Federal Budget 2017 - Is It Fair?

Ghogger on 09/05/2017 - 20:26
Last edited 14/05/2017 - 10:33

Treasurer Scott Morrison has just delivered his second budget (or the first 'real' budget by some counts). Here's a summary from ABC Winners & Losers (http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017…)

Winners:

  • Primary and Secondary school students
  • Older people
  • Sydney
  • Farmers
  • Western Australia
  • Traditional broadcasters
  • First home buyers
  • Pharmaceutical consumers
  • Patients
  • NDIS

Neutral:

  • Defense
  • Small business

Losers:

  • Taxpayers
  • Big Banks
  • University students
  • Foreigners
  • Anti-vaxxers
  • Smokers
  • Welfare recipients
  • Superannuants
  • Foreign aid

I am interested to hear the opinion of my fellow ozbargainers. Do you think this is a fair budget or not, and why?

My initial thoughts:
Good: Banks getting charged a levy (although 0.06% is hardly groundbreaking), gonski funding, corporate tax rate decrease for small businesses (good in theory), NDIS fully funded, tobacco costs (any smoker in Australia can't call themselves a true ozbargainer, it's the worst value for money product in the country), banning advertising during live sports broadcasts

Bad: Using superannuation to put towards a housing deposit (this is absolutely crazy and will only increase the price of houses), University students to pay even more (already so expensive), cuts to foreign aid with simultaneous increases to defence

Poll Options

  • 5
    1. Very Fair
  • 160
    2. Fair
  • 43
    3. Neutral
  • 80
    4. Unfair
  • 38
    5. Very Unfair
  • 76
    6. Tax return should have option for coupon code
Financial Federal Budget

Related Stores

budget.gov.au
budget.gov.au

Comments

  • Peck on 11/05/2017 - 13:02

    Another Chance that politicians missed on Affordable Housing (Buying/renting).
    I suggest people watch http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2016/s4664559.htm for intelligent ways that it can be tackled.

  • smartazz104 on 11/05/2017 - 13:51

    Losers:

    Taxpayers

    That's a very specific description…

    • Peck on 11/05/2017 - 14:46

      Winners - Tax-minimisers. "The poor, they get the picture"

  • neonlight on 11/05/2017 - 15:00
    -4

    They completely forgot the booming property market is mostly due to foreign ownerships. Most rental is cash only, so this tax on what appears to be vacant does nothing and won't stop them from buying. Affects noone. This super deposit has capping annually, makes zero difference to most first home buyers.

    Make it compulsory that you cannot buy a home unless you are an Australian Citizen, do language tests and show you have Australian ideals. Also track their accounts that funds cannot be transferred to/from another overseas account. Else immediate ban on FIRB/applying for home loans or permanently ban purchase of any property for the rest of their lives, if someone local is purchasing on behalf of overseas investors or family members. Huge f%^&in loophole atm buying on behalf.

    Restrict further the amount of cash you can come in with at the airport customs. There's an underground/secret business people travelling in just to bring cash to buy properties. Fat cash cows would pay the middleman and get the cash it up in droves. I call this an exploit.

    This will prevent all purchases from overseas.

    The government won't do it because the stamp duties are well within their deep f$%^in pockets. The bust in property will create lots of job losses due to no more artificial prices on off plans and existing dwellings. However lots of construction are done by 457s workers.

    So they should abolish 457s all together

    The new temporary VISA does not help the childcare. Its just a money grabbing scheme. We need more schools and more childcare centres, and make childcare industry cheaper, more affordable, and boost the number of people working in that industry.

    Overall government should fix up their sh$%$ and get their act together! The damage is already done. There's nothing to make us on the budget surplus anymore.

    In addition to 2nd airport, fix the traffic congestion. We need subways in the main cities not more roads. And make frequencies higher not every 15-20mins. This will stop people hating your public transport for years to come.

    Putting more charges on Opal on crappy public transport doesn't help any body nor your medicare levies.

    You wonder why people don't take public transport, because lack the frequencies are low, inconvenient and costly.

  • jonathonsunshine on 11/05/2017 - 16:42
    -2

    Surprised Turnbull isn't building a wall to keep out the Kiwis. He's such a spineless slimebag. He could have been the first to denounce Trump after that phone call but instead he tore into Shorten.

