[pugsville]

the abbot governments that co-payments are justified as the public should 'contribute' something to paying for their treatment. they already do, they pay for 100% of it. it's called taxes and it's already adjusted for he ability to pay. it's pretty big misinformation.

a 6$ charge for doctor or hospital visits is amazingly stupid. it introduces a whole raft of overheads about handling money. preventative medicine is cheaper than treatment trying to reduce GP visits will just blow health costs out.

[Swagman]

It's essentially just a defacto GST payment.

Income tax payers as a proportion of the population are declining with the aging population. Medicare in its current form is just unsustainable. A broad based fee is essential to even attempt to sustain 'Medicare costs.

Personally I think they should just increase the GST to Hewson's 15% and charge it on everything.

If Aust had 50% more GST revenues for the last 20 years this massive whinge about a $6 fee wouldn't be happening. The rejection of Hewson's Fightback would likely be one of the biggest economic blunders this country has seen.

[pugsville]

Medicare *IS* sustainable. I dont accept the statement, true more money needs to be spent to sustain it It is a matter of choice, .Australia does have the resources it;s a question of choice and resource allocation. Many politicans use rhetoric that there is no choice we HAVE to do this policy. Not true at all.

How about fixing the tax system? The way companies export their profits overseas in sham transactions, News, Apple, Google, Starbucks it's Billions of dollars per year. There companies are making large profits here and not paying a cent. How about the government fixes the tax laws so they actually contribute to the society that generates their profits? The government rhetoric is "everyone must contribute" these companies are not, it's Billions each year this alone could fix the budget.

Middle/Upper class welfare

The Gold plated maternity leave system the Government is introducing, simply goes against their rhetoric of means testing government support, government support meant to provide a safety net that pays rich people more than poor people, noit based of need, but class security is a hardly in line with the Rhetoric.

The Decision to allow ANYBODY to lease/purchase a car. This scheme makes banks money by them effectively taking extra profits from the tax system. The consumer sees a 'lower price' actually pays a higher price but the tax savings make it lower. It's government picking up the tab. The previous government was to crack down on the practice, the Abbot government declared it would not , so as to "save the Australian car industry". Well that worked..NOT. So why is this middle/upper class government welfare kept?

The Government tax deductions for super contributions costs more than the pensions, this is essentially tax benefit for the well off.

The Government underwriting the Entire private health system. Biggest Industry support scheme. Should be totally abolished.

The Government supporting private schools.

A Real Resources tax.


See there are plenty of options to adjust government spending to substain Medicare. It is a CHOICE.

[mikema63]

Australia has Medicare too? Is it the same type of program as in the US?

[pugsville]

Not the same, more NHS (Britian) Universal coverage for Health care you get treatment the state pays, (through taxes) generally works pretty darn good, there has been some tinkering and it's not quite covering everything. There is a private (heavily state subsidized, massive tax rebates for taking out private cover and tax penailites for the moderately well off who dont, crazy if you ask me government propping up the private health system simply should be abolished.)

Wonderful system that should be expanded rather than cut back, inthe sights of all liberal (conservative) governments, looks like they and going to start hacking away in a incredibly stupid way this budget, we can only hope the senate rejects this.

[Rejn]

Not the same, more NHS (Britain) Universal coverage for Health care you get treatment the state pays, (through taxes) generally works pretty darn good, there has been some tinkering and it's not quite covering everything. There is a private (heavily state subsidized, massive tax rebates for taking out private cover and tax penailites for the moderately well off who dont, crazy if you ask me government propping up the private health system simply should be abolished.)

Wonderful system that should be expanded rather than cut back, inthe sights of all liberal (conservative) governments, looks like they and going to start hacking away in a incredibly stupid way this budget, we can only hope the senate rejects this.

Medicare levy surcharge (tax penalty) triggers at $84'000 (the top ~20% of earners), which is also the point where the private health insurance rebate starts to switch off. The "massive" rebates for taking out private cover are 30% of the cost of health cover, which for bigger spenders usually ends up being around $600 max.

The reason why the incentives exist is so that wealthier people avoid using public sector resources, when they can afford to pay private.

