ARM YOURSELF

iInformation is power and puts strength behind your words and vote at  Federal Elections.  I've done some of the research for you here. Don't be a zombie voter, the two party dominance is not unbreakable.

Pro Liberal? This research will get you thinkng

 1 VOTERS OPINION  on AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

SOMEWHERE OVER THE RAINBOW LIBERALS & MATES FLY

LIBERALS 

Page 5 of   7

This page is not formatted for viewing on mobile screens

 

 Navigate 

NAVIGATE 1 VOTERS POLITICAL RESEARCH

 

POLITICAL RESEARCH - SITE -MAP

 

WHY IS 1 VOTER DOING THIS RESEARCH?

THIS VOTERS PRIORITIES FOR GOVERNMENT

 

The lens  through which I examine the party options .

1 VOTER ON THE TRADE 'LEVEL PLAYING FIELD'

 

1 VOTER ON 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS'

 

THE ALTERNATIVES - RESEARCH OTHER PARTIES

I've had a look at these parties so far - Links to my summaries and research:

1 VOTER RESEARCHES LABOR  pg1 

1 VOTER RESEARCHES STAINABLE AUSTRALIA

1  VOTER RESEARCHES ONE NATION

1  VOTER RESEARCHES UNITED AUSTRALIA

These pages are authored by a concerned Australian citizen.The opinions expressed on this website are personal opinions only, the writer has no political qualifications but is a registered voter. This page is not authorised or endorsed by the any of the parties discussed or not discussed here-in. Note: the "Arm Yourself" phrase as used here refers to knowledge and does not refer to violence of any sort

1 VOTER ON LIBERALS COMMENT 10 - It is alarming that a government produces figures that have 2 categories- Other Purposes and All other functions, that together total around $140 Billion, not allocated transparently for the public to specific spending. Where do they allocate humanitarian and immigration support, disaster relief etc.? Having trolled the internet and the ABS these specific figures still elude me. Clearly social security and welfare are a huge budget expense. I personally would like to see those that can work, doing something to support the community that supports them.

WELFARE – AKA SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS

BUDGET SPEECH Treasurer Scott Morrison 2018

THE LIBERALS- WELFARE TO WORK.

Quote” The percentage of working age Australians on welfare has fallen to 14.3% – the lowest rate of welfare dependency in 30 years.

In 2017-18, there were 90,000 fewer working age Australians on welfare than the previous year. “End Quote

NEWS.COM MAY 9, 2014

Quote “WELCOME TO THE WELFARE NATION:

HALF OF AUSTRALIA’S FAMILIES PAY NO NET TAX

The exclusive modelling for The Daily Telegraph by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra reveals 48 per cent of Australia’s 12.2 million “income units” pay no net tax.

Any tax they do contribute is offset by the welfare — pensions, family tax benefits or childcare rebates — they receive.

On average an Australian will pay just $3424 in tax after welfare benefits are taken into account. Source: News Limited.

On average, Australian families will pay $12,935 in income tax this year but receive $9515 in benefits — a net yearly contribution to the public purse of just $3424.

The figures include welfare paid in pensions, family benefits, jobless support and childcare support.  They include all income taxes paid but not indirect taxes, such as cigarette excise and state-levied taxes such as the GST.”  End Quote

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS - AUSSTATS

Released 20/06/2018  

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS IN CASH – WHAT IS AVAILABLE?

Cash payments to persons from general government without any requirement to provide goods and services in return. Included are pensions and allowances received -

aged,

disabled,

unemployed

sick persons,

families and children,

veterans or their survivors,

study allowances for students.

Family Tax Benefit

Newborn supplement or Newborn Upfront payment

Child Disability Assistance Payment paid to recipients of Carer Allowance  (HES)

exclude some transfers e.g. support from the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

SOCIAL TRANSFERS IN KIND

Social transfers in kind (STIK) consist of goods and services provided free or at subsidised prices by the government.

provision of education,

health

housing

social security

welfare services

electricity concessions and rebates.

reimbursements of approved expenditures such as the Medicare rebate,

the Private Health Insurance Rebate, the Child Care Benefit and the Child Care Rebate.

 

One in ten households (roughly 13%) rely entirely on the government for household income.

