The Federal Budget 2025 Thoughts?

Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 10:50
Last edited 26/03/2025 - 15:06

The 2025 Australian federal budget, delivered by Treasurer Jim Chalmers, outlines significant measures aimed at addressing cost-of-living pressures, healthcare, housing, and economic growth. Here's a detailed breakdown:

Tax Cuts

  • A $17 billion tax relief package is the centerpiece of the budget.
  • The tax rate for the $18,201-$45,000 income bracket will be reduced from 16% to 15% in 2026-27, and further to 14% in 2027-28.
  • This translates to a $268 tax cut in 2026-27 and $536 in 2027-28 for individuals in this bracket.

Healthcare

  • An $8.5 billion boost to Medicare aims to expand bulk billing and improve access to healthcare services.
  • Additional funding is allocated for women's health initiatives, including specialist clinics for conditions like endometriosis.

Housing

  • The "Help to Buy" scheme is expanded, enabling more first-home buyers to access government contributions towards their homes.
  • Investments are made to increase affordable housing options.

Energy Relief

  • Households and businesses will receive an additional $150 in energy bill relief, continuing efforts to mitigate rising energy costs.

Education

  • Free TAFE places are being expanded to enhance workforce skills and readiness.
  • Specific funding is allocated for educational initiatives in Western Australia, including support for First Nations students and upgrades to educational facilities.

Public Service and Infrastructure

  • The Australian Public Service (APS) sees significant changes, including the creation of new roles and reductions in outsourcing costs.
  • Major infrastructure projects include upgrades to the Kwinana Freeway in Western Australia and investments in regional road infrastructure.

Deficit and Economic Outlook

  • The budget projects a $42.1 billion deficit for the 2025-26 financial year, with deficits forecasted for subsequent years.
  • Real wages are expected to grow by 0.5% by the end of the current financial year, and GDP growth is forecasted at 2.25% for 2025-26.

This budget reflects the government's focus on balancing immediate cost-of-living relief with long-term economic sustainability.

https://budget.gov.au/

Poll thoughts on the budget

(Assuming someone doesn't beat me too it I'll post another forum on the Federal budget reply after it is released)

Poll Options

  • 149
    Very Poor
  • 14
    Poor
  • 44
    Average
  • 207
    Good
  • 10
    Very Good
Financial Federal Budget

Comments

    • Baysew on 26/03/2025 - 12:07
      +13

      I'm still waiting for some pollies to have the guts to start taxing exported resources

      Kevin Rudd got gutted when he tried.

      • ThithLord on 26/03/2025 - 12:33
        +3

        Basically, Labor are told they need to fall on sword harder for a populace that hate them anyway. Defies logic, doesn't it?

        • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 13:46
          +2

          He got gutted by the mining industry, not the ALP.

      • wetsandwich on 26/03/2025 - 14:22
        -2

        All they had to do was do it after they got voted in, instead of waiting 3 years, doing nothing, and then say 'we might do some stuff if you give us another term'..

        • ThithLord on 26/03/2025 - 15:52
          +3

          I beg your pardon - have you been completely ignoring the Future Made in Australia? The HAFF? Record investment in TAFE? Fee-Free TAFE?

          Labor delivered two budget surpluses straight out the gate. QLD Labor just lost their election after providing three budget surpluses in a row.

          Not sure if you realise, but Australia is the only country in the OECD that has a 15% mandatory tax on corporations earning over $1.3B?

          Stage 3 Tax Cuts was a nothing-burger for you, huh? You must be in a pretty high tax bracket.

      • furyou on 28/03/2025 - 22:13

        yep what happened with that? I only remember lots of talk, then delayed so much we got nothing and the mining boom finished

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 12:13
      +1

      I'm still waiting for some pollies to have the guts to start taxing exported resources at a level comparable to Norway, to get a decent sovereign wealth fund balance.

      id have no issue in an additional tax to exported resources it would encourage businesses to keep minerals here

      However this would be seen as a sort of 'tarriff' as the cost would ultimately be passed on to the consumer - Australia has a long history of being a 'free trade' nation which has mostly benefited us - if we do this we might find nations start adding 'taxes' on things we import (or more so) ie cars, cloths etc

      People like to compare us to Denmark but there are differences we import a lot more then they do simply because we are an island nation far away

      the U.S is about to find out that no one wins with Tarriffs (although i agree with Reciprocal tarrifs as this levels the play field and ultimately results in universal free trade)

      But i do agree mining isnt tax correctly in Australia - i am a big supporter of mining but in the end of the day those minerals belong to Australia

      • tenpercent on 26/03/2025 - 12:42
        +6

        The government should have an equity stake in all mining/oil/gas projects. Saudi Aramco is the right model to copy.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 12:56
          +1

          The government should have an equity stake in all mining/oil/gas projects. Saudi Aramco is the right model to copy.

