I've just heard that it's likely that FTB B will be scrapped in the upcoming Budget. Has anyone else heard anything along these lines?
Printable View
I've just heard that it's likely that FTB B will be scrapped in the upcoming Budget. Has anyone else heard anything along these lines?
The audit comission recommended a combining of Ftb a and ftb b - so that is where the speculation comes from, but I don't think anything will be announced this budget. I am not convinced all the audit comission findings are entirely well thought out so I think alot of modelling of impacts etc would need doing before bringing any changes in.
If even a few of the AC's recommendations are implemented, people our age with families have much bigger things to worry about than just FTB.:
Like what, md?
The retirement age hiking to to 70 :(
I read in the report that tackling the homelessness problem is too expensive so the govt should basically give up. Good think they recommended 50% child care rebate for nannies though.
The Audit Commission has some strange findings it is true (regarding homelessness, reduction in minimum wage, not looking at negative gearing at all) - and really doesn't look properly at costs and benefits of the proposals (The Conversation had a good article - Commission of Audit fails to consider costs and benefits).
Introducing the CCR for nannies (which is really CCR for 'in home childcare') makes good economic sense though - the demand at childcare centers outstrips supply - meaning people can not choose to use the centers only when they need them - e.g You have work for 6 months then no work for 3 months before finding another job - you can't pull your children out of childcare for the three months as won't get them back in - so you send them for the 3 months, when you could have them with you at home, which hits your pocket but also the governments as it is paying the CCR for that time and also the CCB if you are eligible. With the 50% rebate for in home childcare made more widely available (currently it exists but is very limited) - some people due to above work situations for example would switch from center based to 'in home care' and due to its flexibility would be able to only utilize it when required therefore saving everyone - plus freeing up childcare places for other people. Some people end up not working due to the inflexibility of child care which costs in terms of tax revenue, and depending on circumstances triggers the payments of FTB B etc.
The alternative would be to increase the number of childcare places available at centers so that people can only use them when they need them - but that would be a far more expensive option.
Increase in uni fees, $15 co-payment on top of the gap fees we already pay to see the dr & go to the emergency dept, increase to amts paid for medicine, the increase in pension age & superannuation benefit age, reduction to FTB A ceiling, cuts to hundreds of things currently on the Medicare schedule (like pathology), privatization of Aust Post.:
Make no mistake, the baby boomers will be laughing all the way to their graves while the rest of us continue to pay for their wealth decades after they are gone.
WYSIWYG - I agree with your comments about childcare. The one recommendation that did stand out to me as being well-advised (and seems to have a good evidence-base) is the idea of tying the paid parental leave to the average wage & then plowing the PPL savings into expanding childcare options. This is the sort of measure that does increase workforce participation for parents, especially mothers, and so it makes sense economically as well as socially.
The copayment s, family tax and childcare changes will affect us. I already don't go to the doctor as mine doesn't bulk bill every visit and I can't afford $30 X2 for a referral for a blood test then to get the results.
My medical issue isn't life threatening, I just get to randomly react to food/drink.
Yeah, it really ****s me when I hear about my 60 year old relatives whinge about how they have "earned" thier pensions and how unfair it is that CL are still insisting they go on new start or what ever after they have quit their jobs.:
Assuming they will live till the are 80 or 90 and didn't start paying tax until they were 20, they will have spent 1/2 their lives living off the government in one way or another.
A generation of people with entitlement mentality.
:
Hmmm, not all of them have done wrong. That's a pretty big generalisation. I've watched my step dad work his butt off. He started at 14 and has only just stopped work now at 60. The last two years he worked through a severe back injury. (He has now been told that to operate to repair it will render him a paraplegic). He saved as much as he could. We received no govt handouts as we were growing up as the govt didn't acknowledge that he was sending 1/3 of his income on child support for his children and my mum received pittance from my dad. He lost everything when he spilt from his first wife (he left her with everything) and worked constantly to build it all back up. His day without a word of a lie, started at 2am and he'd get home around 4pm. He did that for around 15 years before he changed his business. Still long hours. He did it for years. Started talking about retirement and then the GFC hit and he lost a truckload of super, only to be taxed hard as he tried to build it back up again if he went over the threshold. And he did all this to try and avoid living off the govt but they screwed him all the way.
So there are people in the older generation doing the right thing and it seems over the years the govt has made a ****load of money off them.
Quite frankly, and this will probably be unpopular, he's bloody earned a hand from the govt!
We already pay $50-$60 per visit at the GP. The kids are bulk billed. The FTB is where we'll feel it the most, but I'll wait and see what actually happens. I wish all the "advice " and speculation would just stay in house, it worries too many people. Just bring the official budget out already!
