Federal Budget 2014 Discussions - how are you affected?

scotty on 13/05/2014 - 22:45

Interestingly there hasn't been a discussion on this evening's Federal Budget. Sydney Morning Herlad has summarised a list of winners and losers. Yes there will be a lot of cuts on both high end and low end, and the reduced expense will hopefully steer Australia back to surplus one day.

However instead of talking boring politics, maybe we can discuss how this budget will affect you individually? For my family it's probably "annoying but not a big deal".

  • Already pay more than $7 for GP visit as there's almost no bulk-bill GPs in my area
  • Earn way less than $180k
  • However never got FTB B either
  • Still a few decades before turning 70
  • Increased fuel levy might hurt us a bit

How is the federal budget affecting you & your life style? Would that make you spend more or less time on OzBargain?

Poll Options expired

  • 15
    Budget ftw! I am a Ballerina
  • 33
    Not affected at all
  • 197
    It pains a little but I'll survive
  • 90
    It hurts and I have to significantly adjust my life style
  • 4
    It is killing me!
  • 13
    Budget wtf! Engage bikie!
Financial

Comments

        • OzzyBrak on 16/05/2014 - 23:01
          +2

          Norway offers free Uni to everyone, even to people who aren't citizens

        • MrGrinchy on 17/05/2014 - 14:24
          +1

          So its cheaper, just to fly there, live with backpackers, and get a degree.

  • hazzad on 14/05/2014 - 07:53
    +2

    Can anyone flesh out the family tax supplement B cuts a bit more? The 100 k cutoff wont effect us but im confused by the other changes. From what i could read it will now change when your youngest is aged 6 rather than 18. Does this mean you will no longer receive any benefits or does it just mean your payments will reduce from then? This is the main effect to us as a family other than the GP co-payment. Personally i doubt this will make it through in its current form. i actually don't have a problem with this in some form as there is way to much abuse of the medicare system(both patients and doctors). I think each family should get a certain number of fully bulk billed visits a year(if available in your area) and then after that you begin co-payment(i think 10 would be fair to cover approx a visit a month). The idea of slugging everyone a $7 co-payment, other than healthcare card holders, is a bit as it will ultimately make people think twice about visiting the GP. People shouldnt have to have to decide between their health and paying the bills.

    • modsec802 on 15/05/2014 - 07:39

      FTB-B will cut off entirely when you're youngest child is six after 1 July 2015 or if your partner earns over 100k.
      If you already receive it you will continue to do so for 2 years after 1 July 2015 (as long as your partner doesn't earn >100k) then it will abruptly end.

      • amberdbrickell on 15/05/2014 - 10:17

        Does that mean that I will still receive it even though my youngest is 6 for another 2 years????

        • modsec802 on 15/05/2014 - 10:33
          +1

          If all other circumstances are met (primary income <= $100k) then I believe you will receive it for another 3 years since the change takes effect 1 July 2015 (next year), so you would receive it FY 2014-2015, FY 2015-2016 and FY 2016-2017. Labor if re-elected in 2017 would most likely change it back :)

        • modsec802 on 15/05/2014 - 10:35

          This provides a lot of info about the proposed changes (remember all changes must pass parliament)

          http://budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/glossy/welfare/download…

          To quote it

          From 1 July 2015, FTB-B payments will be available to families until
          the youngest child turns six. Those families already receiving FTB-B for children over six at this time will continue to receive payment until 30 June 2017.

  • CyberMurning on 14/05/2014 - 07:56
    -3

    how come family earn over $100k used to get $ from government? must be something wrong with money management if they cant survive with that kind of salary. or they raising 7 kids or live in water front view mansion or have gambling issues since young.

    • airzone on 14/05/2014 - 13:10
      +13

      FTB part B is for single income families. Consider a family where there is a single income of $100k, this will be taxed at approx 25% of the whole (excl Medicare levy, etc). If you have a family of 2 x $50k incomes, the tax will be approx 15.5% of the whole (excl levies again). Therefore a family with a single income of $100k will pay at least $10k more tax than a dual income family of $100k. FTB part B offsets this by about $3 - $4k.

      Of course then there are circumstances such as childcare, etc… but then there's also giving kids to grandparents, etc. I don't take into account any personal circumstances in the above scenario.

