Federal Budget Suggestions to Fight Rising Costs of Living?

xdigger on 12/01/2023 - 13:33
Last edited 12/01/2023 - 15:18 by 1 other user

ABC article today stating what we already know, that middle income Aussies like OzBargainers are having it hard keeping up with ever increasing costs of living and looking for more bargains on this site.

At the same time, we are losing our universal free healthcare in Australia as GPs quit bulk-billing and Emergency Departments wait times blow out post-pandemic (with deaths recorded in ambulances outside EDs due to long ED wait times). Some healthcare workers I've spoken to also think we are slowly being led towards the expensive model of American healthcare system.

Get set to pay more at the GP as doctors warn bulk-billing system will collapse without major Medicare overhaul

Federal government previously committed to funding almost HALF a billion on free bulk-billing urgent care centres throughout Australia but seemed to have cold feet from stumping up the cash to pay for them.

However, this extra half-billion promised funding looks paltry when compared to the ADDITIONAL hundreds of billions that they are committing to buy AUKUS nuclear submarines and nuclear bombers to fund USA's proxy war against China (and possibly turning Australia into a future battleground like Ukraine.)

Defence spend to skyrocket- 15 Oct 2022The cost of a new fleet of nuclear submarines is believed to be well in excess of 100 billion dollars, and there are concerns about defence budget increases.

U.S. military agreement setting Australia up as launching pad for war with long-range nuclear bombers.

Morrison accused of provoking 'nuclear confrontation' with China.

I know there are opposing Federal budget priorities, Defence, healthcare/education, paying for the tens of billions of Covid Jobkeeper money given by LNP to profitable companies, etc.

But what is the Albanese government currently doing to help everyday tax-paying Australians to battle increasing costs of living issues? What else can be done? All constructive comments are welcome.

Poll Options expired

  • 36
    Lower income taxes for 99.99% of Aussies + increase taxes on mining BILLIONAIRES eg Gina Reinhart.
  • 4
    Increase taxes for all working Aussies
  • 55
    Cut Defence budget on aggressive nuclear weapons (nuclear submarines, nuclear bombers)
  • 2
    Cut Medicare funding for bulk billing GPs
  • 17
    Cut Centrelink/NDIS welfare
  • 2
    Cut tertiary education funding for our youth and future (TAFE/universities)
  • 7
    Others (have your say below )
Financial

Comments

  • SF3 on 12/01/2023 - 13:39
    +1

    Seems we are at particular stage of the feedback loop, a zero sum game.

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 12/01/2023 - 13:42
    +1

    Cough
    Australia-France submarine deal

  • Benoffie on 12/01/2023 - 13:50
    +27

    Slash private health funding, private school funding, and indigenous funding and put up the Medicare levy for a start.

    I believe there was a Senate report a few years back (happy for someone to locate it or correct me) that shows if the billions spent on the private health rebate was put into Medicare, we wouldn't need private health and Medicare wouldn't be collapsing.

    We can't keep throwing money at current systems hoping that they will magically right themselves or to tax the daylights out of others when we haven't cleaned up the poor spending and systems set up by successive governments (and I'm talking 30-40 years worth).

    • brendanm on 12/01/2023 - 15:45
      +12

      Add NDIS funding to that list, most of it only goes into the pockets of the grubs not providing services, and the poor consumers get diddly squat.

      • Benoffie on 12/01/2023 - 15:53
        +7

        Absolutely. As a person who has a child with NDIS funding, the entire thing is a scam and doesn't actually deliver the services clients want for the prices that they should be provided for.

      • SBOB on 12/01/2023 - 15:54
        +5

        wouldn't the fix then not to be just slash the funding, but implement funding reform to ensure the funding is utilised effectively.

        • brendanm on 12/01/2023 - 18:17
          +5

          Spend more money, to pay people to hold the hands of all the unscrupulous "providers"? The entire thing should be scrapped as it sits, and it should be run the same as any other public health service, rather than let every dodgy man and his dog suckle at the taxpayer teat while leaving people who really need help in a terrible position.

          You would think that they would have learnt from all their other failed "farming out the job to unqualified people" attempts.

