The problem is the costs are going up, up, up and up.
When the PM says a 325K per year is peanuts you know you are in big trouble. What a joke Australia is
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/ghwcContent.php?ghwcID=182
20th May 2008
The Rudd Government’s first budget has little adverse impact on the really rich and the interests of the less well off have been well catered for, perhaps with the exception of pensioners. But Labor has hit hard at one component of the middle income groups – namely young adults with dependent children where one parent does not work. Women are deprived of the baby-bonus when household income reaches $150,000 and one income households lose the Family Tax Benefit “B” at the same income level. It seems that they are classified as rich. But a household on an income of $150,000 or less no longer has to pay the Medicare surplus since it is apparently classified as deserving. This doesn’t make sense.
At a media conference on April 29 last year, a journalist put it to Rudd that “$250,000 a year is a lot of money”. He replied: “In parts of Sydney, I’m advised, it’s not necessarily the case. It depends on where you live.” Correct. $250,000 – and certainly $150,000 – may not be a high income for young Australians with dependent children who are paying off mortgages in cities like Sydney or Perth.
As the Herald demonstrated last Saturday, there are some 855 households earning over $150,000 a year in Epping alone. Many of these would not be regarded as rich in any real sense. Yet they are the main targets of the 2008 budget. You wonder what Maxine McKew, the Labor MP for Bennelong which covers Epping, thinks about this. Maybe she should advise the Prime Minister to follow Menzies more closely.
When the PM says a 325K per year is peanuts you know you are in big trouble. What a joke Australia is
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/ghwcContent.php?ghwcID=182
20th May 2008
The Rudd Government’s first budget has little adverse impact on the really rich and the interests of the less well off have been well catered for, perhaps with the exception of pensioners. But Labor has hit hard at one component of the middle income groups – namely young adults with dependent children where one parent does not work. Women are deprived of the baby-bonus when household income reaches $150,000 and one income households lose the Family Tax Benefit “B” at the same income level. It seems that they are classified as rich. But a household on an income of $150,000 or less no longer has to pay the Medicare surplus since it is apparently classified as deserving. This doesn’t make sense.
At a media conference on April 29 last year, a journalist put it to Rudd that “$250,000 a year is a lot of money”. He replied: “In parts of Sydney, I’m advised, it’s not necessarily the case. It depends on where you live.” Correct. $250,000 – and certainly $150,000 – may not be a high income for young Australians with dependent children who are paying off mortgages in cities like Sydney or Perth.
As the Herald demonstrated last Saturday, there are some 855 households earning over $150,000 a year in Epping alone. Many of these would not be regarded as rich in any real sense. Yet they are the main targets of the 2008 budget. You wonder what Maxine McKew, the Labor MP for Bennelong which covers Epping, thinks about this. Maybe she should advise the Prime Minister to follow Menzies more closely.