          I agree

    • Benoffie on 26/03/2025 - 12:16

      Always looking for this, never comes.

    • ThithLord on 26/03/2025 - 12:30
      +3

      I'm still waiting for some pollies to have the guts to start taxing exported resources at a level comparable to Norway, to get a decent sovereign wealth fund balance.

      Hard for a Labor government to do this, when:
      1. Every time they do, they get rolled
      2. the LNP, whom have been in power for 70% of Australia's existence, are extremely friendly to the Mining sector siphoning off profits overseas.

      • Baysew on 26/03/2025 - 12:37

        Gina says no.

      • tenpercent on 26/03/2025 - 12:49

        Better yet let's adopt the Saudi Aramco model of doing things. Government has equity stake in all mining/gas/oil projects. Let the companies/projects be run independently just with the Government (and by virtue of that, the citizens formerly known as taxpayers) as the major shareholder.

        • ThithLord on 26/03/2025 - 12:51
          +1

          That would be the dream, but incredibly impossible in a democracy - something similar was actually put forward by an LNP PM in the late 60s, I believe! He basically said "we won't interfere with your operations, just let us run our own Government Mining Operations" but he still got rolled for that by his own party

          • DashCam AKA Rolts on 26/03/2025 - 13:20
            +8

            @ThithLord: Every government bail out should be in return for shares in the company, dollar for dollar based on company's capital value. Shares held at arms length from government of the day, in an arrangement like P.S. Superannuation funds.

    • Kayrhcp on 27/03/2025 - 09:38

      Any labour govt that does that will get skewered alive. No liberal government would ever do it

    • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 10:17
      -1

      We're a wealthy country. We shouldn't need income tax if we managed our resources better.

  • Benoffie on 26/03/2025 - 11:59
    -7

    There shouldn't be tax cuts. Fundamental waste of money.

    Also, pet projects like focusing on endometriosis - it's the new breast cancer and ignores a plethora of other gynaecological issues, many of which are more impactful and have virtually no Medicare funding.

    More energy relief after approving price hikes and no solutions around stabilising or nationalising grid.

    We have been in a recession for some time, only hidden by migration. This is all going to end badly and when a budget that requires coming down hard to correct this, that will get the blame.

    • Gdsamp on 26/03/2025 - 12:29

      Nah per capita recession repealed as of the Dec 24 quarter

      SOFT LANDING !

      • Benoffie on 26/03/2025 - 12:58
        +3

        Lol governments love imported economy.

        This time I think the mismanagement is gonna hurt

    • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 13:52
      +5

      1) Tax cuts are fine as long as you're collecting the revenue to replace them somewhere else. You cannot "WASTE" money in an economy either. It doesn't disappear.
      2) We can do both, so I think you're missing the mark and criticising a government specifically addressing a common medical condition because it's not something else.
      3) There are no "solutions" to energy - it's not going to be fixed overnight. We're in the middle of a transition and there will be more pain.
      4) wtf are you on about. "Recession" is a specific term used by economists with a strict definition which you are not using.

      • Benoffie on 26/03/2025 - 14:09
        -1

        Tax cuts are not fine.

        We just had multiple rounds. Tax cuts need to serve a purpose. Addressing inappropriate tax brackets or increasing the tax free threshold are more solid, long term changes. But meaningless tax cuts specifically aimed at a voter base heading into an election which doesn't demonstrably impact on mortgages or groceries is just dumb. That money can be spent elsewhere. 16% > 14%?? Why? I mean, why aren't we looking at flat 20% up to $120k or similar?

        I have no issue with endo. I have issue with pet projects and flavours of the month. This is a 'squeaky wheel' scenario that fails to address the overall inadequacies of Medicare funding for women's and reproductive health in general. Heaven forbid if your a teenage girl suffering from menorrhagia, fibroids and PCOS. Medicare is not there for you and the PBS doesnt appropriately cover necessary devices. Where's the funding for that?

        Energy - the solution their offering is paying taxpayer money to corporations and telling voters they got relief. Great policy.

        I understand what a Recession is. My point was that the governments (both majors have been guilty of it) have fudged the data to pull us away from a 4th Q Recession. However, the reality - not GDP but consumers, ASIC insolvency etc, doesnt lie.

        There's nothing in this budget to save businesses or to try and minimise the debt. And that's going to make the next few years painful.

        🔮 Inheritance tax and Super tax changes with claims it has to be done to compensate for the debt.

        • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 14:33
          +2

          I don't get it - you want a flat tax system but you're complaining about the cost of living? I don't think you understand how tax actually works. A flat tax rate is regressive.

          From above: You now earn $100 and I earn $1000. Tax takes 50% of our earnings. You now have $50 and I have $500. Who's going to have trouble eating? Is that fair?

          How about if we tax 30% up to $500 and 75% beyond that (i.e. progressive, bracket system like most of the world has)?

