Open forum: Would you pay $300 to support the disabled?

Julia Gillard is considering increasing the Medicare levy by roughly $300 a year to help pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. had an article today, Would you pay $300 to support the disabled? where two reporters offered two alternative opinions on the issue.

From Matt Young, who clearly would not pay $300 a year we get:

My issue is fairly simple. Once you add the extra amount to rising rates, health premiums, rent and cost of living in a time when our government is wasting my money on failed schemes, I don’t see why I should go without heating this winter when there might be an easier way to solve the problem.

As an aside, I don’t know what country Matt lives in, but in our country we are not experiencing rising rate. He continues:

The Australian public should not have to suffer for our government’s continually poor economic decisions.

Need I remind our dear readers of the Labor government’s Building the Education Revolution scheme, in which $16.2 billion was forked out to build outdoor infrastructure to Australian schools… when many of the projects were hardly urgent.

Then there was the Pink Batts scheme which failed to deliver what the government promised.

The average Aussie wallet is not a last port of call for a government drowning in debt and in need of a desperate decision.

Get your books in order Gillard, then I’ll pay your levy.

Claire Porter holds a different view, not based on politics but on need:

Saying you should be able to pick and choose what your taxes pay for is fine . . . But we can all get on board with the idea of a national disability scheme, surely?

I for one would happily hand over my $300 a year if it meant it made things just a little bit easier for the disabled and their families to get by.

I’ve perused the social media today and the loudest opponents are those who could most probably afford $300 a year. And yes, most of those are LNP supporters. I haven’t heard many complaints from those who earn less money. Funny, that.

How about yourself? Would you pay $300 to support the disabled?

122 comments on “Open forum: Would you pay $300 to support the disabled?

  1. Of course we support this excellent notion… why aren’t the Mining Billionaires supporting Australian society and paying more tax on their opulent, obscene earnings…… so that those who with a disability can have a life of self respect and dignity. What is wrong with those who have so much money, more than is even reasonably needed… why do they think they are above tax? Why do they have no obligation to society?

  2. Oh I get it, Matt Young doesn’t intend to go without heating this winter but he thinks that people with disabilities should.

    Yes of course I would pay $6.00. It has always been false economy to skimp on supporting disabled persons.

  3. One less coffee per week.

    What amazes me, is how little each has to pay, make things better.

    It makes one angry, that working for years, with disabilities, unable to get services that were essential for ones cllients, this is all it cost each of us to look after their needs.

    Those who feel this has nothing to do with them, it does not take much for you or your .love ones, to join the disabled.

  4. Yes. As we are living longer, an increasing number of people are becoming disabled at some point in their life, whether this is through cancer, dementia, physical impairment, accident and social violence – disability is an issue for ALL of us. It’s helpful to reconfigure language and acknowledge that we are not able bodied but *** temporarily-able***

  5. Reading the comments in the Ltd piece linked by MarkH I truly lament at what a nasty mean spirited bunch there are around.

    And the unbelievable ignorance with one saying the disabled can be funded by sending the boat people back as they are costing that much and taking away our human rights. I kid you not.

    The Liberals must wring their hands in glee when they see ignorance like this abound, it’s bread for nothing to them.

  6. Yes I would be happy to pay that extra $300. I would also be happy to pay a higher rate of tax for a return to full universal healthcare and an excellent dental scheme.

  7. Of course I am happy to pay. As new discoveries and treatments are made to support and make life easier for any disabled person, it is going to be a bigger and bigger spend for the government, as is the case with increasing healthcare costs. think how much an MRI machine costs, and how widely it is used. That is an added expense that wasn’t there a few years ago. Everyone deserves a reasonable life, and you never know when you may be in need of support. Lets face it, the disability support will not be 5 star, it will just help people with the basics, and hopefully provide some support for carers.

  8. Of course Matt Young would not understand that the figure of $300 would be if you earn $72000. If you had to forgo heating on that kind of wage minus $300 then best of luck to you but glad you are not treasurer.

  9. There are two issues here which are not mutually exclusive. Yes there is a need for an NDIS, but NO the funding should not come from a Medicare levy. Such a levy will strike hardest at the chronically sick, the elderly, the poor, and disabled people themselves. Where does that sit with left-wing politics. There are plenty of savings which could be made in other areas of the budget, such as overseas aid and the4 amounts spent on illegal immigrants etc.

  10. They fly in of course Migs, but the total amount spent on asylum seekers and indeed the true illegal immigrants who fly in is a drop in the ocean compared to what’ needed for the massive structural deficit left by Howard/Costello, such as their failure on disability insurance and education funding reform let alone overhauling failing infrastructure like the copper network.

    As to overseas aid. This is a catch cry of the opposition who will do anything but cut overseas aid if they get in and like Howard will probably increase it.

    There is a very sound and practical reason why countries spend so much on overseas aid, and in the scheme of things its a drop in the bucket for the insurance and good will it garners.