20 - 30 years of a $400 per week paycheque from the government Vs 40 years of working and paying tax.
Seems that it would be unlikely that you would have paid that much in tax in your working life.
Add in all your public medical costs and and you have just cost the public purse waaay more than you will ever put in.
It's not their fault, the system told these people it could sustain them.
It just bugs me that we will in all likely hood bear the brunt of keeping our kids and our parents.
I
I understand what you're saying, but labelling them as a "generation of people with entitlement mentality" is pretty presumptuous. Not everyone seeks to live off the pension.
No they don't.:
But no one wants to admit that the current level of government spending on pensions and medical expenses for an aging population is simply not sustainable.
But god forbid that you suggest that someone work an extra year or two before you recieve a pension.
In all likelyhood, by the time we get to retire at 70, the pension won't even exist.
I think the "entitlement mentality" idea gets thrown around quite a lot - mostly by boomers who think that the generations that followed them expect everything. Of course, the irony is that it's the boomers who have enjoyed a mind-boggling advancement of living standards, education, wealth, etc over their lifetime, which their successors are unlikely to ever have access to. We're too busy paying off our uni debts, trying to break into the massively inflated housing market, wading through long commutes to outer suburbs, and forking out through the gills to pay exorbitant childcare fees because the cost of living pressures mean the average single income ain't enough to live on. That's why wealthy, white, male, boomer politicians (of ANY political persuasion) who are coasting along on their economic privilege have no right to be pointing the entitlement mentality finger.
When do we find out which things are actually getting done, and which are just getting promoted to the House for voting?
Budget is presented to parliament on 13 May. That's when we know what's actually being proposed. Most will be incorporated into the budget and it's the general convention since the Whitlam dismissal in 1975 not to block the budget in the senate.
May 13. I reckon the commission was established to set us up to welcome the 'soft' version of "economic recovery" [if we buy their EMERGENCY line at all] offered by the Abbott government. It's bull****.
They - let's face it, they're stooges of the liberal party - were tasked with finding costs savings to bring us back to surplus, which is apparently the holy grail of all good governments (uh, no, missing the point of running a country, people) and were not meant to look at income at all. Because, let's face it, those big businesses et al need their tax breaks and rebates and what not, so let's not even examine avenues for increasing income. Except maybe in the form of a debt levy. Because debt is bad and people should pay for that.
I mean, if we cut handouts to big business, then people might lose jobs. And we don't want that. (cutting funding and employment in the public sector - never frontline services, right - doesn't count as people losing jobs.)
Given the general sentiment of late, the performance of small parties in recent elections and dissatisfaction with budget stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if smaller parties push for major changes and/or maybe, possibly threaten supply over this. they actually stand to do well out of a double dissolution. Labor would not and would not block.
It seems most budgets there is talk of something before which then makes us think 'phew' when the real budget comes through. There is an infographic going round on FB at the moment -:
"Government Gross Debt as a percentage of GDP
Australia 33.7%
UK 109.1%
US 109.1%
GREECE 183.7%
JAPAN 228.4%
If Australia's Economy is in crisis then the rest of the world is doomed"
I am sure there is a need for some scale backs - but I think they have to be careful of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
Looks like FTB B won't be scrapped but the means testing of it may be changed:
From the Guardian - Families face tougher benefits test but budget to spare sole parents:
The government will *apply tougher tests to family tax benefits but will not follow the Commission of Audit’s recommendation to abolish Family Tax Benefit B.
The government confirmed that there would be changes to the family tax benefits following reports there would be a $100,000 means test for families to receive Family Tax Benefits A or B. However, it is understood that Family Tax Benefit B will not be abolished.
Family Tax Benefit B provides assistance to sole parents and families with a stay-at-home parent. It currently covers families with a primary income below $150,000. The maximum rates paid are $4,241 for families with a child under five and $3,070 for families whose youngest child is between five and 18.
There is also an article that elaborates on the above called "Australia’s economy is healthy, so how can there be a budget crisis?" on the Conversation which looks at a few different measures including the one above. (I won't paste it here as is full of graphs):
The last paragraph
The series of articles on the conversation about the budget and the audit commission - unlike the popular press, do not focus on - who's fault it is, "entitlement" and pitting different groups of society against each other and are worth a read IMO plus comments on the articles are also usually pretty informative.:
While short term measures such as expenditure cuts and debt levies may have an impact on the size of the deficit, they cannot “fix” the economy. The economy is not in disarray, and long-term budget deficit and debt issues require well thought-out policy on the structure of taxation and expenditure.