    • leiiv on 14/01/2023 - 00:39

      And to top it up, Medicare should also be run professionally to compete with all the other PHI.
      That means an option to include private hospitals (minimal wait time) and extras (dental etc) for a competitively priced premium.

      • Benoffie on 14/01/2023 - 01:46
        +1

        Ideally it would be like the Danish system. Dental included and 98% of all medical public.

    • Toph Beifong on 18/01/2023 - 02:14

      Aah so this is why doctors and related health professionals drive Mercs and live in expensive houses

      • leiiv on 18/01/2023 - 10:33

        SOME are, just like with any other occupations. Most artists are dirt poor, few live like a billionaire.

  • Slinky0111 on 12/01/2023 - 13:54
    -1

    SlavOz is that you ?

  • GG57 on 12/01/2023 - 13:59
    +14

    Apply a sensible level of resource tax, similar to the level that Norway has. I understand it to be a 78% tax rate on income. Our Minerals Resource Rent Tax is only 22.5%, and only on profits.

    Then, allocate those funds to the areas of health care, housing, etc.; certainly not on Defence.

    • Stopback on 12/01/2023 - 14:11
      +2

      certainly not on Defence.

      Did you want aus to be the next Ukraine

      • xdigger on 12/01/2023 - 14:21
        +2

        Don't you think Australia might become more of a nuclear target if we host offensive nuclear weapons instead of defensive weapons, whether they belong to USA or Australia? China would want to take out nuclear targets capable of striking their own cities at the outset of war. I will not want to live in Darwin where the current USA nuclear bombers base is because they will be the first capital city to get bombed to take out those USA nuclear bombers first.

        Paradoxically I think its more likely for us to become the next Ukraine/Vietnam/Korea/Syria and a proxy warring country under the USA, if we host nuclear weapons rather than not.

        • hueylewis on 13/01/2023 - 09:25
          +1

          we already are a nuclear target. we have been since the 1950's

        • sakurashu on 18/01/2023 - 12:47
          -1

          You're suggesting to not have great relationships with world powers where our cultures and systems of government align and instead be basically defenceless as a country with a tiny population and heaps of natural resources?

          If I was China that sounds perfect - take over easily and painlessly and reap all of the natural resources/land that Australia has to offer

      • GG57 on 12/01/2023 - 15:03

        Can you expand on which country you think will invade Australia, and why?

        • tdst-taboo on 12/01/2023 - 17:26

          Political climates change. Why would them replying to you with an answer for today be relevant at all for the next 20-30yrs?

    • xdigger on 12/01/2023 - 14:12
      +9

      Agreed. Mining companies and individuals like Gina Reinhart have gotten away from getting the majority of Australia's wealth for decades just digging up dirt from the ground, when it should benefit ALL Australians not just a few of the politically-connected elites.

      I think the reason this was allowed is in Australia as opposed to the more sensible Norwegian system is because they are allowed to fund policy thinktanks like Institute of Public Affairs to sway government policies to continue the status quo.

  • tsunamisurfer on 12/01/2023 - 14:23
    -6

    Do not increase welfare. It is already extremely high.

    Do not increase public service wages more than a 1-3% . They aren't going anywhere.

    People need to learn to budget better. For under $20 I can cook TWO meals for a family of four.

    If rent is expensive, share with other people. Live further out. Live in undesirable areas.

    Do not expect the taxpayers of Australia to fund your life. Taxes are already extraordinarily high.

    • boomramada on 12/01/2023 - 14:39
      +6

      Do not increase public service wages more than a 1-3% . They aren't going anywhere.

      Thats like broad range of services, some of their wages are lower than industry standard and too hard to back fill, hence some offices has to hire contractors with x3 pay to do the same job.

      They aren't going anywhere.

      They leave and come back as contractor and get paid around $200/hr

      • Benoffie on 12/01/2023 - 15:25
        +5

        Yes, it's another one of the great cons we've been sold re the public service. As a teacher, I can't get permanency to save myself (and be paid the standard annual salary). But they're all happy to employ me daily (at a rate of $580 a day before tax) or on short term contracts (with 25% loading).

