You read it here first. I'm admittedly a conservative but I'm going to stay open-minded.

Baby Bonus/Family tax benefits scrapped for families with $150k joint income. $150k joint income is hardly rich anymore. There will be a lot of tradies out there not happy at this.

Winners

Low to middle income earners - tax cuts totalling $47 billion over four years.

Families with young children - baby bonus to rise, child care tax rebate up.

Families with kids at school - refunds on education expenses, new computers.

Australians of the future - major funds set up to fund infrastructure, education and health.

Public health - extra $3.2 billion over five years.

First home buyers - new saver accounts.

Seniors - lump sum payments, higher allowances.

Carers - more money for those with disabled children.

Clean coal - fast tracked ahead of renewable energy.

Losers

Families on more than $150,000 a year - family tax benefit and baby bonus to be means-tested.

Fringe benefits tax claimants - rules to be tightened.

People who like luxury cars and ready-to-drink alcohol - tax rates to rise.

Public service - 1,200 jobs to go.

Our family lives on roughly $40k all up. We get by. If you have trouble living on $150k to the point of needing a baby bonus to cover baby expenses, you're doing it wrong.

$150k joint income is hardly rich anymore.

Maybe not 'rich' but certainly more than what is needed to get by comfotably and certainly enough to not need a free hand out from the Government.

that 150k is a joint income of mum and dad. Its hardly for two people with a mortgage and kids to be earning.

Baby Bonus/Family tax benefits scrapped for families with $150k joint income. $150k joint income is hardly rich anymore. There will be a lot of tradies out there not happy at this.

The average male wage is mid 50s, the average female wage is substantially below that.


So you'll have to be significantly better off then average to be affected by means testing. Is it a hard cut at that limit or just reduced benefits ?

i for one welcome the budget 08

that 150k is a joint income of mum and dad. Its hardly for two people with a mortgage and kids to be earning.

We have 3 kids and a mortgage and don't earn that much yet we get by no problems?

Carers - more money for those with disabled children.

Most of QGL's parents just hit the jackpot.

last edited by mission at 20:03:05 13/May/08

last edited by mission at 20:04:26 13/May/08

what did they say about the LPG rebate
that's what i'm hanging out for

I wish these f*****s would give up a couple billion to undergrad university students. :(

f***ing voc-ed is bulls***. Wait to finish high school so you dont sound like an imbred moron when you finish and then go to tafe and finish your apprenticeship at the same time as the voc-ed kids anyway... I really wish they wouldnt waste money on that s***. Address the skill shortage by boosting the wages of apprentices - like maybe around minimum wage for cheffing would be a big step up.

sound like an imbred moron

lol ironing


I reckon it's crazy that the baby bonus isn't already means-tested. and 150k cutoff is incredibly generous imo

So from 1 July 2008, an income test will be introduced so that Family Tax Benefit Part B will only be available to families in which the principal earner does not have an annual income exceeding $150,000.

From 1 July 2008 we will increase the Baby Bonus to $5,000. From 1 January 2009, an income test will be introduced so that it will only be available where family income is not more than $150,000 a year.

He's acting like he has increased the BB. The last government did that. On top of that Family tax benefit Part B is just a way to have Centrelink intrude in to the lives of and invade the privacy of middle class Australians. If you are only claiming it annually you shouldn't get it at all.

$150k for 3 kids and a mortgage is plenty. Seriously, WTF are people spending their money on if living with that much is hard?

Also wtf is with "Climate"? They nearly gave the same amount to "Climate" as health or education.

f*** OFF YOU STUPID TRENDY CLIMATE CHANGE c***S.

the baby bonus should be scrapped, or at the very least, replaced with a voucher style system

Why a voucher system? That is an insult to all the people with a clue that can manage their money.

they just cut howard programs and brought in their own.

revenue from alcopops tax is estimated to grow over the forward estimates so by their own concession it will not cut binge drinking.

increase in the efficiency dividend from government departments, well no surprise there.

turnbull made a good point, they have put $20bn in an infrastructure australia fund and don't even know what they are going to spend it on yet. sounds like a good idea for a summit!

don't forget to slap Swanny on the back for increasing unemployment too next year.

Why a voucher system? That is an insult to all the people with a clue that can manage their money.