    • gimli on 11/05/2017 - 21:13

      i've never seen a spined slimebag.

      Where do you suggest turnbull build this wall? FYI Turnbull built a wall to stop mexicans not kiwis

      Turnbull will make Austarlia great again and he doesn't need a wall to do that.

      • smartazz104 on 12/05/2017 - 07:29

        Turnbull will make Austarlia great again and he doesn't need a wall to do that.

        Well he needs policies but he doesn't have those either.

      • DrDollar on 13/05/2017 - 08:24

        Haha Turnballs is a sell out. Making Australia "reat again" will take a drastic change in politics in Australia. Turnballs is not the man who will make that happen. Unfortunately neither is Shorten…

        Having said that, my interpretation of "great again" is possibly very different from yours.

  • kiwimex on 11/05/2017 - 19:46
    +1

    What a great announcement right on ANZAC celebrations…..shaft the Kiwis yet again…….cant believe they tax the kiwis just like any other citizen yet fail to give them access to the same services any other tax payer has. long gone is the ANZAC spirit….slowing but surly being whittled away. Time for the Kiwi government to show some balls and stand up for equal rights as agreed years and years ago.

  • worrierwan on 11/05/2017 - 20:04
    +2

    Im happy with the bank tax. It was smart of the government to only tax the big 4 banks. If the banks decide to pass on the tax to customers, just move to another smaller bank.
    The increase fees for university are a pain but ill live with it i guess

    • Ghogger on 11/05/2017 - 20:11
      +2

      I agree with you. It is somewhat comparable to the mining 'super profits' tax.

      Banks have been increasing their profits at expontential rates much higher than GDP growth and inflation, time for them to make a greater contribution.

  • drillvoice on 11/05/2017 - 20:52

    The changes to HECS repayment rates are a big tax which falls disproportionately on lower-income earners. And unlike income tax, HECS repayments aren't marginal so they affect your whole income, not just income above a certain point. Check out https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/04/why-th…. The greatest increase in HECS repayments will be for those earning less.

    • dufflover on 12/05/2017 - 08:16
      +1

      I don't have access to the figures but I'm guessing if there weren't huge amounts of unpaid HECS they may not have had to bring in this change in the first place …

      Not a change I specifically agree with but calling it a tax is like me calling my home loan interest rate a tax hike - I'd be laughed off for calling it that.

    • mrjames on 12/05/2017 - 08:51

      At the same time it's good that the percentage is on a scale. This tax year I will get a 1k+ tax bill due to getting a marginal pay rise last month, this has taken me over the 54k limit and therefore my whole income this tax year will be treated as such.

      The old system was broken to a degree because of this.

  • dinvisible on 11/05/2017 - 21:06

    The Salary sacrificing is probably not enough but it will definitely be something i'll be looking into.

  • gimli on 11/05/2017 - 21:10

    if only the government used ozbargain to get cheap eneloops

  • Zonty on 11/05/2017 - 22:57
    +7

    I am not sure why need give Centrelink tax benefit for Family?
    If u make chaild you should have enough earn to grow them. School
    Must be free but support monthly giving 500 min to child support means 18 years that child will be liability for tax payers. And plus most of youth in Australia avoid get full time work so they can pay 0 tax and can get centre link support if they can. So more liability. I would wipe off all child tax benefit and simply provide free school.

    • Ghogger on 11/05/2017 - 23:09
      +1

      Well said

    • Perumal on 11/05/2017 - 23:15
      +1

      Cant agree more

    • dufflover on 12/05/2017 - 08:18

      I would wipe off all child tax benefit and simply provide free school.

      Cos it doesn't win votes.
      Remember when Labor changed the schools allowance thingy where you can claim school expenses, but it must've been oh so hard to keep receipts (I have to do it weekly for business expenses, it ain't hard) that they just turned it into a lump sum with the aptly named marketing tag of "#cashforyou"

      Much like the opposition to the basics card and similar.

    • FW190 on 12/05/2017 - 14:37

      it wins them votes, and projects that image that they care about children, win/win.

      sucks if you don't have kids and have to subsidise it on their behalf

    • DrDollar on 13/05/2017 - 08:33
      +2

      Don't forget though, we need to make sure our younger population continues to grow, or you are a nation living on borrowed time whether you like it or not.