The incentives need to be simplified and be more meaningful. I think medicare levy should be merged into income tax. Surcharge and rebates should be scrapped, but what should replace it? I don't like the idea of forcing people into buying private health cover, but if there aren't any incentives at all, private health cover would become niche, and too many people would end up on the non-performing and poorly priced public health system.

Do we need Medicare at all? Perhaps everyone should be expected to get private health cover.

[Swagman]

the state pays, (through taxes)

The net taxpayer pays.

There is a private (heavily state subsidized, massive tax rebates for taking out private cover and tax penailites for the moderately well off who dont, crazy if you ask me government propping up the private health system simply should be abolished.)

Do that and the cost of the health budget would skyrocket.

It is a CHOICE

Not if your the one paying the tax it isn't.

The Government supporting private schools.

Non-Govt schools are a massive saving to the budget bottom line not a cost. Around $8 Billion a year.

Having independent schools saves Commonwealth and State governments in order of $4.1 billion a year in recurrent funding alone. That is, for the governments of Australia to educate in government schools those students currently attending non-government schools would cost an additional $8.4 billion per annum of which approximately $4.1 billion is attributed to students attending independent schools.
Source

Private health insurance is the equivalent concept. The 'rebate' is just a tax cut in reward for paying your own way. The cost of the rebate is dwarfed by the cost savings to the health budget.

Middle/Upper class welfare

...is a myth. Tax cuts as an incentive to pay your own way. A tax rebate is not welfare, it's returning tax already paid. The Govt isn't giving middle / upper class a brass razoo. At best it's a smoke screen to the gullible to think that they are getting something back.

A Real Resources tax

Already exists. Is called royalties.

See there are plenty of options to adjust government spending to substain Medicare

Yes and one sensible option is to get the users of the service to pay a token fee. This is not 'destroying' medicare it's common sense policy.

[pugsville]

Why should the taxpayer found private schools and health system that he gets no access to? It is a taking from the poor giving to the rich. It's that simple. The Government propping up business is this manner is rarely good.

Universal healthcare is cheaper and provides better health results. Check the costs and results for those with and without such a system. Look at the facts.

Reduction in tax is redistribution of public money. When Murdoch files some sham tranaction and pays no tax he making profit a from Australians without contributing.

The Public already PAYS for all of the medicare system. The Idea without a use fee they are not contribution is dishonest. The cost of administrating and processing a small fee for doctor visits is just a very poor and uneconomic way to get money. It also WILL result in poorer health outcomes, days lost at work, and thus lower net wealth for the Nation, it's a manifestly stupid Idea supported by dishonest Rhetoric. The supported of it like you want to abolish medicare, Hokey and Abbot are hiding behind a smokescreen with this saying the public needs to contribute, they already FUND the entire system, how much more than paying 100% do you need. It's a matter of collection method efficiency and effect on quality of outcomes. It's an inefficient way to collect the money wand will result in poorer health outcomes and lower national productivity.

[Decky]

Why should the taxpayer found private schools and health system that he gets no access to? It is a taking from the poor giving to the rich. It's that simple.

That is what the government is for in a capitalist country, you might as well moan about trains transporting people or rivers flowing towards the sea.

[Quantum]

That is what the government is for in a capitalist country

Exactly. Our government is doing the same here, with 'free' schools and what not, which allows rich people to use public funds to exclude the poor. This is why I don't take right-wingers seriously when they rail against public services because they are happy to consume them for their exclusive benefit.

[Rejn]

Why should the taxpayer found private schools and health system that he gets no access to? It is a taking from the poor giving to the rich.

You mean how parents of children in private schools subsidise public schools (which they do not use) through their taxes?

It's that simple. The Government propping up business is this manner is rarely good.

It's cheaper for the government to partially fund private schools than to completely fund a public school.

Total expenditure by governments on school education was $44.3 billion in 2010-11 (the most recently available figures), with $34.5 billion going to government schools and $9.8 billion to non-government schools, including independent schools.


Enrolments and Funding 2010-2011


While government expenditure per student varies between schools, on average, students attending independent schools receive considerably less government funding than their counterparts at government schools. In 2010-11 government expenditure per student in independent schools was in the order of $6,820 some 45 percent of that spent on students in government schools. Independent school funding varies considerably with schools serving communities with a higher level of need receiving more funding.

