Ballys

What aload of bollocks

Beoz

You would like a balless leader afraid to put his nuts on the line?

knockoff nige

He wasn't putting his nuts on the line. And regardless, if this 'budget emergency' is about making tough decisions, he should have sought better counsel before declaring his ill thought plan to the country. Does taxing people more affect the economy? Yes. Did he promise for no new taxes before the election? Yes. Did he try and defend himself by saying he isn't introducing a new tax, just a levy? Yes. That's why you are being taken for a ride. You believe there is no budget emergency and no need for a debt tax but defend Tony Abbot as you believe he made a smart move by 'thrashing around' his ideas for us to have an opinion on.

Amazulu

TA will make a big mistake if he introduces this tax, sorry, levy. A mistake that he may regret making

Beoz

I don't believe a plan for the 'clear the debt' things has been unveiled. Until you know what it is calm down.

Beoz

Depends. If its a tax on the +180,000's and there was an election looming, he might be ok. The +180,000's would look at the alternatives, Shorten, and probably stick with Tony.

knockoff nige

Abbot has shown his intent to break his promises. It doesn't matter what the budget includes, he has shown how little he respects your vote and how incompetent he is as prime minister.

Amazulu

Not trying to boast but I'm in that group and, yes if it comes down to it, I'll stick with TA. But I resent being used as a cash cow by governments from both sides. I understand the need for wealth redistribution in a normally function country, but I resent the level that it is at. I pay and get nothing (and expect nothing) but people at the other end of the spectrum pay nothing and get everything (and expect everything). If our governments spent our taxes properly then I wouldn't mind paying, but they don't so therefore I do. Saying that it's no different in the UK and many other countries

I also have a problem with people earning over $150k being described as wealthy. Many people who work in my industry fall into this bracket and few could be described as wealthy. Well off and comfortable certainly, but most need to work and have bills to pay. I hate the way governments and some other organisations demonise people who earn good money. I guess I'm a bit lucky to have skills that are usually in demand, but I've also had to train, study and work to get those skills, and for a long time earned a very low income. What I have didn't come out of a lucky packet

knockoff nige

It's no true that you get nothing. Whether you get your money's worth is probably a different matter. But surely it's correct that you pay more if you can afford it? I don't get any handouts as I'm not a lower income earner supporting a family but think its fair that those who earn less than me should have the same quality of Public Health Service and other public services as I can afford. That can only happen if people who earn more pay more.

Beoz

Oh for f*** sake give it a rest. Pollies break promises. Alla your mate J Gillars. Get over it.

Beoz

paulry

Something that few seem to have noticed is there also seems to be a generational inequality when it comes to apportioning the tax burden, tax breaks and government hand-outs, etc. The baby boomers received free university education. Today, many of them are doing nicely indeed sitting in homes that didn't strip them out to buy mortgage-payment wise, they then were aided and abetted by the tax man to stoke up the property market with negative-geared and self-managed-super funded buy-to-let properties and now it appears that they'll be the last to be supported by the government to retire at age 65. In contrast to their younger compatriots who the younger they are receive a much tougher deal ending in a later retirement age to support the better off who came before them. Seems to me that if the government really wants to be fair they'd leave the uni student fees alone and pull the tax-revenue-depleting and illogical negative-gearing rug instead.

Beoz

Yep. Negative Gearing should be done and dusted

knockoff nige

That's a poor tactic, isn't it? I've already acknowledged that Gillard lied. There is a difference between the two. Gillard lied as she had a minority government. Abbot does not have that problem and doesn't have to make the deals Gillard did. And before you get confused, I'm not defending lying. Just pointing out how your vote was trashed before it was cast.

Amazulu

Read my post properly and trust me, I do pay more! I have no objection to the concept of wealth redistribution through taxation in an equitable society, but not at the level that it is in Australia and many other countries. I also believe in universal healthcare for all regardless of income and status. I also believe in welfare, but only for the most needy in our society and for those who genuinely cannot look after themselves. Unfortunately we have a situation where half of the workforce take more out of the system than they put in. The sense of entitlement, aka middle-class welfare sees that the life of many is just made more comfortable with handouts when they are capable of taking care of their own needs. Rather than churning tax through the system at great bureaucratic cost, it would be more efficient to cut income tax, increase consumption tax, drive productivity higher, which would push the economy up, thereby increasing wages and opportunities for all.