Federal Politics

The drug testing of welfare recipients is punitive and should only be a viable option if

a) the Federal Government launches a new series of measures aimed at alleviating unemployment and underemployment
b) all Federal Government ministers are also drug tested.
c) it apply to all recipients, including the pension.

Overall, I’m happy with the Budget, and especially the tax on banks. The cuts to the climate change programs, especially those relating to the Great Barrier Reef, were disappointing. The reforms to housing affordability weren’t nearly enough. If it weren’t for the climate change cuts and welfare changes, I would almost be motivated to vote Liberal.

2 Likes

I am actually happy with the budget as well, when are these measures supposed to be passed in the senate ?

Im still a bit iffy on the tax on banks . Its bad enough with the fees we pay do we honestly need to be slugged more if that measure comes.through? I have to keep an eye on this one.

I would have loved to seen some.more funds diverted to the great barrier reef. Dissapointing.

Still this wouldnt be enough to get me voting for liberals again. I made that mistake with the Abbott government.

1 Like

The banks make $30b in profit and are expected to take a $6b hit from this tax. The reason the Libs won me over on this one is that it’s actually harsher than the tax Labor suggested.

As Morrison said to the National Press Club, every family has had to absorb costs. The banks should too.

2 Likes

Bank tax is pretty good to get more revenue.

I’m way worse off though under the budget… no tax cut… more for the Medicare levy. Ridiculous. I’m sick and tired of paying so much tax.

Latest reachtel poll showing no movement for the government after this poor budget.

1 Like

I thought it was a good budget - not a poor budget. Considering it was called a Labor-lite budget by MSM.

The debt ceiling has been raised to 600B.

I know they won’t but instead of passing the costs of the bank tax onto their customers, perhaps the banks should make cuts to things like the currently seven (and in some cases, even eight) figure salaries that their CEOs get every year!

Broadly, this year’s Federal Budget is one we probably should’ve had last year.

The next Federal Election is probably still over two years away. Political polls/trends change all the time and even the most reputable political polls can’t get a 100% accurate prediction of how millions would vote if an Election was held right now. But knowing what politics in Canberra has been like so far this decade, who knows if we’ll even have the same Prime Minister & Treasurer for the next Federal Budget!

1 Like

Of course you would say that.

When people lose money it’s not a good budget.

And that’s $30b profit in one year and $6b tax over three yrars.

3 Likes

I’m also generally positive, agree they’re going to far kicking people when they’re down (the scandalous Centrelink robodebts that didn’t exist was too far already), and they’re going to force HECS repayments too soon (at least they should ease them in), so combined with refusing to do anything about negative gearing & capital gains tax for investment properties makes me feel sorry for younger generations who are & will suffer from these policies.

1 Like

The Budget was a much needed reset from Turnbull. If this doesn’t improve Lib polling in the next year, he’s gone by the next election.

The bank levy is great - why can’t this be imposed at a higher rate, instead of 0.06%, make it 0.1% (or more?) and we can be in surplus next year even. The profits made by these companies are ridiculous. Major lol at suggestions by some that a “scary ad campaign by the banks” is going to make people dislike it.

The across the board Medicare levy increase not so great - this levy should be completely eliminated, not increased each year.

As for scary Labor propaganda about HECS and uni fees - what’s the big deal? You only start to pay it back when you earn the money that allows you to do so. Total non-issue.

“Negative gearing” and capital gains tax for investment properties is more Shorten broken-record crap. The housing market is inflated in Sydney because of an influx of foreign demand. It’s quite simple. Where there isn’t an influx of foreign demand, house prices are falling. They’ve been stagnant or falling in Perth for YEARS. In any case, I don’t think it should be Government policy to actively reduce the price of most Australian’s largest asset - do Labor supporters actually know in practice how damaging falling house prices are?

Shorten needs to find a new tune after this election because he is sounding increasingly shrill.

Turnbull is viewed as too smarmy and slick. Similar to how David Cameron was viewed in the UK. Just look at what a change to Theresa May has done for the Conservatives in the UK. The Liberals should stop listening to an increasingly hysterical left wing press in this country and select a leader with broad appeal to their base and in the marginals.