      We need to ensure there are jobs for young people and ensure the future prospects for quality of life are adequate enough for young people to see merit in working their whole lives.

      If you begin to send a message to to young people that they will need a degree, that costs more than ever, but is worth less than ever and that they need to (generally) live in a big city to use it where houses are not affordable, young people will play the cards they've been dealt. They would be silly not to.

      If you are going to cut family tax benefits, you need to offer an alternative incentive to ensure having kids is still economically viable for families, or births in Australia may dwindle. That's bad! Very bad.

  • edy4eva on 11/05/2017 - 23:59
    +5

    Surprised at those who voted anything positive. This is a budget which undervalues citizenship and citizens rights, and over values spreadsheets and hollow election slogans.

    It is a slap in the face of families, especially low-middle/single income ones who are struggling with either a mortgage repayment or trying to save for a home. Slap in the face of teenagers eyeing a uni degree. Slap in the face to everyone who uses Medicare - So what are we supposed now to further subsidise the government's outrageous subsidy to private health insurance companies?

    The biggest losers are the politco pinheads spinning this as a Hail Mary and a necessary evil to save guard Australia's future or to 'balance' the budget (as if it was tightrope walking). Their attempt at propaganda is laughable.

    Most surprised that people aren't already rallying demanding a dissolution/ new elections over this.

    • DemocracyManifest on 12/05/2017 - 00:12
      +1

      Honestly there's nothing been worth rallying over. In the grand scheme of things it's the same Sh!t over and over again. I'm barely managing to keep a roof over our heads, underemployed with no changes in sight

    • joeno on 12/05/2017 - 09:13
      -1

      I'm against all these economic opportunists from India coming here as well. However how does this budget undermine citizenship rights? 457 and countries like Indonesia who want to leech off our coffers, are the losers.

  • Cluster on 12/05/2017 - 12:14
    +3

    I don't like paying extra tax (who does!?), but the extra 0.5% Medicare levy is fine with me if it secures the immediate to long term future of Medicare.

    We really don't know how good we have it here. Diagnosed with cancer and need an operation? Taxpayers will pay for it within a couple of weeks. Should you get the same diagnosis in the USA and are poor or have no insurance through your employer, well… do you have a spare $20k kicking about? No? Okay, try your luck at a charity hospital. They may give you the treatment. Maybe. Good luck!

  • Brianqpr on 12/05/2017 - 12:28
    +5

    We are paying for years of short term thinking. When times were good, caused by a resources boom that had to end sometime, Peter Costello and others handed out tax cuts and concessions life confetti. Yet he is hailed by some as some kind of economic genius? Smart economics would be to bank some of the boom time returns for harder times which will inevitably come. Far easier to give things away and buy votes though.

    The government now is forced to revenue raise as boom time gains were squandered. The tax on banks is not a bad thing, but neither was Labor's mining tax they screamed and cried about so much. Both target highly profitable industries for a cash grab, interesting that the Libs think it is ok now but wasn't then.

    They are also in damage control after Abbott's budget PR disaster and have taken on Labor style policies to appease voters. The Medicare co-payment was shouted down, quite righly in my view as $7 would soon have become a lot more once it got over the line. Think of Opal card hikes and health fund premiums for examples. The new levy at least spreads the cost more fairly, but I can't help thinking how good Medicare might be if all the money being ploughed into private health funds by both government and ordinary people was used to improve the public system for all. Who really thinks health funds are even remotely worth the money paid for them?

    The first home owners thing is simply pathetic. They are too scared to tackle the things that might actually improve affordability, negative gearing and CGT concessions, and once more resprt to a scheme that puts more money (alhtough not a lot more) in the hands of potential buyers, all of whom are after the same limited supply of property. You don't have to be a math genius to work out that any effect on prices will be to increase them.

    • Ghogger on 12/05/2017 - 15:03

      100% agree with you

    • tsunamisurfer on 12/05/2017 - 16:40
      -1

      Those tax cuts were not unreasonable.

      The budget was in surplus, good revenue was already coming in and spending was in control.

      During those times incomes were growing rapidly, the government wanted to reduce the impact of bracket creep taxation. It was the right thing to to. I do not want to pay 48.5% on income above $70k.

