One of a few videos that leaves me very worried if Abbot is to lead our country.
There's been enough talk about "middle income welfare" and of course that is what people normally talk about when they say money going to people who don't need it. (eg. private health care rebate, child care rebate etc).
However, given the amount of "middle class welfare" that's available at the moment, I'd like to see an example of where this has even been suggested to be increased at a cost of lower income welfare.
I am sure that there will be cuts to the "middle class welfare" under the next government - no matter who gets in. There will also undoubtably be tax changes.
But taking money from those that need it and redistributing it to the wealthy? I'd seriously like to see an example of that - because I can't fathom any time it happens.
Redistributed through tax cuts, which on higher incomes they get more of. A 10% cut to a middle class family might result in 3k less a year to pay in tax. For someone earning 250k a year, 10% means 30k back.
Then the proposed increase to the already existing PPL scheme, which is going to cost billions - yep I support it, but not to the detriment of the low and middle income families who he has said he'll take the school bonus from for sure, and he's hinted he wants the BB gone too. Statistically 2 income families are earning much more. He has said, when asked months ago how he is going to fund the huge increases of the PPL that he replied by cutting the school bonus and scaling back the BB, which has already been scaled back. So he has admitted cuts to the poor will fund money to the more wealthy.
Or other benefits which are usually utilised by the wealthy - injection into the PHI system or increasing subsidies. Increases in private school funding. The libs operate by cutting funding to low and middle income then passing on *some* of those savings to the groups that need it the least in favour of 'incentive to work'. Too bad millions of hard working Australians didn't know that the only ones wanting to work are the rich.
I get that - SD channels still include 2, 7, 9, 10 and SBS.
So you get news, current affairs, movies, sport etc.
I can't see how the fact that you don't get Go, 72, 73, 94 (shopping channels) etc makes you any more marginalised, than the fact that some people don't get foxtel.
Your statement was that disadvantaged people could be more marginalised by not getting as many channels. I said I don't believe that is true. It is not the number of tv channels which defines whether you'll be marginalised.
It's like when so many low income earners on here seemed to be delighted about the changes to the PHI rebate. Why? Because high income earners don't deserve their high salaries because they don't work any harder than lower income families and they should just be grateful for their salary and not expect anything back from the Govt that they contribute so highly to. It's not like the dollars they are "taking" from us are going to the more "needy". It's laughable to suggest it.
That attitude really upset me as I for one am hugely supportive of supporting those who need it. It's the definition of need that differs I suppose.
Anyway I have digressed!
Tony Abbott is most likely to put some more money in my pocket. But I would pay to keep him out of power.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!