Thirteen per cent of young Australians receive Youth Allowance.

Over seventy percent of Australians over 65 receive the Age or Service Pension.

And more than one in twenty working age Australians receive the Disability Support Pension.

CHILDREN ARE A WELFARE GOLD MINE

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/subjects/having-baby:

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

If you are an Australian resident who meets the criteria to qualify, the Australian government has a huge range of support services and payments:

Child Care Benefit 

Child Care Rebate 

Additional Child Care Subsidy

Temporary Financial Hardship

Family Tax Benefit and Parenting Payment 

Rent Assistance and Telephone Allowance 

Parental Leave Pay

Dad and Partner Pay

Youth Allowance 

Abstudy 

Asistance for Isolated Children Scheme 

Education Entry Payment 

Medicare can help with the cost of health care services or medicine.

Child Dental Benefits Schedule 

Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Scheme helps f

Single Income Family Supplement.

Energy Supplement 

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 

 

LIBERALS 2018-19 BUDGET

Quote”We will ease financial pressures on families in regional areas, by relaxing the Parental Income Test for access to Youth Allowance for independent students from January 1, 2019 by an additional $10,000 per annum and an additional $10,000 for each additional child. “End Quote

 

1 VOTER ON LIBERALS COMMENT12 -IS ALL THIS WELFARE TARGETING THE LEAST ABLE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN FINANCIAL SUPPORT? 

DOUBLE STANDARDS-

If the Coalition believes that retirees are meant to plan and take care of their own finances in retirement, then why are younger citizens of child bearing age not expected to take responsibility for their own fertility and make responsible choices regarding number of children they can afford to support financially? If you can't support your children you shouldn't continue having more children and expect the government to support these children with extra benefits. Why doesn’t the responsibility for self, apply to families as well as retirees. Barring unusual circumstances and emergencies, IMO it is a type of child abuse to bring children into the world that you can’t support financially.

It’s this type of discrimination that is creating real disharmony and division in Australian society. Some sectors of Australian society have taken responsibility for their own financial support their whole lives and then when they meet hard times/ retirement/ illness , they hit waiting times and limitations that throw them into poverty and despair, other sectors of the community have been welfare dependent for the majority of their lives. Where is the fairness in this, where is the incentive to work and be responsible for self? Whilst the Liberal policies have the words, they don’t have the supporting actions.

NEWS.COM MAY 9, 2014

Quote “WELCOME TO THE WELFARE NATION: HALF OF AUSTRALIA’S FAMILIES PAY NO NET TAX

The exclusive modelling for The Daily Telegraph by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra reveals 48 per cent of Australia’s 12.2 million “income units” pay no net tax.

 

Any tax they do contribute is offset by the welfare — pensions, family tax benefits or childcare rebates — they receive.

On average an Australian will pay just $3424 in tax after welfare benefits are taken into account. Source: News Limited.

On average, Australian families will pay $12,935 in income tax this year but receive $9515 in benefits — a net yearly contribution to the public purse of just $3424.

The figures include welfare paid in pensions, family benefits, jobless support and childcare support.

They include all income taxes paid but not indirect taxes, such as cigarette excise and state-levied taxes such as the GST.”  End Quote

THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THE PROVISION OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS IN CASH

GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, TAXES AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME, AUSTRALIA, 2009-10 

29/06/2012  

 http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6537.0Explanatory%20Notes12009-10?OpenDocument

ABS.GOV.AU- AUSSTATS

FIGURES NOT FOUND -WHAT DO WE KNOW? THE $200 BILLION SPENDING BLACK HOLE?

Quote” ABS does not allocate government spending related to public debt, or on general public services, fuel and energy, transport and communication, public order and safety, defense, recreation and culture, agriculture, forestry and fishing, mining and construction and other.

 The ABS does not give precise numbers for this non-included spending, but based on the chart in Paragraph 78 of the ABS publication, there may be as much as $200 billion in spending in these other areas in 2009-10 that is not included.

This can be compared to around $234 billion in spending on health and social security and welfare in that year, implying that these studies leave out nearly half of all government spending

while the ABS allocate about 91 % of income taxes to households, they allocate less than two thirds of taxes on production, a gap of around $47 billion in 2009-10. They also do not include about $10 billion in income taxes (mainly capital gains taxes), plus another $50 billion in other taxes.

