(by Ray Dixon – not a “poor person” just a fairer [and more honest] one than Hockey)
Joe Hockey’s “poor people don’t drive cars or don’t drive far anyway” disproved – by FACTS.
The truth is out there and Joe Hockey knew it all along. He lied about the figures.
Or, at the very least, he misrepresented the truth and did not use the data (the more relevant data) that was at his disposal, which is the same thing as lying – by omission.
Joe Hockey clearly deceived the public with his ludicrous claim that high income earners were the group “most hurt” by fuel excise increases.
Hurt? They’ll hardly even notice it.
In fact most high income earners don’t even care how much they pay for petrol and don’t need to.
Joe Hockey deceived the public. He is a disgrace and should resign.
Here are the real FACTS:
… as a proportion of gross income and weekly spending, fuel bills hit lower-income families harder.
Census data and research from independent experts shows that people on lower incomes have enough cars and drive far enough to feel the impact of raising the fuel tax more than those on higher incomes.
Mr Hockey’s statement is misleading.
The other key and relevant point that’s been overlooked in all this is that Joe Hockey’s “high income” earners mostly do not even pay for their own petrol.
It’s paid by their employers.
Who then go and claim it as a tax deduction – ie an effective 30% rebate. The employer also claims the 10% GST as a credit. Same goes for many self-employed and business owners.
Whereas lower – middle income earners cannot generally make any such tax claims and just wear the full price. Plus excise. Plus GST.
Joe Hockey is the most deceptive and arrogant Treasurer this country has ever seen. He even surpasses Costello on that score … and that’s quite a feat!
He has to go.
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Nowhere near as deceptive and misleading as you, Ray Dickhead.
I will leave that there, KB. It says more about you than me.
The mooted increase on the fuel excise would amount to no more than about forty to fifty cents a week Ray if anyone even notices it with the way that fuel prices fluctuate I would be very surprised indeed.
That said poorer people do not drive as much as the more wealthy, Frankly I think that Hockey is still miles ahead of Swan who always cane across as about as credible as a used car salesman. Further if it wasn’t for the ineptitude of Labor over six years The unpopular elements in the budget would not me necessary anyway.
That’s not right, Iain. Fuel excise is presently 38c per litre and Hockey’s proposal is to index it to inflation and increase it every 6 months. So within quite a short time it will be an extra 5c per litre easily. For the average motorist living in the outer burbs or regional areas that’s anything from $3 to $5 per week. That they can’t claim off their tax. That their employer doesn’t pay for them. Doesn’t worry Joe and his rich mates though.
That’s not right either. How far do you think someone living in Toorak drives to work – the CBD is only a few ks away and they’re not paying for their petrol anyway. Obviously, someone living in the sticks and travelling 30 – 40 ks each way drives (and relies on) their car a lot more than those in the wealthy inner suburbs. Goes without saying.
The simple reality is it’s a regressive tax that hurts the less well off more than the well off.
Ray! You notice bloggers who insult, use screen names, that blogger would be a fair dinkum bastard—–his mother never got married.
Not only that, Richie, he’s brain dead. Has no opinion. Can only insult and can’t mount a plausible, rational argument. People like KB are just …… well, just piss weak.
Less wealthy people have to commute further for the most obvious reasons: they live where they do because the housing is cheaper, and the reason the housing is cheaper is that you have to commute further.
I personally pay about $25 for petrol a week, but I a) ride a scooter, and b) live in the ACT 8 minutes from work. A person who has to drive for an hour in Sydney traffic to get to work and them pay for parking is not going to be able to get ahead of the game.
That’s hyperbole on your part Ray. Please stick to the facts. You were unconcerned about Labor’s carbon tax adding 10% to electricity bills, even with the convoluted, occasional rebate for the poor people, yet a 1c increase in the fuel tax gets you hot and bothered. As you said about the carbon tax, it’s a tax, that’s what governments do!
The Libs have to compensate for the debt and deficit damage that the previous government inflicted on Australia. $1 billion per month in interest payments alone, perhaps it’s time to bite the bullet.
What, like you do, GD? Geezus that’s a bit rich coming from you. Here’s a tip:
Go out and buy a $5 calculator from Woolies and compound 38c rising by the rate of inflation at 6 monthly intervals and see how long it takes to get to 43c. I realise economics (and obviously now, Maths) is not your strong suit so maybe don’t wade out of your depth.
(I agree that the carbon tax was wrong and I did not support it – you know that. However, it seems you think 2 wrongs now make a right)
Oh, and don’t forget that the first CPI rise hits at the START of the first year, meaning there will be 3 rises in the first 12 months. I realise that’ll go over your head too so I’ll give you the time frame for the excise to rise by about 5c per litre: Two years. Oh, and after 5 years it’s gone up by about 10c per litre.
Ray
Your calculations are in error on a number fronts firstly there is no indication that the excise will be automatically adjusted up for inflation, secondly there has been only very marginal inflation anyway and there is no indication that situation will change.
Finally you claim that the rich/business owners can claim all of their fuel and car expenses as a tax deduction which is not the case. My brother has just had his car turned into mobile billboard for his business so that he can claim all of his running expenses for it. Before the extensive signage he could only claim 30% (if my memory is correct) and I just don’t believe your claim that most of the “rich” can claim for their cars at all.
Iain, just Google “fuel excise increase” and you’ll see that it will indeed be automatically adjusted every six months by the CPI (which is just under 4% p.a. at the moment). And it is certainly the case that most high salary earners do not pay for petrol out of their own pockets. In most cases they don’t even pay for registration, insurance, service & repairs either. Yes, some self-employed people can only claim a portion of their vehicle expenses depending on which accounting method they use and how much they use their car for business … but the point is they can claim it, Iain.
And don’t forget to add the 10% GST to each increase, Iain. It gets to a 5c per litre increase pretty quickly and compounds to a 10c per litre increase after about 5 years or so.
Ray
The simple fact is that the price of petrol is very volatile and I still contend that even the poor are not going to notice the difference , Heck they just have to take up one of the supermarket loyalty offers to get back your 4c.
Thanks for that Iain. As fuel prices fluctuate daily across the country, it is unlikely to create any hardship with poorer people. Indeed, if they are that poor how do they afford a car, rego, repairs et al? The 1c excise is a sensible tax.
Ray, of course, shouts it down because the Libs brought it in. Ray’s political and economic commentary seems to be: if the Libs bring it in, bad, if Labor does, good, or nothing to see here, as was his attitude to the 10% carbon tax inflicted on everybody.
Ray, you are scuffling in the dirt trying to find reasons to hate the Libs even more than you do now. Give it up, it’s not commentary, it’s predictable and boring left wing bias.
I have recently criticised Tony Abbott on these pages. I don’t recall you criticising the previous Labor fiasco other than your dislike of Gillard.
Don’t impose your simple/stupid approach on me, GD. That describes your view of politics, not mine. How typical, you fail to address the main points of the issue (being the unfairness of the excise increase and Hockey’s lies) and, as usual, you attack the person.
It’s not “sensible” to index increases forever on petrol. In case you don’t recall the excise was frozen at 38c per liter in 2001 by Howard in response to concerns that the GST introduction would contradict the Govt’s policy of only taxing consumer goods once. It was hardly a good compromise then and meant that excise immediately jumped to 42c anyway (with the GST added), but to now “unfreeze” the increases adds salt to the wounds of rising petrol prices and is an act of political bastardry.
[…] Mr Hockey has been labelled across news sources and critics as “out of touch”, “fallacious”, and “the most deceptive, dishonest & arrogant Treasurer in our history.” […]