          You now have $70 and I have $475! But the tax take is the same (well similar, slightly more in fact) and everyone can eat.

          2) I thought so - you've got specific complaints about things not being funded.. which is how things get funded. There were a bunch of people who went to the government and said "Fund Endo!!" And they did. You could try that too. You may wish to also consider which party consistently tries to trash Medicare, one of the most popular polices around, because "socialised" anything is bad according to them (fair enough - I don't agree but it's a valid position).

          3) Energy - got a better solution? This is what happens when you play moronic culture war "this is coal" games 10 years ago while experts are being ignored.

          4) Multigenerational wealth tax is the quickest way to get unelected. Ask the LNP - they ran that scare campaign on Shorten and made it political poison.

          • Benoffie on 26/03/2025 - 15:22
            +1

            @foursaken: Never said flat tax rate.

            Great to see pandering to lobbyists should dictate policies and health spending 👏

            Energy solutions were and are there. Renewables and certainly 100% of them, making domestic markets pay international prices and no sovereign reserves is just dumb, ignoring gold plated networks foreign owned and in SA, causing blackouts due to salt and bats - achieving nothing but sky-rocketing price increases with no discernible benefits to consumers

            ALP and Greens both have multigenerational wealth taxes as policies and have for years. Recent communiques have them finalising thresholds of Super taxes on withdrawal ($500k sub, $500k+). It should concern everyone that massive debts are being incurred but the payment for it hasnt fundamentally changed. I just want to know where the gotcha is.

      • tenpercent on 26/03/2025 - 14:38
        -3

        You cannot "WASTE" money in an economy either.

        Pink batts.

        • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 14:45
          -2

          Oh god.

          Government has $$ —-> Pink batts idea. $$ —-> tradies installing pink batts $$ ——> wages of which % goes… back to the government in taxes. Tradies spend $$ on stubbies and food, government taxes more, those businesses pay their workers, who pay more taxes, and around we go. Even if the world get NOTHING out of the pink batts program (which it did by the way and the fact you're still hanging onto this when people like Angus Taylor literally shit all over environmental laws for personal gain in a way that is completely FOI'able is amaze to me. See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/14/company-….) then tradies still got jobs, people got paid, beer got drunk, etc.

          It's a CYCLE. Money isn't destroyed IN AN ECONOMY. It flows from person to business to person and the government takes a slice everywhere allowing them to spend money again.

          As a government, if I want to SLOW the cycle, I don't spend as much OVER TIME, and if I want to SPEED it, I spend more OVER TIME, but the money doesn't disappear, it's never "wasted". The government can also simply print money too, so government finances are really nothing like yours or mine. You and I can waste money. A government cannot because that money ultimately employs people who then give it back to you in tax.

          • tenpercent on 26/03/2025 - 14:54

            @foursaken: Your understanding of "waste" is a little wonky.

            The example I gave was a wasteful use of taxpayers' money. Tradies and pink batt companies already had plenty of disposable income so some not insignificant amount of that WELFARE money was never going to be spent/consumed in your cycle.

            Alternative scenario ——> give the same amount of total money out except give it to the lowest earners and the majority of it would not only have been spent but the impact of the spend would have had a greater marginal impact on quality of life these recipients vs tradies and pink batt companies. i.e. Less wasteful fiscally and socially.

            • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 15:10
              +1

              @tenpercent: Waste implies loss. There's no loss in your example. No money is lost or wasted. You're making an ethical or moral judgement about the "best" use of money. That's nothing to do with economics and the two topics are oil and water. Both are valid things on their own, though.

              Secondly the plan obviously had objectives. It didn't fall out of the sky and get implemented. You're also telling porkies when you say tradies etc were fine. Pink Batts was a scheme to primarily employ tradies and stimulate economic output while increasing the slow uptake of retrofitted insultation. There was nothing wrong with the plan, but the implementation was poor. It was implemented far too quickly and in a far too unregulated manner which always leads to poor behaviour as people bash each other to suck at the government teat. But as I pointed out, this money that you say was "wasted" made its way back to the government bank account via taxes, etc. So it didn't disappear, it flowed.

              I'd agree that this, overall, was an inefficient use of resources. But I don't agree with your alternative suggestion which has greater implications than simply "give money to the poor people". You're suggesting taking a few billion dollars and increasing welfare with it - the difference is a welfare increase is a consistent increase and not a one-off have-some-insulation stimulus.

              I don't have an issue with increasing welfare, but it's not a one-off payment. We have to ensure a revenue increase to ensure an outgoings increase, or we'll end up in structural deficit (as we are now in where we spend more money than we make consistently).

              Also, I think its' important to point out that this year the budget spend is $730 BILLION dollars or $730,000 million. Pink bats was part of the HIP package which cost about $2 billion, and designed to kickstart the building industry, which it did..

