I’m clearly getting old and cynical. But it seems that the pre-Budget media leaks have followed the conventional pattern even more than normal. We’ve had a couple of weeks of tax rises, such as the T**t Fuel Tax (my SO’s name for the stuff, not mine…), the Toorak Tractor Tax, and the means testing of the baby bonus.
Now, as we get closer to the budget, we get softer pieces on new expenditure, like money for climate change - though it’s just the implementation of election commitment at this stage, with no new policy AFAICT. Not to mention the adjustment of the Medicare surcharge threshold.
Anybody want to place a bet on there being a couple of “surprise” spending initiatives in the Budget speech? Perhaps a major education announcement?
Personally, I’d like a real shock on budget night - perhaps Wayne Swan could dress up as an Oompa-Loompa and deliver the entire budget speech in song…
Oompa Loompa doopety-do,
Want a baby bonus - we’ll means test you
Oompa-Loompa doopety-de
Medicare surcharge adjusted by me
Putting aside the snark for a moment and trying to concentrate on the substance, you’d have to say that the pre-budget spin depicts a government navigating its way between its redistributive instincts, the desire to implement the letter of its election commitments, and the need to demonstrate “responsibility”. It’s nice to get some hints that those redistributive instincts are actually there. But we’ll have to wait for the actual budget papers to be released.
Consider this an open budget-related thread.
I heartily endorse the tax on premixed drinks. We are producing a generation of young people too lazy to mix spirits with juice or soft drink.
How difficult is it to turn a bottle of scotch and a bottle of coke into a night’s entertainment? Shame shame etc.
There may well be a surprise, but I wonder whether it’s a spending announcement in the positive sense or one in the negative sense (more new taxes or spending cuts), given that seems to have been the climate of expectations they’ve been keen to create.
“How difficult is it to turn a bottle of scotch and a bottle of coke into a night’s entertainment? Shame shame etc.”
One issue a concerned bottle shop attendant raised in casual conversation was that self-mixed drinks offer much more opportunity for spiking.
Although I should say here that I believe the phenomenon to be grossly over-reported.
Also, I think you are being very irresponsible endorsing the mixing of scotch with coke, DD. That way lies madness.
“How difficult is it to turn a bottle of scotch and a bottle of coke into a night’s entertainment?”
The simple rule for teenage parties ’round here was - No more than a six pack of pre mixed stubbies or cans, but that is now irrelevant. For an extra five bucks they can buy a full size bottle and bugger off somewhere unsupervised.
Mission er, somewhat not accomplished.
We’re talking about teenagers here FDB. The long road to Islay malthood starts with a single warm slug of Johnny Walker Red, smuggled for sharing at the bottom of a handbag or in a pocket uncomforably close to the wearer’s balls.
Also, irresponsible? Yes. Next?
It a lot easier to keep track of the number of drinks when consuming premixed for determine when one is sober enough to drive home. It also prevents the slide of ever increasing drink strength as the night wears on (and the drinkers become more experienced).
Tones is working himself up into a lather, as usual. Subtle he aint and moron he is. You would have to wonder how many liberal backbenchers would wish he would just shut up. He represents all that people got tired of and why we have a new government.
[link]
Frontbencher Tony Abbott said the Rudd government’s first Budget was shaping up as anti-mothers and pro-bludgers.
“If it’s true that they are going to means test the baby bonus and abolish work-for-the-dole … this looks like being an anti-mother, pro-bludger Budget,” Mr Abbott said at Parliament House.
I wonder if they’ll be brave enough to have a crack at the Family Tax Rebate quagmire. It must be costing a fortune both in direct costs and the awesome amount of administration it must require.
Means teasting the Family Tax Rebate B was an election promise, David.
As someone who started drinking pre-mixed drinks recently they have a couple of advantages.
On going out you know exact quantities, which is important for knowing when you can drive home. Oddly enough this isn’t an issue for young people - who aren’t allowed to drink and drive at all.
At home it stops the lack of judgement from excess consumption. Far easier to stop at X number of cans, far too easy to let the mix slip higher and higher due to impaired judgement as the night goes on, at the end of which you’re throwing back glasses of whiskey with a shot of coke in them.
Veltyen wrote:
Just as easy with a bottle as with premixed cans: When the bottle is empty, stop drinking
I must have been asleep when Labor announced they were going to do something with Family Tax Benefits. Unfortunately, Swan has a slightly soporific effect when on the TV.
I thought Family tax rebate part B already was means tested. I’m sure at least one of them was last time I was able to claim it (2002).
[link]
Wayne Swan’s Budget ideas seem strangely familiar to me
What a smart fellow he is!
I’ll pick up some T**t Fuel on the way home.
Mark - means testing FTB part B is calculated to raise only about 10 million a year - kind of wonder if its worth it at that point.
Means testing of the baby bonus may lead to some interesting incentives regarding returning to work - eg encouraging mothers to take a bit longer off in order to get the bonus.
Bless you my child.
It’s about the symbolism, I think, Chris.
Conventional wisdom on the baby bonus has it that it will either become a much smaller niche payment (probably delivered as income support over a period of months) or disappear altogether when they introduce paid maternity leave next year.
Mark - yes I think it would be better delivered as income support than a lump sum which would help those who can’t/don’t budget. I’ve no problems with means testing welfare on family income, but then I also think it makes sense to base income tax on family income as well.
Means testing is going to be a pretty tricky affair - does it depend on your income before the baby arrives or after, as the family income often changes quite significantly for at least a year. If its after, is it based on the financial year the baby arrives or 365 days after it arrives? If its the former then those families who have babies in june are going to be at a disadvantage compared to those who have them in July. Lots of pot-holes ahead!
Hopefully ones they’ve anticipated!
Mark @ 21 thy never have before. I used to work at Centrelimk, (1985-1998)
I like to live in hope, Debbieanne!
“Unfortunately, Swan has a slightly soporific effect when on the TV.”
Oh, but life is now good.
That Tip was always a danger to our baby bonus plasma. My door stop and tele can relax, tonight, as Mr Smirk works feverishly on his bucketload of shite memoirs, in the background.
This working family will be singin’….
“How I loves ya, how I loves ya, my dear old Swanny”
….as it is, indeed, a time of glorious change!
I’m opening up comments on the liveblogging post, so I might take the liberty of closing them here.
[link]