        Teachers aren't going anywhere - but how we choose to engage public servants is costing us billions.

    • HelpMeiCantSee on 13/01/2023 - 13:10
      +3

      Dude, you try surviving with 2 (young) kids on $1000 a fortnight. It certainly isn’t high. Especially if you have to pay for rent as well!

  • Richmond Tigers on 12/01/2023 - 14:28
    +8

    Bring back decent solar rebates and feed in tariff to ween off huge electricity hikes.

    Subsidise children's sport better, its usually the first thing to drop off when spending cuts in families need to be made.

    Abolish tax breaks and funding for churches, redirect money into literally anything.

    Make work from home he new norm, drive regional development and force house prices down (and rental prices).

    • brendanm on 12/01/2023 - 15:46
      +4

      Abolish tax breaks and funding for churches, redirect money into literally anything.

      đź‘Ť

  • ThithLord on 12/01/2023 - 14:33
    +13

    Negative Gearing and Franking credits didn't make the cut?

    • xdigger on 12/01/2023 - 14:36

      Thanks for your suggestion, ozbargainers are free to upvote your comment. I intend for this to be a democratic vote among the Ozbargain community.

    • brendanm on 12/01/2023 - 18:26
      +6

      Negative gearing just for houses, or for shares etc as well?

      Franking credits

      Why should they be taxed twice?

      • Grunntt on 13/01/2023 - 10:05

        Negative Gearing and Franking credits didn't make the cut?
        Why should they be taxed twice?

        Because people who throw in the phrase 'franking credits' don't have a clue how it actually operates but are pleased with themselves to be able to broadcast an opinion.

        • ThithLord on 13/01/2023 - 11:38

          We get it, you don't know how to rotate a PDF

      • ThithLord on 13/01/2023 - 10:14

        Negative gearing just for houses, or for shares etc as well?

        Start with housing.

        Franking credits

        Why should they be taxed twice?

        They shouldn't. It needs to be aligned with reducing your tax burden to 0, but no refunds after that. When the Keating Government introduced Dividend Imputation you could reduce your tax bill to zero. Howard enabled tax refunds so people whose tax bill was reduced to zero could then receive tax refunds after that.

        Original Dividend Imputation: Company pays tax, individual shareholder does not pay tax again. You can reduce your tax burden to 0
        Howard enabled Imputation (and you're retired with no taxable income): The company's tax is refunded to the shareholder. That's not avoiding double taxation; that's avoiding taxation altogether.

        • brendanm on 13/01/2023 - 10:32

          You can't just start with housing. You either have negative gearing, or scrap it all together. A reasonable thing, would be to limit negative gearing to one investment property. Though this would likely only put off a few people, as there would likely be many ways to get around that.

          • ThithLord on 13/01/2023 - 10:35

            @brendanm: OK - sure, look at NG in its entirety.

            Limiting it to one property would be a great start, that's for sure.

            A reasonable thing, would be to limit negative gearing to one investment property. Though this would likely only put off a few people, as there would likely be many ways to get around that.

            It's a start, but wealthy people are good at creating new entities and trusts etc to obscure their holdings for tax benefits. Vicious cycle

          • SBOB on 13/01/2023 - 11:47
            +2

            @brendanm:

            You either have negative gearing, or scrap it all together

            Why, we have differing tax rules for different industries/sectors as it is? Different fuel subsidies for mining etc, different investment tax rules for investing into forestry etc
            Why couldn't aspects of negative gearing be applied differently to differing investment areas/classes also?

        • sakurashu on 18/01/2023 - 12:51

          Why do you think reducing your tax burden below 0 to receive a refund is bad?
          The tax has already been paid at the franked percentage at corporate rates - why shouldn't someone who has a low enough income tax rate reap the benefits of this? You have to be pretty poor to be paying tax at a rate lower than this to receive the refund?

          I'm not convinced it's the retired people earning sfa that I'd be going for haha

  • payless69 on 12/01/2023 - 14:49
    -6

    Ask Hunter Biden, he has all the answers?