I knew someone that spent their entire $3000 baby bonus in under a fortnight on meth.

Her kid is the most derro piece of s*** ever, I wish they took 4 year olds to boystown or something.

So yeah, voucher system FTW.

oh no, an insult! :)
it's an insult to some people who choose to be insulted by such an idea, but big deal if it's a good outcome

i work for centrelink and whole heartedly welcome the 150k mark

i am sick to death of rich mothers ringing up asking when their 'coffee' money is in next. i kid you not, the $70-80 a fortnight they get they call their coffee money, husband earns 200k+ etc.

if you think 150k is low, what about kids trying to get youth allowance, it starts to cutout once your parents earn combined over $31000, people earning 150k+ who complain are so far out of touch its not funny

its WELFARE, not extra money to assist with the 400k house, 2 cars, 3 kids in private school or doing extra activities like sport/movies/new clothes..

yeah I would agree with that

First home buyers - new saver accounts.

I want to know more

edit: found more: http://homesaver.treasury.gov.au/content/fact_sheet/Account_Holders.asp

I think i was better off with the $7k grant

last edited by Strange Rash at 21:11:36 13/May/08

Seriously, WTF are people spending their money on if living with that much is hard?

people need to stop buying 40" tv's and start paying off there debts.

people need to stop buying 40" tv's and start paying off there debts

But then consumer spending would slow, thereby impacting on the economy and it would all be blamed on the labor government.

Everything that happens that is negative is the fault of the Labor Government, everything that is any good is from the Legacy Of JWH.

It my be true, some random guy on the internets said so.

Did anyone else laugh when he said it was ~"the most comprehensive tax review since world war 2".

What a joke, all they did is slightly change some of the tax rates, increase luxury car tax, add the premix alcohol tax.. and all this suddenly means its a more "modern" system.

good to see that krudd bulls***eed again about the pension. thanks you f*** rash.

jesus died because of the labour government

What a joke, all they did is slightly change some of the tax rates, increase luxury car tax, add the premix alcohol tax.. and all this suddenly means its a more "modern" system.

I think they were talking more about the rewrite of the thresholds that's planned over the next 6 years than the current tweaking?

I think they were talking more about the rewrite of the thresholds that's planned over the next 6 years than the current tweaking?

That was basically the doing of the Howard government, though.

First home buyers - new saver accounts.

So the basis of this is the government will give you 17% on $5000 put in per year (i.e. $850 a year) to an account that has a max of $75000. So if you're willing to put $5000 in for 13 years you'll get $12750 from the government, but this money can only be used to buy a first home, otherwise it goes to super. Is that right? (From a really quick skim read and maths.)

As long as the mrs remains a stay at home mum for a while after the birth, we will still just sneak in for the Baby Bonus and FTB Part B. I bought new golf clubs and a new TV last time, not sure what to get this time :)

As for the Razor gang, he just INCREASED government spending! Does he not understand that cutting spending in one area and increasing it in another has a net effect of bugger all on inflationary pressures?

if you think 150k is low, what about kids trying to get youth allowance, it starts to cutout once your parents earn combined over $31000, people earning 150k+ who complain are so far out of touch its not funny

its WELFARE, not extra money to assist with the 400k house, 2 cars, 3 kids in private school or doing extra activities like sport/movies/new clothes..

This man for treasurer.

He's probably more qualified than Wayne Swan.

the baby bonus was originally setup to encourage more people to have children (to reverse our aging population) - not necessarily to help with baby costs. i think people should be able to spend it on whatever the f*** they want. 99% of the time parents would have already bought all the stuff for their newborn before its born anyway..

also, as others have stated if you're struggling on 150k you're doing it wrong (life that is).

epic is right - it doesn't matter what they spend it on, just so long as more kids are popped out to help the baby boomers through the pension.

also

has the first home owners grant been scrapped? or is the save for a house thing just an addition?

the baby bonus was originally setup to encourage more people to have children

unfortunately, the 5 grand cash simply entice the breeders to breed more. We need to encourage the rich, successful citizens to have broods of children that will grow up to become productive members of society.

Instead a generation of meth head descendents will take the baton that the baby boomer's pass on.

yes i know i am generalising, but my point stands. Down with the baby bonus. What about $5 grand if your kid can do his times tables up to 12x by the age of 6 .. and do long division. Far far better scheme.

