Budget?

frostbite

Likes Dirt
What are your thoughts, if any, on the budget?

Personally I am not really impacted personally, and my girlfriend is pretty much in the same boat. I will get a ~$20-$25 a week tax cut from what I have seen which doesnt really affect me very much, but of course is welcome.

I dont have kids and dont plan on having kids in the next 5 years so baby bonus/childcare does not touch me either. One of my friends has a 1 yo and I am happy for him as there appears to be some significant benefits for him and his partner.

One thing I dont quite get is how I may now be better off without private health insurance. I dont have health insurance now mainly because I never got around to organising it. I earn over the threshold so I will be paying the levy. With the changes to the threshold it does not make financial sense for me to get health insurance at the moment strictly from a saving money perspective, but I will look into it anyway because the extra cover may be worth it to me.

I'm wondering what will happen to the price of health cover once the new financial year rolls around though, will we really see 100,000s of people leaving private cover and will medicare be swamped as some are predicting.

In my opinion the $40b spent on infrastructure, health and education can only be a good thing, and will benefit the country a bit further down the track.

Your thoughts?
 

Sethius

Crashed out somewhere
was there anything for uni students? as i cant even get anything for my studies.stupid independent/dependent setup..
 

scblack

Leucocholic
I was talking about it at an accountants seminar at Randwick Racecourse today.

The health insurance levy threshold raising is a very short-sighted idea. Many people will leave private insurance, putting much more pressure on the public system. Many who leave the private system will be un-insured meaning they could potentially have HUGE medical bills or have to wait years for procedures.

For those who remain in the private system, the cost will rise dramatically, and that will include many who are below the threshold. I will retain private cover as I have two very young girls, and like to know they are covered if anything major happens. MANY families will be the same, even though they could opt out, they will retain private cover and be hit by higher premiums. Many families will be worse off.

The FBT impost for laptops is dicking around with one of the few valid employee benefits still available. I would have thought being able to have a decent newer computer in the house would be a very good thing.

The infrastructure funds will only be of ANY benefit if they are spent wisely and soon. There is absolutely no idea what they are specifically for, or when they will be spent. Its not much use if the funds are just sitting in the bank.

Tax changes are courtesy of Howard's Liberal Party, so no change from what would have happened anyway.

It is a cautious Budget with not much changes really at all. A waste of an opportunity in a sense for Rudd and Swan. I was listening to Chris Caton (BT Economist) this morning, who reckons now was the time for a big budget impact (if they had anything in mind), as they have a couple of years for the political impact to die down, or for general conditions to work it through. They have basically lost that opportunity now (judging by them having copied Liberal tax policy there really was no big ideas rolling around anyway).
 

red death

Likes Bikes
I'm pretty pleased about the private health changes. Of course buckets of $ will need to be poured into the public system to compensate.

The previous govts failure to link the point at which the levy was placed on non fund members had the effect of forcing more and more into what is without doubt a poor value product (private health insurance). Hopefully we will maintain a robust system and avoid the private health debacle US style Howard was leading us too.

Medicare rocks. Lets make it even better. :)
 

scblack

Leucocholic
I'm pretty pleased about the private health changes. Of course buckets of $ will need to be poured into the public system to compensate.
But the dollars are not there.:rolleyes:

They are paying for some infrastructure, but even doctors groups are saying that has missed the point. More doctors, more nurses, more support services are needed.

That is not presently provided for. So, the pressing need you have identified being required with this change is MISSING. This policy change creates a huge number of new people in the public system that are NOT paid for.

It may seem like more dollars in some people's pocket, but its an unfunded policy.
 

brisneyland

Likes Dirt
The health insurance levy threshold raising is a very short-sighted idea. Many people will leave private insurance, putting much more pressure on the public system. Many who leave the private system will be un-insured meaning they could potentially have HUGE medical bills or have to wait years for procedures.
Many of the people leaving private health cover are the ones that were pretty much forced into for taxation reasons in the first place, and have gotten little benefit from it. Them leaving private health cover isn't going to affect them.

And the others, well the ones who do drop out of private cover and use the public system, how much impact that will actually have is undetermined. Acute and major medical problems often end up in the public system anyway so it may not be that much. It is far too complex a situation to make realistic judgements from the 30sec sound bites that the media gives us.

TBH, and as an aside, if I was acutely unwell I'd rather be in a public hospital anyway.
 

Graunched

Likes Dirt
What i want to know is, whats the go with the libs, god bothering Brendan Nelson in particular, jumping up and down about taxing the rich and saying that Labour always targets the people that do well in life?

Its a shame, imo, that rival factions of government cannot congratulate each other on sound decision, even if they do think that it is correct.

I mean, they are 'supposed' to be elected to do what is best for the country, however they seem so hell bent in getting into office that they will just try and rubbish the people in power no matter what.

Getting back on track i think at first glance that it looks like one of the better budgets in the last couple of years but it will come down to how well it is executed.
 

scblack

Leucocholic
Many of the people leaving private health cover are the ones that were pretty much forced into for taxation reasons in the first place, and have gotten little benefit from it. Them leaving private health cover isn't going to affect them.
Actually I agree with you there, but I see it as a very good policy to take some people out of the public system and therefore reduce pressures in the health sector.

I only took out health cover for tax reasons at first, and since then I have had two kids in a private hospital which cost me a very reasonable amount. Choice of obstetrician, private room, getting a beer with meals was all better than taking pot luck in the public system (but friends who have had kids in the public system were very happy too).

