Will the Liberals pass the budget?

[Sojourner]

Listened to Malcolm Turnbull give his response to the budget which seemed quite critical especially in relation to the amount of debt to be raised through the budget. I could not however gauge whether the Liberal Party are going to block it as Malcolm Turnbull did mention several times Prime Minister Rudd's Double Dissolution threat?

A few months ago I did feel that if Labor went to Double Dissaloution that they could win it by more as a result, yet I do think that going to the people with a dissolution election based around the level of debt to be raised to the economy may well not have the same effect - thoughts?

[dedja]

Both sides are playing a dangerous game of chicken using their versions of ideology.

The Coalition have stated that they are opposed to the means testing of the health care rebate, instead proposing an increased excise on tobacco.

Labor are holding double dissolution triggers in the kit bag just in case and are demanding the budget is passed without changes.

If an early election was held, anything could happen ... just look at WA and QLD, where one blew up in Labor's face and the other got away with it.

[wycbloods]

I thought Turnballs budget reply was very poor. He doesn't want to means test the private health insurance rebate but wants to tax more on cigarettes. He will be taking from the poor, which is where the highest concentration of smokers would be, and give to the middle and upper classes who i am sure can afford an extra $5-25 per week for there health insurance. I found it amusing to have the libs say tax cigarettes more but not alcohol. They are both essentially both revenue raising measures and the extra cost for both will not cut the use of cigarettes or alcopops.

He also didn't outline how he would have had a lesser deficit, besides saying he wouldn't have given the cash handout, a significant amount i know, but the retail figures suggest that they are working and essentially keeping people in jobs in that industry.

I hope there is a double dissolution election because labor will romp it in.

[Squawk]

I think the budget will pass.

However, Labor will then tell the population that the Libs were complicit in the budget if it fails and that they therefore endorsed the size of the debt.

I think Turnbull could have given some sort of a debt figure. For example, take $14bn out (the cash splash) and the debt would have been much lower. Also, I think he should have said that Labor should have cancelled all the tax cuts if they were going to break a promise, because what is the point of giving tax cuts on the one hand and raising income from elsewhere on the other?

The thing that amuses me is the concept of a temporary deficit, yet the cash splash could only have a temporary effect at best.

The irony in all this is that I don't perceive that the "poor" haven't been affected by the GFC in the same way as the "middle" or "upper" classes. What has the budget announced that will affect them? Perhaps more working class people may have lost their jobs, but overall it could be argued that the Labor govt has made the working class populous richer.

[dedja]

The irony in all this is that I don't perceive that the "poor" haven't been affected by the GFC in the same way as the "middle" or "upper" classes. What has the budget announced that will affect them? Perhaps more working class people may have lost their jobs, but overall it could be argued that the Labor govt has made the working class populous richer.

With all due respect this is nonsense.

Everyone is being affected by this crisis ... very few, if any, are richer for the experience.

The budget isn't really harming most people, rich or poor.

I'm one of those who could be affected by the tightening or creation of means tests, but that's OK because I have a greater capacity to absorb the impact.

If you believe losing your job in this climate isn't much of an issue, try this ... quit your job today and see how long it takes you to get a new one. I think your perceptions will change very quickly.

[Squawk]

The irony in all this is that I don't perceive that the "poor" haven't been affected by the GFC in the same way as the "middle" or "upper" classes. What has the budget announced that will affect them? Perhaps more working class people may have lost their jobs, but overall it could be argued that the Labor govt has made the working class populous richer.

With all due respect this is nonsense.

Everyone is being affected by this crisis ... very few, if any, are richer for the experience.

The budget isn't really harming most people, rich or poor.

I'm one of those who could be affected by the tightening or creation of means tests, but that's OK because I have a greater capacity to absorb the impact.

If you believe losing your job in this climate isn't much of an issue, try this ... quit your job today and see how long it takes you to get a new one. I think your perceptions will change very quickly.

I wasn't implying that losing your job is insignificant. Been there so I have the benefit of some experience in that regard.

I guess I just think that Generation X get smashed every time. We are expected to be self sustaining, and then support the baby boomers as they near retirement, the pensioners who are retired, the unemployed who don't have a job, the sick in public hospitals, and if you are in a modest position with your personal security, to support those who are working but less fortunate. Being middle class Generation X is thankless and they get tapped every time to "absorb a bit more". My whole life I have had very little benefit from governments of either persuasion. Yet my whole life I have paid for my life and at the same time, for all those other categories of people I just mentioned that are not Generation X. There is limited reward for doing it by yourself and then having to do it for those who haven't done it for themselves.

[dedja]

C'mon, you haven't benefited from the tax cuts from the Howard govt years?

I don't know what your situation is, other than being Gen X. ie. salary, married/partner, kids, etc, but those on reasonable to very good wages have been looked after quite well in the last few years. Throw in the 30% healthcare rebate and super salary sacrifice provisions and things don't seem too bad.

I'm married with 3 kids, have basically lived on one income for 12 years and usually earn very good money ... and currently unemployed. But I'm not complaining.

As I stated earlier, I'm not phased by the budget proposals.

I believe those that work hard should get the spoils, but I also believe that in the bad times, we should look after the less fortunate, as long as we don't encourage a welfare mentality.

So I can kind of see your point, but all I am trying to emphasise is some basic equality for all.

[Psyber]

I think the Libs may call Rudd's bluff and see if he does go to a double dissolution.

Private health cover subsidy wouldn't be an issue if state governments funded more than emergency care adequately, but they never have.
I expect they never will so long as politicians can afford to go private at their own expense, or short-cut the public system for their own families.
The states provide an excellent service for acute conditions that can't wait, but, for example, those with chronic mental health problems are left to drift.
They filter into boarding houses, charity support were available, and the gaols after committing offences.

Conditions that are not fatal tend to get short shrift in government funded health systems - at one time the waiting list in the UK for a Femoral Hernia repair was 5 years.
[They don't strangulate so they are only damned uncomfortable, not potentially fatal.]

I have retained private health care for the sake of dental care, and getting prompt attention for minor health problems, and will do so anyway regardless of the subsidy.
However, as it turns out I shan't be earning enough from now on to lose the subsidy under this budget - but they may abolish it completely next time.
Then the demand on state funded care will grow- there will be a major transfer of cost from the federal government to the states if large numbers drop out of private health cover..

We had a very effective and inexpensive system of cooperative public/private health cover prior to the Whitlam years, but it has been made into a combative system since, because the public system tends to be underfunded, and the cost of higher cost private cover has removed the previous pattern of exchange of patients between private and public hospitals, when minor conditions tended to be treated in private and only the major ones at the public hospitals at state expense.

http://safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php? ... ate+health

Interestingly, pre-Medibank, federally subsidised private health cover provided shared ward accommodation and 75% of the AMA fee, but you could elect to top it up at your own expense for private room and 100% of the AMA fee - and it was affordable - my father was a clerical assistant in the SA Railways and we had full cover.

[In fact in those days my father could afford to be in 2 health funds and was allowed to claim the bills on both.]