      It was the next government coming in and spending all the surplus and then some causing this huge deficit, granted some of it was needed like injecting economic activity to stave off the GFC recession but much of it was given out as useless hand outs, eg. $900 handout.

      • buckster on 12/05/2017 - 19:53
        +1

        When times are good you invest the money into infrastructure and a means of insulating against a downturn in the economy.

        Ignore that and fast forward and we have large levels of national debt, household debt, and very few signs of anyone in power in parliament being capable of boosting revenue.

      • pais on 14/05/2017 - 22:48

        It was the next government coming in and spending all the surplus and then some causing this huge deficit…

        The structural deficit was setup by Howard's middle/high income tax breaks that were implemented late in his term, but didn't come into effect until after he was out of office. Yep.. That's exactly what you need heading into a global recession. It was just throwing money to win votes; there was no long term planning or infrastructure being built (au contrair - we sold most of what we did own).

        I won't even touch the notion that the stimulus package was "useless hand outs". How many OECD and IMF studies have there been endorsing our approach. It's remarkable that the only people who are against it globally seem to work for The Australian, arguing in against increased consumption and the early restoration of consumer and business confidence. The fiscal multipliers for the approach should speak for themselves.

    • burningrage on 12/05/2017 - 17:37

      You must remember about 10yrs ago aus had no net debt. What more do you want? If you have no debt yourself it is only right to spend or in the context of govt, return some to taxpayers right?

      • Brianqpr on 12/05/2017 - 18:41
        +1

        Based on a boom in one industry, obviously unsustainable, that had to end sometime. No forward thinking, just tax cuts to win votes. How about spending it on much needed infrastructure? Or preparation for life after the mining boom? There are plenty of more useful things that could have been done with the revenue.

        Tax cuts are welcome, but too much was gievn away. The 2007 changes to superannuation and age pension thresholds being particularly poor and now reversed.

        The GFC spending was, in hindsight, possibly misguided. However, pretty much everyone in my area of work, finance, thought it was a good idea at the time. It didn't get nearly as bad here as feared, again because of boom conditions in one industry, not through any cleverness of government.

        • burningrage on 12/05/2017 - 19:52

          WA invested in massive infrastructure on cheap debt. Now its a ghost town….

          So it doesnt always work.

          And people werent that grateful were they?

        • Brianqpr on 13/05/2017 - 18:16

          A state whose economy depends on mining, that's why its a ghost town.

  • FW190 on 12/05/2017 - 14:28
    +1

    personally, as a SINK and earning less then 6 figures, I have stopped expecting to get anything out of the federal budgets a long time ago, I will only cross my fingers that I won't be screwed any further.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/05/2017 - 15:55

    Every budget has been the same to me. Successfully tax me more, and use that money to help people who do not contribute or to send it overseas so the pollies can feel good about themselves.

  • burningrage on 12/05/2017 - 17:35

    I just feel many commenters in this forum think about whats in for me but neglecting the fact that the nation has over 500b debt.

    Soon or later people whos working hard and keep being taxed and taxed again will soon give up and either leave or just dont work.

    Its already disincentive at present to work given you lose benefit once you are certain threshold.

    So this budget doesnt address how the debt is going to be paid given over 50% of pops now dont pay net tax.

    Recall 10yrs ago aus had no net debt…

    • Ghogger on 12/05/2017 - 17:47
      +2

      Ask an economist, debt is not as evil as it sounds. Household debt comes from non-productive consumption whereas productive government debt increases wealth over time. I know there is currently a lot of political banter over good debt vs bad debt, but the theory is not wrong.

      • burningrage on 12/05/2017 - 18:28

        Disagree. I have mortgage on my house that i want to dearly kill. Its like having an albatros on my neck. With that extra money from saved interest i could have lived less stressful life not worrying about banks doing its d**k up on interest rate at any time.

        There is no such thing as good debt. It depends on how you use debts. It doesnt make it good. Its just wise use of debt.

        Edit: the only good debt is one you dont have to pay back. As long as i have to pay back i wouldnt call it good debt.

        • burningrage on 12/05/2017 - 19:48

          @Gozzhogger:

          I studied economics too. John Maynard Keynes, father of economics.