    • phamid on 15/05/2014 - 09:04
      +5

      I'm from a family of five, an aunt who didn't work, a mother studying and my father earning approx. $100k. Putting all of us into catholic schools, paying for textbooks, clothing and anything else to feed and support the family left him with very little money.

      I think we're quick to not take other things into perspective, especially if those parents have HECS too and other financial responsibilities.

  • Tech5 on 14/05/2014 - 08:30

    I'm not too sure what to think about the $7 co-payment. On one hand it is extra money out of the pocket of the vulnerable. However, I understand that the payment will make people think about the necessity of visiting the GP for any little thing (e.g. a cold) simply because it is free.

    • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 08:43
      +16

      Who goes to the GP unnecessarily? It is a hassle for most people. Perhaps there are some old and lonely people who over visit, but is the co-payment going to discourage them? And is that desirable?

      • Peck on 14/05/2014 - 09:03
        +10

        Even worse will be that you have to make the Co-payment for any xrays, blood tests etc that flow on from the GP visit. And then you have to go back to the GP for a follow up consultation.

        • cuteseal on 14/05/2014 - 15:24
          +4

          Also for ongoing medication they reduce the number of repeats so you have to keep going back to see him just to get more prescriptions

        • Kempe on 14/05/2014 - 20:26
          +6

          So true,
          I'm on quite a few medications and have to go to the doctors at least 4 times a year to get repeats.
          I used to be able to phone the practice and get repeats without a consultation, but that was years ago, now you must have a consultation
          I will be on my medication till the day I die so really shouldn't have to clog up the system for repeats

        • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 22:51
          +2

          Well perhaps this $7 fee will encourage people to pressure their GP's from rorting the system and having you come in unnecessarily. People will start objecting to having to make an appointment for repeat prescriptions and no-news test results more if they have to pay $7 each time.

          I left a practice recently as I was sick and tired of having to go in for 'test results' only to be told everything's fine…why the heck can't that be relayed quickly to me over the phone? Instead I have to drag two kids across town just so my doctor can bill Medicare for my 1 minute "appointment". I argued a number of times about it over the years and finally decided to go somewhere else.

        • bs0 on 15/05/2014 - 01:26

          Ask your gp for longer scripts I.e. with more repeats. Its not normal to do but some doctors do it. They only have to call the pharmacist for authorisation first.

        • AngryMan on 16/05/2014 - 17:12
          -1

          Great point, also if there is a cost to check your health, you may be more inclined to spend money or time on preventative measures and proactively being healthier.

        • MrGrinchy on 17/05/2014 - 14:30

          Just ask next time, give me 10 repeats please.

          stupid govt. they should authorize chemists to extend repeats. or have a repeat last 5 years

          This limited repeat stuff is the biggest cause of clogged system

      • gormsby on 14/05/2014 - 09:03
        +10

        Everyone I know who's working is required to get a medical certificate for any sick days they take. This means a visit to the doctor even if it's only for a cold that you know will go away in a couple of days. It's bad enough that I have to go to the doctor to prove that I'm sick - now I'll have to pay to use my sick days. I understand why businesses enforce policies like this but as someone who doesn't abuse the system and has never taken a 'sicky' it's pretty annoying.

        • MrGrinchy on 17/05/2014 - 14:36

          My job doesn't ask for them. and second, when my wife needed to get a doctors certificate. They are so easy to copy/clone forge, its too easy. And all thats done is the cert is looked at placed on records. Just get an existing cert, scan, edit, re-print.

          If the matrix is evil, hack the matrix.

          Or if you cant use sick days, use personal leave days.

          Or punish your company , sneeze on all the door handles, keyboards, coffee cups, taps.

      • uccoffee on 14/05/2014 - 10:05
        +6

        there are way too many old and lonely people who visit their GP next to where I work daily.
        I meant daily!

        I think it will hurt those who needs to visit GP often due to addiction (GP refuse to give them multiple prescriptions) and probably those who need injections daily.

        • AngryMan on 16/05/2014 - 17:14

          It's capped at 10 visits ($70) for concession cards and children.

      • Tech5 on 14/05/2014 - 12:33
        +5

        Well I've worked with a GP part time to help my way through uni. In that time I have seen a large amount of patients walk in with a common cold and demand the doctor to treat them and give them antibiotics (which won't help anyway).

