Don't mention the ....

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

.....

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I agree with this. Paying for Doctor visits. in 94 it would cost me about $40.00 to see a GP back home. So as you say you don't go there for a nose bleed. Having said that, each GP practice is private. So it's natural selection. The good ones get the customers, the bad ones close doors. In turn the service you get for your 40 bucks was second to none.

Come to Australia, I was surprised to hear Medicare, Bulk billing, free, etc... That was foreign to me. There's no such things as freebee.

$7 is nothing really. It's gonna clear all the waiting rooms of all the bludgers for sure.

An additional $7 "gap" fee at the Drs isn't going to make me go hungry - they only bulk bill people with health care cards - but as a self funded retiree I don't get any of the perks the employed (like tax deduction for my private health insurance), the unemployed and OAPs get.

As for jobs, there are people who will never have the ability to do anything more intelligent than leaning on a council shovel. Sounds harsh but it is true. Jobs like that are disappearing. Forcing them to go to year 12 just delays when they start the dole and can disrupt the rest of the school.

Then there are the people who would do better leaving school earlier and going to TAFE, but we can see from the cuts how important the govt thinks TAFE is. Are you ready for $120K per uni degree per child?

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

Are you ready for $120K per uni degree per child?

To spend that much on your education you'd think there is a good paying job worth that much on the other end, not like research on the color of feathers on a T Rex's arse during the Jurassic period, so you can pay the money back when you're in the work force. If you're not sure about it don't make the commitment.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

To spend that much on your education you'd think there is a good paying job worth that much on the other end, not like research on the color of feathers on a T Rex's arse during the Jurassic period, so you can pay the money back when you're in the work force. If you're not sure about it don't make the commitment.

T-Rex's arse feathers were obviously brown - no great mystery there. The colour of the rest of them is harder to guess. Oh .. and it didn't live during the Jurassic - it was late Cretaceous.

Seriously though, I think if research was limited to the certainty of a good job at the end of it the world would be a much poorer place, both culturally and scientifically. Certainly there would be much less astronomy research. We need that 'blue sky' research both because it has a track record of turning up something useful (eg electricity) and because of the beneficial effect on our consciousness. Yes, we also need practical, directed research but that is happening and is the great majority of the world's research effort.

It is also possible to do a good solid research project and still not find a job. Geologists find this all the time. One year the companies are recruiting second year students who still know jack and the next they are sacking people with PhDs and decades of experience. About 10 years ago ecologists were a dime a dozen. Many committed souls wanted to help 'save the planet' and it looked as though there would be jobs for them, but by the time they graduated the situation had changed. The problem they all face is the irrational anarchic society we have inherited. It's a constant wonder to me that we tolerate it.

[Retrograde (Pete)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Chris Bowen, Sarah Fergusson, 'broken promises', etc.... the whole lot sound like a bloody broken record. .

You mean like Tony Abbott & his colleagues every day for the last 4 years? Now shown as liars and hypocrites like we've never seen.

You may not think $7 is much but to my mum who's an aged pensioner and has a heart condition, who has to go to the GP - then for tests - then back to the GP - then to the specialist - it's a great deal.

Originally Posted by multiweb

They should join the war effort and tighten their belts like the rest of us

The war effort? You mean the war effort against fairness, honesty and accountability? Hockey doubled the deficit http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-0...eficit/5423392 to invent a fake crisis to push this idelogical con-job on us.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Retrograde

You mean like ....

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

LOL - two more victims of the 'system'. Geez are you guys for real?

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

This is Pete in action Marc

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

This is Pete in action Marc

... and?

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

... and?

Nothing

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Nothing

See you at the SPSP Pavarotti.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

See you at the SPSP Pavarotti.

Dilegua, o notte! Tramontate, stelle! Tramontate, stelle! All'alba vincerò! Vincerò! Vinceròooooooooooooo!

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

I was going to comment but Marc will just give us another copy and paste of Liberal talking points. Golden shower economics and state sponsored nannies, thanks Tony.

[casstony]

Originally Posted by KenGee

I was going to comment but Marc will just give us another copy and paste of Liberal talking points. Golden shower economics and state sponsored nannies, thanks Tony.

Please impart your wisdom Ken - I'm willing to learn.

Is the debt associated with real estate not a major problem? If it is could past governments have avoided the problem?

[Starless (Brian)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

I was going to comment but Marc will just give us another copy and paste of Liberal talking points. Golden shower economics and state sponsored nannies, thanks Tony.

Ditto!!

