only two sentences but an inability to count giving you an inside running on fascist economic policy is neither here or there.  I think what was meant is that the ability to reduce your income more or less negates the surcharge's effectiveness.

I think investment losses like negative gearing get added back in determining whether you hit the threshhold.

Your income threshold is at the mercy of the creativity of your accountant.

I work with people who seem to receive tax benefits that they're not entitled to, but they extol the virtues of their accountant in income determination.

I guess I'm having a bit of a mini rant here because I am starting to regard myself as a bit of a ',mug'' who gets penalised for not negatively gearing, hiding money in family trusts, receiving government largesse, or finding some way to 'rort' the system. It's not a statement of martyrdom, more an expression of frustration at how easily our system has been allowed to become inequitable.

If there was fairness all round, there wouldn't be a revenue problem. There would also be more social justice.

[Bradman]

Keep on ranting. Squeaky wheels and all that. Plus its better than shooting your neighbour.

[skully]

Why would people leave private health cover if the Medicare Levy goes up?? You avoid the 1.5% Medicare Surcharge Levy if you have private health cover. For me it's much cheaper to have Basic Hospital Cover and not pay the additional 1.5% surcharge.

Agree with this, and it works for me, but there is also a proposal to abandon surcharge exemptions, i.e. those who pay private health insurance would also be subject to this charge. If they adopt this (the theory being it targets higher income earners more), people will drop out because there is no longer a financial incentive to take out private health insurance.  The surcharge is unfair anyway because people are already paying Medicare charges according to their income. Given a lot of people minimise their taxable income below the threshold to avoid this (negative gearing etc.), there is an unfair burden on many PAYE taxpayers.

Thanks for the clarification. I probably wouldn't have posted originally if you'd included the bit about the Medicare surcharge.

The whispered proposal some months ago apparently* (dunno if it's still on ScoMo's books) was removing the claim to the surcharge for families earning over $180,000 and individuals over $90,000. Where do the majority of PAYE taxpayers sit?

[horace]

The present policy effectively subsidises the insurance industry. Time to deregulate.

[Sponsored content]