  11. By Stella Young..

    Typically, every man and his guide dog has an opinion, including’s Matt Young and Claire Porter. “How selfish of me to want to spend money that I’m working hard for on myself! To put clothes on my back, food in my mouth and a few luxuries like a morning coffee,” Matt exclaims.

    Do you know what I spent the money I worked hard in 2012 on, Matt?

    The clothes on my back, the food in my mouth and the odd morning coffee as well. But I also spent a fair whack of my annual salary replacing my 17-year-old wheelchair.

    I live in Victoria where the current maximum funding for a wheelchair is $8,000. My chair cost $22,000, so $14,000 of that came out of my pocket.

  12. Make it an extra $600 and fully fund DisabilityCare. Better yet, would $900 eliminate waiting lists and out-of-pocket medical expenses?

    My partner and i both couldn’t be happier to contribute to the health, education and human dignity of Australian families, even those who begrudge us the legal recognition to be called one.

  13. The theory is fine. It would be the Gillard implementation that would be the cockup. We would end up with more public servants than there are disabled persons. The scheme would quickly turn into a Union Support Scheme. The members of the Teachers Union would be quickly classified as disabled (not an entirely incorrect judgement) and would receive disability funding. Of course the Labor hacks and Union hacks would be stacked on the Disability Boards.
    No. Good theory but Gillard and Swan would ensure an expensive cockyp. It is the Lanor Way.

  14. $300 is a bargain. And to all those who bang on about “waste” and “stuff ups” you are all sounding like the Parrot. The independent verdict is in from overseas agencies, the grand largesse belonged to the previous era. Now stop your whining.

  15. Ragnvald, where do you get the idea, the levy will be at the expense of the ill. I believe it will be collected alongside but separate as many that existed under Howard operated. The first that comes to mind is the gun levy.

    I noticed that when Libs bring up pink bats etc, it is pushed aside by many interviewers. Happened once again on Capital Hill. Lyndal Curtis ignored the comment, and demanded her question be answered. She allowed the Labor speaker to correct the false statement.

    It looks like we will have all necessary information re NDIS in the next couple of days. There have been budget meetings all day.

  16. $300 per year – give Swan and Dullard a go.
    It would be $900 the next year, their abacus has been broken for a long time.
    Australians are generous but they have given up listening to this dodgy duo.
    Must be only about 130 sleeps till D-Day. Wacko , better buy the champagne.
    Soon there is certain to be a shortage (due to all the celebrations)

  17. Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.

    Working in my industry I have seen, first hand, the devastation experienced when a previously healthy individual is struck down by injury or illness.

    I can only imagine the heartbreak that families feel when they regard the road of them.

    I we can help others, we have a moral obligation to do exactly that. With haste.

    I challenge anyone who believes that this policy is not in the nation’s best interest, the economy’s best interest, and yes, even their own best interest, to sit for a moment and consider the alternative: a not-so-slowly building population of disillusioned, angry and desperate people ready to start the fire.

    You believe that all the money you earn is your own? How about we tax all of your income fully? The benefits you receive from Superannuation taxed at 15% (instead of your nominal rate), the vast numbers of rebates you receive on everything from fuel to child care, the public utilities that you take advantage of: street lights in your cities, garbage collection and cleaning of public spaces, research into medicines and technologies. These are a tiny percentage of the things you get for next to nix, thanks to income tax. Want your dollars just to pay for “your” stuff? Go ahead. You will run out of money before you get half way to the footy this weekend.

    It’s time to put up. And shut up.


  18. Reading the link to News, posted by Mark H, I have discovered why Tony Abbott is the leader of the Noallition. The amount of consideration and thought put into most of the replys, makes each and all the policies released, by the LNP, absolutely breathtaking in the depth, intellectual rigour, research and scope. Tony Abbott is obviously the Albert Einstein of the right.

  19. Stella, you are stellar, *bows*

    Rags, Tweeds, VoS of B…… ya just can’t help yourselves can you 🙄 😡 … even on this subject…… well,.. ya ‘scored’ ya points…. good on ya’s cobba’s….
    ….. thanks heaps for showing yourselves up 😉 ..oh, and your belief system(s) ….. ‘you’se’ are just awesomeee…..good luck with that ‘looking yourself in the mirror thingy’ ,,,,,,, one time around and you’se have chosen ‘you’ ……..well done *applause* …. what wonderful examples ‘you’se’ are, thanks…….. and you’se continually wonder why we’s, here, ain’t’s like you’se…… d’oh comes to mind 🙄

  20. Of course I would. And, like others, happily double that.

    I find it interesting and uplifting too that most people commenting here feel the same, simply because they are happy to support those less fortunate than themselves because of disability of one sort or another.

