D.Lo
Member
Yeah. Still a higher hit rate than Hockey.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2015 Australian Budget |OT| "Joe Hockey's last chance, it's only fair."
- Thread starter mjontrix
- Start date
- Status
Sutton Dagger
Member
I mean what's to stop shady people from exploiting it. What do you actually need to start a 'small business'? An abn right? Couldn't people start a small business just to buy 20k worth of computer equipment and then 'close the business ' the next week?
Maybe it's because I don't actually know what they use it for but I feel we don't need to increase defence spending by $2.7b when there are other sectors in more need.
No it's not that simple if the ATO audits you. Having an ABN doesn't mean you're in business. Plus if you do this as a sole trader and don't meet the non commercial losses tests, your 20k expenses can't be offset against your other income.
https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Sta...-your-business/Are-you-operating-a-business-/
Sutton Dagger
Member
Double post
Except without the fiscal prudence.
Hopefully first world internet counts as a deductible business expense
I had a big grin all the way through her interrogation of Joe Hockey.
Ban Puncher
Member
Where is my NBN, you knuckleheads?
bobnowhere
Member
I like what Mark Carnegie Said:
"If this was a Labor Budget, it would be on the Front page of The Australian labelled a Tax and Spend Budget."
The whole thing goes so far against all the rhetoric from the Liberal Party since before they were in government that I'm wondering who is wearing the Joe Hockey suit.
"If this was a Labor Budget, it would be on the Front page of The Australian labelled a Tax and Spend Budget."
The whole thing goes so far against all the rhetoric from the Liberal Party since before they were in government that I'm wondering who is wearing the Joe Hockey suit.
Aarglefarg
Member
"Winners and Losers" presented in a simple way, click on a demographic for some dot-point information on relevant changes.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-12/budget-2015-winners-losers/6448578
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-12/budget-2015-winners-losers/6448578
bobnowhere
Member
Emma Alberici tearing strips off Corman ATM!
Already called him on his made up numbers and he's accussed her of being a Labor plant.
I believe he's the guy with the giant forehead. Though probably his best speech was his budget reply from last year. It will be harder this year with nothing obvious to rail against, he'll probably have to go after the stuff from last year that is still working it's way through the system.
Already called him on his made up numbers and he's accussed her of being a Labor plant.
I believe he's the guy with the giant forehead. Though probably his best speech was his budget reply from last year. It will be harder this year with nothing obvious to rail against, he'll probably have to go after the stuff from last year that is still working it's way through the system.
Candescence
Member
I will say that is is a bewildering budget - it's almost something Labor would do. The Coalition must be that desperate to try and do something like that, but it's difficult to think that the electroate will find it convincing after all the "debt and decifict disaster" nonsense.
Also, from what I'm seeing is so far, the verdict from pundits is that this budget isn't gonna make anyone happy, and is essentially worse than doing nothing.
Edit: Also, love how Joe Hockey looks like he's completely stoned on the front page picture of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Also, from what I'm seeing is so far, the verdict from pundits is that this budget isn't gonna make anyone happy, and is essentially worse than doing nothing.
Edit: Also, love how Joe Hockey looks like he's completely stoned on the front page picture of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Roads! Think of all the roads we'll have!
Journalists Forced To Fight To The Death For Early Copy Of Federal Budget
Make sure you read the whole thing at the link, it's amazing.
Make sure you read the whole thing at the link, it's amazing.
Aarglefarg
Member
Still more fair than last year's budget.Journalists Forced To Fight To The Death For Early Copy Of Federal Budget
Make sure you read the whole thing at the link, it's amazing.
Reads like a Labor budget honestly. Wonder how this will go over with the base, and how much will pass the Senate.
Small business changes should get through relatively unscathed and be popular, but given this will effectively worsen the deficit it may be the end of the Coalition's "debt and deficit" talk until after the next election.
Pretty standard journo fare. Don't let the candidate give a non-relevant answer to your questions or you might as well just read a press release from them.
Small business changes should get through relatively unscathed and be popular, but given this will effectively worsen the deficit it may be the end of the Coalition's "debt and deficit" talk until after the next election.
