A medicare-style levy for increasing the Dole

R

rbaggio

Active Member
Silver Stacker
Anyone else hear this on the news this morning? I can't find a link to it anywhere.

Federal ALP Senator Doug Cameron is proposing a Medicare-style levy (on your annual ATO tax return) to fund a $50/week increase in the Newstart allowance.

My blood started to boil when I heard this.

Medicare levy
Flood levy
Dole levy

Oh, and isn't 'Newstart' such an Orwellian newspeak term.
 
F#*@ that.

I when the voting majority are net recipients, the productive minority will be royally screwed.
 
Just what the nation needs. More reason to stay on welfare, and less money in the pockets of those who are productive. The Labor Party is nothing more than a sheltered workshop for those who are too inept to function in the real world.
 
France, here we come

EDIT: Love this comment from Doug Cameron:

You know most Australians, if they thought that their taxes were going to making sure that kids are not in poverty, that they would be prepared to look at hypothecated tax, which is simply a Medicare type tax but for one specific purpose: that is to make sure that people can get a decent living on Newstart.
Click to expand...

Sure about that one Douggy??
 
Jonesy said:
Just what the nation needs. More reason to stay on welfare, and less money in the pockets of those who are productive. The Labor Party is nothing more than a sheltered workshop for those who are too inept to function in the real world.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Why not just raise the dole but cut it off to long term unemployed with ability to work but choose not to?

Would fund itself and provide benefits for all parties long term.
 
An "hypothecated" tax. Perhaps all taxes should be hypothecated, then we woud have some transparency.

But this is telling ...

SAMANTHA HAWLEY: Do you think that that is a risky debate ahead of an election? Talking about tax increases ahead of election could be a risky strategy.

DOUG CAMERON: No I don't think it's risky in terms of if the tax is being expended on ensuring that children are not living in poverty, that they are not socially excluded, I don't think that's risky. I think that's a debate that Labor people should be out there having within the community.
Click to expand...

There is only one circumstance in which promising tax increases before an election isn't risky and that's when there are more welfare recipients voting than income earning tax payers.

It's probably the case, but it would definitely be the case once all government funded employees are removed from the equation.
 
Welfare dependency, most agree, is an ugly thing. It is also a loaded term that brings to mind bludgers addicted to government benefits.

We're not thinking, of course, of the 44 per cent of taxpayers who get more in benefits than they pay in. Who dares suggest ''working families'', even if quite well off, are guilty of some sort of moral failing for accepting state handouts?

It seems the better off feel entitled to better treatment by government. Their status as wealth generators is a passport to ''diplomatic immunity'' from accusations of sponging off the state - however disproportionate to need their benefits and tax concessions may be.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/who-are-the-real-bludgers-20130312-2fyf3.html#ixzz2NNm37KI7
 
Big A.D. said:
Welfare dependency, most agree, is an ugly thing. It is also a loaded term that brings to mind bludgers addicted to government benefits.

We're not thinking, of course, of the 44 per cent of taxpayers who get more in benefits than they pay in. Who dares suggest ''working families'', even if quite well off, are guilty of some sort of moral failing for accepting state handouts?

It seems the better off feel entitled to better treatment by government. Their status as wealth generators is a passport to ''diplomatic immunity'' from accusations of sponging off the state - however disproportionate to need their benefits and tax concessions may be.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/who-are-the-real-bludgers-20130312-2fyf3.html#ixzz2NNm37KI7
Click to expand...

It's the mindset of that sort of journalist that gets my goat. He's an immoral classist prick who is too gutless to go into his neighbours house, take $400 out of his wallet and give it to the people down the road that he thinks are needy. Instead he argues the Government should walk in and steal the $400 because his neighbours income is "disproportionate to need".

Wealth generators should be treated better by Government than they are. Yes, taxation churn is totally ridiculous and should be abolished. The fact that there are a significant number of "middle-class" tax payers who fork out $30,000 in tax only to have some bureaucrats and accountants churn a couple of thousand straight back (but take a percentage for the cost of churning it) is a disgusting waste of resources. Argue against churn of the same people's money back to themselves do not argue against giving it back to the people paying the taxes in the first place. Don't take it in the first place.
 
Ha Ha!

As I approach my twilight years I will start voting Labor. Not this time but 2016 maybe. If you can't earn it, you may as well vote for it.
 
What happened to 'work for the dole' ?

More money? More work!

Increase form an 8hour day to 10 or 12
 
Big A.D. said:
Welfare dependency, most agree, is an ugly thing. It is also a loaded term that brings to mind bludgers addicted to government benefits.

We're not thinking, of course, of the 44 per cent of taxpayers who get more in benefits than they pay in. Who dares suggest ''working families'', even if quite well off, are guilty of some sort of moral failing for accepting state handouts?

It seems the better off feel entitled to better treatment by government. Their status as wealth generators is a passport to ''diplomatic immunity'' from accusations of sponging off the state - however disproportionate to need their benefits and tax concessions may be.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/who-are-the-real-bludgers-20130312-2fyf3.html#ixzz2NNm37KI7
Click to expand...

I bet that argument doesn't hold water when ALL taxes are included. e.g. GST, fuel levies, ... etc. Define "more in benefits than they pay in".
 
I think the article should have said "John Watson", "Senior Socialist Writer". Nothing like nailing your colors to the mast.
 
sammysilver said:
Ha Ha!

As I approach my twilight years I will start voting Labor. Not this time but 2016 maybe. If you can't earn it, you may as well vote for it.
Click to expand...
lol i like your thinking :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top