    Very few people have mentioned that this is a national disability insurance scheme designed to help us all should we need it. As we could at any time – not just if our children are born with or develop disabilities. Our teenager son or daughter could suffer brain damage in a freak accident playing afternoon sport. Or you yourself could be run over on a crosswalk out with your dog one evening, like me last year and instead of just a broken knee you might suffer serious spinal damage and become permanently disabled. Which, thankfully, I didn’t. But I could have. A thousand other real or imagined scenarios spring to mind, like falling off a bike, for instance!

    So – do Tony Abbott and his Noalition (thanks Gilly!) really think we shouldn’t make this National Disability Insurance Scheme a priority?

  21. Latest score; Media and mining barons 55 V Julia Gillard 45. One hundred and thirty seven days to go, Bye Bye Julia, thanks for trying : (

  22. Would rather pay for this, than a Direct Action scheme that will not work. Not too keen on that parental leave scheme either.

  23. What amazes me most if all is the amount of sheer dross in Matt Young’s article – falsehoods (rising rates), meaningless slogans, robotic party-political talking points (pink batts) long discredited but repeated anyway, and worst of all the creation of a false choice (average Aussie’s basic needs vs NDIS). If a reader’s views on an NDIS were based on Matt & Claire’s articles alone, I’d say they’d be close to worthless. And yes I’d have to agree that most of the people crying foul about $300 could easily afford it – they’re just being party-political. Why then don’t we hear them talk about the impact Coalition schemes will have on taxation & levies? Or the tax-to-GDP ratio under Howard v the present ratio? Or the views of world economists about where the Aust economy sits in relation to other OECD countries post-GFC? I dare one conservative to come forward & answer these points without (i) zombie slogans, (ii) long-discredited party talking points; (iii) the creation of false choices.

  24. Late night sleepy head comment from me up there – of course your readers were answering your question directly, Miglo, which was about helping about other people. I still think that it’s typical of Aussie mateship that they are overwhelmingly happy to say yes to that without giving much thought to their own interests.

    Slumdog – So? Media and mining barons with the LNP, all guns firing still at 55 Versus brave lady PM Julia Gillard hanging in there at 45 while she’s also running a country among other things. Wow! Just wait until her side get organised and right behind her in full campaign mode! She’ll catch up and wipe the floor with the Opposition.

  25. Tweed, so we shouldn’t help people with disabilities because it might save the jobs of people who work for the public service..makes sense (not).

  26. Torch Boy. Welcome back. We have both been doing different stuff. Gillard and Swan have been totally consistent.
    Thank God for the constitution. Gillard and Swan have to front the voters and take their spanking.
    Probably a bit late in the game…….. But is there a cosmetic surgeon who specialises in moving eyes a bit further apart? Swannie. You may be the first beneficiary of NDIS funding?

  27. For goodness sake, the Government is only suggesting that those who can afford to, to pay 96 cents a day to help out some unfortunate Australians. From the squealing I’ve heard from right wingers you’d think they’ve been asked to contribute half their earnings towards supplying people smugglers with new boats. Now there’s a thought. 😉

  28. Michael one has to be on well over $70.000 t0 pay that 96 cents. Masybe not rich, but sure not poor.

  29. To put it into context, assuming the thresholds for payment of this new levy cut in at the same level as the medicare levy did last year, someone earning $22,829 pa will pay 31c per day; someone earning $100k pa will pay around $1.37 per day.

    That assumption is most likely incorrect – I believe the thresholds will be raised automatically this year…

  30. Yes, I would pay that. Australia is a wonderful place because people who have power and money stand up for and support the people in need. It’s sad there are so many people who can’t empathise with others…

  31. Further to the above, someone earning $19,404 or less will pay nothing. There are also much higher thresholds for “Senior Australians” and pensioners.

  32. According to the Federal Opposition a budget surplus is more important than providing a proper system to help the disabled. They claim that they agree that the NDIS will provide that care. Are they lying when they claim that?

    If we cannot assist the disabled at a time when we have low unemployment, low interest rates, a resources boom and are doing better than any other western nation, when are we likely to agree to it? The Coalition attempt to claim that we need a surplus in order to buffer ourselves against some approaching apocalyptic financial crisis which is apparently on our immediate horizon, although there is no evidence that the last days of judgement are nearing. Still, it provides a shallow excuse to do nothing for those who have no use of arms or legs or spinal cords, no eyesight or hearing or speech or suffer from pain and require expensive care just to live basic lives.

    The Coalition claim “Hope. Reward. Opportunity.” Apparently this only applies to people like me, who have been fortunate enough to be born healthy and who never have had the misfortune to suffer illness or injury in their lives. Such nasty, narrowly egotistical niggardliness is incomprehensible to a civilized person. If a Coalition politician had a disabled family member would they refuse to provide them with the best method of care on the basis that they needed to keep their bank balance in black? Any genuinely caring person who had the advantages of a home, employment and assets would borrow money rather postpone doing anything to provide the care needed for a loved one to live a decent life. We pay taxes and have government not just to get something for ourselves, but to have a fair society.