We need to encourage the rich, successful citizens to have broods of children that will grow up to become productive members of society.

You mean like a means testing for people below 150k?

3 things i see

1. The baby bonus cutoff means the Gov knows we are in deep s*** in regards to population... 150k is alot.. It is prol above the mean household income.. The only reason a labor gov would do this, is to overcome a major population growth problem

2. Since late 80's early 90's the labor government was awesome at controlling our debt.. the libral gov were excellent caretakers of the economy and boosted the wealthy during there term.. (anyone who didn’t make a tonne of cash during the last 8-10 years is a moron (ie blue collar labor supporter). now that labor has come back, the political environment has changed and the once headstrong labor country is giddy with the prospect of making money (ie a liberal trait)

The current government is not a true labor government - they are pandering to the rich while trying to subdue the dumb and broke and lazy. The people labor once included as its base support (tradies) have made so much money in the last decade that they are now considered the new upper middle class.. Something which only been possible due to the last 20 years of such a unique global political history.

3. Labor is flush with cash and is in a very strong global and localised position to deliver awesome economic performance over the next 4-8 years. They also have the experience to keep a level head and try to focus on the important things which apply to all aussies

in conclusion i see a good future for Australia in general and globally over the next 10-15 years however past that i would be concerned by global problems which will impact us locally in a sever way. (i will extrapolate in 10 years kthnx)

the end

Levels is on the level.

Scrap the baby bonus - if people are encouraged to have a baby by an offer of money, then they aren't the people we want having kids.

im confused about this whole baby bonus thing

if you plan to have a child surely you plan and prepare your self for the costs and start saving.

if you dont plan to have a child you get 9months to save a money and pray you have enough

i could easily save 5k in 9 months plus pay for what ever other expenses are occured during that period, sure money would be tight but i could and would do it.

why people rely on the bb blows my f***ing mind.

im confused about this whole baby bonus thing

i get the impression you probably get confused about a lot of things.

it's a financial incentive to increase fertility rates in a macro sense (a very worthy policy goal), not a financial aid to parents in a micro sense.

whether or not it performs this function correctly or whether people abuse it is another matter entirely.

1. The baby bonus cutoff means the Gov knows we are in deep s*** in regards to population... 150k is alot.. It is prol above the mean household income.. The only reason a labor gov would do this, is to overcome a major population growth problem

i don't even know where to start with this... what 'deep s***' population-wise are you referring to and just how does raising the baby bonus cut-off to 150k solve this? serious question, i can't understand what you're trying to say at all...

The current government is not a true labor government - they are pandering to the rich while trying to subdue the dumb and broke and lazy.

i don't really see how they are pandering to the rich, could you provide some kind of example for that? all i can think of are the tax cuts and they were a direct response to liberal policy not really something they came up with.

Labor is flush with cash and is in a very strong global and localised position to deliver awesome economic performance over the next 4-8 years.

considering they do have this opportunity i would like to see some more significant microeconomic reform. productivity growth is the reason we've performed so well over the last decade and we'll all benefit if it continues.

edit:

Public service - 1,200 jobs to go.

the best thing i've seen in the budget so far, hopefully they haven't cut spending in one area to increase it in another.

i'll have to take a good look through it all tomorrow.

last edited by taggs at 23:05:25 13/May/08

it's a financial incentive to increase fertility rates in a macro sense (a very worthy policy goal), not a financial aid to parents in a micro sense.

oh i completely understand that aspect of it, however when natslovR starts breaking down his expenses of having a child to justify his need of the BB it makes me wonder what kind of position he is in (and many other australians)

to me this indicates that the problem isnt the BB its the mentality of soon to be parents (specifically those relying on the baby bonus) and the kind of debts they have.

i can understand someones situtation if the baby wasnt planned, but still 9months is a long time and alot of prep and planning can be done. sure it hard works and you will be strapped for cash, but s*** you do the s*** you have todo to survive and you shouldnt complain about it.

taggs sometimes i wonder what they teach in unis these days... are you free thinking university student or a liberal professers bitch?

i don't even know where to start with this... what 'deep s***' population-wise are you referring to and just how does raising the baby bonus cut-off to 150k solve this? serious question, i can't understand what you're trying to say at all...

ok i assume you really studied ecomonics and didnt just smoke meth all through uni... please re read what i wrote after taking into account the fundamantal difference in labor and libral philopisies (HINT - whay would a LABOR - (LOW INCOME SUPPORTED GOVERNMENT) pander to upper middle class citizens by raising the baby bonus to 150k for a couple knowing that this doesnt meet there demographic voting profile???)

f*** i'm shaking my head in amazement right now... seriously...

don't really see how they are pandering to the rich, could you provide some kind of example for that?