        However, I think the copayment should be means tested and exclude those with a chronic illness (What defines a chronic illness to be determined)

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 17:24
          +2

          Yeah It's a disgrace that so many people are going in for GP appointment for a common cold. There is no cure common cold and nothing that a doctor can prescribe that will reduce the recovery time. Not only that, but when the doctor prescribes antibiotics for such things creates antibiotic resistance which is a far greater problem than your bloody common cold. However, the cost of hundreds of thousands or millions of people doing this creates a huge burden on on the public purse, which in turns creates the need to increase taxes or introduce other measures to cut back on this kind of thing. People, stop abusing services just because they are free. In other news, I've heard of people who have called ambulances because they got shampoo in their eyes. Some people out there are nothing short of lunatics.

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 18:11

          Obviously, the guy who got shampoo in his eyes and called an ambulance down voted my comment :)

        • twocsies on 14/05/2014 - 19:10
          +8

          Can you stop whining about people downvoting your longwinded comments that are devoid of empathy?

        • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 19:28

          Do you have any evidence that people are over using the system? Is it 0.5%, or 2%? Less? More? Or are you just making stuff up? How often are antibiotics prescribed for viruses?

        • fattyboombatty on 14/05/2014 - 19:58
          +5

          No, people with compassion and empathy downvoted your comment. We don't live in a vacuum - we share this country with all - rich and poor.

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 22:02

          Devoid of empathy? I was making a valid point that too many people are going to see a doctor unnecessarily. This puts pressure on the budget and people who really do have serious medical issues.

        • NosDan on 14/05/2014 - 22:09
          +3

          Devoid of empathy? I was making a valid point that too many people are going to see a doctor unnecessarily

          a mindless point that you have been told to think by the party you obviously blindly follow.

          as ive already said, you just cant argue facts with a mindless one eyed lib supporter

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 22:10
          +2

          Well put it this way, here in WA, over 50% of people visiting emergency departments were going there for treatment that they should've been getting from their GP.
          I don't know the exact % for unnecessary visits to a GP, but I assume it's high considering the Government is introducing a co-payment. When I go to the GP, I have to pay $40 out of my own money. Why are people complaining about $7 ?

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 14/05/2014 - 22:13
          -7

          Well you're probably just a lazy one eyed Labor or Greens supporter who thinks the world owes them a living so….

        • mskeggs on 15/05/2014 - 08:06

          The gov is targeting a 1%-1.5% reduction in bulk billed GP visits.
          Not really that high, is it? Considering the $7 tax will effect the other 99% too.
          And why give $2 of it to the doctors? That takes their bulk billing fee up by over 5%. In this 'tough economic time' why hand out pay rises to some of the highest remunerated people?

        • Speckled Jim on 15/05/2014 - 11:19

          WA huh?
          Your Premier is itching to bump up the GST — enjoy.

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 15/05/2014 - 13:11
          +3

          Because the current system is unsustainable without increasing fees or taxes somewhere! I don't agree with paying doctors more.
          Half of Australian families pay no net tax. This system that you have become so used too is no longer affordable in its current shape.

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 15/05/2014 - 13:13

          Well if there wasn't such a handout mentality, there wouldn't be a need to increase the GST. Have you seen the cost of Australia's welfare bill?

        • edgar28 on 15/05/2014 - 14:58

          u have to understand more about sickness than comment it that way.

          it can dragged on and cause other sickness that's require operation/ complications/ hospitalisation

        • teardrops21 on 16/05/2014 - 06:18
          +3

          I find it bizarre that people whinge about paying a small amount for seeing a doctor, to maintain their health, but will spend much more on other ESSENTIALS like the latest phone, shoes or an endless supply of eneloops

        • bargainbee on 16/05/2014 - 06:45

          It will now be $47 going forward.

          Not saying I don't support the co-payment, but everyone will be affected. I support the co-payment because the principle is user pays, much like the GST. Downside is that the disadvantaged will be hardest hit when they can least afford it. Isn't there a cap of 10 visits before you don't have to pay? Correct me if I read it wrong.

        • MrGrinchy on 17/05/2014 - 14:41

          If they drink and smoke and buy shit, they pay GST and excise.

      • cloudy on 14/05/2014 - 18:54
        +4

        My gp is a med cert factory, ave handling times of patients is around 5mins, and he makes a massive amount from the govt and because there is no fee to visit for the most minor of illness.