          Thats what KRudd did and i dont think it worked…

        • Ghogger on 13/05/2017 - 21:16
          +1

          You are conflating household debt with public debt, they are different things. Good debt is debt that you incur while making a profit over and above the interest rates.

          For example:
          The government borrows money to build a solar farm, and then that solar farm creates jobs and an income from the energy it produces over and above the interest being paid, the government has made profit from that debt. This is good debt since that profit is unattainable without the debt being incurred.

          Productive debt is good debt, since it should be paid back in productivity increases and other profits over time

    • edy4eva on 12/05/2017 - 22:56
      -1

      Not true. The Aus Gov has had debt forever. 10 years ago it was $58b.

      When John Howard stepped down - after losing that unforgettable election he misled the public by saying to KR: we're handing the country to you debt free.

      The public sector debt means nothing as long it's tied to no-interest loans. The moment the gov borrows with interest know that programs will have to be cut to fund the interest payback.

      A government with a surplus is a myth.

      • burningrage on 12/05/2017 - 23:00
        -3

        Sorry, you are mistaken. Australia did have zero net debt about 10 years ago.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_government_debt

        Australia's net government debt as percentage of GDP in June 2014 was 17%, much lower than most developed countries.[15] In December 2014 the MYEFO statement forecast that the net government debt at June 2015 would be $244.836 billion (an increase of $18.4 billion over the 2014 budget forecast).[14] It was expected to be $278.8 billion (16.9% of GDP) in June 2016, and was projected to peak at 18.5% of GDP in 2017/18, before declining over the medium term to 9.6% of GDP ($263 billion) in 2025/26.[16] The net government debt was zero in the 2006/07 year, the first time in three decades, from a peak of 18.5% of GDP ($96 billion) in 1995/96.[17]

        and from the budget paper. http://www.budget.gov.au/2006-07/overview/html/overview_06.h…

        • edy4eva on 13/05/2017 - 02:45

          Sorry, but my reading is accurate.

          There's a huge difference between debt and net debt.

          The gov always has debt- and a growing one.

          Net debt indicates the total owed against held assets/cash. It is like having a mortgage and one day you get enough cash to pay off the mortgage - but you don't. Then the next day you spend it. On that first day, it is valid to say, net debt is nil but it is only a temporary standing and a cashwash (similar to greenwashing) given you know that the next day that offset will be spent.

          And since you're referring to that wiki page, have a look at the column to the right and you shall see that in 2007, $58b+ in debt.

        • burningrage on 13/05/2017 - 09:28

          [@edy4eva](/comment/468310k 684/redir):

          Appreciate your reply. I specifically refer to net debt in all of my posts above.

          If i have a mortgage of $1m and term deposit of $1m, I wouldnt call myself to be in debt. My net debt is zero.

          In any case gross debt of 56b is better than where we are now. The interest is crippling.

          Think of it like you and me. That interest could have been used for something else. Also… you worry less about interest rates going up which is the trend right now.

          After loaning for nearly 20years i finally understand why my dad keep saying dont cover yourself in debt. It creates stress of its own. Unhealthy.

          My point is soon or later that national debt will cripple us especially when many of that money used to pay welfare… an unproductive spend (sustenance spending instead of spending money to make money)

        • edy4eva on 13/05/2017 - 10:39
          +1

          @burningrage:

          Social security and welfare does make the largest component of the gov spend but the second largest spend is on government services itself.

          That gov spend is the most substantial spend if you take into consideration the number of people that benefit from it (not merely function).

          Welfare spend is not unproductive spend, because the bulk of the welfare money is injected back into the economy on essentials (food/accommodation/training/education).

          If the government was serious about protecting the basic rights, they would look into ways to reduce gov spend substantially - not trim the edges, instead of targeting education and health.

        • burningrage on 13/05/2017 - 10:48

          @edy4eva:

          Finally we have something to agree on.

  • drfuzzy on 12/05/2017 - 18:09
    +1

    Go where you are treated best.
    Go where your money is treated best.
    If taxes are high, wages are low, housing is unaffordable, and government services are poor then it is time to move.

    • Ghogger on 12/05/2017 - 18:21
      +7

      Australia may not be perfect, but I think it's going to be hard finding somewhere better to live.