Source: http://isca.edu.au/about-independent-sc ... t-schools/


With this information, we find that it costs the government $15,155/year to place a student in a public school. However, if we put this student in a private school, it will cost the government $6,820/year on average as the parents are willing to pay part of the school fee.

*$6,820 ÷ 0.45 = $15,155.56 per student

To put this into perspective, a public school with 900 students would cost the government $13.6 million per year to run, while a private school with the same number of students would cost $6.2 million per year.

Universal healthcare is cheaper and provides better health results. Check the costs and results for those with and without such a system. Look at the facts.

Please provide the facts.

[Swagman]

Why should the taxpayer found private schools and health system that he gets no access to?

Ever heard of 'leverage'?

The Govt funds private schools because instead of having to spent $1 to educate a child it only has to pay around 30c in the dollar. The parents of the kids that go to non-govt schools pay tax and therefore they are entitled to the same education dollar as little Johnny the Downtrodden.

By partially funding private schools Australian taxpayers save $8 billion dollars a year (see my previous post). That $8 billion dollars is used for other services including health.

Simple.

The Public already PAYS for all of the medicare system. The Idea without a use fee they are not contribution is dishonest

The medicare levy is calculated on taxable income. There are plenty of people that don't have a taxable income. To say that they already pay for medicare is simply not true. To say that pay for education is simply not true. That is a fact.

[pugsville]

Yes the Independent schools council of Australia, produces figures which says the Government should give them money, really a clear unbiased source.
(and swag by that sites information the government is paying 45% compared to Government schools, (NOT 30%) AND they say it would save 4.1 Billion NOT 8 billion, so even by the Independent schools own figures your figures are pretty dubious)

If the government provides Health and Education and someone chooses NOT to use it then they entitled to a tax reduction? Are going top apply this universally across all government expenditure? Are taxes meant to be voluntary? (though apparently so for the rich and there corporations anyway, fixing the tax system is a glaring requirement, companies which generate billions in profits are paying ANY tax on it through sham transactions.

You're assuming people who send their kids to private schools pay tax, with the current tax system thats debatable. People who send to private schools mostly avoid paying tax anyway.

How are you going to get money out of anyone without a taxable income ? The Government says those they cant pay wont be asked so surely those without an income are not going to contributed through his policy and it's hard to see how you get money out of someone without it,
]

[Rejn]

Yes the Independent schools council of Australia, produces figures which says the Government should give them money, really a clear unbiased source.

If you think the ISCA is lying, please provide alternative data.

If the government provides Health and Education and someone chooses NOT to use it then they entitled to a tax reduction? Are going top apply this universally across all government expenditure? Are taxes meant to be voluntary? (though apparently so for the rich and there corporations anyway, fixing the tax system is a glaring requirement, companies which generate billions in profits are paying ANY tax on it through sham transactions.

The tax incentives are a way to make people want to opt out of and put less pressure on the government system. I already explained this.

You're assuming people who send their kids to private schools pay tax, with the current tax system thats debatable. People who send to private schools mostly avoid paying tax anyway.

I actually do tax returns as part of my job. Wealthier people pay more tax than the less well off - there's really no way around it.

[pugsville]

ISC stuff is propaganda. I would hardly take it as on their word.

And I worked for a tax financial adviser for a time, he had many clients with large incomes paying no tax at all. Large amounts of correspondence with tax department saying dont quote us but yes they were not required to pay tax if it was structured this way. I have worked with some very well paid people who openly boasted they did not pay 1 cent of income tax while having a very large income.

Certainly many corporations are not paying any Australian tax of their profits earned here. Costing the Australian taxpayer many billions a year.

[Rejn]

ISC stuff is propaganda. I would hardly take it as on their word.

Please provide your own data if you think that way. At the moment you're not giving me anything.

And I worked for a tax financial adviser for a time, he had many clients with large incomes paying no tax at all. Large amounts of correspondence with tax department saying dont quote us but yes they were not required to pay tax if it was structured this way. I have worked with some very well paid people who openly boasted they did not pay 1 cent of income tax while having a very large income.

Certainly many corporations are not paying any Australian tax of their profits earned here. Costing the Australian taxpayer many billions a year.

I've also met (not through work) some well paid people (or so they say) who openly boasted that they don't pay tax. But these people were working outside the tax system (i.e. cash).

