Such a ‘let them eat cake’ comment.
and she/they get $285 dollars per day for travel allowance on top when parliament is sitting, which is more than half of a weekly Newstart payment, not to mention whatever committees they are on which they get an allowance for.
It’s more than a week’s Newstart
The problem with the travel allowance is that it is not acquittable. The rate would be set to take into account accomodation costs in a city plus the higher costs associated with living away from home base.
That goes for public servants as well, but accomodation costs are acquitted against hotel bills and if the accomodation has kitchen facilities, a lower rate is struck. MPs are not required to acquit against invoice. Hockey for instance when in Canberra stayed at one of his wife’s investment properties
Didn’t Turnbull stay at his mum’s?
Which were pretty…pretty nice digs.
Yeah, sorry, that’s what I meant.
Stephen Jolly stands most times, doesn’t he? Calls himself and his party socialists.
The Liberal Party’s list of “key achievements”
Kaye Lee
For those of us who wonder what this government has actually achieved, the Liberal Party have provided a handy list of “key achievements”.
They begin by telling us that “403,100 more jobs were created in 2017.”
Aside from using the seasonally adjusted figure rather than the more commonly used trend estimate (393,400), they left out the part that says “The number of unemployed persons was largely unchanged, increasing by 100.”
Next comes the small business tax cuts “for 3.2 million businesses employing 6.7 million Australians.”
Firstly, according to the ABS, at the end of 2016-17, there were 2,238,299 actively trading businesses in the market sector in Australia in total, not 3.2 million, and they aren’t all small businesses as that would imply.
Secondly, 61.2% of all businesses don’t employ anyone else. Of those who do have employees, 70.1% employed between one and four people.
As Adam Creighton pointed out, those small businesses created 5% of the growth in private sector employment since 2010, while businesses with more than 200 employees (0.5% of employing businesses) created 65% of that growth.
Small business tax cuts might sound nice, but they do little to boost employment.
The next “achievement” on the list was the instant asset write-off “used last year by 300,000 small businesses to invest in new equipment and machinery.”
According to Treasury data, in the first year of the scheme, 99,000 businesses took advantage of the write-offs, claiming a total of $415 million, up from the $165 million claimed in write-downs before the scheme was introduced.
In October 2017, then Small Business Minister Michael McCormack said the most recent Treasury data revealed another 50,500 businesses took up the scheme in its second year, with the average amount claimed increasing from $4000 to $9000.
Aside from 300,000 being a fabrication, if it’s such a good idea, why are they scrapping it on July 1 this year?
The next claim of “affordable, reliable energy” is more a wish than an achievement.
“National Energy Guarantee will ensure reliability and reduce bills. More gas supplies have been secured. Snowy Hydro 2.0 feasibility study has been completed.”
Anyone’s electricity bill gone down yet? And how are those emissions going? One part of the “trilemma” seems to be missing.
Then comes the “record infrastructure investment” of “$75 billion” which hasn’t actually happened yet but is sure to some time over the “next decade”.
Do promises count as achievements?
Next, they claim to be “fixing the budget” by “halving the growth in spending”.
That is double-speak for we are still running deficits and increasing the debt.
Then we move on to “more exports” which are “locking in benefits from landmark trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea.”
Budget papers estimate the loss of revenue from tariffs over the forward estimates to be $6.375 billion.
The Productivity Commission released a scathing report on the value of free trade agreements, saying they just added to the “complexity and cost of international trade through substantially different sets of rules of origin, varying coverage of services and potentially costly intellectual property protections and investor-state dispute settlement provisions.”
They were harshly critical of “the continuing absence of two critical areas of transparency. First, the lack of contemporaneous transparency of the provisions being negotiated. Second, the absence of any rigorous and transparent assessment of the negotiated text of an agreement before signing.”
The report also contains specific criticism of the TPP, which the achievements list boasts “Australia took a lead role in negotiating”, over the risks it poses around issues such as intellectual property.
Of course, what would a Liberal list of achievements be without reference to “tackling union lawlessness”.
“Australian Building and Construction Commission restored to protect small businesses and the economy from CFMEU lawlessness. Secret payments banned between businesses and unions.”
It only cost us a double dissolution election to establish the ABCC whose boss then had to quit for breaching the Fair Work Act, but not before taxpayers coughed up $400,000 to cover his legal bill.
Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of the Banking Royal Commission. Nor any attempt to stop “secret payments” between businesses and politicians or government and media moguls.
They then remind us how they are keeping us safe through “secure borders, fighting terror, deporting criminals, tackling the scourge of ice, a stronger defence force, and cracking down on paedophiles.”
They are good at imposing very expensive reactionary punitive measures but not so good at the compassion and support necessary to forestall problems or to help victims.
Next achievement – “more affordable child care” with “Landmark reforms targeted to working parents.”
The kicker is that, under the new package, to qualify for subsidised care both parents must be working, studying, training or volunteering for at least four hours a week. Families earning less than $65,000 who do not meet the test will be able to access 12 hours a week of subsidised care but anyone earning over $65,000, regardless of their circumstances, must satisfy the test every week or they are ineligible for subsidised care.
The early childhood sector wanted the 12-hour limit increased to 15 hours and wanted the activity test to only apply to families earning more than $100,000 a year. After wide consultation and providing compelling evidence for their stance, they thought they had agreement with Simon Birmingham, but they were sorely disappointed.
Simon Birmingham also claims the next achievement, “more schools funding”, which is a fairly easy claim to make because, due to increasing population, schools get more funds every year anyway. As we have seen, making claims about funding in a decade’s time is meaningless.