150k limit for baby bonus for starters?

productivity growth is the reason we've performed so well over the last decade and we'll all benefit if it continues.

as i said we have had growth based on economic factors outside of the libral governments control... it is also outside of the current labour governemts control however we were put in this awesome position 10+ years ago under the previous labor government

try to keep up k thnx


last edited by Superform at 23:32:47 13/May/08

Just thought I would summarise 85% of the political posts on these forums and save everyone some time, in future we can all simply copy+paste one of the two sentences below into any political thread and save everyone a whole lot of grief:

a) Anything I think is good is only the result of something the previous government did and anything I think is bad is the direct fault of the new government alone (and can most likely be attributed to the lack of experience of the new government).

b) Anything I think is good is only the result of something the new government did and anything I think is bad is the direct fault of the mistakes of the previous government alone.

Thankfully these "opinions" are apparently fully applicable to any political environment and need not be discarded should there be a change of government, enjoy!

150k limit for baby bonus for starters?

heh
that's not even close to for starters, how do you even come near thinking that is 'pandering to the rich'. and even if it was - what else, in addition to 'for starters'?

labor is just doing the same thing that the libs did when they got into power. increase the surplus (or in the case of the libs wipe out debt) so you have a warchest to fight the next election.

as i said we have had growth based on economic factors outside of the libral governments control.

yeah lifting container rates and introducing the workplace relations act totally had nothing to do with it.

i've removed the expenses breakdown. Not everyone plans to have children when they do. You don't have to be reliant on the BB to find it useful. You don't get 9 months notice, your average ignorant un-expectant parent gets about 6-7 :-)

If you weren't prepared for it, you may have already used your leave, you may have just switched jobs or just bought a house. You may have just come back from a RTW trip or moved towns/countries and have been expecting to do 2 years of hard saving, not 2 more years of spending.

This is the internet, people complain about everything.

jim i know ur a troll in most threads so i was debating about replying.. but asuming your a ipswich bread 4wd driving westy i'll point out some more examples of 'liberal pandering' in the 10 mins i took to persuse the budget...

childcare rebate - please keep in mind the libral child payment terms.
the housing afforability package... even back in the day this was laughed at when 'couples' would put 500k deposit on a 2 mill house and claim the house rebate... looks like its being brought back in.

medicare threshold levels are being loosened... zug zug.. (is fairness this is bacuase of the strengh in private health atm)

climate change initiative, water for the future, careing for our country... no real labor person gives a f***

i could go on but i have a beer to drink

yeah lifting container rates and introducing the workplace relations act totally had nothing to do with it.

For once you're right.

yeah lifting container rates and introducing the workplace relations act totally had nothing to do with it.

and i'm sure the labor government in 10 years wouldn’t have thought/done this...
tell me 10 things the liberal government has done which is in line with its fundamental principles would have dramatically changed the course of the economy over the last 10 years... i'll give you a bit of time as there isn’t alot of things to chose from...
they have been caretakers of the economy and didn’t screw up to badly during their time – the labor gov has realized the position of the economy and had tried to re position themselves to be part liberal to keep the new found wealthy in there pocket… (ie old labor men i.e. TRADIES)

jim i know ur a troll in most threads so i was debating about replying.. but asuming your a ipswich bread 4wd driving westy i'll point out some more examples of 'liberal pandering' in the 10 mins i took to persuse the budget...