              • tenpercent on 26/03/2025 - 15:24

                @foursaken:

                You're making an ethical or moral judgement about the "best" use of money. That's nothing to do with economics and the two topics are oil and water.

                Where did you study economics? Ask for a refund. Economics is the study of choices.

                But as I pointed out, this money that you say was "wasted" made its way back to the government bank account via taxes, etc. So it didn't disappear, it flowed.

                As I pointed out, a not insignifcant amount of the government teat sucking would have ended up just sitting in savings accounts of people/businesses who already had plenty of disposable income.

                I'd agree that this, overall, was an inefficient use of resources.

                Another way to say "an inefficient use of resources" is "a wasteful use of resources" or "a wasted opportunity/ies to achieve a larger multiplier effect for the same spend and thus stimulate the economic even more".

                You're suggesting taking a few billion dollars and increasing welfare with it - the difference is a welfare increase is a consistent increase and not a one-off have-some-insulation stimulus.

                No. There is no reason it could not have been a one-off distribution like a special dividend. It could be a one-off tax offset via the ATO (perhaps a one-time increase in the low income tax offset - that would save on bureacratic expenses to implement it) or a one-off payment via Centrelink. That's just two ways it could be easily distributed as a one-off measure.

                • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 15:29
                  +1

                  @tenpercent: 1) The stated purpose of the program was NOTHING to do with what you're suggesting and the economic data that's freely Googleable really doesn't support your point, but you do you. Maybe don't believe EVERYTHING the LNP tell you eh

                  2) See above.

                  3) See above.

                  4) Sure.

                  I wont be discussing your revisionist history further.

                  • tenpercent on 26/03/2025 - 15:31
                    +1

                    @foursaken:

                    1) The stated purpose of the program was NOTHING to do with what you're suggesting

                    Yes. I know. Hence:

                    wasted opportunity/ies

          • Gdsamp on 26/03/2025 - 15:27
            -2

            @foursaken:

            Money isn't destroyed IN AN ECONOMY

            Physical currency can be destroyed due to wear and tear or other reasons.

  • LanceVance on 26/03/2025 - 12:03
    +7

    The managed decline of our nation continues.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 12:21
      +6

      We need to completely change the system - I agree but no one has the balls to do it

      the answer isnt 'tax' every business making money more the answer is create and environment to allow more businesses to rise up and make money

      The question is how do we do that, as any change and push for innovation will require $$$ and the country is broke and getting broker and the states are broke (Bar W.A) and are getting broker

      Personally speaking i would get rid of all income tax and have a high consuption tax like Monaco or UAE but that is just me - working people should not be taxed for working hard you should be encouraged to do so but i know im in the minority

      • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 10:23
        -1

        We're a minority, but we aren't wrong

  • Bruceflix on 26/03/2025 - 12:14
    +4

    I think it's cute that the government thinks it'll get $7b from cigarette revenue

    • 87percent on 26/03/2025 - 12:27
      +6

      to be fair, they only need to sell like 100 packets to make that

      • Bruceflix on 26/03/2025 - 12:29
        +2

        Yeah, i think now i'd need to pass 100 black market tobacco shops before i could get to a store that sells legit smokes.

    • WillKillfor5Cents on 27/03/2025 - 17:36

      Yep, I know plenty of smokers around me who have sadly opted for those 'illicit' tobaccos which cost half or less the full RRP. Even at that price, the crime gangs are still making a motza? Given they wage war with each others. Margins must be bloody good still.

      Seriously, you are spot on. Bloody cute!

      • gyrex on 27/03/2025 - 23:00

        They're buying the packets for probably less than $1 each and selling them for $10-15 each - mark-up unheard of for nearly every other business.

  • Cluster on 26/03/2025 - 12:17
    +3

    The tax cut is welcome, and will lead to more economic activity (and thus collected taxes in turn), but wouldn't it be better to put the tax cut money into trying to restore a budget surplus? Deficits just build the interest payments we all have to pay in the future. This isn't a Labor/Coalition ideological difference: Interest payments don't care who is in power.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 12:20
      +3

      Im not going to bag the ALP because the LNP did the exact samething but you are correct we are funding a cut with debt which we will ultimately pay more interest on which will result in more debt

      I'd rather the brackets indexed

      • Gdsamp on 26/03/2025 - 12:28

        I'd rather the brackets indexed

        Treasurers don't

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 12:29

          if course it is a 'fairer' system governments job is to rip off workers/businesses as much as possible

        • ajr5k on 27/03/2025 - 16:01
          +1

          Then they wouldn't be able to pretend that they are giving you a tax cut, when in reality your tax burden increases every year due to a lack of indexation.

    • ThithLord on 26/03/2025 - 12:34
      +3

      The tax cut is welcome, and will lead to more economic activity (and thus collected taxes in turn), but wouldn't it be better to put the tax cut money into trying to restore a budget surplus?

