My family and I sit right on the cusp of this means testing - I am a shift worker, so it could literally come down to whether or not I work a public holiday or not.
Intellectually and economically, I can understand where the government is coming from. I agree, those of us who are earning above the $150k figure probably should be able to cope without that extra $400 - $1000 a year.
However, I really don't understand why people seem to think that higher income earners should just "put up and shut up"? I don't understand why people seem to think that my family should be HAPPY that we will have to pay an extra amount of money just because I am rostered on to work New Years Day?
We probably can afford to pay the extra. We have a very manageable mortgage, we own 2 old cars that we purchased second hand and outright with our savings. DH only just got his first Xbox 360 this year, because we have always put our savings and mortgage before things like that. But just because we can afford it does not mean that we have to joyfully give up yet another few hundred $$$.
I also don't understand all this "well you choose this and you choose that" arguing. Yes, DH and I chose to save a deposit and buy our first place young. We chose to forgo holidays and brand name clothes so that we could put our money into savings and repaying our mortgage. I choose to stay in a job I hated so that I could work extra hours on the weekend while DH was working and studying towards bettering his career on the side. I chose to work weekends while my friends were out drinking and partying. We chose to wait until we were financially stable to have our kids. That does not make me right or anyone else wrong, That makes my decisions MY decisions, same as all of yours.
If they were taking away something that meant that people under the 166k threshold away, wouldn't it upset you? Even if you knew that you could afford it? Nobody wants to pay more than they have to, and there is nothing wrong with being upset when you are the one that is affected. It is human nature!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 181 to 190 of 217
17-02-2012 19:04 #181
17-02-2012 20:01 #182
Our 4 person family is on around 45k a year. We drive a 15 year old car, we have NO PHI.... and I feel truly blessed. We can pay our bills our good money management means our children never go without. Yes people have a right to whinge, but others also have a right to give their opinions too. It's a grand for someone on 250k a year. I just think people need to get some perspective *shrugs* Some of the same people tore people apart for suggesting $500 off the BB might effect low income earners, saying they shouldn't be having kids.... yet someone commenting on others complaining on a quarter of a million dollars a year is picking on them? I think there's some irony here
Last edited by delirium; 17-02-2012 at 20:05.
17-02-2012 20:18 #183Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
I'm not saying it hasn't ever been said, I'm just saying I have rarely seen it.
Yet I have seen it inferred many many times.
17-02-2012 21:20 #184
It's human nature to be annoyed when something is taken away from you. Regardless of whether you earn $50k or $150k - nobody is happy losing a benefit that will cost more in their personal budget, whatever that budget looks like. Whilst it may be easier for someone earning more to accommodate the changes, this shouldn't mean they can't be angry about the extra cost IMO.
It's the same as people complaining about the BB being marginally reduced - it won't stop you from having babies, but is annoying enough to still complain about and quite rightly too. Any loss is a loss.
We pay a LOT in taxes every year - no I'm not complaining, just stating a fact. For many of us fortunate to be in this income bracket, life is still full of typical financial pressures (especially when one of those wages is lost while on mat leave, but you still have the same commitments).
Is my lifestyle my choice? Absolutely! I'd never deny that. But I also worked hard for it and put off having a family until I was in this better position. But does this mean I don't have a right to be p*ssed off to lose one of the very few rebates/benefits we are actually entitled to as a high income earner? I don't think so.
Many people may not realize that the PHI rebate was originally introduced to encourage the mid-high income earners to have it anyway, taking pressure away from the public system. So it's a little contradictory of the govt to now penalize us by removing the rebate just because we earn good money.
17-02-2012 21:34 #185
17-02-2012 21:51 #186
Lucky you that you had the opportunity to "better yourselves". Not everyone gets that opportunity. At the risk of sounding "poor me" (which is something I loathe and one of the reasons the whinging is frustrating me) I HAD to leave school at Year 10 to help my mother pay the rent. I worked my bum off and saved enough money to own land outright by the time I was 20. I then married and through circumstances I would prefer not to go into, the marriage failed and my investment was divided. I was forced to use the money from the sale of the land to buy furniture. I was a single parent for 7 years and waitressed while I went to Uni. After the Black Saturday fires I was forced to leave my home and I moved from the area and remarried, continued my family because I realised how important that is. The man I married has had circumstances in his life that meant he was unable to go to university also, but he works his bum off too. Overtime almost every day, call outs where he will have to go on site for days and we don't get to see him. But you know what, we are grateful for the $50K he receives. We don't whinge about what we don't have because we have what we need. We may never own a home, but we have a roof over our head.
What I can't wrap my head around is complaining about something that really, when it comes down to it, is not needed. It's not "deserved". I seriously cannot understand this mentality. Yes, you have to pay higher taxes..when you earn more money..umm...why is that not logical? It's basic finance.
17-02-2012 21:59 #187
How is it OK for you to assume that people who are worried about financial stress are just bad with money, or unable to understand how to "live within their means"? That is just as unfair as assuming that all low income earners are welfare slaves who have babies just to buy a plasma TV! Neither is true, both are just generalisations that hurt people.
17-02-2012 22:15 #188
Heck - why not say "Let's add an extra 10% to all bills at Coles and Woolies for higher income earners - if higher income earners can afford to pay it then they should"
Which brings me to my next point...
Sure my DH earns a good wage, yes he pays taxes, but for the last 17years he has been paying child support and while he's only paying child support for one child now he paid over $20k last year (when it was 2 - it's still about $15k now). I'm not begrudging him paying child support, I'm just saying - sometimes the income on paper does not reflect what is taken home.
It does not always mean the person has taken out a mortgage beyond their means, it does not always mean the person has an investment portfolio, it does not always mean money goes on extravagant things.
We have no investment properties - a very modest mortgage (less than $250k), 3 children to support (was 4 till last year) (I've already mentioned the $15k in child support), about $40k in taxes, $10k in transport to and from work, did have daycare costs till this year (now after school care and extra school fees) and a lot more, but I won't go into as I've already revealed more than I like to reveal due to privacy.
The fact that people who won't be affected state that others who are should just suck it up I find quite offensive as nobody ever knows everybody elses true situation behind the computer screen.
18-02-2012 00:31 #189
But we're not talking about increasing the net cost of phi. We're talking about grading the government assistance on it.
*sent from my adiction... my phone*
18-02-2012 00:56 #190
All I was suggesting was - if the rebate is taken away for some people (as I've said - it may not even apply to me) - wouldn't it then equate the same if a rebate was then applied for lower income earners for groceries, or for the internet etc.
Because at the end of the day - it is about raising the net cost of PHI for some people. The reality is that removing the rebate WILL increase the net cost for PHI for some people so yes, that is exactly what we are talking about.
Removing government assistance (ie. the rebate) is going to increase net cost for some.
By lilrussell in forum General Child Health IssuesReplies: 1Last Post: 17-09-2012, 10:45
By NAT256 in forum IVFReplies: 2Last Post: 27-08-2012, 14:42
By BlueButton in forum Private Health Insurance DiscussionReplies: 0Last Post: 12-04-2012, 10:39
Baby U & The Wiggles - Toilet Training ProductsToilet training can be a testing time but Baby U is there to assist you and your toddler with the daunting task of ...
LATESTToilet training: when is the best time to start?Why it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
ConfusedConception & Fertility General Chat
Situations - ok or not ok?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Would you delay TTC because first child is starting first year of school.General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
IVF babies due March/April/May 2017#2pregnancy and babies through IVF
What are our chances??pregnancy and babies through IVF
Miracle March TTC and Testing ChatConception & Fertility General Chat