Pretty standard journo fare. Don't let the candidate give a non-relevant answer to your questions or you might as well just read a press release from them.
Ugh, I know. Frustrating and aggravating.
Except for all the times he felt compelled to interrupt her. I was glad to see him sweating, though. He never does any good when going off-script, and I love it.
Like a Labor budget, minus the science plus the Rinehart pandering.
If you'd just let me finish... I'm getting to that if you'd just let me answer...
Yes, very annoying, but good on Leigh for sticking it to him, otherwise he'd just trot out the agreed party lines ad nauseum. I think he only managed one 'have a go budget' during the 9 minutes.
What do I think?
I dunno. I've taken a cursory look so far.
On the whole, the tax rises are not 'new' taxes but ways of plugging loopholes in the existing tax laws. People who get loans from the community and then bugger off to enrich another country should pay that money back, so I like that. While it's a logistical nightmare, and god it annoys me, we should be paying tax on digital goods that would normally be taxed if we walked into a brick and mortar store. Maternity leave double dipping is silly. Agree with spending more on defence. Farmers drought lifeline seems to make sense in a protectionist food security sense...but that's just a political reality in every country so I can't complain too hard there.
Removing the tax free threshold from foreigners on working holiday visas seems a bit stingy...but whatever.
Small businesses now face their lowest tax burden in thirty years, which is well needed. Plugging taxes for multinationals seems to make sense.
Seeing that no one here seems particularly angry about parts of the budget and is talking about other things such as Bill Shorten, media bias and interviews....I'm guessing that I should theoretically be more upset by this so called "tax and spend" budget...but I'm not.
I dunno. I've taken a cursory look so far.
On the whole, the tax rises are not 'new' taxes but ways of plugging loopholes in the existing tax laws. People who get loans from the community and then bugger off to enrich another country should pay that money back, so I like that. While it's a logistical nightmare, and god it annoys me, we should be paying tax on digital goods that would normally be taxed if we walked into a brick and mortar store. Maternity leave double dipping is silly. Agree with spending more on defence. Farmers drought lifeline seems to make sense in a protectionist food security sense...but that's just a political reality in every country so I can't complain too hard there.
Removing the tax free threshold from foreigners on working holiday visas seems a bit stingy...but whatever.
Small businesses now face their lowest tax burden in thirty years, which is well needed. Plugging taxes for multinationals seems to make sense.
Seeing that no one here seems particularly angry about parts of the budget and is talking about other things such as Bill Shorten, media bias and interviews....I'm guessing that I should theoretically be more upset by this so called "tax and spend" budget...but I'm not.
Rebranding a government contribution as "double dipping" is silly, yes.
Labor will be opposing the paid paternal leave changes.
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...get-2015-childcare-parental-leave-labor-video
Good.
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...get-2015-childcare-parental-leave-labor-video
Good.
No workplace will pay you for the whole 12 months leave you're entitled too. 18 weeks at minimum wage is a benefit to everyone, and less strain on the child care system.
I think everyone here is particularly angry about what *isn't* in the budget. Where's talk of the environment? Health? Renewable energy?
Edit: Let's have a look at some more of what else wasn't covered in last night's speech:
Firstly, spending:
And cuts:
But..if it's less generous, you get the gap. Again, I'm not sure I see the problem.
Darren870
Member
I agree with it too. It is preventing people from double dipping into the government funds when their workplace provides benefits as it is. I don't see a problem with the changes they made.
If your employer gives you 20 weeks, you got 38 weeks previously, and now you get 20 weeks. Greater demand for child care services that are already very strained and will receive no additional funding, despite additional demand being created.
It's just a cynical rebranding of a policy intended to give someone an extra paid 18 weeks than they would have otherwise had. If their employer offers a full paid 52 weeks then I would agree, but that is not the scope of the change.
Employers will just stop paying. What's the point when your contribution is cancelled out by the government? It means working mothers will receive less. The idea behind the policy is as a stimulus, to increase spending in the economy. This negates that aspect somewhat as businesses are spending less on employees. It takes away some incentive to have kids as the extra money would help. It's also in complete contradiction to the original overly generous PPL taken to the election as a promise and prime example of how good Abbott is for women.