pure irony
floundering at being called on your comment, instead of actually just conceding it's invalidity you weakly throw up the usual lol u r a troll response and then childishly sling insults with about as much spelling prowess and intelligence as the stereotype you're accusing me of being

introducing a means test for the baby bonus, with a combined income threshold of 150k is not pandering to the rich. even your other examples are a stretch at best, and your inclusion of the climate change issue... well it may or may not be true that no 'real labor person' gives a f*** about it but that a) doesn't make it pandering to liberals or b) doesn't mean it's not to the benefit of all voters, given that we need the planet to survive cos we haven't quite got terraforming down pat yet

what's your problem with being asked a question anyway

bout the spelling mistakes.. I’m posting in the late afternoon while drunk... what’s your excuse
how am i floundering?
now on to more pressing matters... a quick search of median housing income aust revealed a wiki answer of 38000 bux... now i admit there is a stretch in compiling data... but if the median is 38k and the current low income supportive government is supporting welfare to housing which have incomes up to 3 times the medium income then what is that called? ... Pandering?.. Ass kissing? wewilldothissojimwinsaforumdebate?
yes maybe some of these reforms will benefit all voters.. However that is not eh stereotypical labor way of doing business..
Such irony that you pwn your own argument whilst trying to shoot me down with the teraforming thing... you realise most labor voters are worried about putting there next meal on the family table.. not worrying about the what if statements of crackpots talking about a global warming thingamajig
as i said .. alot of labor voters have become liberal pacifists and jim is the perfect example... prol made a few bux in the housing boom or the markets and thinks he is king of suburbia... good luck to you

let me guess… you voted labor... hows that 4wd going for ya

the stupid thing about the baby bonus and FTB Part B is that instead of tapering off the benefit once the threshold is reached, you just miss out full stop.

Make $149,999 and get the $5k and the FTB Part B fortnightly payments on top. Make $150,001 and BAM, you miss out on ALL the benefits!

Did they even think this through?!

That's why you make a $2 tax deductible donation at 30 June.

$2 out $5 grand in. Sweet.

I used to work in a public tax practise. We had one client who worked for a bank and was on $500k. He has one child and his wife doesn't work. She had zero income and could still claim the FTB and got a cheque in the mail for $5,000. Not to mention some clever (legal) tax dodging by him and he netted about $25k refund.

Yeah like they needed the Government help.

No more salary sacrificed laptops

I thought I saw that.

Laptop sales to sore over the next month?

Seems a wierd thing to scrap since they are pushing the whole technology and education thing. Mind you, I don't really know the details.

government fuding goes up for my childcare and aged care services. maybe i will vote labor hahahah

superform: when you take money away from the rich and give more money to the middle and lower end, it's the opposite of pandering to the rich

if most voters are soley concerned with putting the next meal on the table and don't care at all about looking after the planet as you claim, why did they vote out a govt which was being criticised for having little to no climate-oriented policy, and vote one in that promised to?

no, I didn't vote labor
yes, I have property and make a little money on it - have been for a good 15 or so years irrespective of the recent boom
no, I don't do the money market
4wd is going great thanks!

never try to talk sense to a drunk jim.

The whole baby bonus scheme is f***ed up.

Firstly, a cash incentive to have a child? There's real good parenting there.
And second, it shouldn't be given as a lump sum - it should be given as a tax exemption or as paid maternity leave.

Also, Bravo for scrapping 1200 jobs. The labour government - helping unemployment since 2008.

ok i assume you really studied ecomonics and didnt just smoke meth all through uni... please re read what i wrote after taking into account the fundamantal difference in labor and libral philopisies (HINT - whay would a LABOR - (LOW INCOME SUPPORTED GOVERNMENT) pander to upper middle class citizens by raising the baby bonus to 150k for a couple knowing that this doesnt meet there demographic voting profile???)

f*** i'm shaking my head in amazement right now... seriously...

i can't honestly believe you are attempting to insult me when you are this wrong. do you understand what introducing the means test for the baby bonus means??

they are taking money away from wealthy people.. just how exactly is this pandering to wealthy people?! and you still haven't told me what 'deep s***' it is apparently solving in regards to population

jim isn't trolling you, he's trying to figure out what the f*** you're on about...

productivity growth is the reason we've performed so well over the last decade and we'll all benefit if it continues.

as i said we have had growth based on economic factors outside of the libral governments control... it is also outside of the current labour governemts control however we were put in this awesome position 10+ years ago under the previous labor government

the productivity growth has been a direct result of microeconomic reform undertaken by both previous labor and liberal governments.

i'll say it again so you can understand: it has been a DIRECT RESULT of the actions of previous governments. of course other economic factors beyond their control have had a large impact but trying to suggest that the australian economy has pulled crazy good productivity growth out of their ass is so utterly retarded i would have thought that even you were beyond that. microeconomic reform has played a fundamental role in the growth of the australian economy over the last 10-15 years and i for one would like it to continue.

ps. i haven't once indicated my political leanings and you have no clue as to how i voted in the previous election. i left political ideology out of my post; how about you do the same, tosser.

