Jump to content


Photo

Federal Budget


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#16 ~*Willow*~

~*Willow*~

    I am still a mother of five

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,123 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 09:02 AM

QUOTE (squeaza @ May 10 2006, 11:32 PM)
I find it funny that wonderful generous extra $248 dollars a year for families with three or more kids! I wonder how far that goes feeding hungry little mouths blink.gif

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Yeah Mr Costello is a comedian on this one!!! Our food bill a fortnight is close to $300! I so cant wait to move and have our own vegie garden!!! I didnt buy bananas this week coz they were $11.49 a kilo!! OMG!!!!

Im a little shocked that the Youth Allowance for a 16 year old is now MORE than what they earn in an Apprenticeship per week can someone please explain where the bloody incentive is to get our Youths to WORK! The price of fuel will eat my sons pay packet away too when he starts to drive!!

Im a little concerned about the blow out on Foreign Debt!! Anyone else?

I have always said the Childcare rebate should be for Nannies as well!!! Maybe if it was applicable the Childcare placement problem wouldnt be a problem and it would lessen the unemployed in this section that are qualified and looking for a job! Cuts both ways doesnt it?






IM DONE!

#17 CharlieLexie

CharlieLexie

    To love and be loved is to feel the sun from both sides

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,261 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:03 AM

Well I was hoping for a little relief from childcare fees. Not a sniff that that will ever happen though. sad.gif
IPB Image

#18 samc

samc

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:15 AM

It doesn't help me much $10 extra isn't even going to cover increases in petrol let alone food, however it helps Adam with his tax as a sole trader and when we do have kids every little bit will help.

#19 Anita

Anita

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,527 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:27 AM

QUOTE (CharlieLexie @ May 11 2006, 10:03 AM)
Well I was hoping for a little relief from childcare fees. Not a sniff that that will ever happen though. sad.gif

I thought there was a new thing that you could claim your out of pocket expenses on childcare in your tax return? Or was the just a nice media spin to make it sound like that's what was hapening? dry.gif

As to nannies not being covered - they used to be - when I first had Liam in childcare I clearly remember reading that even if you had a family member caring for your child that they could register as a childcare provider and you could claim CCB against their out of pocket expenses and some amount of payment for the care for your child or something like that; I remember it so clearly becuase I though "If only i hd a family member who could do that..."

#20 Erasing the digi footprint

Erasing the digi footprint

    muchacha feliz en la tierra

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,743 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:51 AM

QUOTE (Anita @ May 11 2006, 10:27 AM)
I thought there was a new thing that you could claim your out of pocket expenses on childcare in your tax return? Or was the just a nice media spin to make it sound like that's what was hapening? dry.gif


Yes

From July 2005 you can claim 30% of your out of pocket expenses for childacre on your tax return. That is HUGE!!!

#21 Saph

Saph

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,974 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 01:22 PM

QUOTE (MandyD @ May 10 2006, 07:56 PM)
Family Tax part A is based on both incomes combined Saph sad.gif sad.gif

awww, bugger.

It must be Part B that is based on lower income then lol..... confusing system this.

And pfft to the people complaining about getting a $10 a week tax cut.... think yourselves bloody lucky, that means you're on at least $50k a year, think of the people who only earn $30k.
Fred & Kristy - 22/10/05
~Amy Grace~ Stillborn, but born still - 6.42pm 25 February 2006 - 20w6d
Jordan Lawrence - 3 May 2008
Oliver Edouard - 18 March 2010


#22 displayname

displayname

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,033 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 01:29 PM

Really? maybe I missed something.. I thought it WAS the people on $30K a year getting the $10 /week tax break...

#23 toffee

toffee

    Lifes Good!

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,001 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 01:33 PM

actually i wasn't impressed with it.

I would rather keep paying the current tax rate & see the govt spend some money on our health care system.


#24 Mrs M

Mrs M

    Whispering Sweet Nothings...