      Australia's problems are really 'first world problems' compared to what a majority of countries face - it just needs some tweaking, to which we should all contribute rather than abandon ship.

      As much as I might complain about Australia, it's still one of the best countries in the world to live in, and we are all truly lucky to live here.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/05/2017 - 08:12
        -1

        truly lucky, you're naive lol

        • Ghogger on 13/05/2017 - 16:09
          +1

          I've travelled to over 50 countries, I've seen how crappy they all can be in comparison to the quality of life in Australia. Australia is a paradise in comparison. Minimum wage is well above the OECD average, and on it I was able to live and save money quite easily working full-time. Most people even in Europe struggle working on their respective (low) minimum wages.

      • burningrage on 13/05/2017 - 09:30

        Normally i would agree with you. However if people start paying 50 to 60% in tax (which is what Labor is wanting 49.5% plus 10% gst) then Asia would soon appear lucrative.

        This is my opinion. I would hate to see that happen.

        • Ghogger on 13/05/2017 - 16:12

          Would you really want to live in Asia just for a lower tax rate? The reason it's lower is because their public services are not as good. If you want nice things, you gotta pay for them.

        • burningrage on 13/05/2017 - 16:41

          @Gozzhogger:
          A friend of mine used to say if you are building your wealth go to Aus but once you are established in terms of wealth, go to asia as your dollar has more mileage there and taxation is low.

          There are lots of pensioners live in thai simply because their dollar goes further and very low taxation.

          I dont condone this practice but can see the appeal of it.

          To be honest i am beginning to understand why people do that. When you have wealth, aus govt is very keen to take it from you via taxation, levy (temporary budget levy for example), or reduced subsidy (means testing) but your tax burden increases due to progressive taxation.

          Think about it for one second and see if it makes sense. Not suggesting anything but just a point of discussion

        • burningrage on 21/05/2017 - 08:53

          @burningrage:

          Here's an article about what taxation.

          http://www.heraldsun.com.au/moneysaverhq/how-australians-inc…

    • Tyrx on 14/05/2017 - 15:11
      +1

      If taxes are high

      Our aggregate tax burden is actually relatively low when compared to most other countries in the OCED. It's one of the reasons why Australia is considered a low taxing and low welfare country by OECD standards.

  • belongsinforums on 12/05/2017 - 21:00

    just get a job that pays more ahaha le memes XD

    • db87 on 13/05/2017 - 07:27

      https://youtu.be/nZMwKPmsbWE

      Please tell me you are referring to this. Hahaha

      • belongsinforums on 13/05/2017 - 08:10
        -1

        I'm referring to users here referencing Joe Hockey, thinking they're original

        • belongsinforums on 13/05/2017 - 10:34

          @Gerbil: Why did the chicken cross the road?

        • belongsinforums on 13/05/2017 - 10:43

          @Gerbil: to get to the other side! bet you didn't see that coming

        • db87 on 13/05/2017 - 10:46

          @tomkun01:

          Yeah I get that reference, I was picking up on the le meme bit, but I'm assuming that was a typo. Either way, watch the video. Still relative to this day! Have a laugh on me. thumbs up

      • belongsinforums on 13/05/2017 - 11:55

        Watched it. Don't get it

  • Brucet on 12/05/2017 - 22:36

    Australia need to change government because we have too many stupid POLITICIANS in both party.

  • cnrmlj on 13/05/2017 - 11:43

    Big banks are not the losers. They will simply increase home loan interest rates or fees, decrease savings interest rates or reduce profit which will then flow through to lower superannuation fund returns as most super funds hold bank stocks. Its a tax on everyday australians, not on the banks.

  • Martian on 13/05/2017 - 12:27

    There are other minor changes which I think can be consider clever.
    One I heard in the radio this morning is the removal of investment related travel claim (to investment properties) which has been hugely abused by many property investors.