        $7 is such a small amount for the occasional illness (that needs attention, and no a cold doesn't count), I think it's great. Firstly our doctors will now be paid for actually helping those in genuine need, and those who genuinely need it (sure, loses $7) but gets treated much faster by not having people clog up the system. Plus the govt wins too.

        The true loser are GP's treating the common cold.

        • GateauBoeuf on 15/05/2014 - 14:55
          +1

          With the increasing burden of chronic illness, is that all you have to say for yourself? Really?

    • paulinspace on 14/05/2014 - 09:27
      -4

      Personally I haven't been to a doctor in over 20 years because I look after my health and don't go running to the doctor every time I get sick. All these people going to the doc at the first sign of a cold to get a perscription for antibiotics is a waste of my and your money.

      It should be at doc's descetion. If you are getting tested for cancer then it should be free. Got a headache and need some panadol then pay up.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 09:32
        +5

        Spoken like a true yank, or person with a lot more expendable money than myself. I know that my Grandparent's are now intentionally not going to visit the GP because of these introduced fee's. Myself as my main income is 'at risk' currently I have to think very carefully if I need my 'scripts' to keep me sane.

        Thanks for your donation to the LNP though I'm sure they <3 you supporting them and all on Ozbargain using a internet alias.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 09:37
        +5

        It's great that you haven't been sick for so long, but some people get sick for reasons out of their control. No one wants to be sick.

        If the expert (ie the doctor) is handing out prescriptions for antibiotics for colds, people who don't know any better are going to take them. I wouldn't be blaming the patient there.

        That said, being at the doctors discretion is a good idea, but patients will argue with the time-poor doctor who will just give in to get the next person through the door and out of the waiting room.

      • neil on 14/05/2014 - 09:39
        +22

        @paulinspace, That's possibly the worst advice I've heard on OzBargain (and I've seen a lot of bad advice). Regular doctor checkups are essential as you get older and believe me diagnosing a health issue early is incredibly important. My worry is that people will be even more discouraged to go see a doctor for a checkup if they have to pay a fee.

        • uccoffee on 14/05/2014 - 10:06

          people rarely goes to a chemist and have free BP check up anyway~

        • WT on 14/05/2014 - 13:35
          +1

          Go to 99% of gp's for a routine check up, they check FK all and see you as a cash cow. You can see dollar signs in some doctors eyes where they try and roll as many patients through as they can.

          Its both sides abusing free health care.

          I have a friend who was in a bad accident, because he cant get free psychology he goes to his GP instead. His gp doesn't care, its free money for him!

        • GateauBoeuf on 15/05/2014 - 14:57
          +1

          Federal government and Yank co.: Blaming sick people for being sick

          Also, props to neil for telling it like it is.

    • Evil-Elmo on 14/05/2014 - 20:25
      +4

      I can't believe how much of an issue this $7 co-payment has become… that's less than my daily train fare! :)

    • pyro love bird on 17/05/2014 - 00:11

      It's also discouraging to people who have chronic illnesses or people like my dad who won't go to a GP when he's really sick now, let alone when they'll implement a fee. It's not much, I understand, but it will discourage him and people like that could die from serious illnesses that they just brush off. There may also be an increase in people self-diagnosing ie. using the interwebs

  • Blockey on 14/05/2014 - 08:57
    +2

    I think overall it's like the PM said "Pain with a purpose".

    I'm not a fan of the pension age rising or the petrol tax increase, both of these seem really stupid on a number of levels. I was never a fan of FTB part B as I think the $150,000 limit is too high.

    I guess I like the idea of less public servants but I do feel sorry for those who will be unemployed now. I like the pay freeze for politicians and the cuts to the dole, I've always though both of these were overly generous.

    I'm undecided about the $7 co-payment. I think it's come about because a minority group of people abuse the current system by going to the doctors 50 times when they don't need to which costs the tax payers a lot and I think this $7 payment will make a lot of them think twice but the people who legitimately use the current system are now paying the price.

    The deregulation of university fees will be interesting. I'm not sure whether they will all put up their fees or it will spark more competition. I'm inclined to think the big universities will push up their fees because they all want to be the next Harvard or Oxford but we may see the smaller universities pick up by offering cheaper courses.

    Overall my lifestyle will be largely unaffected.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 09:22
    -4

    So first up don't hate me too much, this letter was delivered on the 8th of May 2014 to Human Services online to myself.