  33. Another smoke screen by back room Labor hacks.
    Introduce The Disability Insurance Scheme.
    Sure to create lots of votes for Ms Dullard.
    Centrebet still hates Dullard , why is this?
    Labor $8.25
    LNP. $1.06
    Just proves Bookies not as one eyed as Cafe Whisperrs!
    About 130 Sleeps better book Mini-Movers now they will be
    Really busy post 14 Sept.

  34. Who has wasted taxpayer money and squandered opportunity – the Coalition. The Coalition had the chance to deliver an NDIS when they horded up the money from the resources boom. Abbott had the chance to provide an NDIS when he was Health Minister. Instead they spent money on wasteful schemes such as the baby bonus, the purpose of which was to encourage people to have children. Ludicrous, if you think about it. Why do you need a tax incentive to have children. Is that why you have them? According to Coalition logic, if they want children, why don’t Coalition supporters pay for their babies themselves – I certainly don’t want any more little Liberals swamping our shores! What are the Coalition complaining about? If they win the election, then they can manage the NDIS, which they claim to support in theory, in their own efficient manner. So why oppose its introduction now?

  35. I/we will pay absolutely nothing under this proposal. I and my wife have no ‘taxable’ income to speak of. (It depends in part on how our super fund performs this and in subsequent years)..

    Put simply, we were able to organise our finances to our ‘advantage’ and through our ‘family trust’ we are able to advantage our children as well. The higher thresholds for “Senior Australians” helps as well.

    It’s a disgrace. And that disgrace can be directly traced to Howard and Costello who promised to change ‘family trust’ tax arrangements but never did.

    My political views are in sharp contrast to my economic advantage, at least in the short/medium term.

  36. The conservatives can never quite understand this…

    Joe Hockey does not see an NDIS levy as “the right solution in this environment”.

    “If the economy is underperforming, you don’t tax it to increase performance,” the shadow treasurer told Sky News.

    He is quite right to say taxes by themselves cannot improve economic performance. But they can, if used for that purpose.

    The Productivity Commission found in 2011 that while the financial cost of the scheme would be $6.5 billion, its economic cost was far less. The $6.5 billion was merely “a transfer of resources from one group to another”……

    One of the economic benefits was what it did for the lives of the people it helped. Another was its success in bringing into the workforce those who were previously unemployable for life.

    It is expected to generate 220,000 jobs.

  37. That’s exactly it Min.

    Howard used a plethora of levies not to improve economic performance or to assist in the areas the levies were implemented on, but as a way of keeping record budget surpluses.

    As such they didn’t contribute to the economy, which is why it was heading backwards in Howard’s last term with record interest rate rises in a row, record personal and business debt and a structural deficit that still hasn’t been grappled to this day whilst he posted a record surplus.

    Howard was heading us towards a disaster and one can only imagine the destruction he would have reaped if in power during the GFC and the amount of taxes he would have implemented to keep his surpluses whilst the economy tanked around him. An American/European style long term recession would have been his best outcome.

  38. As such they didn’t contribute to the economy

    Actually they did. When we got our AAA credit rating back business could borrow money cheaper

    with record interest rate rises in a row

    Really?? Perhaps you are telling porkies?? Please don’t say that to someone who had to pay 18% interest on his mortgage when Keating ran the show.

    “and a structural deficit that still hasn’t been grappled to this day

    Your hatred against Howard/Costello is amazing. I can see the hate coming out. At this rate you will become a Sith lord in no time.

    In case you do not know Treasury says there may have been a small structural deficit of 0.5% of GDP in Costello’s last budget but it is a number impossible to measure unless it is really large.

    Guess what?? We have a whopper of a structural deficit now thanks to the ALP and its supporters. Most probably 3 or 4% of GDP and Labor wants to keep spending.

  39. “Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.” : Bertrand Russell

  40. Abbott is making much noise about how the NDIS will operate. Surely those questions should have been asked and answered in the last sitting of parliament, when the NDIS bills were passed with the support of Abbott.

    He has claimed at the time, great credit for bipartisanship.

    What we are talking about now, is how that legislation is going to be funded. Nothing at all to do with how it is to be run, or who it assists.

    Why are not the media pointing this out to Abbott and Co, instead of attacking the PM for demanding whether he will support the levy or not, if bought before the house..

    Maybe the PM is attempting to ensure that the NDIS withstands an Abbott government if elected. Maybe the PM is attempting to ensure that Abbott does not have a let out cause.

    He and his ilk have been saying, yes he does supprt it, but we cannot have it, until there is a surplus.

  41. Listening to PM. The funding will deal with what is necessary for the next five years.

    Pointed out that Abbott’s questions have already been answered, when the NDIS was passed.

    As I noted above.

    Who is playing games

  42. Maybe Abbott. as is his habit did not read the legislation. That would be norm for him.

    Yes, what was announced funds the scheme for the first five years.

    Abbott wants to know what happens after the normal budgets future predictions of four years.

    Five years is five budgets away, and two elections.

    The levy covers costs for five years.