    • GG57 on 12/01/2023 - 15:05
      +2

      Who?

    • ThithLord on 13/01/2023 - 10:14
      +1

      Why didn't somebody think of the laptop!!

  • Ghost47 on 12/01/2023 - 14:50
    +13

    Hmm so you’re saying we need more money huh?

    Here’s an option OzBargainers will hate: Get rid of negative gearing. How many property investors are paying less tax in the form of negative gearing, whilst at the same time benefitting from huge increases in property prices? They have their cake and are eating it too, literally defying the laws of the known universe. Negative gearing is basically welfare for rich people lol.

    Most of the increase in COL is largely driven by housing, rent (which regrettably the current government in power isn’t doing jack about because they’re opening the immigration floodgates) and company profits. Companies are literally screwing people over with price increases under the guise of supply chain issues and raking in record profits at the same time, probably also hiring cheap labour that’s FOB. They probably aren’t paying their fair share of tax either.

    There is huge anti-China sentiment growing in Australia and the West in general (it’s arguable it’s always been like that to be honest) thanks to the MSM so nah, let’s throw money at those subs anyway.

    COL pressures experienced now are largely man-made, thanks to the previous LNP government handouts and RBA who held rates stupidly low to stimulate economic growth (but only ended up stimulating house prices because Straya).

    • ThithLord on 12/01/2023 - 15:47
      +1

      There's a great video by the Australia Institute(6mins) if you're not sure.

    • orangetrain on 12/01/2023 - 21:21
      +2

      Correct. Cost of living is mostly due to house prices. We didn't just suddenly get cost of living issues with the corporate greed last year. Lets assume you're a cafe owner and the costs are roughly this:

      • Commercial rent: 30% (Don't pay? Get evicted)

      • Wages: 30% (Don't pay? People quit or refuse to join)

      — Those wages need to pay 30% of their income in rent/mortgage (Don't pay? Get evicted)

      — They also need to afford local businesses raising their prices (Don't pay? Starve!)

      • Supplies: 30% (Don't pay? Get nothing!)

      — Also, the truckie needs to pay rent/mortgage/food (Don't pay? Get evicted). The owner of the warehouse also needs to pay rent/mortgage (Don't pay? Get evicted).

      When house prices rise? All of these costs go up to match it! When it goes down? Holy shit, everything is way more affordable!

      For you parents or expecting parents, your kids may be grateful that you left them a free house but they can not afford the local prices and will suffer. Very low cost of housing will actually support their future, not high property prices.

      School funding, minerals, church taxes, mega corporations not paying tax, etc are red a herring with cost of living solutions.

      I drive by empty grass plots every day around the Sydney region. I looked up how much one cost as maybe I could create a new dwelling for maybe 700k and hoped the land costs 500k? NOPE. It's only a 10% discount to a $1.5M nearby house with $1.35M for same land size despite being empty. Why build a new house when I could save a lot with an existing house!

      It's ridiculous how empty grass plots are speculative investments! Tax empty land. Hard. Sadly, in NSW, the government is willing to encourage empty grass plots to be more lucrative with waiving tax on them.

    • hueylewis on 13/01/2023 - 09:29

      'anti chinese sentiment thanks to the msm.' not anti chinese, anti CCP, the 90 million who control the 1.5 billion and treat them like slaves and put them in concentration camps and screw us on trade. why do you think the ccp has a bigger navy than the usa's navy?

    • leiiv on 14/01/2023 - 00:47

      Hmm so you’re saying we need more money huh?

      No, we need prices/economies to be rebalanced. If cost of living always increases more than wage, over the decades, where does the difference go?

  • xdigger on 12/01/2023 - 14:56
    +2

    Just had another thought. How about we keep the current amount of $50 billion/year of Defence budget but scrap the upcoming $100s billion nuclear submarines deal, split the $100s of billion saved (or more) into:
    $30 billion for Medicare to recruit more bulk billing GPs and ED nurses/doctors and build more regional hospitals,
    $30 billion to eliminate all Australians tertiary education HECS debt for the next decade,
    $20 billion for social housing Australia-wide.
    $10 billion for incubating new green technologies to combat climate change AND preventing the next pandemic.