    "After carefully considering your individual circumstances, we have identified that you have some capacity
    for activities that will help you to increase your participation in the community or prepare for work.
    This appointment has been made for you to discuss local services and support with one of our Customer
    Service Officers. We will work with you to develop a Participation Plan. This plan will be flexible and may
    include services and voluntary activities that interest you.
    The attached information sheet provides further information on the participation requirements for certain
    people who receive Disability Support Pension."

    NB: In relation to the above - here is bloody verification that what I am talking about is true cos reddit were awful people: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/person-hospita… I need a dollar, help a broke family man out:

    Mod: Edited personal and payment details.

    tl;dr: I am pretty mentally unwell but being forced into work, do not really have any vices don't smoke cigarettes or drink nowadays and am a family man. definitely no illicit drugs. Pretty much I find it very offensive my illness is being questioned like this.

    • Speckled Jim on 14/05/2014 - 09:37
      +1

      Well, my only critique is personal info on slide 1. Maybe reconsider that?

      But I hope things improve for you. They can, this is a world of many surprises and opportunities. Don't let one lousy Coalition budget affect your resolve.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 10:16
      +4

      I don't think these sort of posts belong here sorry. You've joined less than a month ago and are already listing methods to pay you. This is not proof anyway someone could have lifted these images off reddit and posed as the person in question. You really need a pic with todays date and a sign for us to be sure. What sort of illness would prevent you from any line of work, I don't think such an illness exists. If you cannot operate well in mental tasks due to mental illness couldn't you do physical labouring. Or would you like to blame your weight on that one as well.

      • Happy501 on 14/05/2014 - 20:08

        "What sort of illness would prevent you from any line of work"

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dJNpieHIdc

      • Happy501 on 14/05/2014 - 20:09
        +2

        Not being a softy but some people struggle all day to not kill/suicide/destroy things.

        • pyro love bird on 17/05/2014 - 00:19

          Absolutely, and it's difficult enough for them to just drag their feet through a single day with everything weighing them down. I understand that there may be some people who pretend to not be well (I'm not saying this is the case here) but mental health issues are a serious problem, unfortunately many people don't consider it to be. :(

    • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 10:21
      +3

      Why don't you want to even try participating. I used to be like that, I even had minor-moderate social anxiety and I never went to events with people I didn't know. Sure your problems may be much more extensive than mine were but outright saying you can't do anything except digitally beg is a bit sad. I don't understand people which do something and are 50/50 about it and don't try their hardest. I only exist in this world to create the strongest version of myself in all aspects.

      • NamandSpam on 15/05/2014 - 06:40

        Wowowow, that's the motto man! Did you get inspired by Elliot?! 'Cause I did too!

    • maximum on 14/05/2014 - 21:24
      +1

      Don't worry about the interview. At this stage all participation (bar the interviews) is voluntary. This is about social inclusion - for some people with disabilities friendships drop off and access to suitable work or studies - which forms a large part of a lot of people's social interactions and self worth- is hard to find without support. You may find this interview can open new opportunities for yourself and your family.

    • AMLagonda on 16/05/2014 - 16:35

      working for the

  • ExtraSalt on 14/05/2014 - 09:42
    -2

    well aren't you Kevin 07 and Julia fans embarrassed now. #thanksguys #thanksforthedebt

    • Speckled Jim on 14/05/2014 - 09:54
      +2

      Bah.

      Hockey doubled the debt ceiling.
      Hockey & Corman were quoting (inflated) gross deficit.
      And despite that, our debt to GDP is still the envy of most OECD nations.

      I hope the xenophobic bogues are happy as they fill their gas guzzlers.
      Vindication is Bliss!

      • ExtraSalt on 14/05/2014 - 10:06

        Howard & Costello left with Australia in Surplus, now Abbott is making tough decisions which means more money out of our pockets, but better future for Australia. People hated JH because he made tough calls which evidently put us in a good place. Labour came in and gave all this money and rebates so people would be temporarily happy.

        In short, we are now paying the consequences for Labour's overspending and mistakes.

        • uccoffee on 14/05/2014 - 10:08

          i think labour will be back in around 2025-2028 … we have 10 years to fix the surplus…

        • neil on 14/05/2014 - 10:25
          +2

          The latest Roy Morgan opinion polls show Labor ahead 55 to 45. I reckon this will be a very short term in government for the LNP unless something drastically different happens.