[stanlite (Grady)]

I am sorry to say guys and girls this is a budget that was always going to happen at some point. Just because the deficit was "inflated" doesn't mean there isn't one. Eventually you have to rectify that. And that always means pain. If you rectify it early it means less pain later. Particularly when you consider some home truths.

1. there are going to be more old, non tax paying people in this country living longer with ever more serious quality of life concerns in the next 10-15 years (right about when we would have a serious budget emergency if we did nothing now).
2. there will be fewer than 2 working age people per welfare recipients (pensions/dole whatever) within my lifetime (I am mid 20's) unless radical changes are made to how we target welfare and how we tax people.

The problem with this country is the welfare base (those getting it) has become to broad. The tax base to narrow and the expectations the people put on government too high. We simply cannot given the projected aging in our population support the welfare society that has existed for the last 50 years. At least not without major reworking of either the tax system, or welfare or both.

I personally don't have a problem with any politician breaking a promise (as opposed to outright lying) it is foolish in the extreme to expect anyone to be able to forecast what they can deliver in the next 2 months much less 3 years. What matters to me is the ability of our elected reps to be able to make the call and walk away from a bad promise (as the Libs have done on somethings). The problem isn't with the pollies (well it is too I guess) its with us! We punish them at the ballot box if they admit they broke a promise even if they do so with good reason. Kinda creates a incentive for them to never answer a question straight if they know people are just going to lose their **** because it is different from what they said last week.. month... year ect ect. Now I am a liberal supporter I say it freely but I am also set to be one of the worse affected by this budget, I am unemployed (since September) under 30 and do not live near public transport, but i would support any budget, by any party (well maybe not Palmer lol), that attempts to rectify structural issues with the budget.

A good option that might be possible in a few years with help from technology is getting rid of income tax and moving to a wealth tax. Where you are taxed on your total wealth each year rather than earned wealth each year. This avoids tax loopholes like being paid in shares or cars ... ect.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

I was watching Paul Murray Live tonight who was passionately making the case for the $20billion medical research fund, that is to be funded by the co-payment on Doctor's, X-Ray, Pathology etc visits. He has been very active in raising money for research. He made the interesting point - when people are at charity events raising money for hospitals or medical research, the most common question is how come government doesn't do this?

And now the government is.

Cheers,
Renato

[AndrewJ]

A good option that might be possible in a few years with help from technology is getting rid of income tax and moving to a wealth tax.

The problem there is the wealthy would always have access to means to show that they dont have wealth, and pollies will always ensure that there are loopholes to jump through.
No pollie ( of any persuasion ) is going to bring in a system that allows themselves and their "influential backers" to be caught by it.

Andrew

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

I was going to comment but Marc will just give us another copy and paste of Liberal talking points. Golden shower economics and state sponsored nannies, thanks Tony.

Originally Posted by Starless

Ditto!!

Nah... you guys go for it. Bring something constructive to the discussion. I'm entitled to my own opinion so are you. We don't have to agree on everything.

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

The problem there is the wealthy would always have access to means to show that they dont have wealth, and pollies will always ensure that there are loopholes to jump through.
No pollie ( of any pesuasion ) is going to bring in a system that allows themselves and their "influential backers" to be caught by it.

Andrew

They taxed wealth in France years ago. They just move to Monaco or Belgium or wherever they don't get taxed as much. Some went as far as changing their nationality so it doesn't seem to work. It's harder to get out of Australia though.

Here's the latest. Pretty negative speech and bleak picture of the immediate future. But I don't hear any alternative or solution. Just political babbling. I don't care which side fix the mess we're in as long as it's fixed TBH. But I don't buy 'we'll look after you' and 'fair go speeches', I've heard enough over the past 6 yrs. I'd like to hear concrete planned solutions.

[stanlite (Grady)]

But that is the thing people still have to have a paper trail to their wealth if they hide it with someone else or in some structure they still need a way to prove its their wealth otherwise anyone can take it. Even if they don't hold the wealth and they hide it with someone not working all that would happen is that person would be taxed.

In truth there is really nothing stopping anyone from forming their own one person company that hires themselves out to do work. Doing this you circumvent income tax by being a company then pay for everything as business expenses, thus no profits and no business tax. The only difference between the rich and the average man is knowledge and willingness to take the time to do it.

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

The problem there is the wealthy would always have access to means to show that they dont have wealth, and pollies will always ensure that there are loopholes to jump through.
No pollie ( of any persuasion ) is going to bring in a system that allows themselves and their "influential backers" to be caught by it.

Andrew