    I think all reasonable questions have been answered by the PM.

  43. ………………..It was reasonable for Mr Abbott to demand full details on how Labor will fund the NDIS, Mr Wallace said.
    But the disability advocate disagreed with the Opposition Leader’s suggestion that Labor had not sufficiently explained what disabilities would be covered by the scheme.
    ”We believe the detail is sufficiently clear and is in what [the Coalition] voted for last year,” Mr Wallace said.
    with Jonathan Swan

    Read more:

  44. …………You don’t get too many issues where the common good is so obvious for all to see. Disability reforms are one of them. This measure is good for nearly everyone. Anyone who is against it is essentially selfish, which is about the most charitable thing you could call Bernie Brookes. The reason that Bernie Brookes and the News Limited tabloids are seeking to muddy the waters is precisely because the issue is so clear cut. You could accuse the Coalition of political expediency in supporting these reforms, but I’d prefer to believe they support it because it is right.

    When the Productivity Commission unveiled its report in 2011, I argued that “in time, these reforms will come to be seen as the single most important social policy reforms of the Gillard Government.” If the Prime Minister can usher these reforms through parliament before the election, and there is every indication she will, that judgment will stand.

    Disability Care is a reform we should all welcome, even while keeping a close watch on the implementation. It should change Australia for the better……………

  45. The PM had to get full support from Abbott, and a commitment to vote on the levy, so he has no wiggle room to change things if he came to power.

    If that is playing politics, so be it.

  46. “If that is playing politics, so be it.

    That is not a very nice thing to say. It only reinforces my beliefs about Labor supporters.

  47. “If that is playing politics, so be it.”

    That is not a very nice thing to say. It only reinforces my beliefs about Labor supporters.

    Neil, that rates up there with the most dumbest comments you have ever posted.

    You’re in amazing form today.

  48. I could not believe how mean sprited and spiteful certain commenters were wrt to funding the NDIS, aimed at supporting the disabled and their families.

    And the number of these complete wankers who were snivelling at the cost of Stella Young’s wheel chair was absolutely disgusting! Their willful ignorance was astonishing and I spitefully wished that they would be afflicted with the disability she suffers.

    I would be the first one accusing them of bludging after I pushed their wheelchair over.

    I’d also like to know the phone no of Matt Young’s power company is. At $300/year for heating, I’d like to have what he’s having. We’d all be on the pig’s back.

    I’m also astonished that all the invective laden barrackers apparently don’t consider the $1300/year Liealot intends to impose on us all for his useless, wasteful DAP to be at all burdensome. Not a word said about that.

    Perhaps they’re too stupid to know that $1,300 will deprive them of 4 lattes/ week or a latte and a pretty substantial lunch every week.

    And a deafening silence from the usual suspects infesting CW regarding DAP and his other brain fart to tax business to fund his wealthy women’s baby bribe. It’s also interesting that business is silent on that matter.

    Typical snivelling Liars barrackers, wouldn’t lift a finger to help someone in genuine need; selfish, spiteful and mean spirited to their shrivelled cores.

    Frankly, I would like to see Matt Young have a massive stroke which requires months of rehab during which he needs to use a wheelchair accompanied by a permanent loss of function on one side, or be forced to care for someone disabled by a stroke or other debilitating disability.

    I wonder how he’d feel about that cup of coffee then.

    Neil, if the Rodent hadn’t squandered that $330bn he collected from the mining boom on the dole for the well heeled, the government wouldn’t need to fund NDIS by an increase in the Medicare levy.

    They wouldn’t have needed to borrow any funds for the NBN, they wouldn’t have needed to borrow funds to ensure this country an easy passage through the GFC, or to raise a levy to fund the rebuilding of public infrastructure after the disastrous Qld floods.

    Think on that Neil. If your hero hadn’t squandered all that money handing it out to people who didn’t need it, there wouldn’t be any government debt.

    But then you and the usual suspects here don’t like the facts, but swallow the Liars Party lies, obfuscations, misrepresentations and fairy tales whole without blinking an eye.

  49. Neil, what did I say, that is so nasty. Scaper. having worked in the field, I believe many departments will disappear.

    There is much duplication within the system. Both public and private.

    Much time is now spent just fighting for funds to carry out ones job.

    Some areas that are popular, like autism do better, than say children that suffer from other genetic or brain damaged disorders.

    I wish Abbott would use the words “let her” less often. It grates on the nerves.

    No scaper, I think you will find many of the inefficiencies will be ironed out of the system.

    I hope it aims is the same as Gonski. That is the money to follow the needs of individual disabled, no matter the cause or provider..

    It is acknowledging that these people have rights, and should not have to survive on welfare or charity.

  50. Neil, if the Rodent hadn’t squandered that $330bn he collected from the mining boom

    Jane you need to use your brains from time to time. The mining boom started in 2004. According to your figures Howard received 330/3= $110B extra in revenue in his last three years of govt.