          Unfortunately for them, a lot of what they are doing is putting off the people who voted LNP in the first place. Of course, I haven't really seen a good plan by Labor so that's not really inspiring.

        • Ventak on 14/05/2014 - 10:34
          +12

          Howard & Costello left with Australia in surplus, and they also locked most of that surplus into Future Funds, when they should've spent it on infrastructure. Things like the NBN could've been done already. Not to mention that any government which rides a mining boom would've got into surplus, Howard didn't do anything special to get there. Even if he didn't sell assets like Telstra, he still would've got there.

          And besides, while Abbott may be making "tough decisions", he's broken a lot of promises which he shouldn't have made in the first place. Everyone harped on about Gillard breaking her no carbon tax promise, so why don't we hold Abbott to the same standards? Remember this?

        • Freighter on 14/05/2014 - 10:36

          Howard & Costello left with Australia in Surplus

          This isn't really related to the budget, to be honest I don't understand most stuff political since it's never interested me. But, are there many 1st world countries who are in a surplus?

        • neil on 14/05/2014 - 10:52
          +4

          Our government debt to GDP as a % is 34.3%. See chart

          The average for OECD countries is 110% so we are in excellent shape compared to the rest of the world. We also have low unemployment including in the youth sector. So while its important we budget correctly, this certainly isn't a budget emergency.

          There aren't many economies in the world with a surplus. Norway stands out as well as some resource rich countries in the middle east.

        • Speckled Jim on 14/05/2014 - 10:59
          +1

          Howard had no charisma.

          He needed Pt Arthur to look Statesman-like. Once that wore off, he decided to bribe people into breeding. "One for the country" — or have you forgotten already?

          So really, we're paying for the middle-class welfare that the Coalition introduced. Even Saul Eslake agrees with that (ABC 24 last night).

          Budget emergency. Gimme a break.

          This isn't really related to the budget, to be honest I don't understand most stuff political since it's never interested me. But, are there many 1st world countries who are in a surplus?

          Not many. A surplus looks great on paper, but it doesn't benefit anyone but those in power who can boast about it.
          The US is trillions of dollars in deficit. Have a look at their real-time deficit counter sometime.

        • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 12:31
          +1

          But, are there many 1st world countries who are in a surplus?
          No. None at all in the OECD, I believe.
          Norway runs a surplus as they have invested almost all their income from their mining boom (oil fields) for the ongoing benefit of Norwegians. Most of the Asian countries have surpluses, as following the Asian currency crisis in the late 90s they realised they were vulnerable if they had high debts.
          Most petro states run a surplus too, although this is rapidly changing.

        • Repi on 14/05/2014 - 15:52
          +5

          I don't think Howard and Costello did a good Job. The mining boom started around that time, and in their wisdom they used the proceeds to buy votes. Also sold a few things to private Enterprises, which worked out excellent for the buyers. You might change your mind about a better future when all the Car and related workers start claiming benefits, Uni becomes only affordable if you get a Scholarship, People can't afford healthcare etc.. If we didn't have all these selfish bastards from either party guiding us this Country would be excelling in everything. The way we are going we will be champion Importers (until our money runs out) and export Dirt for further refinement somewhere else.

        • Baghern on 14/05/2014 - 15:56
          +8

          You do know they left us with the current pension problems.

          You do know they made hardly any infrastructure programs.

          Liberals knock down, Labour Builds(incompetently)

          No one has yet to explain to me how ripping money from Education and Science helps us in the long run.

          Howard did it, now Abbot is continuing.

        • murkywater on 14/05/2014 - 21:55
          +1

          Labor's overspending? Did you ever hear about the global financial crisis? Guess not, since you'd be sitting safe at home while Krudd & his team saved Australia.

        • qazwsx on 15/05/2014 - 00:10
          +2

          To me the budget issue is not so much the debt but the rate of change we have seen in the debt position - look that one up, that one is quite high on the rankings. To do that and not have a plan to rein it back - that is irresponsible.

          And by the way, I really hate the "lets compare our debt to everyone else's" brigade. Sorry but that is just communal navel-gazing. Just because everyone else has higher debt doesn't mean you should accept it. If you found out your neighbour has a higher credit card debt than you, does that then make it OK to splash it out big on your credit card?