Overall this is not a bad budget, but they screwed around wih a couple of things wrongly, in my opinion.
 

murrum

Banned
Actually I agree with you there, but I see it as a very good policy to take some people out of the public system and therefore reduce pressures in the health sector.

I only took out health cover for tax reasons at first, and since then I have had two kids in a private hospital which cost me a very reasonable amount. Choice of obstetrician, private room, getting a beer with meals was all better than taking pot luck in the public system (but friends who have had kids in the public system were very happy too).

Overall this is not a bad budget, but they screwed around wih a couple of things wrongly, in my opinion.
I will be dropping out of private. We live in a rural area, so no real private options anyway. Had our baby in the public system. You would be mad to go private for childbirth, where we are anyway, as you would get exactly the same treatment, facilities and doctors (there is only 1 Obs in the whole area! - 2hr radius). SC - that was a very expensive beer ;) . I am glad they upped the threshold. We are lucky where we are as we have some great medical practitioners and the facilities are pretty good...but I know that is not the norm.

Overall I am dissapointed with the budget. I think there are still massive missed opportunities when it comes to health and education. I know they had to watch it in terms of spending due to inflation, but with my limited knowledge of finance cant see how spending in these areas could be considered inflationry.

Tinkering round with first homebuyers stuff is a joke - they should just scrap the whole concept.
Affordable housing (as opposed to first homebuyers) is tricky, I hope that their ideas work there.

Would have liked to see a focus on creating more community childcare places and incentives for better facilities, training and pay for these non profit providers as opposed to more rebates.
 

scblack

Leucocholic
Does the penalty costing of private health cover still remain? I mean the 2% per annum increase of policy costs if you stay out of private cover past age 30yrs?
 

murrum

Banned
Does the penalty costing of private health cover still remain? I mean the 2% per annum increase of policy costs if you stay out of private cover past age 30yrs?
Hmm, good question, I guess I should consider that before opting out.
 

scooter

Likes Bikes
The infrastructure funds will only be of ANY benefit if they are spent wisely and soon. There is absolutely no idea what they are specifically for, or when they will be spent. Its not much use if the funds are just sitting in the bank.
Just in response to this, there are reasons why the money hasn't been committed to any specific project yet. Under the previous government, it would appear that AusLink funds were allocated towards projects chosen by politicians rather than those chosen by transport planners. Money was rarely made available for planning studies, which then determine the location and scope of required projects, instead being used for jobs in marginal electorates that weren't really needed.

As I understand it, the current government will be allocating planning dollars throughout the next two or so years, and then can start allocating the big dollars for construction somewhere around year 3. If you want to do things properly, this is the way things will need to be done. If you just want someone to pour billions over unnecessary pork barrel projects while watching main freight arterials crumble, sorry, he got fired last November.
 

brisneyland

Likes Dirt
Tinkering round with first homebuyers stuff is a joke - they should just scrap the whole concept.
Affordable housing (as opposed to first homebuyers) is tricky, I hope that their ideas work there.
I haven't looked into all the details yet, but the saving scheme seems a bit weak. Basically they give us $850 and reduce the amount they tax the interest our savings earn.

Yippidy-fucking-dee.
 

nizai

Likes Dirt
Does the penalty costing of private health cover still remain? I mean the 2% per annum increase of policy costs if you stay out of private cover past age 30yrs?
Yes it does still remain. I got a birthday card from my insurer when I turned 31 telling me how much I had saved, and will save in the coming years.

I agree with you that they shouldnt be shifting the Levy threshold, or if they did want to, tinker instead of DOUBLE.

I got into my insurance for tax reasons at first, but since I use contacts lenses, I at least get about $100 benefit from it every few months.

I disagree with your statement that it was a missed opportunity for Rudd and Swan. Politically they delivered on everything they said they would at the election. If budgets are measured on accountability alone, then this was a good one.

Also a small note, I read this morning that in the budget was a small 1.7 million for local bands. And by that I mean International touring acts must now book local support bands to help our local music scene.

N
 

MasterOfReality

After forever
For those who remain in the private system, the cost will rise dramatically, and that will include many who are below the threshold.
Maybe the cost will reduce or stay the same to entice people back into the private system?

If my premiums rise, or the medicare levy is increased for me to compensate for the amount of people that will now head over to the public system, then I'm ditching my private health and sponging as much as I can off the public system :cool:
 

MasterOfReality

After forever
What i want to know is, whats the go with the libs, god bothering Brendan Nelson in particular, jumping up and down about taxing the rich and saying that Labour always targets the people that do well in life?
Because its true.

Its a Labor core principle - prop up the lower ends of society at the expense of the better off.
 

Graunched

Likes Dirt
Because its true.

Its a Labor core principle - prop up the lower ends of society at the expense of the better off.
Sorry i wasnt really clear there, should have said "Whats wrong with that?"... Considering only a smaller part of the community is "well off" he seems to be shooting himself in the foot there.
 

Garrath

Likes Dirt
The only thing that has my nose out of joint with this budget is the means testing on solar panels. The damn things are expensive enough as it is and the anecdotal evidence is that the people buying them are upper middle and upper class. Most of these will not get the rebate. Listening to the 774am this morning indicates that a lot of people who where thinking about buying are no longer interested.

This is going to mean a very hard time for an industry that is still in its infancy. As we all know, the more of something that is bought then eventually the cost will come down (cost savings blah blah). WIth all the environmental concerns currently facing the planet, this decision is king of screwy.
 
Top