That's why you make a $2 tax deductible donation at 30 June.

It doesn't work like that.

Giving a tax deducatable donation doesn't reduce your income, it just means that you don't pay tax on that amount.

Eg, if you earnt $80,000 and donated $10,000, your income is still $80,000, but you don't pay the 30% tax you would have on that $10,000. Therefore, you're $3,000 better off, but on paper your income hasn't changed.

ps. i haven't once indicated my political leanings and you have no clue as to how i voted in the previous election. i left political ideology out of my post; how about you do the same, tosser.

Heh, it's funny how some people get ideas of who you vote for. As a rule I *always* put Labor almost last (Democratic Labor, Family First and Greens go with higher numbers), but my votes basically go to Secular, Democrats, Socialist, One Nation and National (and I'm in Vic btw, where Nat and ONP don't have a strong footing). Strangely, Secular and ONP preferences usually go to Labor, who I specically *don't* vote for.

And somewhere in there we're led to believe Liberal are a major political party. Hmmm. It's an odd society we live in ;P

You're right, it only reduces your taxable income, not assessable income.

Damn my genius plan was foiled once again. I'll get you Gadget!

the fbt changes as listed on the budget site are interesting. will be good to see the details.

"removing the fbt exemption for work related items used mainly for private purposes such as laptops."

does that mean we have to logbook everything?

"1/july. on the laptop I checked work email and fixed production problem. baby johnny played solitare for 10 minutes.

on my pda I checked the NRL score and read an article about databases. watched my paris hilton nightvision movie. "

"removing the fbt exemption for work related items used mainly for private purposes such as laptops."

does that mean we have to logbook everything?

I think it more means you will have a tough time claiming a Salary Sac notebook if your job has no pc requirements, are not required to work from home or on the road, or if you are supplied a notebook for the purpose.

ah well guess we'll never get a baby bonus :( But, seems fair enough I guess.

im loving my baby bonus and all the goodies i bought with it;

muhahahahaha

also, can i still buy shares at work on salary sac and get rich that way?

ps jim i actually meanto to say u voted libral (based on teh fact that you would have made money in property/stocks etc.. what i was thinking in my inebriated state was that you prol voted labor previously)

and taggs.. now i'm a tosser so i guess u win by default

winning by default isn't as satisfying.

pps BHP 48.90 and rising... indicators point to 60-63 buyin by china!

happy days

also, can i still buy shares at work on salary sac and get rich that way?

Errr I don't think you could ever do that? at some stage you get taxed, probably when you sell and have to claim the shares as 'income' which get taxed at your current rate, and any profit from them would be taxed at it's appropriate rate.

sorry stinky, should have clarified;

"shares in the company i work for"

they have to be worth something to start with spook.

nope I didn't vote liberal either
nor labor in the previous election

and taggs.. now i'm a tosser so i guess u win by default

are you for real? after being called out on your rediculous comments you aren't going to reply to any of it? who started with the insults, buddy? you.

and just fyi: internet forums aren't about 'winning' or 'losing'. maybe you seem like such an ass sometimes because you have that kind of mindset. i bet you're a perfectly nice person irl though.

http://www.reallybored.net/m_pictures/305.jpg

Public service - 1,200 jobs to go.

the best thing i've seen in the budget so far, hopefully they haven't cut spending in one area to increase it in another.

The Commissioner for Taxation has just said that reports of 1100 jobs lost in ATO are incorrect and that with the significant amount of seperately funded extra work the budget lumped on the ATO he does 'not see the need for redundancies to balance our budget'.

on to more important matters, why wasn't this thread nuked for a typo in the topic?

Aparently I get an extra $21.15 a week, Yay me!

http://au.pfinance.yahoo.com/budget/articles/tax-cuts-08/index.html