Reply With QuoteThat's a good point MD.
We are fortunate not to have any debts beyond a 10k car loan. I guess if we had a lower income we would need to rely on credit.
Registered User
Astrid - Bang on with the depends where you started. My parents have about $200Kpa between them, most of it Mum's salary - but they worked damn hard, both of them since they were 15, to get to that point. As a couple in their 50s/60s, I consider them rich, but if they were still raising me and my sisters on that, I doubt I would be calling them rich, possibly comfortable, but not rich. They did so much for us, school fees, doctors, we all got a second hand car on graduation - never anything flash, but that was our one thing to start off with, and they made us work, buy our own food clothes etc etc. They did the right thing by us morally, trying to teach us that nothing comes for free, credit cards are bad etc etc, and then I look at where we're at. I look at my sister, who at 34 has had to move to a rural area and small scale farm her own meat, and vegetables just so her 3 kids can have everything they need to have a life instead of just exist. My other sister at 32, who has a mortgage, and two sons, and a dog and all that, gets her govt benefits, but she had to work her butt off before becoming a SAHM, and her husband is constantly working extra shifts to make sure they can keep that lifestyle up while she's not working.
Then I look at me and DH, we can't get finance for a loan for a home because we have no credit history besides phone bills a personal loan from his car and even though its perfect thats not enough, so we have to waste money on rent - all because our parents did the right thing and taught us to try and budget not borrow. We have my student loan debt of $25K that I have no idea how I'm going to pay off because its near impossible to get a job in my field. We just had to buy a new car because mine blew up and we cant just have a ute when we have 2 babies on the way - at least some money I won meant we could put a down payment on something decent and finance approval was much easier. Then we still have all the usual utilities, phone/internet bills, food bill, petrol, now car repayments (which is our luxury), and medical and health costs, and we somehow manage that for now on $45K, while getting taxed at the highest rate (DH can't claim TFT). At least he has a secure job and his medical is taken care of - which is lucky because mine's like pouring pennies down a sink! I can only imagine how bad a place we might be in if our parents hadn't been tough on us - there's no way we'd be managing right now!
What ****s me is that in 10 years time, my best friend with the actual rich parents who gets everything handed to her on a silver platter will probably have her life in order - hopefully separate from them - and yet still manage to claim something off the government. She does it now - they bought her an apartment in the city (Brissy), bought her a new car and pay for its upkeep, and all she has to do is go to uni, and wait enough tables to get her weekend booze money, all while still getting Centrelink benefits somehow! She hasn't learnt anything, but she'll probably never need to know it anyway since they set her up so good.
Aimee - Its not fair is it? People need to take responsibility and not claim from the government if they don't need it, but they wont, and thats why I think we should have to prove to Centrelink why we need a given payment - show records of how much we pay for basics, necessities for our given family unit, and justify anything that might be borderline luxury, and that it should be based on the amount of money received in the hand from a pay packet - not the amount before tax. I think the government has forgotten that not all people on 'higher incomes' are on them because they need to be to afford to live where they do, or because they have more mouths to feed, and that not all of them live as they do as a result of their income.
I'll be very interested to see if this gets approved to be honest - I'm not getting a positive vibe of the Greens, but that being said it could still go either way.
Last edited by StrawberryFields; May 11th, 2011 at 12:53 PM.
Moderator
That's a good point MD.
We are fortunate not to have any debts beyond a 10k car loan. I guess if we had a lower income we would need to rely on credit.
Registered User
It also depends where that person is living as the cost of housing, childcare and general living varies greatly across the counrty. Plus it depends how many depeandants they have and other obligations ie. do they have to put 3 children into full time care to earn that money or do they have ill family members to care for or support.
I would think that we fall into the middle income range where we don't get a lot of help from the government apart from CCR but while many people would think we are comfortable, others would struggle to live on our incomes. We made the decision to work in roles and companies that would give us the most flexibility while the children were young and we could maximise our time with them while still being able to support them financially. I guess we were also lucky in that we started investing in property when we were young (in early 20's) so that we were able to afford a reasonable house in the area that we wanted to. If we had waited there is no way we could live where we do now without us both working full time high paying jobs.
MD absolutely I agree with you. A lot of people live way beyond their means and what they want now rather than later. I was just trying to say that just because a person may earn a lot doesn't mean they are well off, just like some one who earns middle to low income is not always struggling.
Strawberry I don't really know their exact circumstances, but I don't think its fair that they are entitled to it when all the money they get is pretty much disposable. In those instances I really think that assets should be taken into consideration.
Registered User
Beckoes, you cant even begin to speculate just how this will affect you right now as Centerlink wont have a clue about any of this yet. It will be much closer to July 1 before you will know for sure as all these changes have to be firstly approved and accepted by Govt and then they have to get Centerlink sorted out.