What a load of crap. The point is the recent changes mean people will have to pay it back much sooner, when they can’t yet afford to.

More nonsense (as we’ve previously …discussed). You’ve picked Perth (perhaps deliberately) ignoring that the end of the mining boom is why prices have fallen there. What next ridiculous comparison to Sydney, some rural ghost town?
Syd/Mel prices have almost nothing to do with foreigners.
How you can claim that individuals (Australians) owning six or more investment properties, often keeping them empty & using their losses on their investment to avoid paying tax (thus us subsidising this madness), has nothing to do with housing price inflation keeping ordinary people from buying their first home…is astounding.

How about you please stop sprouting this right-wing propaganda of yours?

What does “when they can’t yet afford to” mean? Specifics, please. Just because they’ve lowered an income threshold etc. at which payments have to be made doesn’t mean “they can’t afford to”. You’ve got a uni degree which other people don’t, and you’re earning income from it above a certain threshold - I think it’s only fair you start paying back as soon as possible.

Er…the “end of the mining boom” is why prices have fallen because our population growth rate has fallen to the lowest level in decades with people from interstate moving back home and international arrivals slowing.

What a ridiculous comparison to state Perth, with more than 2 million people, is akin to a “rural ghost town”. What cities SHOULD we compare with Sydney? Imaginaryaustraliancity-ville?

Easy.

Income tax laws apply in Western Australia the same way they apply in New South Wales.

Therefore, the Sydney property bubble has nothing to do with income tax laws.

Isn’t logic great? Get back to me when Labor has a new repetitive attack line.

There’s an assumption here that everyone who obtains a degree will therefore make money from it, which isn’t true (or if it was, we wouldn’t have an influx of law and journalism bachelors working in retail)

So if someone does a degree in X, but works in Y, they shouldn’t pay back the cost of a uni degree when they start to earn an income?

If investors and the wealthy are using the tax code and Australia’s lax foreign investment rules to price first-home buyers and movers out of the market, then something needs to be done. The Government’s reforms will just increase prices by another $30k and then the first home buyers will be at square one.

As for national income taxes meaning any discussion about negative gearing is mute, that’s some fine logic. If Perth were booming today, it would be just as unaffordable as Sydbourne. The fact that Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide have struggled is down to their own economic problems and investors not seeing them as ‘attractive’. Therefore, we now have the situation where thousands of units in Melbourne and Sydney are sitting empty because they’re negatively geared investment properties. I’ve seen a figure floating around of 80,000 units sitting without tenants. Meanwhile legitimate buyers who are willing to buy those properties to live in are effectively priced out of the market and need to buy properties further out, where they’ll be contributing to urban sprawl and will require more government infrastructure spend to get them in.

What Sydbourne is doing right now is sucking investment out of other capital cities to fuel its own raging speculative bubble. When that bubble bursts, it’s likely the knockon effects won’t just be felt in Sydney and Melbourne but all over and that’ll kill the overall economy and likely cause the cancellation of The Block.

If Brisbane and Perth were going through a speculative bubble at the expense of Sydney and Melbourne, I’d bet the Government would’ve changed negative gearing laws ages ago.

1 Like

Exactly…lack of investors seeing them as attractive…ie. lack of demand.

No, they’re not using the tax code to price first-home buyers out of the market. They’re using the tax code to account for an investment they’ve made. You make it sound like people are committing fraud of some kind, lol.

Yup. Same way it was totally unaffordable in say 2005-2008. Not one peep about “negative gearing” at the time being the cause because, well, it wasn’t true. Same in Sydney in the early 2000s.

Only difference now? A federal Labor leader committed to engage shrill, repetitive politics about “millionaires” and “tax cuts” for the “wealthy”. Labor wants to fool stupid people into thinking the Liberals are at fault for the overheated housing market (through some supposedly “dodgy” laws for their “millionaire mates”)…guess what…the housing market is overheated in Auckland, and London too. Just because they want to fool the stupid doesn’t mean we have to swallow it whole.