Xeluan

<sarcasm> Last night the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello announced that everyone will be the wonderul beneficiaries of tax cuts. How much will us lucky Aussies recieve?

Well, if you earn $30,000 a year a grand total of $4 per week! I consider myself lucky as it will amount to about $9 per week. I absolutley have no idea what to do with this bounty from our benevolent guvmint.

Of course at the same time Costello is screwing up higher education but have no fear. The tax cut has mollified me and for sure my vote will go to little Johhny later this year. </sarcasm>

echidna

Well it depends a little how much you value a $2 billion surplus for debt reduction which will seek to hold down interest rates, the ongoing costs of terrorism countermeasures, $600 million for the Iraq war, the trade effects of the worst drought on record, tourism dropoff from SARS, a struggling world economy �

All in all the Australian economy is fairly remarkable & seems to be cruising comfortably in the face of adversity. Not quite sure what the gripe is about. Would you prefer $50 per week which would likely turn the surplus into around a $15 billion deficit ? Or maybe no tax cut at all, which in effect is a tax increase due to bracket creep ?

Jane Bovary

If the government has a spare $2.4 billion lying around, I'd much rather see that money go toward preserving medicare than a $4.00 a week tax cut.

And as far as education goes...well, by world standards, Australia already pays a high price for education. Now students will face a 30% increase in fees and in order to get extra allocated money from the government, universities will have to push through major industrial relations reforms which undermines the role of the union in staff negotiations.

The tax cuts are meaningless when you consider we will all be paying more for health and education. All part of Howards agenda to widen the divide in Australian society and create an elite health and education system for those who can afford it.

Xeluan

I'd like to see bracket creep tackled in a meaningful manner by readjusting the thresholds.

While I may bemoan the amount of money in tax I pay, I view taxes as a neccesary evil. They pay for services that I use everyday etc. The tax cut is a token one. It may have economic value for low income earners otherwise it is a purely political. And I know that I am pointing out the bleeding obvious here as all budgets are political.

As pointed out by Jane (and commented in the press) and gain from the tax cuts will be negated by increases elsewhere. The surplus will be gone by the next election (especially if there is one later this year. There are a few double dissolution triggers available).

While some of the budget expense is worthwhile as noted by echidna (though there are some expenses for a war that we could of avoided), I see the tax cuts purely as distraction from the issues of higher education and medicare.

peacenik

P.M. Howard sounds eirily familiar to President Bush. Tax cuts for the rich and no relief for the middle and lower income folks. No wonder they seemed so fond of each other when P.M. Howard recently visited Bush at his Crawford, Texas ranch.

ju'iblex

And if this deregulation shite passes, which I hope to goodness it won't, it means yours truly will not be able to afford a tertiary education or be able to get a degree. yay!

echidna

2.4 won�t go far to preserving Medicare. Medicare costs will continue to blow-out, and as many in the health industry are saying, it should never have been universal in the first place.

As Australia�s population continues to age, the importance of majority self-sufficiency in health care becomes increasingly critical. Only the irresponsible shortsightedness would position Australia in 30 years with a very high aged and retired population over 60 (with their proportionately high medical costs), being supported impossibly by a relatively small working population as if Medicare was to continue its universal coverage. It�s simply a formula which will not work in 3 decades time, but that is something which the popularists in Labour, the Dems and Greens don�t want to think about.

The 30% private subsidy & penalties imposed for those not taking private insurance before age 30, are absolutely essential if not inadequate, to try & avoid this inevitable problem looming. Painful now yes, but really the only alternative if we are serious about living healthily into our 80�s. And still, this remains far below the level of private health care which is in place in the majority of Europe.

echidna

In many respect yes, but OTOH Howie has a $2 billion surplus, Dubya has a $ trillion deficit. I�d place some emphasis on that.

echidna

Wouldn�t we all. But that would remove the ATO�s (and all future federal governments) secret way of increasing taxation without the public backlash. And as you say, tax is a necessary evil.

Yes, their paucity is more likely token & as a distraction, possibly an election sweetener.

BigBlue2

A half-hour root at Tyffany's or the Golden Apple every six months, perhaps? Just a suggestion.

As for me, this budget did bugger-all, really. I'm a low income earner (for the moment, at least) so my tax cut won't even pay for a headjob from a William Street hooker. My tertiary edumacation days are over and done with and my HECS debt is paid off. The only positive thing in this budget are the incentives for bulk-billing low income earners, so hopefully I won't have to pay extra if and when I see a doctor. Fortunately, the IPU has blessed me with good health, and I have pretty comprehensive private insurance in any case.