Moderator
But who is to decide what is acceptable expenditure? I know my MIL thinks we are rolling in it and have stupid expenses, but others think we are tight with money. Who really gets that say and then you have to take into account location. A basic house in Sydney costs a hell of a lot more than one in a rural area, so then you get to basing decisions on where people live and imagine the uproar about that. At the end of the day we are supposedly a free country and no-one has any right to tell anyone of us how to spend our money. If I choose internet over lamb chops, then that is my choice, same with someone who chooses a fancy car and their coffee table is a milk crate. We may not agree or even understand why someone spends the way they do, but we should not be deciding who does or does not get something from the government based on those choices.
On top of that, imagine the admin costs just to deal with such a process, every single family submitting their expenses, what a nightmare! Oh and don't forget what a gross invasion of privacy.
Last edited by Astrid; May 11th, 2011 at 05:02 PM. : wrong word
Registered User
So if we have to submit our spending etc... does that mean they will look at the fact you cant even afford to pay a bill at once etc and give you more money, or do they just want to invade your privacy and make you feel like you shouldnt buy your child a present/suprise or anything you would consider a treat.... because then you will have to explain it.....
I don't think reporting every expenditure to Centrelink is the answer. I think that over complicates things and takes away your privacy completely. Plus could you really be bothered sending in every bill, pay slip and receipt? I couldn't, fark that.
Registered User
i'm going to try very hard to stay calm in response to this comment but if i get riled, pffft, too bad! it's a ludicrous idea!
firstly, the reason GROSS income is used is to create an even playing field. or as even as possible. when it comes to income support payments, the only asset NOT counted is the primary home. all other assets are taken into account. GROSS income is used so that everyone is even. if you took NET (cash in hand), someone with a HELP debt or someone who has a salary sacrifice option earning exactly the same amount would get MORE from the government because they have less cash in hand
in simple terms -
person A earns $10 an hour, pays $3 an hour in tax. so $7 an hour NET
person B earns $10 an hour, pays $3 an hour in tax, 50c an hour HELP, so $6.50 and hour NET
person C earns $10 and hour, salary sacrifices $1 an hour to super, $3 an hour tax, so $6 am hour NET
now, each of these people is earning the exact same, but due to choices in their life (study/salary sacrifice) they have a difference in NET income - and you want to "reward" the ones with less take home, by giving them more payments from the government
secondly - implementation - lets not even go there on how hard that would be logistically
thirdly - privacy/nanny state. who are we, or any member of the government, to legislate what is a necessity and what is a luxury? who are we to prioritise for someone else. what is deemed a luxury by many (internet for instance) may be a necessity for someone due to isolation due to illness, or because they need it for study or for work. Income management DOES exist for some communities, and the implementatin has been difficult - and even then, only a portion of the income is assigned to basics, the remainder is left to the people to decide what to spend it on. no one should have to justify every cent that comes in and out of their home.
the current implementation is as fair as it can be. everyone is on an equal footing for income support payments.
there is so much more that this has made me feel, but i don't want to be reported for being a right cow
onto the budget (the bits probably most relevantl)
no payments have been reduced - the increases to income thresholds have simply been frozen for a while.
* supplements for ftb will stay the same for a few years as what they are for ftb this financial year. no biggie - they were going up about $10 per child per year anyway - so it's not that big an amount
* the income limits for paid parental leave and ftbb are being frozen for a while (they will be held at 150k for a few years) - basically, the only people this will impact are those who have incomes close to the cut off amount. if they get a pay rise in the next couple of years, they may go over the threshold instead of staying under and continuing eligibility. means that SAHP's with a partner on an income of 149000k who bring in their $135 (or $95) a fortnight won't get it next year if their other half gets a pay rise.
* long term unemployed people are going to have increased obligations to get payments. if they've been on payment long term, they probably need additional assistance so will be targetted for it
* low income families (on income support) will have to have a health check for their 4 year olds in order to get supplements (i think this one has been discussed to death on the forums when it was first floated)
* youth allowance for dependant 16+ year olds is being scrapped - ftb for 16 year olds won't reduce to a low low level like it did in the past - it will stay the same as for a 15 year old
*flexible delivery of child care rebate - can now be paid direct to the child care centre instead of quarterly to you (or more regularly to you)
as has been mentioned, it hasn't passed parliament yet, but i doubt much of it will be changed. these are probably the key points for the average family to see
as to comments that are bound to happen regarding the capping of ftbb eligibility if your partner earns over 150k - keep in mind, a couple with one partner earning 149999 with a newborn can take home 136.36 per fn in ftbb. a couple doing it tough, earning 25k each, get NO ftbb at all... the first couple have a stay at home parent, and child care is optional. the second family have to put kids in child care heaps...