What would happen if we added these other expenditures and taxes into the picture? In the case of Australia, we do not know. “End Quote

 

ZERO NET TAX PAYERS

https://www.austaxpolicy.com/worried-zero-net-taxpayers/

AUSTAXPOLICY.COM

Quote “Estimates using ABS household statistics show that close to 50 per cent of the Australian population are "zero net taxpayers". How is this sustainable and what does it mean? “End Quote

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/should-the-treasurer-be-worried-about-the-number-of-zero-net-taxpayers-20161103-gsgy8e.html

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 3/11/2016

 

Quote “In an address to Bloomberg on August 25 2016, federal Treasurer Scott Morrison said "more Australians are likely today to be net beneficiaries of the government than contributors – never paying more tax than they receive in government payments. There is a new divide – the taxed and the taxed-nots." “End Quote

https://www.austaxpolicy.com/worried-zero-net-taxpayers/

AUSTAXPOLICY.COM

Quote “An article by Maurice Newman in The Australian on 29 April similarly argued “According to Australian National University researcher Ben Phillips, only 43 % of the adult population excluding public sector workers are net taxpayers, meaning more than 50 % of voters rely fully on political patronage for their income.” (The meaning of “relying on political patronage” is not spelled out.) “End Quote

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/weasel-words-disguise-true-nature-of-superannuation-changes-20160606-gpccok.html

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD -BY RAMESH THAKUR   JUNE 6, 2016

Quote “If fewer and fewer people pay a continually growing share of taxes, they will rebel. As the ratio of net beneficiaries who get more in benefits than pay in taxes rises, citizens will divide into those who work and others who vote for a living. Clawing back the dependency state will become increasingly difficult. “End Quote

https://www.austaxpolicy.com/worried-zero-net-taxpayers/

SHOULD WE BE WORRIED ABOUT “ZERO NET TAXPAYERS”?

AUSTAXPOLICY  -4 NOVEMBER 2016 BY PETER WHITEFORD

WHAT TAXES?  WHAT BENEFITS?

Quote “What do these figures mean?  On the surface at least the suggestion that half, or more, of the Australian population are “zero net taxpayers” sounds surprising if not alarming.  How can it possibly be sustainable that a majority of people receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes?  Moreover, is the number of people who receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes increasing, and if so why?

The media and political debate about who is a “zero net taxpayer” refers to three different measures of taxes paid to government and benefits received from government by individuals or households.

1. Is an individual or a household paying any income tax? (What they get for their taxes is ignored.)

2. Is an individual or a household paying more in income tax than they are receiving in cash benefits, social security or welfare payments (technically called “transfers”) from the government?

Given that around 54% of adult individuals pay positive income tax, we would expect that netting off cash benefits should reduce this share further. 

3. How do the total direct and indirect taxes of all kinds paid by an individual or household compare with the total cash benefits and public (social) services they receive from government?

This approach involves modelling the impact of indirect taxes such as the GST and excises on petrol, alcohol and tobacco, or social security tax in other countries, together with direct taxes such as income tax and land tax. This approach then balances this more comprehensive definition of taxation with a more comprehensive definition of spending, to include government funded or provided services such as health, education, and services such as child care, public housing and disability care and aged care.

The majority of the media articles and comments on “zero net taxpayers” refer to the second of these measures.  They look at the combination of income taxes paid and social security cash benefits received and calculate the extent to which one side of the ledger offsets the other. This also appears to be what the Treasurer was referring to in his 25 August Bloomberg address.

Since 2008, ABS data show that 60% of the additional jobs in Australia have been part-time, many of whom are likely to be below the tax-free threshold of $18,200. In addition, as the Reserve Bank has noted, Australia is currently experiencing the longest period of low wage growth since the early 1990s recession, with a significant impact on income tax collections. “End Quote

1 VOTER ON LIBERALS COMMENT11 - The graph above shows that Australia has a large proportion of population heavily reliant on government support / is very  generous when compared with other OECD countries

 

 Navigate 

 
 

 Navigate 

 Navigate 

 Navigate 

 Navigate 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
zipit.gif
zip it.png
zipit.gif