      Wall-to-wall coverage of a Cost of Living crisis, they will get flamed either way. They got absolutely zero kudos for the last two budget surpluses, it was swiftly forgotten how important a budget surplus is as soon as Labor achieved it.

    • ginormousgiraffe on 26/03/2025 - 13:09

      It's a lot of money to pay back, but the government can just inflate it away. The interest the taxpayers are paying on it is effectively the gov bond rate minus inflation, which is a lot closer to 0 than people think because they are fixated on private loans.

      Our current bond rate is around 4.5% with inflation being 2.5-3% the value of the interest paid is only a couple percent, surely the government can get a better ROI than 2%

    • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 14:52
      +3

      Sorry, not how that works. Surplus means the government has met its debt requirements, NOT that it's paying it off. Also completely ignores the fact that most governments are mostly in deficit for a reason. tldr; more complicated than you think.

  • ginormousgiraffe on 26/03/2025 - 13:03
    +5

    The additional funding to Medicare to make bulk billing more accessible is fantastic and will also reduce pressure on our hospitals. Tax cuts for all working Australians is also nice to see. On the surface level a lot of the rest is just fine.

    • tenpercent on 26/03/2025 - 14:44

      The additional funding to Medicare

      Is just extra welfare money for a relatively greedy segment of the top 10% of earners.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 15:01
        +5

        I support the additional funding to medicare

        I will argue there is too much medicare funding for GPs and not enough for Allied and mental health

        Health care is a holistic approch - the current medicare system is a system is based on an out dated medical model

        • tenpercent on 26/03/2025 - 15:06
          +1

          I will argue there is too much medicare funding for GPs and not enough for Allied and mental health

          I can agree with that.

          GPs as gatekeepers to access allied or mental health services is an incredibly wasteful model and wasteful use of taxpayer money (@foursaken).

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 15:08
            +3

            @tenpercent: Im in Allied Health the amount of people who simply cant afford mental and Allied Health support is crazy so they end up just trashing the GP taking various drugs to manage their illnesses

          • Benoffie on 26/03/2025 - 15:35
            +3

            @tenpercent: GP visits for chronic conditions to receive referrals to specialists and medications where a review has been conducted in the last 5 years (and not medically necessary) is a cash grab.

            No well managed asthmatic, diabetic or oldie with cholesterol should be forced into a GP room simply to say 'yeah mate, give me my scripts'

    • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 10:30
      -1

      They bring medicare to the brink of collapse, then promise to throw money at it to restore it to were it was.

      All I see is "we've done nothing well, but let us we buy another chance".

  • DingoBilly on 26/03/2025 - 13:06

    Decent.

    Not the best, not the worst. Basically do as little as possible to upset people while doing the smallest possible things that give benefits to people.

  • Shadowsfury on 26/03/2025 - 13:19
    +3

    Thank you for the post chatGPT

    Usual vote buying prior to an imminent election

    • SpainKing on 26/03/2025 - 17:21

      I don't get all these accusations of vote buying I see thrown around. The government is meant to pass/fund initiatives and policies that make the people happy while not destroying the economy with ones that would be overly popular and impossible to take back (such as making every day a public holiday, or negative gearing). Are they meant to spend the money on things nobody supports? Do the other parties not do the exact same thing coming up to elections when they declare their budgets and make their "promises"?

      • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 10:32
        +4

        my question is why didn't they do any of these things? Why wait until you're about to be kicked out, then tell us what you woudl do if you get another chance

        • SpainKing on 27/03/2025 - 18:12

          Were you making this argument in bad faith or did you not hear about any of the things the government has done over the past couple of years?

          Your answer would be: they have done many of these things already; things take time to be developed/thought of/examined for knock-on effects; there's an annual limit on how much the government can spend without ruining the country; you need new policies and ideas to encourage people to vote for you

          An $8.5 billion boost to Medicare aims to expand bulk billing and improve access to healthcare services.

          Bulk billing incentives have already been tripled this term. One million additional free GP consultations have already been delivered. 84 urgent care clinics have been opened, with three more set before the end of the financial year

          The "Help to Buy" scheme is expanded, enabling more first-home buyers to access government contributions towards their homes

          Investments are made to increase affordable housing options.

          They passed legislation for the Help to Buy scheme already. The budget seeks to expand that. They have invested $10 billion for social and affordable housing. Dutton would cut investment by $19 billion

          Households and businesses will receive an additional $150 in energy bill relief, continuing efforts to mitigate rising energy costs.

          The key word is "additional". They already have a $300 energy rebate. Mitigating rising energy costs is being done through investment in renewables

          Free TAFE places are being expanded to enhance workforce skills and readiness.

          Key word, "expanded"

          The Australian Public Service (APS) sees significant changes, including the creation of new roles and reductions in outsourcing costs

          1 million new jobs already created (most of any first term government). I'm sure some were in the public sector.

