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'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...