    This is totally false. I cannot understand why people tell lies about John Howard. What is it with the hate that causes you people to tell falsehoods against your fellow Australians who just happen to vote differently to you??

    I have seen that figure you quoted many times. It is wrong. Oh that is right. Howard got lots of money from the mining boom from 2004-2007 and then magically for some reason from 2008 the revenue from mining stopped coming.

    You people are insane!!!!

  51. ““Neil, if the Rodent hadn’t squandered that $330bn he collected from the mining boom

    This is what Malcolm Turnbull says about that stupid statement

    The Treasurer claims the ”mining boom mark II will have all of the pressures of the first boom, without the surge in revenues”. He contrasts this with the good old days, when ”between 2004 and 2007, tax revenues were revised up by a massive $334 billion cumulatively, over the budget estimates”………………..In fact, revenue gains from growing commodity exports and favourable terms of trade received during Peter Costello’s final three budgets are calculated at $25 billion – a far cry from Swan’s nonsense about $384 billion. Of course, those three budgets ran an aggregate surplus of $51 billion………………In contrast, Treasury calculates the resources boom has delivered tax windfalls of about $60 billion between 2008 and 2010 – even after accounting for the GFC. Of course, each of Labor’s three budgets so far has been hugely in deficit, and so every cent of the resources windfall has been spent.

    In October 2010, Treasury projected another $30 billion will be tipped into Canberra’s coffers by the boom in 2011-12. Now various things will have changed since October – the exchange rate is higher, resources investment is rising, some tax receipts are lower, and so on. But whatever the precise figure, it will be large – how could it not, given Australia’s terms of trade are higher than they have ever been before?

    Get that Bacchus.

    “In contrast, Treasury calculates the resources boom has delivered tax windfalls of about $60 billion between 2008 and 2010 – even after accounting for the GFC.”

  52. Neil, it would pay YOU to put your brain into gear. The rodent and Costello raked in $334bn from the resources boom and squandered all but $20bn.

    Never invested a cent on infrastructure of any description. They let public infrastructure slide, in favour of handing irresponsible and unnecessary dole payments to the well off, while ignoring the needy.

    Here’s Turnbull’s own words

    ”between 2004 and 2007, tax revenues were revised up by a massive $334 billion cumulatively, over the budget estimates”


    Where did the money go, Neil? Not on education, health, transport, communications (read NBN)or any other form of public infrastructure.

    It went on creating a huge sense of entitlement to public money in the well off. They, like all you barrackers, seem to think that the only role government has is to give them the dole, which they do not need.

  53. Here’s Turnbull’s own words

    Yes and Turnbull replied to that nonsense by saying this

    In fact, revenue gains from growing commodity exports and favourable terms of trade received during Peter Costello’s final three budgets are calculated at $25 billion – a far cry from Swan’s nonsense about $384 billion.”

    Turnbull calls the $334B figure nonsense. In fact he says it was $384B but i think that was a typo.

    Use your brains Jane. It make no sense. And if what you say is correct Swan is getting even more revenue ( which he is).

    But the extra $334B from 2004-07 is nonsense.

    A person who is honest would have worked this out.

  54. Here is the budget overview.

    Can one of you people show me where the $334B in extra revenue and how it was squandered or do you believe that because of normal growth in GDP and population the revenue should remain the same as 2004?

    Come on, you economic gurus…where is the proof? Neil wins this debate because you believed the lies and if you perpetuate them further you lot are nothing but liars also!

  55. Situation normal then I see! Neil has reverted to quoting Lieberal party proper-gander rather than taking the actual figures from treasury as shown in the budget papers 🙄

    In any debate all they’ve got is Spin.

  56. You’re going to need a bit more than the 2012-13 budget overview to make your case scaper. Try starting with the budget forecasts for each of the 2003-04 to 2007-08 budgets, AND the MYEFO reports for each year AND the actual budget outcomes for each year. Then you’ll need to look at the outlays for each year – tax cuts, baby bonuses – you know, all the middle-class welfare that put the budget in an underlying structural deficit position.

    Come back when you’ve managed that, will you?

  57. Scaper

    Can you actually believe it?? They say Costello got an extra $110B/year in revenue from 2004. It makes no sense.

    Turnbull says this

    In fact, revenue gains from growing commodity exports and favourable terms of trade received during Peter Costello’s final three budgets are calculated at $25 billion – a far cry from Swan’s nonsense about $384 billion.”

    Turnbll says it was only $25B extra and Costello saved $50B so all the revenue from the boom was banked plus extra. But Turnbull says this about Wayne Swan

    In contrast, Treasury calculates the resources boom has delivered tax windfalls of about $60 billion between 2008 and 2010 – even after accounting for the GFC”

    Swan is getting more money from the boom than Costello ever did and he has spent the lot.

  58. Bacchus you should read what Turnbull says

    You say from 2004-2007 Costello got lots of extra revenue from the mining boom ( which he did but it was $25B not $334B).