Australian financial institutions and the ASX share interest and dividend income data with the tax office. They might get away with not paying tax if they were foreign residents and had foreign income, but honestly how many people will be in that position? You made a sweeping comment implying that parents of children in private schools mostly don't pay tax and that is simply untrue.

Companies can be complicated matters due to double taxation agreements, but generally if you're not taxed here, you're taxed somewhere else.

[pugsville]

If Apple or or News or Starbucks sells it stuff here and makes a profit here they should pay tax here but they dont . They are profiting from the Australian economy but not contributing as they should. It's billions a year. Why should they be allowed to do this why shouldnt this be fixed?

really you just have not noticed whats going on?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-06/t ... ue/5303426
http://www.smh.com.au/business/tax-deal ... 347x9.html
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/st ... 6651715239
http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... -and-smell
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/google_ ... 91oZ5nRFSK
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 1za51.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llion.html
http://www.smh.com.au/business/global-t ... 337u1.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/150598/ho ... ying_taxes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard ... oid-taxes/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0424727708
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/busin ... d=all&_r=0
http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/ ... borders.as

People I worked with and known very well. IT contractors with their own company.(just them consulting)

People who send their Kids to private schools believe private = good, government = bad, government isnt the solution it's the problem. That government spending is of itself bad and all measures taken to deny the government money is good. While many do pay income tax I'm sure tax minimization is much much more prevalent at parents of private school kids than public school kids. They have the money to be able to take advantage of the tax laws. And with their world view why wouldnt they? They dont believe the health and education 'generates the wealth' but some parasitic infestation on society.

wide spread tax avoidance is rife. Successful governments have not done anything about it. Why *IS* the tax take down some much. The lease/purchase of "work" cars is example. It's now almost anyone in Australia can buy/lease their car at a much reduced cost with good profits for the banks as the taxpayer is picking up a large part of the tab. The previous government was going to crack down on the rort, but "saving the car industry" line was trotted out and the vested interests making the money rolled the new Abbot Government and institutionalized the rort.

[Rejn]

If Apple or or News or Starbucks sells it stuff here and makes a profit here they should pay tax here but they dont . They are profiting from the Australian economy but not contributing as they should. It's billions a year. Why should they be allowed to do this why shouldnt this be fixed?

really you just have not noticed whats going on?

See responses below. Note you have provided evidence of companies avoiding tax, but not individuals with children in private schools.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-06/tax-expert-explains-how-apple-pays-193m-tax-on-27b-revenue/5303426

Corporate tax is tax on profits, not revenue.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/tax-deal-how-apple-shifts-its-billions-out-of-australia-20140306-347x9.html

Legit. I concede that Apple is a rotten company.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/st ... 6651715239
http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... -and-smell

Nothing wrong with this that I can see. Starbucks is losing money and the US arm even has to pay back some of the royalty payments to keep it afloat. "The accounts also show that the parent group provided its Australian arm with a $2 million capital injection."

http://www.afr.com/p/technology/google_tax_not_viable_oecd_EPIrrazip1WP91oZ5nRFSK

Link broken?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 1za51.html

Again, revenue =/= profit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549379/Fresh-questions-raised-Googles-tax-avoidance-tech-giant-announces-profits-3-4-billion.html

UK, not Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/global-tax-avoidance--a-trillion-dollar-evil-20140221-337u1.html

Perhaps the Google issue has been fixed? "That same year in Australia, Google paid $74,000 tax, rising to $4 million in the year after."

http://www.alternet.org/story/150598/how_12_multinational_corporations_avoid_paying_taxes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard ... oid-taxes/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0424727708
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/busin ... d=all&_r=0

US, not Australia.

People I worked with and known very well. IT contractors with their own company.(just them consulting)

I can attest to this and it is utterly revolting. Contractors and their employers are the scum of society when it comes to tax, but they are by far a minority.

wide spread tax avoidance is rife. Successful governments have not done anything about it. Why *IS* the tax take down some much. The lease/purchase of "work" cars is example. It's now almost anyone in Australia can buy/lease their car at a much reduced cost with good profits for the banks as the taxpayer is picking up a large part of the tab. The previous government was going to crack down on the rort, but "saving the car industry" line was trotted out and the vested interests making the money rolled the new Abbot Government and institutionalized the rort.

You will need to explain this part to me.