    And the leftover $10 billion surplus in case the LNP takes over again the next General Election.

    • GG57 on 12/01/2023 - 15:08
      +2

      I'm ok with that, with the addition that the current $50b/year Defence budget transitions to something that prepares for, and reacts to, major devastation events like fires, flooding, cyclones, etc. As an example, how the Defence resources are currently assisting in northern WA.
      I know the current government is working on that but the budget, resourcing and infrastructure largely exists already.

    • Vulgar on 12/01/2023 - 16:00
      -1

      I'd rather just cut down the length of university before we talk about making it free and forgiving debt. A standard 3 year commerce degree can be completed in 1 if you take the introductory 1st year courses, electives and 2nd major out.

      • Grunntt on 13/01/2023 - 10:12

        I'd rather just cut down the length of university before we talk about making it free and forgiving debt. A standard 3 year commerce degree can be completed in 1 if you take the introductory 1st year courses, electives and 2nd major out.

        Maybe just remove most of the content to make it even easier to walk out of a university earlier with a degree that means you know even less than now.

  • outlander on 12/01/2023 - 15:15
    +7

    Cut Centrelink/NDIS welfare

    Guess kicking down is back in fashion.

    • Ghost47 on 12/01/2023 - 15:18
      +3

      Back in fashion? I thought it always was!

    • Richmond Tigers on 12/01/2023 - 15:23
      +3

      EvEryoNe On CeNtReLiNk Is A bLuDgEr!!!!!!

    • ThithLord on 12/01/2023 - 15:48
      +6

      Hopefully OP takes issue with Corporate Welfare. They didn't make mention of the rort-of-the-century that was Job-Keeper, hmm

  • ESEMCE on 12/01/2023 - 15:53
    +4

    Close the tax loopholes that allow megacorporations to siphon money overseas and pay no/minimal tax.
    Ditto to closing the tax loopholes that are just Middle/High Income Welfare (ie negative gearing on existing property)

  • Vulgar on 12/01/2023 - 15:55
    +2

    I would be ok with increasing the mining tax as mining companies can't just get a better deal elsewhere like they can with setting up manufacturing plants. Would also like cuts in some areas like foreign aid, corporate subsidies, defence spending (especially our new subs).

    Would be ok with the RBA being more aggresive in raising rates despite the short-term pain it inflicts.

  • GordonD on 12/01/2023 - 16:04

    The problem is the economists.

    The Reserve Bank was only given one lever to pull to control inflation. The interest rate lever.

    In this case however the inflation isn't being caused by domestic factors that increasing interest rates can fix, but international factors. Higher Australian interest rates won't end the war in Ukraine. So pushing up interest rates just further punishes people who have huge mortgages that are the result of the economists previously mismanaging the economy and pushing up house prices to ruinous levels. Like telling the government to throw billions in "compensation" at the community when it couldn't spend it because of covid lockdowns.

    We won't fix the economy until we line all the economists up against the wall and shoot the lot of them. We thought it was the lawyers that we'd have to do that to, but as it has turned out the economists have caused far more damage.

    • freefall101 on 12/01/2023 - 16:49
      +2

      I expected a lot of varied responses in this thread but I really wasn't expecting the Pol Pot solution.

    • leiiv on 14/01/2023 - 00:53
      +2

      I think you aimed your gun at the wrong people. Few economists have power to create policies or affect markets. The ones who do are likely to also be politicians, bankers, capitalists, etc.

  • Drakesy on 12/01/2023 - 16:07
    +15

    Hokay,
    Lets not forget a big portion of the erosion of services and funding has occured over the last decade while a certain party was in power.
    This coupled with tax breaks towards anyone with houses/investments set up the middle and lower middle class for failure, don't get me started about the z gens and millenials (they're screwed).

    Thankfully the current government has realised that the free money party could not continue and are working hard to bring it back in line. Having said that we wouldn't be in this position if policy and the RBA had put all their eggs in the same Pump and dump that is the real estate industry.