His other claim that “Our agreement replaces 27 secret deals and will provide needs based funding for all students” has already been shot out of the water with many disadvantaged schools being worse off whilst a secret deal with the wealthiest schools has already been struck to ease the shock.
The Liberals then claim to have provided “better health care” with “86% of GP visits bulk billed last year, hospital funding at record levels and new reforms introduced to improve private health insurance.”
But according to RACGP President Dr Bastian Seidel, the percentage of patients who had all their GP visits bulk billed during 2016–17 was actually around 66%. While the Federal Government’s Medicare spend has risen, so have patients’ out-of-pocket cost for GP visits, reaching an average of $34.95 over the July–December period in 2017–18. This represents a 4.5% rise in out-of-pocket costs compared to a 0.5% rise in bulk billing over the same period.
Between 2012–13 and 2016–17, additions to public hospital elective surgery waiting lists (patients placed on a waiting list) increased by 3.2% on average each year.
And private health insurance costs continued to soar while the things they covered got less.
The Libs also spruik their immunisation program, saying that “From next year all 12 and 13 year olds will get free protection against HPV virus and cervical and other cancers.”
It wasn’t that long ago that their leader was saying he wouldn’t get his daughters immunised because it might lead to promiscuity.
We are next regaled with the wonders of the Work for the Dole program, new compliance rules, the cashless welfare card and drug testing of welfare recipients, all of which participants and welfare groups agree are soul-destroying.
They then congratulate themselves for removing gambling ads “during televised sports before 8.30pm on free-to-air television.”
This from the party who, as one of their first acts on winning office, wound back the modest gambling reforms introduced by the previous Labor government. This from the defenders of poker machines as demonstrated in the recent Tasmanian election.
Rupert Murdoch will, of course, still be free to cash in on the lucrative advertising dollars on his pay tv.
And to round out the list of “achievements”, we have same sex marriage where they wasted over $100 million dollars to appease the hard right Christians and homophobes in their own party room.
All in all, we are given a list of aspirations, promises, exaggerations, lies and waste.
If that’s the best they can come up with after two terms in office, they certainly do not deserve a third try to get it right.
^^^Wow. Kaye Lee nails it!
Where was that published? (Should cite the source).
Get this f*cking Government out of office immediately.
Pathetic party.
Continued support for white collar criminals within the bank system. But won’t throw a crumb off the table for the less fortunate.
Not much of an alternative at the moment unfortunately.
Where am I?
What year is this?
Who’s the President?
Labor voting with the LNP on Duttons on his home affairs ministry
Not too sure about Labor voting with the coalition on the Murray Darling basin either.
All rice and cotton plantations should be bought back and reassigned to less thirsty crops.
Never mind the fact we are going almost from a progressive tax system to a flat one. In a few years they wanted to bring in a tax bracket between 41k and 200k. They will say it will help the middle class but not mention the fact the biggest beneficiaries out of all this would be the top end.
Getting down to the micro, why is it that the under 25s are no longer subject to compulsory life insurance as part of their super fund, I don’t understand what it has got to do with super.
Also, getting down to the micro - or how policies work in practices - I think Ken Wyattt has his heart in the right place - but when you have an ageing in place policy where the occasionally funded cleaners - at Council level - don’t do the basics like moving furniture ( which basic equipment In most furniture stores could do) and when the Council funding runs out and the service gets reduced , it all gets too much for the oldies and their families.
Compassion counts, but there is a real world out there Get down to the grass roots if you want to reduce the economic costs of an ageing population.
The intent to move to a flat tax system over the next few years (elections permitting of course…) is one of the most staggeringly regressive things I’ve ever heard of. I’m still not sure I really believe it. Amazingly tone-deaf to push this sort of thing when inequality is actually starting to become a real issue, the banking RC is revealing in excruciating detail how coddled the big end of town are, and major tax cuts in the USA under both Bush and Trump have resulted in deficits skyrocketing.
(Personally, I believe I’ll be getting a moderate tax rebate out of the budget. Which tbh is fucking grotesque - people like me don’t need tax cuts when public services are falling apart due to lack of resources and the dole isn’t enough to keep people off the street)
I haven’t followed the budget closely tonight, other than registering these promises off in the never never.
But I think I have a different view to that expressed above:
I don’t understand why a human pays marginal tax up to 50%, but a company (an artificial structure representing the interests of a human) pays only 30% tax. I’ve posted this view earlier in the thread.
I just think it leads to this: The really rich do everything they can to operate under company structures, and avoid paying tax at the higher individual rates. ie. They get around the system anyway, and pay little tax above 30%.
…so I’m kind of supportive of narrowing the tax rate gap between individuals and companies…but I therefore hate the idea of lowering company tax rates…and think the world would be better off without company structures altogether…
And just to finish off, I’m generally disappointed with all politicians and their eagerness to spend any spare dollar during the good times, and borrow heavily during the tough times…I won’t go on.
For your super question you can have life insurance (death insurance, TPD and income protection insurance with a max benefit period of 2 years) as part of your superannuation. The benefit is that it’s your super balance that pays the benefit as opposed to coming out of your own pocket.
It’s mainly to do with group super policies where the group gets a discount. However to remove the component requires you to write a letter and send it to the super company to remove it.
+1
Ultimately a bribe to try and get votes - more likely to cost them a vote from someone like me. Of course I can always use more money but I don’t need it either. What will get cut to deliver these tax cuts is more of my concern…all I’ve heard is about the tax cuts and haven’t had a chance to look more deeply at their policies yet.
I had this discussion with my wife last night. all this talk about budget emergency a few years back, yet middle incomers who are not really struggling at all end up with a tax cut. i mean, really?