    But them in 2008 when commodity prices exploded companies started investing and had lots of deductions because they were investing in machinery (according to your deluded beliefs)

    Turnbull says this

    In contrast, Treasury calculates the resources boom has delivered tax windfalls of about $60 billion between 2008 and 2010 – even after accounting for the GFC

    I believe Turnbull and not what Bacchus says

  59. Scaper and,

    Neil, obviously people here can not read that goes back over two decades.

    Cos we were still wearing nappies at the time. :mrgreen:

  60. Bacchus

    You have told me that commodity prices do not equal revenue. here is the latest Table

    Commodity prices have exploded since 2007. You will never convince me that Swan is getting less money from mining than Costello did because it is a lie.

    This is what Turnbull says.

    In contrast, Treasury calculates the resources boom has delivered tax windfalls of about $60 billion between 2008 and 2010 – even after accounting for the GFC”

    I believe Turnbull

  61. Bacchus

    What would make more sense if you said that Swan was getting more money from mining than Costello (which he is) but Swan has suffered a much bigger loss in other areas like Capital Gains Tax ( which he may have).

  62. FFS Neil – Read the budget papers. Your mate scaper even provided a link earlier… Commodity prices relate to what the mining companies get paid for the minerals they sell, not what tax they pay. IF prices are high but they sell very little, they make smaller profits and pay less tax. IF they make investments to enable them to extract more minerals in the future, their taxable income is reduced – they pay less tax. IF the GFC hits the economy and businesses make less profits, they pay less tax.

    Look at the budget papers Neil – they show exactly what revenue the government receives…

  63. Bottom line – your commodity prices are not relevant to anything, but you keep bring them up as if they mean something – they don’t. You also keep referring to some meaningless dribble from Turnbull – that also is meaningless. Read the fckn budget papers FFS!

  64. your commodity prices are not relevant to anything, but you keep bring them up as if they mean something

    You say commodity prices are meaningless because that is what you want to believe. Turnbull is quoting Treasury ( who I distrust) who says that Swan is getting $60B more between 2008-2010 because of the boom from increasing commodity prices. It makes sense.

    Swan has lost revenue mainly because of Capital gains Tax loses. People are still claiming deductions because of share price falls. Also the mining tax and carbon tax causes business to go elsewhere. Labor scares business.

  65. You’re FOS Neil – making $#!t up as you go now. Come back when you’ve grown up enough to carry on a sensible debate, backed by original sources 🙄

  66. Bacchus

    So you are saying that commodity prices have exploded but because of whatever Swan is getting less revenue.

    Yeah whatever.

  67. Bacchus has him cornered. The default spot for Liberal spinners. In any debate all they’ve got is Spin.

  68. Umm Bacchus has not shown me any information that Swan is getting less revenue from mining.

    Turnbull says that Swan got a windfall of $60B from 2008-2010 due to an explosion in commodity prices.

    Bachus has not shown me any evidence against this. Revenue has fallen because of the GFC but this is mainly from CGT decreasing.

  69. Also the mining tax and carbon tax causes business to go elsewhere.

    That’s another lie Neil. You just keep trotting out the Liberal scares.

  70. Neil, I showed you evidence once before proving that Howard, from 2004 to 2007, received an un-budgeted $113B in company tax from mining companies due to an increase in mineral prices, coupled with China’s buying frenzy.

    You have the attention span of a gold fish.

  71. By the way people Neil is winning this argument, not because he’s producing a better argument but because he’s waylaying the topics.

    It’s what Neil always does. Put up the same shit over and over, obfuscate, project and mostly divert with look over there at Labor the moment unpleasant facts about the Liberals come out or good information comes out for Labor. He then ends up being the centre of the topic throwing up the same nonsense, which is exactly what he wants.

    I’ve had enough of his shit, and like I have in the past for me it’s oil the wheel and bye bye Neil.

  72. Well this is what Turnbull says. Are you saying he is lying

    ACCORDING to Treasurer Wayne Swan, the resources boom delivered a revenue bonanza to the Howard government but won’t boost Labor’s forthcoming 2011-12 budget at all – even though commodity prices are currently 50 per cent higher than they ever were under John Howard, or indeed at any other time in the past 140 years………………………But here’s the peculiar thing: his own Treasury officials don’t seem to agree with his assessment of how revenue gains associated with the early 21st century resources boom are affecting the budget……………In contrast, Treasury calculates the resources boom has delivered tax windfalls of about $60 billion between 2008 and 2010 – even after accounting for the GFC. Of course, each of Labor’s three budgets so far has been hugely in deficit, and so every cent of the resources windfall has been spent……………………….In October 2010, Treasury projected another $30 billion will be tipped into Canberra’s coffers by the boom in 2011-12

  73. Is Turnbull a Liberal politician? Yep – there’s a better than even chance he’s lying then 👿

  74. Find a non-partisan link that supports Mr Utegate’s contention and I might start to take you seriously Neil. Until then, you remain the same object of ridicule as you”ve been for the last 6 or so years 😆

  75. …….a drop in tax revenue from Capital Gains Tax?