    If we're going to pull money from somewhere put it on people earning >$250k as they likely have enough investments to not notice a small dent in their income. And tax property investors on the 2nd investment property including getting rid of negative gearing. (You can have your PPOR and 1 investment but anything above that is taxed heavily.)
    Oh and Airbnb taxation.

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 12/01/2023 - 16:17

      including getting rid of negative gearing

      Say it once more for those in the back!

      • ThithLord on 12/01/2023 - 16:38
        +2

        it once more for those in the back!

    • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2023 - 17:01

      2nd investment property Is what kills it for everyone else, agree, tax the hell out of it.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2023 - 16:27
    +2

    Its all went to hell with covid support, printed money raised inflation, which raised grocery and other prices, but not salary. Stop printing money and prices should drop. Make milk $1 again! My uneducated theory, lol. Voted the kill welfare option.

    • GG57 on 12/01/2023 - 16:32
      +1

      You forgot to mention that (some) company profits increased…but not salaries.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2023 - 16:33
        +1

        This is non-fixable, not under gov control.

        • GG57 on 12/01/2023 - 16:34

          Certainly not directly, but government can recommend for minimum wage increases and prosecute for wage theft.

          • brendanm on 12/01/2023 - 18:28

            @GG57:

            minimum wage increases

            $22 an hour for a completely unskilled job sweeping floors etc is not high enough? Continually increasing minimum wage causes inflation as well.

            • brendanm on 13/01/2023 - 07:50
              +1

              @brendanm: Would love the negger to put forward their argument for why a non skilled job is worth more than that?

  • PissLUR on 12/01/2023 - 17:21

    print more money

  • Loot N Plunder on 12/01/2023 - 18:25
    +8

    start right here >> https://michaelwest.com.au/top-40-tax-dodgers-2022/
    Implement a Mineral wealth tax
    Cut all funding to private health, private schools, religions
    Tax religion
    Stop negative gearing, franking credits
    No more Cayman Islands type registered businesses
    Remove politicians cars except the PM
    Go back to jobs on boards not this corrupt employment service we have now
    Instant asset write-off only to Australian made stuff
    All Governments to use only Australian labour, businesses, products

    • payless69 on 12/01/2023 - 21:29

      Mr Pell is gone but religion is still not taxed.

  • orangetrain on 12/01/2023 - 21:57

    Lower income taxes for 99.99% of Aussies + increase taxes on mining BILLIONAIRES eg Gina Reinhart.

    If people can get a property with say extra 50% on top from government, then people will spend more on housing. This will lead to higher worker's rents. Higher commercial rents. Eventually leading to higher cost of living.

    Increase taxes for all working Aussies

    Technically, this will lower cost of living but make people poorer too ;)

    Cut random gov spending

    I am not sure how this will improve cost of living?

    Other (by albo)

    Look at how much an empty property costs with zero mortgage. Cost is like $1000 per year to council rates while it goes up by ~10x more in valuations. Why rent it out when it's still profitable??

    What I think Federal government can do? Vacancy tax. ATO only needs to collect land valuations from each state then ask on owner tax returns for PPOR or the lease income which can be any number between 0 to infinity. No enforcement needed. Pay either income tax or vacancy tax for the year. Simples

    Solves empty land/property banking/hoarding. Doesn't penalise first home owners (with increasing interest rates) or those who are leasing out properties or those with holiday homes (which are likely rented out 350 days of the year which will actually stay empty if holiday homes get banned!).

  • jman10 on 13/01/2023 - 09:21
    -2

    The government could probably help by focusing on solutions for the cost of living crisis rather than the so called "voice" to parliament which is inherently racist

  • Ugly on 13/01/2023 - 11:12
    -2

    increase taxes on mining BILLIONAIRES

    There are only around 40 billionaires in Australia.
    Even if you increase the tax rate on all of the billionaires to 99% it would make almost no difference.

  • Stoozer on 13/01/2023 - 11:28
    -4

    You missed lowering RBA interest rates, increaseing rates increases inflation and rewards people who already have money. Unfortunately the RBA has the accelerator and brake pedals mixed up.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join