          Why shouldn't this country aspire to have proper fiscal management? Just because other countries have not been able to balance their books does not mean it's wrong that we can try to. Why do people think it is acceptable to go into debt and have no plan to turn around future deficits on the basis that we don't have the biggest debt in the world?

          You do realise that debts need to be repaid - that is the essence of it, it is borrowing from the future to obtain something now. Which is all well and good if the borrowing leads to an asset for the future, but I am not seeing that. I am seeing a lot of expenditure on services and transfer payments - things that, from a future generation's perspective, are essentially wasted. Things that give no benefit to future generations. But because we went into debt, we demand that future generations pay for it.
          That, my dear, is just plain selfish - taking from future generations to fund your own lifestyle now.

        • Speckled Jim on 15/05/2014 - 11:33

          And by the way, I really hate the "lets compare our debt to everyone else's" brigade.

          Globalisation; your objection is about 40 years too late.

          On the other hand, it would be nice to shut ourselves off, become a hermit state and simply trade domestically. We could really focus (or navel-gaze, to borrow your choice of euphemism) on our budget and stay in surplus.

          After all, the global economy and trifling things like the GFC would be someone elses problem!

        • ExtraSalt on 21/05/2014 - 14:36

          lol being that the GFC happened the year KRudd got the top spot, there was little he would of done to help the cause. it was still from the inheritance from the previous chief in office.

  • Blugok on 14/05/2014 - 09:53
    +5

    How about Paid parental leave?
    Couples will start making babies in October /November to get the benefit from July 2015

  • Turd on 14/05/2014 - 10:57

    I am not effect (much). So yeah it's nothing to worry about.

  • clanclan on 14/05/2014 - 11:20
    -4

    Blockey 2 hours 21 min ago

    I think overall it's like the PM said "Pain with a purpose".

    A purpose for what? …for the rich to get richer?

  • jto00 on 14/05/2014 - 11:24
    +6

    The indexation of HELP will affect me.

    The fuel excise will affect me. The revenues are supposed to go to improving roads, isn't this what car rego and revenues from fines is supposed to go to?

    I hate that governments create new items to pay for something which is already being paid for by something else!

    • Gil Gunderson on 16/05/2014 - 09:08

      @jto00 fines and rego is collected by state govt where as fuel excise is collected by federal govt. two different things

  • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 12:07
    +7

    Single, 30yrs, $65k/yr.

    • I have a condition which means I need 12 blood tests/yr + ~8 treatments(depending on the test results). According to this, the tests will now cost $57/test = $684/year + the cost of 8 treatments.
    • Petrol excise wont hit me too hard. My car gets 8L/100km, and I drive about 300km/week, so about $1.50/year.
    • As a Kiwi, I cant get any of the pension, disability or dole or education stuff.
    • Looking at buying a house next year, so the whole NBN & cuts in solar panels will definitely affect purchasing decisions.(especially as I live on the SSC, where good ADSL is scarce).

    Hopefully everyone will remember Tony from September last year when it comes to the next election: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN-hbWVXsyE

    • jzdhgkd on 14/05/2014 - 15:15

      FTA: "A trip to the doctor that results in a blood test and a prescription will burn a $56.70 hole"

      Sounds like that $56.70 is including this nameless "prescription" too. If you don't need the treatment that day it'd be $14 instead.

      Currently the max price for a script is $36.90 and assuming your treatment is a prescription item, the max you'll be out of pocket is an extra ~$20 per visit.

  • neonlight on 14/05/2014 - 12:31
    +3

    Slightly less to spend due to petrol levy and GP visit costs.

    Will defiantely stop impulsive purchases though. Will still look for bargains for necessities as always

    Point is consumer spending will be down, how is this any good? People will ahve less money in their pockets. retail is gonna be killed off

  • Love a bargain on 14/05/2014 - 12:52
    +3

    I don't abuse the health system. My current employer doesn't require a medical certificate for sick days. However, I developed some health issues about six months or so ago. Since then, it's been GP visit, tests, back to the GP for results, specialists visit, more tests, back to the GP again, etc (& I still haven't got a definitive diagnosis). That will costs me even more under the new budget than it already does (specialist visits and some tests aren't bulk-billed) if I have to pay $7 every time I check-in. I shouldn't have to think twice before seeking necessary medical attention.