Darren870
Member
Its a clear target at high income earners since they are the ones who would be getting employers to pay their leave. I work at a Big 4 bank and we only get 12. We would be entitled for an extra 6 through the government now.
Government assistance should be those who are on lower wages and can't afford to take time off. They aren't changing the amount of time the government is offering, just so people can't double dip. I'd be surprised if those on lower wage even got assistance through their company. I know my missus doesn't...
I would also be entitled to Childcare credit to kick start me going back to work.
(I say me/we as if I was a women having a kid...I'm not)
The employers contribution isn't cancelled. The governments is! Why would employers stop contributing then?
Should there really be incentives to have kids? That just sounds like a wrong statement. Kids should be planned and you should be financial able to support a kid if you choose to take on the responsibility. You can't just assume the government is going to help you all the time if you have one.
The government's one is disabled if the employer contributes to the leave. So if the government will dive in, then there's no reason for the employer to. Or to put it from the employers perspective: "Why should I pony up for 12 weeks of leave for an employee when the government will chuck in 18?"
That's how I understand it, anyway.
Lower income earners working for larger organisations are equally affected. Higher income earners working for smaller companies that do not have a paid maternity leave scheme are not affected. If it's targeting high income earners, it's not doing it very well.
In the particular case of maternity leave, I don't agree. You could have had a high income for a short period of time, not giving you the time to save up enough money to live off for a year. Or a bunch of other reasons. It's better for everyone that a kid spends as much time with their parents as possible early on. I think this benefits everyone.
If you really get rankled about millionaire parents getting 18 weeks of minimum wage, an assets test would be a better way of going about stopping it. Employee benefits aren't an indication of status.
Except that's not really the case. Usually the employers who currently have good/generous maternity leave programs are the ones who are good professional and highly paid positions and they entice people to work for them with generous benefits. This will really only impact on people with good to excellent jobs and not the low income earners.
Edit: I would agree with an assets test.
What incentive is there for an employer to offer 3mths ppl? If they don't the government covers it. The policy is cancelling itself to a degree. Not absolutely, as you mentioned employers with 12mths would still offer it. Plus there's the extra stimulus you've removed. It's an unnecessary piece of legislation that is creating more problems than it solves.
Should there be an incentive to have kids? Or is it about removing the barriers to having kids? Either way at a macro scale that the government is looking at, the individual question of whether people fall into one of the above is irrelevant. The real question is does increasing ppl increase the birth rate and stimulate the economy. The answer is yes to both.
Elaugaufein
Member
Its a net benefit thing. If the government doesn't contribute in addition to the scheme it makes sense for a business to remove their scheme (allowing you to use the government one) and then put the money that funded that scheme into other forms of compensation instead. That way the net benefit to the employee is the same as before this change (and the impact on the budget is as well, so the savings from this are likely to be significantly under the projection, at least after a year or so while companies adjust).
That's almost as silly as asking why companies pay more than minimum wage. Same reason, companies want the best people working for them.
bodyboarder
Member
Thanks for that.
Eh, it tends to be unionised workforces that have the better maternity leave benefits. Government departments, universities, that sort of thing. The private sector is fairly poor in comparison. I don't claim to have awesome data on the maternity leave benefits provided by big business, but this idea that it's high flyers that get awesome maternity leave packages doesn't seem right in my experience.
Darren870
Member
You could have literally made a similar argument two days ago:
"The government provides 18weeks of maternity leave, why should we?" Yet employers still did, and they will continue doing so..
See above. The same exact incentive existed two days ago that exists today. There is absolutely no reason an employer would change its stance on parental leave.
Elaugaufein
Member
Because two days ago the benefit stacked, if the business provided 18 weeks and the government did as well, you'd get 36 weeks. Now it doesn't.
Darren870
Member
Yes, I understand how it actually impacts people who double dip. However, I don't see why employers would change their parental leave program based on this. That is what I was quoting and replying too.
- Status