    Please explain why you shouldn’t be committed.

  76. God Neil is an economic dunce. Using terms of trade. Let’s give the simplest explanation possible, not that he’ll pay an iota of attention to it and probably change topics when it’s shown he stuffed up again.

    (my bold)

    In layman’s terms it means what quantity of imports can be purchased through the sale of a fixed quantity of exports. An improvement in a nation’s terms of trade (the increase of the ratio) is good for that country in the sense that it can buy more imports for any given level of exports. The terms of trade is influenced by the exchange rate because a rise in the value of a country’s currency lowers the domestic prices for its imports but does not directly affect the commodities it produces.

    Strong Australian dollar because of the fall in overseas currencies due to their bad handling of the GFC, which are the same actions Abbott/Hockey wanted to undertake, and countries investing in the Australian dollar because of the much lauded handling of the GFC by the Labor government, making Australia an attractive place to invest in.

  77. Debating Economics with right wingers is like trying to talk to your dog about astrophysics.

  78. Adrian

    I thought you said you were not going to comment on my posts anymore.

  79. No Neil comes over here to antagonise people posting the same old tired shit, then runs like a little bitch over to Rebs blog to brag about it,….. what idiots we are, how they dont want to know, they are delusional because they dont listen to me…. I guess he is just a one of those people who keeps belting themselves on he head with a bit of wood then complain it hurts and look for sympathy. Guess what neil of sydney , not only do we not care or respect you opinion, we dont give a flying fuck. so why dont you toddle off and bitch about how nasty I was to you. quite frankly you only come here to have a dig and be the antagonist so go and find some stupid people who agree with your bullshit where you can be a nano hero. Your a tiresome bore and an example of human oxycontin (a slow acting dope)

  80. I thought you said you were not going to comment on my posts anymore.

    Cause as I was scrolling past I saw a link to a gif with “tot” in the URL.

    First thought was, “Don’t tell me NoS has done an el gordo and posted a link to a graph with no context,” and the second was, “Surely Neil hasn’t tried to use Terms of Trade to put down the government when they would do the opposite, show how good this government did and a Howard government failure.”

    Curiosity got the better of me and having a good idea I already knew the answer I checked and was right on both points.

  81. ““Surely Neil hasn’t tried to use Terms of Trade to put down the government”

    My point is that we have record commodity prices, record terms of trade and low unemployment and we are running $40B budget deficits.

    What happens to the budget if terms of trade drop to average levels??

    We would be running $60B budget deficits and we cannot keep that up for long.

  82. Ros Gittins is an idiot. All govts leave problems for the next govt. Gillitns says this

    So Costello’s many tax cuts cut the real rate of income tax – on the strength of a surge in company tax collections that proved to be temporary.

    Think how much smaller the budget deficit (and the accumulated debt) would be now had he limited himself to offsetting the effect of bracket creep.”

    Some problems an incoming govt faces are difficult and some are easy. The thing Gittins mentions is easy to fix. Gillard just has to pass legislation. She has the numbers to do it.

    Problem solved.

    Trouble is most problems Labor faces causes them to freeze in the headlights. Costello would have adjusted his policies to deal with a new problem.

    Any problem Swan sees it attacked by a wheelbarrow full of money.

  83. No, its an excuse to sap more money from our pockets. The disabled should already be covered. Matt is right, cost of living has gone up. Living in sydney no.3 and melb no.5 in the world.
    Using disablrd people is an emotional excuse to get the australisn public paying for the irresponsible spending habits of government.
    Mining tax, carbon tax, extra super tax, extra medicare tax….what next?

  84. How are the disabled already covered Antonio V?

    What cost of living pressures? Cost of living always goes up. It went more under Howard and people had less disposable income, higher personal debt, less personal saving, were paying more in taxes under Howard as well along with interest rates going up and up.

    So how exactly is this government using disabled people as an emotional excuse when the levy ensures the money goes to just them and not to consolidated revenue, which would be a revenue raising exercise?

    And if it is just paying for supposed irresponsible spending why is Abbott completely supporting it, even calling it his Agreement? He opposed every other method of revenue raising by the government but this one. Very telling.

    And what about Abbott’s string of promised taxes?

  85. And paying less in levies, with Howard’s string of them being scrapped.

    And businesses are paying less as Howard’s hidden charges have also gone.

    Plus how can we be worse off if people are saving more and have increased their disposable income over that of “you’ve never had it so good” Howard years?

  86. Labor is funding everything by doing this.

    Deficits of $-27B, -$55B, -$48B and -$44B. People don’t notice because we are putting things on the credit card.

  87. the disabled should already be covered? jesus thats ignorance on a whole different level. I see Nos is more interested in hero worship of costello than answering the question… Costello was a completely shithouse treasurer, lazy..sold the farm and bragged about it, what a joke.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s