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,958 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 01:58 PM

Well I suppose $10 a week in my pocket, is better than being $10 a week out of my pocket!

Am really happy to see the increase in the annual income limits for full FTB A.

Budget at a Glance Try looking here Alicia.

I think it's important to remember that people with families do have more expenses than single people! Hence why they get more.

And I suppose, you thinking "dang it lets have babies" is just what the Govt wants to happen! You know we're all supposed to have three! One for mum, one for dad, and one for the counrty! wink.gif




Benjamin Seth 25/09/03 ~ Luke and Bec 23/04/05 ~ Bianca Kate 10/01/06

#25 hubby33

hubby33

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 02:56 PM

I would have liked to have seen more money spent on education, healthcare and infrastructure. The $10 a week will make a difference but I would have been happier to see my $10 a week spent on essential services - it makes a much bigger difference as $6Bn or whatever the tax cuts cost.

But at the same time I am glad to see the income tax rates being dramatically reduced - it makes tax evasion (like family trusts, dodgy businesses) less attractive and reduces some of the injury caused by the GST. I thought that when they introduced the GST they always intended to reduce income tax because we (and tourists I remember were a big argument) would pay tax through spending not just income.

The lack of spending on services isn't a surprise though - the Howard goverment has always been pushing us down a road of privatisation/user-pays. Think of education (private school funding), health (private health rebates) and superannuation (cf the pension) as a few big examples.

#26 melhoneybee

melhoneybee

    Frequent Poster

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 880 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 05:54 PM

QUOTE (~*MrsJ*~ @ May 10 2006, 06:53 PM)
yup we do actually - but thanks for your concern  laugh.gif  I get a wee bit sick of people who get pissed off at people who earn a higher salary, you need to think about WHY some people earn more!  Some people have some pretty hefty responsibilities.

you are kidding aren't you?
Sorry but i think the people earning $15k a year need money in their pockets a little more than the 2% of our population earning 100k plus a year.


Our society values certain professions over others. Income has little correlation with the value of a persons contribution to society rolleyes.gif

I am sure the large number of families earning 40k a year also have hefty responsibilities proportional to their income, and have to get by without the luxuries anyone on a high income would have.
]

#27 Saph

Saph

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,974 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 09:42 PM

QUOTE (empress @ May 11 2006, 01:29 PM)
Really? maybe I missed something.. I thought it WAS the people on $30K a year getting the $10 /week tax break...

nope, $20
Fred & Kristy - 22/10/05
~Amy Grace~ Stillborn, but born still - 6.42pm 25 February 2006 - 20w6d
Jordan Lawrence - 3 May 2008
Oliver Edouard - 18 March 2010


#28 Erasing the digi footprint

Erasing the digi footprint

    muchacha feliz en la tierra

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,743 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 11:33 PM

Fine Melhoneybee ...then all those people earning high salaries will stop earning them and stop paying the high taxes- then what will happen to those low income earners??


And for the record it is 2% of income earners over $150K NOT $100K

Some people are never satisfied seriously.

For the record- we are happy with the budget as should everyone be. Because quite frankly whatever your income tax bracket or family circumstance, you will be better off than you were last week prior to the budget announcements.

#29 ~*MrsJ*~

~*MrsJ*~

    fricken stalkers

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,562 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 11:55 PM

QUOTE (melhoneybee @ May 11 2006, 05:54 PM)

get by without the luxuries anyone on a high income would have.

laugh.gif laugh.gif oh you are fricken hilarious!


rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif


another one with a Stalker.... bye bye!

#30 Erasing the digi footprint

Erasing the digi footprint

    muchacha feliz en la tierra

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,743 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 12:14 AM

QUOTE (~*MrsJ*~ @ May 11 2006, 11:55 PM)
laugh.gif laugh.gif oh you are fricken hilarious!


rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Ditto Sheri!

Feel free to come by and have a look at my household budget any day you like Melhoneybee- I think you might be somewhat surprised.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users