    In addition, I also have some long-term problems that I pretty much manage myself but need to go into the doctor to get scripts from time to time. Doctors (or maybe just bulk-billed doctors) are generally reluctant to give me scripts for multiple qtys or repeats so I have to keep going back for a new script every so often. It doesn't bother me too much right now as it doesn't cost me anything (beside the time and trouble of getting there and waiting to be seen) but with the new co-payment, I'm gonna argue very hard with my doctor for more qty/repeats on each scripts and this is a conversation that a patient shouldn't have to have with their doctor.

    • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 12:59

      Good luck. $2 of the doctor visit tax goes straight to the GP.

    • one man clan on 14/05/2014 - 13:41
      +9

      A mate just had this happen to him (now with copayments):

      He is chronically tired and has generally no energy, with viral symptoms, so he went to his GP - $7.
      GP sent him off to get a blood test - $7.
      Back to GP for results; the pathologist only tested for vitamin D instead of everything -$7.
      Off to get more pathology - $7.
      Back to GP for proper results - $7.

      That's $35. It adds up very quickly. This is a young, generally healthy person with an unexplained medical condition. Universal healthcare is one of the fundamental pillars of Australian society and it makes me sad that it's getting torn up.

        • one man clan on 14/05/2014 - 14:35
          +22

          I'll be sure to tell him to let his doctor know that 'wholesaleturbos' said it sounds like he's just run down.

        • RockyRaccoon on 14/05/2014 - 15:54
          +1

          Keep in mind the other side of this equation

          GP sent him off to get a blood test - $7.
          Back to GP for results; the pathologist only tested for vitamin D instead of everything -$7.
          Off to get more pathology - $7.
          Back to GP for proper results - $7. $28 in total

          GP sent him off to get a blood test - $35 Bill to Govt.
          Back to GP for results; the pathologist only tested for vitamin D instead of everything -$45 Bill to Govt.
          Off to get more pathology - $45 Bill to Govt.
          Back to GP for proper results - $35 Bill to Govt.

          Total cost $160+28 = $188

          Now when he pays $7 like as in the second point, he will scream and get the Pathologist to retest properly
          Saving himself the $7 and the Govt $45

          Total Cost = $136

          Now that is money that can be better spent elsewhere, rather than in the pocket of the Pathologist who already earns in the higher brackets.

          Like all systems there are going to be some issues. Its never going to suit everyone in every circumstance

          The issue we all face is that sometimes people forget that those rorting the system eventually spoil it for others.

          this is not saying your friend did, but this wasnt implemented because of him, there are others who DO rort the system. While the ideologists say they are poor so let them do it, the reality is that those are taking from the ones in real need.

          Everyone who cheats the system cheats those in need even more than those who are not in need.

          Someone taking a free soup kitchen meal who doesnt need it means less for those who do.

          Unfortunately co payments are one way, and if you have a better way please mention it, to put some responsibility on all to make sure that what is needed is really needed.

          Just like Broden here would spoil it for many others by abusing deals that could be shared around.

        • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 16:20

          Nobody has been able to provide any figures on over servicing of GP visits, or how they will be affected by a $7 tax, $2 of which is a pay rise to the doctor.
          Those on health care cards don't pay the tax after 10 visits, so the tax only applies to those who use the system infrequently.
          What is it for again?

        • NosDan on 14/05/2014 - 17:09

          Now that is money that can be better spent elsewhere, rather than in the pocket of the Pathologist who already earns in the higher brackets.

          i agree, its much better put into the pockets of the poor media moguls (murdoch and co) and the poor starving mining magnates like reinhart rather than help out the people who are already living under the damn poverty line,

          damn freeloaders. you old people should have thought about that before you chose to get old/sick and force the rich elite to miss out on a bottle of $1000 wine once a year to pay for such petty things.. i dont know how you live with yourselves

        • WT on 15/05/2014 - 13:00

          Do that, and be sure to report back with his blood tests results and what the doc says

  • coolhead on 14/05/2014 - 13:18

    does anyone know From when is the Gp co-payment implemented? is it immediate?

    • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2014 - 13:37

      July 2015 mate.

      • mskeggs on 14/05/2014 - 14:56

        If it gets through the senate. I don't think it will, personally.

  • omghi on 14/05/2014 - 13:37
    +3

    Does anyone know if the changes of indexation to HECS/HELP loans is planned for new loans only or is it planned for existing loans too? If it is going to apply to existing loans is that something that could be challenged on legal grounds?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join