    • FW190 on 13/05/2017 - 13:10

      which has been hugely abused by many property investors.

      and I think the pollies are at the forefront of it

      • Kommyht on 13/05/2017 - 23:18

        Cutting travel deductions to visit properties is a dud initiative IMO. Nothing but something to fill in a dot point which might otherwise go towards other cuts that people actually want (like abolishing CGT discount). Having good property management agents = never needing to physically visit your investment prop, particularly when they're all in the same city you live in

  • Freshie on 13/05/2017 - 22:53

    Well I'm in Uni + get Youth Allowance and have minimal issues with the budget, despite being a "loser".
    I'm not happy with all changes (that directly effect me) by any means, but I definitely accept them. The HECS minimum salary threshold I have no issues with, but the ~3000$ increase in fees will be a bit of a pain.
    I think steadying the budget is important. And making sure taxpayer money doesn't support someone on welfare's substance addiction is also important. If 2/3 of the budget goes to welfare, you'd hope that it's not an avenue of abuse and you'd hope people use their allowance with responsibility… But based on information I've seen, I really doubt, but still hope there'd be more money saved than not.

  • Ultramup on 14/05/2017 - 01:04
    -1

    Taxing big banks is extremely flawed.

    It was the strength of the banks that kept us from going under during the gfc.

    A large number of Australians hold bank shares either directly or indirectly (through super funds).

    To keep shareholders happy the costs of the tax will be passed on one way or another.

    It's a lose lose for every day Australians.

    Politicians need to be have longer term performance measures rather than just a 4 year measure. The strength of the banking system translates to the strength of the Australian economy.

    • Ghogger on 14/05/2017 - 01:13

      Banks have been getting filthy rich from the mining and housing booms, there's definitely no threat of them 'going under' anytime soon.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2017 - 11:34

        In what world are you living? What boom will they rely on to address delinquent mortgage repayments? It's game over. They will be bailed out or nationalised.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/05/2017 - 11:30

    Doesn't benefit first homebuyers. They will now be the ones stuck with the most debt once the bubble pops while others who already own several will find it no biggy.

  • cheapisgood on 14/05/2017 - 14:44

    Politicians are getting worse every day. Turnbull time is up.

  • SimpleLeverage on 14/05/2017 - 17:52
    +2

    I thought 0.06% levy on banks is a really interesting proposition.

    The Big 4 banks benefit from the Australia's AAA rating more than the regional banks as they have implicit support from the Government due to their size (if Australia was downgraded, it is likely the Big 4 banks will be downgraded too which might result in their funding costs going up). As such, it would seem reasonable for the Big 4 banks to contribute to maintaining Australia's AAA rating through the levy.

    However, the follow on impacts will likely be complicated and it is hard to say who would benefit or lose out the most.

    1. Maybe mortgage rates will rise, but that will also slow down the rise in house prices, benefiting people currently waiting to buy property.
    2. Maybe Mom & Dad term deposits rates will rise (they are exempt from the levy), benefiting savers and pensioners.
    3. Maybe banks will get more creative with their product offering (perhaps charging differently based on LVR, in addition to the current differences in investor and interest only loans), benefiting different segments of borrowers.
    4. Maybe banks will work more efficiently in the way they structure their balance sheet, which could potentially reduce their credit risk, benefiting bondholders and shareholders.

    Interested to see what other people think could happen, given this is likely to get passed?

  • Seraphin7 on 15/05/2017 - 09:56

    When the first mentioned loser is "taxpayers" you know this is a government that has completely lost its way.

    The opposite side of this must mean that those who don't pay tax are the winners.

    Here we have a supposedly conservative government basically saying "we are disincentivising those who are out there paying for all the services enjoyed by the community in favour of those who simply consume these services without making any contribution".

    All of this is simply playing into Soundbite Shorten's hands. And from there it will be red ink on the national accounts as far as the eye can see. That said, it's hard to see it being any different with Turncoat Turnbull and Sellout Scott running the show.

    • ggkfc on 19/05/2017 - 10:56

      Pretty much go own your own business and you're a chump paying for the welfare class

  • Kommyht on 15/05/2017 - 13:31

    Found this nugget:
    https://www.choice.com.au/about-us/from-our-ceo/2017/house-r…

    60% CGT discount (currently its 50%) if:
    - you landlords rent to tenants on low/minimum incomes
    - own the place for 3 years plus
    - let a community housing organisation handle property management (have my doubts about competence here vs a real estate agency)

    If this is true, the Fed Budget is trying to bribe investors to take on low income earners. More CGT discounts, Interesting.

  • Brucet on 17/05/2017 - 15:40

    Better than FAT HOCKEY.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join