Registered User
It should be just like applying to the bank for a loan - you submit your regular monthly expenses and liabilities once when you apply, and then again at the start of each financial year, and taking into account your income in relation to that they decide from there. There's already payments where you have to report your earnings anyway so its not like anything there would change. But the onus is then on you to report if anything dramatically changes - like a loan becomes paid off - and likewise if you suddenly gain an additional expense - like your pay gets cut, or you get the sack. It would be ridiculous to expect people to present receipts for EVERYTHING - they would have to hire more people to deal with it all, and heaven forbid the government should have to create jobs within its own ranks!
When you think about it, there are already so many institutions out there who decide who does and doesn't deserve things - everything from credit cards, to loans, to university places and scholarships, childcare positions, franchise opportunities, jobs, promotions, even holidays off the butter lid. Is it really realistic to think the government isn't already doing the same? Who decided the cut off levels for payments? Who decided that to be classed as independent from their parents a youth must earn over $18K in however many months since high school? Where did all of those numbers come from to start with and why is that information not available to us? Why does everything go off the gross amount of pay instead of what we actually receive each week? Surely they could use census data to be able to get an idea of the average expenditure in a family unit - be it single parent family, blended family, classic family, you name it - and be able to work out a better, more thorough way to determine who is and isn't entitled to assistance...But it will never happen so we just have to make do with what we have!
EDIT - BG - Ah I understand now, I just wish that the Centrelink people on the phone and in our local office would have explained that to me instead of just telling me, 'its complex' and leaving it there, or 'it sucks but deal with it' - even after I asked them why it was just so I could understand. When you explain it it makes sense and its much easier to not feel screwed over by it. Thank you for explaining it.
Last edited by StrawberryFields; May 11th, 2011 at 06:06 PM.
Registered User
I am with BG on this one, the govt should not be held responsible for how people choose to live. If you are earning $150 000 you are well off -on paper, what you do with it after that, is no one's responsibility but your own. According to that theory, a billionaire would still be elligable to receive payments if he had enough loans and expenditure to mean he had little left over!!!
Registered User
It's fair because it's a choice people make. If you earn $150k and are still penny pinching then perhaps you've extended yourselves too far. The person with only 50k and ni debt might look like they're on a good thing, bug what will they have in 50 years time? Prob not a lot.
Everyone has a choice and I get sick of people who say we earn $150k but have lots of bills, poor us. The fact is they are still earning 3 times as much as the person on 50k.
Moderator
Anyone who is struggling on 150k pa needs to rethink their budgeting priorities.
Can someone clarify the tax offset for supporting a spouse - one article I read said it had been cut and another said it had been only been cut if you have no dependent children.
BellyBelly Life Member - Love all your MCN friends
BRIGSY"S GIRL - what does the HELP acronym stand for? Is it the latest incarnation of HECS? or am i completely lost?
I want to know what Wayne Swan means about giving "the nudge". Does that mean "cut off payments"?
What i've heard on the news, sounds like we are moving to the American model of welfare.
Limited, timed unemployment benefits.
The resulting rise in crime rates and homelessness.
I don't know where the jobs are going to materialise from, for the young teenage mothers of one year old babies, and how childcare centres will cope with the increased demand. Many jobs that 15yos are hired for, are casual and involve shift work - that doens't sound compatible with someone who has family responsibilities (and might be bf-ing).
the budget ideas seem to be based on a supposition that there are many jobs AVAILABLE and SUITABLE to match with the skillsets and resources of the people targetted by the budget. The goal is admirable, but i am worried about the lack of reality, the lack of detail. i hope i am wrong, and the detail comes out in the near future.
Registered User
Yep
and yep - maybe walk a mile in the $50 000 income before you claim $150k is not much.
Any news about the childcare hourly rebate?
Moderator
Matching unemployed to jobs is not an easy thing. I get frustrated when comments on news sites are bandied about regarding mums with school age kids going back to work. They seem to think that find jobs in school hours is such and easy thing. There is unemployment for a reason, there are not enough jobs overall.
Registered User
people report earnings on a fortnightly basis, changes to assets that impact income support payments within 14 days of the change happening. currently, wait time to deal with a customer service rep on the phone is in excess of 8 minutes for most customers. if you were to make EVERY customer report EVERY facet of their income and expenditure EVERY month, the blow out in customer wait times would be astronomical. there is not need for expenditure to be counted at all (except in the case of self employment and income support). what you spend money on is irrelevant. gross income is all that matters.
by the theory of eligibility you have, including using your reference of "a loan being paid off" - essentially if someone has decided to borrow money in the past, to get themselves something (car, house, medical treatment), they should get more money from the government to someone who is debt free? it just can't work like that.
Registered User
HELP is the latest incarnation of HECS
the nudge isn't cutting payment, it's putting pressure on people to meet their mutual obligation targets. work for the dole will be for longer periods of time. if people are failing to meet obligations, breaches will be applied (if you're supposed to work for the dole and you don't, they'll cut part of your payment - it takes a lot to have it all stopped completely)
Bookmarks