          Major infrastructure projects include upgrades to the Kwinana Freeway in Western Australia and investments in regional road infrastructure.

          They've already invested big money in major infrastructure projects. I've seen roads being worked on driving down to camping spots in multiple places

          Real wages are expected to grow by 0.5% by the end of the current financial year, and GDP growth is forecasted at 2.25% for 2025-26.

          Real wages increased by 3.75% already. GDP up 0.6% for December 2024 Quarter (seasonally adjusted)

          • tenpercent on 27/03/2025 - 20:59

            @SpainKing:

            One million additional free GP consultations

            Really? GPs donated ~250 thousand hours (assuming 15 mins per consultation) of their time for nothing in return? How very generous of them.

            • SpainKing on 27/03/2025 - 22:56
              -1

              @tenpercent: Sorry, I thought the previous sentence stating bulk billing would provide the necessary context to infer that they are free to the patient, not that they are being provided gratis by the doctor. Hope that clears things up

              • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 10:23
                +1

                @SpainKing: Are you assuming all patients are below the income tax-free threshold?

                • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 14:44

                  @tenpercent: No, but those taxes are going to be taken and put into Medicare (or somewhere else) regardless. The point of Medicare is to aggregate our funds to help those in medical need without exorbitant medical fees like in America. This keeps them healthy and productive for longer, so they can contribute back to the economy and live fulfilling lives. Why are you being difficult?

                  • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 14:56

                    @SpainKing: So it's not free then?

                    I get the point of Medicare and I support the idea of it. Even though I haven't personally made use of it for the 8 years up until last week. I think there is massive waste (e.g. paying GPs as gatekeepers to access other services) that can be returned to taxpayers in the form of lower taxes or better access to bulk billed specialists, allied and mental health care services.

                    • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 15:09

                      @tenpercent: As I specified earlier, free to the patient. They don't raise your income tax if you go to the doctor's office 3 times a week. You may have to pay a Medicare levy surcharge if you don't get private health insurance, but this isn't influenced by how many times you visit the doctor so net cost to the patient receiving care = $0

                      Glad you got some medical care for whatever was wrong, if you're in Australia into your twilight years you'll likely be making use of it a lot more. There is massive waste via the gatekeeping, and I like your idea regarding bulk billed specialists etc. We have the third best healthcare system in the world and it would be nice to take that #1 spot, but I'm still happy with it for the most part (cough dental)

                      • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 15:16
                        +1

                        @SpainKing: The other way to improve access to specialists is to train more of them. But the AMA and colleges have very tight control over that and don't want to increase the supply of specialists because it would threaten the growth trajectory of their personal future earnings.

                        • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 15:26
                          +1

                          @tenpercent: They do make the spots unnecessarily limited, but I think it does help increase the chance that the specialists you go to are some of the best possible. It may also have a negative impact, as the lack of competition may make them complacent

                          Specialists don't often get in to the field for their innate desire to help others and look at urethras all day, it's for the money and the prestige, so I can understand why it's going to be very hard to change that and hope we figure out a solution some day

          • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 11:00

            @SpainKing: You can't be serious. Bulkbilling is all but dead. I'm the only non-pensioner I know who is still bulkbilled, but I had to swap doctors twice and travel to another town to achieve it.

            If bulk billing incentives have tripled, whilst services zeroing, this government has very poor incentives. But wait, they've got one up thier sleeve that will bring bulkbilling back from near 0% to 90%, but they won't implement that one unless we give them another chance. Sure.

            • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 14:51
              +1

              @SlickMick: Anecdotal evidence is the strongest form of evidence. My close family and I have been using a bulk billed doctor for 9/10 of our medical visits throughout our lives

              Services aren't zeroing, 77.3% of all GP visits are bulk billed. You've got preconceived notions that you aren't willing to let go of or do the necessary research to change because you'd rather rely on your anecdotal evidence

              • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 16:52

                @SpainKing: No, facts > anecdotes any day of the week.

                In any case, "throughout your life" totally skews the figures. Medicare used to bill 100% in my experience, now, without hunting down a clinic that still bulkbills anyone but pensioners, it's 0%.

                Why is your hero promising to get it back to 90% if it's already there? You're such a fanboi you're going beyond his own statements.

                I don't deny that bulk billing still exists. Like I said, I just have to travel 30 minutes to the next town. Anyone living in that town obviously has access to bulkbilling, as apparently your close family might.

                That doesn't detract from the fact that medicare has required continual cash injections whilst the services have been declining. I don't know who manufactured 77.3% but it doesn't align with what I've witnessed in multiple regions of Australia, not even close.

                • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 17:13

                  @SlickMick: Well here's some facts for you. Scroll down to the table or two paragraphs before the table.

