Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

Thanks Comet - got to admit, I'd been googling and looking at different things and just couldn't figure it out. I'm going to blame it on pregnancy brain ;)

I'm not going to count on getting it but it'd be nice if we did - every bit helps afterall.

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

So do you as it's a valid point. Explain to me why having children necessarily makes somebody more deserving of a handout?

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

Sometimes, just sometimes, children can be a smidge on the expensive side... that's why ... plus, it's always good for a politician to be seen on the side of "families"... definite vote-winner ;)

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

Other people's children will be the ones paying taxes which you consume in healthcare etc when old and infirm and not making any income.

Governments understand this and encourage families either directly as in Costello's Baby Bonus (one for the dad, one for the mum, one for the nation) or by creating an environment in which people know they get ongoing assistance.

I should note that while a father of two, I receive no Family Tax Benefits, am not eligible for any child care tax rebate, am not eligible for the new education tax rebate thingy and do not get today's new "back to school" bonus.

This is because I earn too much money. In fact I am therefore a net provider of these benefits to other people's children and not a net recipient.

I am reasonably confident that I pay am paying more tax than you are. Good job I don't complain about my taxes going to subsidise your lower taxation burden as much as you complain about subsidising other peoples children.

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

Vote winner? Agreed - that's my point.

As to expensive, yes of course, but a childless couple today could have children tomorrow. Any investment/lack of investment in their future will affect their decision making. Aside from that everbody is making an contribution towards the state of the nation so to single out any group for a handout (especially families in this instance) makes little sense in this particular economic situation, albeit I don't agree with either.

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

What you said x 2! :D

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

Though I think giving money to people with kids MAY increase the amount that gets spent rather than saved. Because kids are expensive parents may indeed use the "back to school" bonus to buy new uniform and shoes instead of using last year's for example instead of paying a bit more off the mortgage.

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

if you pay tax in australia on your earnings then you are an "australian taxpayer" - irrespective of your temp or perm visa status.

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

I want some of it.
Based on the population of Australia I should get $2000.

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

No - I disagree in this climate. People with large financial commitments - typically, but not exclusively families - are going to be worried about jobs right now. If the $950 is nearly a months worth of interest payment on their mortgage, then I think they will save it for a rainy day. If somebody loses their job, it's better to have that money behind them, then have spent it on a new uniform.

I am only speaking from the experiences of the people with whom I work, but that seems to be what people here are going to do.


S

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

Temp Visa, PR etc, that will all be sorted out tomorrow.

This package is not yet a DONE DEAL


The Government will be introducing the bills into the House of Representatives tomorrow.

These bills will need to passed by parliament, with or without any changes, before they can implement the plan and deliver the payments to anyone.

Leader of Government in the Senate Chris Evans says he will be consulting with the leaders of each party tonight about the bills.

Opposition Leader and Greens leader have both said they will be scrutinising the package carefully.

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

:o Oops, I hadn't realised it wasn't finalised - no wonder I was having trouble trying to find a calculator or more info about it! Will wait and see what comes about tomorrow :)

(Also feeling a bit :o that when I read the bit about part of it being for FTB part B people who were entitled on Feb 3, I thought "gosh, that's a long way away"... hadn't realised it was Feb 3 today... d'oh! )

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

Unlikely, although as my views are complete contrary to those of government, if they're going to hand tax payers money out I'd rather it went to the group most likely to save it (which isn't the point being argued here by most).

As to your point about taxes earlier, that's a terrible argument and I think you know it. Our own taxes are meant to pay for our own social requirements upon retirement. That it's a rolling liability across generations is simply due to underfunded pension funds, healthcare system and nature of governments functioning on deficits. So from a policy perspective of course government know it, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily fair on those who choose to not have children, nor that they should in some way feel guilty for their choices. There are also many examples of the reverse - single/childless people who are subsidising those with children. For example on an average year basis (don't have kids yet so assume I'm a fair bit younger) I'm fairly certain I've paid more tax than you, but I don't have a problem with that as I want a inclusive society. To intimate any superiority of personal relative taxation burdens misses the point that you're doing well.

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

To be fair, Government's do not save our taxes paid now for our consumption in the future, they use current revenues (current tax) to fund current liabilities (health, pensions etc.). The baby boomer issue and the change in population shape has necessitated a change and the extablishment of the Future Fund etc in recognition that future revenue base will be insufficent to meet those liabilities. So I stand by the geenral principle that future taxation pays for future liabilities and hence children of today will pay my costs of tomorrow.

I have no issue with "doing well" and paying my taxes to subsidy others. My argument was pointing out to someone who DID complain about that very thing (subsidisng other peoples chldren) that they themselves are being subsidised by others like me and will later in life be subsidised by taxpayers who are today's children.

Re: $42 billion Stimulus Package
 

[QUOTE=markallwood;7241889]Lets be honest here. When you compare a salary of >$100k, to the average salary of a person living in Qld, I think it's a little unfair to expect government handouts, which are intended for people who really need them...not folks who are probably living a fairly comfortable lifestyle already. I don't think that anyone is assuming that you're living in the lap of luxury either.



Yeah but the hansouts are NOT for the people that need them..............they are to stimulate the economy.

Whilst I agree a single of income of over 100k is not what I call average.....I can see where dunroamin is coming from?