                  To be transparent "throughout [my] life" is because I've been going to the same doctor, not so much because I went to different doctors who all bulk billed. I've tried practices that didn't bulk bill and found their service underwhelming in comparison

                  Who said it's already at 90%? It certainly wasn't me, the figure I claimed was 77.3% and the website I linked actually shows 77.5%

                  None of my family live in Brisbane so I think the chances of any of them visiting the practice you mentioned is very slim

                  The services are going to continue to decline if cash injections aren't made or indexed, inflation makes it worth less as the years go on. I think you might be conflating "77.3% of visits" with "77.3% of practices"

                  Are the regions you're talking about regional Australia? There are several reasons why they wouldn't be as likely to have bulk billing practices, such as:

                  • Fewer people = smaller percentage of total visits
                  • Fewer people = less money/incentive for a doctor to open up a practice there
                  • Fewer people = lower chance of disease transmission/sickness entering the community
                  • Bulk billing practices are free and would be more desirable if you just needed a script, referral, or medical certificate, so they will attract more patients/appointments anywhere they go than a non-bulk billing practice would

                  That doesn't make the percentage a fantasy or me a fanboy, these are the facts that we can access. Whether you choose to trust them because they come from the government is up to your own discretion

            • tenpercent on 28/03/2025 - 14:56

              @SlickMick: Now you know another. I am a non-pensioner and I needed to see a GP for the first time in 8 years last week. Tbh I didn't really need the GP, they were merely a gatekeeper to access other actually useful services - talk about a waste of money. Anyway I looked up GP clinics near me and found at least 5 bulk billing and eeny, meeny, miny, moe'd it.

              • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 16:39
                -1

                @tenpercent: edit: scrap my comment where you live - you'd only have to live in the town I visit and you could be bulkbilled. I never said it doesn't happen. I said it happens less than it used to.

                Let me clarify: no one in my town is bulkbilled unless they are a pensioner or leave town for medial treatment.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/03/2025 - 13:25
    -2

    It is a very deliberate post by someone who is under yank flag and trump who applies heavy tariff on our steel etc.

    • AustriaBargain on 26/03/2025 - 16:42

      They'll still need to import out steel and aluminium anyway because even at 25% more it's still cheaper than producing it in the U.S. Trump convinced his supporters that a tax they will ultimately pay for is a good thing, the man is kind of a genius at manipulating daft people.

      • tenpercent on 27/03/2025 - 21:01

        the man is kind of a genius at manipulating daft people.

        So he's a politician. Funny that.

  • wetsandwich on 26/03/2025 - 14:18
    +3

    Every 'relief' method is just a way of pumping more money in and thus prices up, rather than down. "hey power companies, have this free money, but somehow this isn't making power bills just go up by exactly the amount of free money we just handed to you, nosir"

    Until someone decides to actually fix the structural issues with our economy/country/resources, its best described as an ongoing trainwreck/disaster, regardless which side of the same coin is in power.

    • Gdsamp on 26/03/2025 - 15:11
      +1

      indirectly fudging CPI numbers to say inflation down and claim SOFT LANDING !

  • cashless on 26/03/2025 - 15:39
    +2

    Simple way to reduce the deficit.
    Tax the churches and church-owned businesses

    • AustriaBargain on 26/03/2025 - 16:40
      +4

      Sounds like a landmine that could hand the election to Dutton. Plenty of religious leaders are acutely aware that they are like mini powerbrokers. Their power is waning compared to when I was a kid, but they can still influence votes.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 17:32

      Tax the churches and church-owned businesses

      im not disagreeing some churches dont have loads of cash but there is a 'fundamental' mis-understanding regarding what non-for-profit is amongst people who say this

      i would be open to 'getting rid' of non-for-profit organisations as loads of them are scams but that will not happen and probably would cause as much harm as it does good

      put it this way the AFL CEO is on 13.6m dollars and the AFL is a non-for-profit organisation [note i love AFL but that is some BS right there]

  • brendanm on 26/03/2025 - 16:29
    +1

    Sweet, the $268 might pay for the price increase on one week's worth of groceries.

    • Jolakot on 27/03/2025 - 22:47

      Are you buying for a family of 10?!

  • AustriaBargain on 26/03/2025 - 16:39
    +3

    Free tafe is good because most of the cost is for people working for tafe, it creates jobs. And the skills you learn at tafe are usually vocational.

  • ForkSnorter on 26/03/2025 - 20:23
    +2

    The tax rate for the $18,201-$45,000 income bracket will be reduced from 16% to 15% in 2026-27, and further to 14% in 2027-28.
    This translates to a $268 tax cut in 2026-27 and $536 in 2027-28 for individuals in this bracket.

    You didn’t mention the other brackets.

    The "Help to Buy" scheme is expanded, enabling more first-home buyers to access government contributions towards their homes.

    More government money injected into the property market, helping to make housing even more unaffordable.

    • SpainKing on 26/03/2025 - 21:17
      +1

      The people in other tax brackets still pay less tax because that's the first tax brackets. This way it benefits everyone, and the people who benefit the most are the ones with comparatively the least income

      • ForkSnorter on 27/03/2025 - 07:28
        -1

        What I meant was, there are tax breaks for the other income brackets too.

  • leigh8904 on 27/03/2025 - 07:15
    +2

    The tax rate for the $18,201-$45,000 income bracket will be reduced from 16% to 15% in 2026-27, and further to 14% in 2027-28.
    This translates to a $268 tax cut in 2026-27 and $536 in 2027-28 for individuals in this bracket.

    This is misleading. The $268 and $536 amounts only apply to someone on >=$45,000. Anyone in the $18k-$45k range will get less benefit than this.

    A proper fix to individual tax rates would be to index the thresholds. But I know this will never happen because then the government will not be able to announce new tax cuts from time to time.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/03/2025 - 08:43

      The only fix is indexation but 'dumb people and by that i mean people who still listen to the ABC and the other MSM think they are getting a tax cut when we are actually getting scammed by bracket creep

      So the government will never perma fix it because it would cost the government i revenue and headline grabbing

  • gyrex on 27/03/2025 - 09:36
    +4

    I know this is somewhat contentious but the NDIS needs to be scrapped. It's a $52B black hole which is growing at double the inflation rate and is riddled with rorts and scammers. It exceeds Medicare spending and is projected to exceed education and defence spending. Get rid of it and roll disability back into Medicare.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/03/2025 - 09:41

      It is not contentious is it common sense but it is political poison because the ABC/SBS and Project would be finding every free loader and their dog to do a 'special' interest peice on how scrapping the NDIS has affected their life

      you would have a 300 part sob story series on the ABC alone…..

      I remember the government trying to deport a family that lied about being refugees (multiple times) and had return to their home country for holidays (making you not a Asylem seeker either) and the BS heart break stories that simple minded fools soaked up

      The issue with the woke soft modern Australia is no one wants to 'make hard' decisions - it is actually 'why' Trump is so popular he is doing things most Policians around the world wouldnt even dare mention due to fear of woke backlash

      It is also why Australia is 'going backwards' tonight the LNP is going to announce a budget blowing more money or as much money as the ALP has instead of being reponsible cutting services that we cannot afford and restoring out wealth they will join the ALP in a spend d—k measuring competition because we are plagued with weak leaders (i do hope im wrong but im calling it now)

      I mean ffs look at the last 4 PMs we had Gillard the 1st Female PM that cannot 'define' what a women is, Turnbull bloke a woke idiot who knows he f—ked Australia so much he lives in the USA (ironically despite hating Trump), Scott Morrison bloke is so stupid he upsets China publicly the nation we essentially had 50% of our imports/Exports go to or come from and now Albo the biggest Beta male you will ever see and a life long free loader on public money never actually having a job and wouldnt get an interview at an ASX200 company let alone a jump but somehow runs the country.

      The days of Howards and Hawks etc are well long gone sadly

      • gyrex on 27/03/2025 - 10:03
        +2

        Yep, I agree with all your points and your final point is the telling one. I don't give a damn if you vote LNP or Labor, Hawke and Howard had backbones and were almost universally respected because they had gumption and delivered policy based on what was best for Australians, not what appeased special interest groups.

        I'd also like to add that we need to drastically cut government expenditure - sack useless government jobs, bureaucrats and dissolve government departments. We could probably slash 40-60% of government employment and increase productivity.

      • youfnc on 27/03/2025 - 11:45
        +9

        woke soft modern Australia

        Albo the biggest Beta male.

        fear of woke backlash.

        Turnbull bloke a woke idiot

        The irony of calling others simple-minded for trusting MSM or left leaning outlets while you blindly parrot uneducated social media grifters who rely on these blanket terms because they can't articulate or even understand why they dislike something.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/03/2025 - 15:46
          -7

          The irony of calling others simple-minded for trusting MSM or left leaning outlets while you blindly parrot uneducated social media grifters who rely on these blanket terms because they can't articulate or even understand why they dislike something.

          Yes the assumptions from a SJW (Keyboard warrior) there is a lot of you on here - i dont have social media other then reddit which is ultra hard left and i only use it for financial discussion (Banter)

          i know this might be crazy' but if you got off social media you might develop a little bit of critical and free thinking - from what i know and have seen of social media it is incredbly left with people aged 18-35 moaning about property and rich people but refusing to get off their backside and make a single positive change in their life - im not saying that is you i dont make assumptions about people i do not know im not a narrow minded bigot

          • youfnc on 27/03/2025 - 16:18
            +1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Brother, I don’t think you know what ‘assumption’ means… or ‘SJW’ for that matter. Haha.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join