Home » Posts tagged 'Joe Hockey'
Tag Archives: Joe Hockey
(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.
(by SockPuppet ~ owner and keeper of a real-life living doll whats called Laura*)
For all you guys out there not getting nuthing in the sexual market place (SMP) your worries are over.
If you can cough up about just $2000 grand and a bit you can now get a bit.
Japan’s creepy sex doll industry ‘reaches next level’ in creation of perfect artificial £1,000 ‘Dutch Wife’ which comes with ‘realistic feeling skin’
- Firm Oriental Industry claims the dolls are their most realistic to date
- Come complete with realistic feeling skin and authentic looking eyes
- Sold under the name ‘Dutch Wives’ and cost just over £1,000 each
- Company say early sales indicate the dolls are a big success
A Japanese company claims to have reached the next level in developing the most genuine looking sex doll which comes complete with realistic feeling skin and authentic looking eyes.
Orient Industry say their new range of dolls, made from high quality silicon, are so realistic there is very little to distinguish them from a real girlfriend at first glance.
The dolls, which are non inflatable, are sold under the name ‘Dutch Wives’, a Japanese term for a sex doll, and adverts in the media boast that anyone who buys one will never want a real girlfriend again.
The dolls are part of a high-tech industry in Japan, which is constantly looking at ways to make sex toys as realistic as possible.
Latest models of the dolls include movable joints so buyers can place them in any position they wish.
Cutting edge comment from me:
Of course this will not help Joe Hockeys “poor people” what cant even afford to buy petrol letalone a Japanese sex doll for $2000 grand and a bit.
These dolls are only for rich people (like Joe) who can get a whole harem and claim it on tax.
Dont worry “poor people” you just need to wait until the Chinese put out a cheaper copycat version.
Cutting edge comment #2 (and advertisment)
* My real life living doll Laura should not be mistaken for Cliff Richards ‘Living Doll’.
To start with mine is female.
And I have a n interim offer for all you sex starved guys in Joes “poor people” class.
Why pay $2000 grand and a bit for a freakin’ silicon doll when you can have Laura f*cks for just $10 bucks?
Okay shes no oil painting but at least she moves.
Site 33 BlueGums. Appointments not required. Just wait in the que.
Well I suppose it is incumbent upon me as the author here at a blog that is mostly about Australian politics to say something about last night’s budget. Up front I have to say that I have not read the original document or even watched the speech on the TV. I had other priorities last night. So instead I am going to respond to the summary written by the Guardian with what I think about the specifics enunciated there.
As leaked, it hits around 400,000 high-income earners with a three-year $3.1bn deficit levy and reaps a further $2.2bn by increasing petrol taxes in line with inflation.
The former will undoubtedly upset my more “economically dry” friends but I doubt that they will notice it beyond its existence as a line item from their accountants, most will not even notice unless they are obsessive about the amount of tax they pay. A rise in the tax on petrol will undoubtedly be noticed initially but soon forgotten by most people simply because the price of fuel has become so volatile anyway. Up here it jumped by nearly 20 cents a litre at Easter so I think this will soon become part of the economic background noise in our lives.
But the budget-night surprise was that much of the cash raised from cuts to benefits and tax rises is spent on the Coalition’s own priorities rather than on improving the budget bottom line, including a new $20bn medical research fund – to become the biggest in the world within six years – the Direct Action greenhouse emissions reduction fund and about $5bn in new roads funding.
Why that should surprise anyone is beyond me, Even in tough times a government wants to be seen to be capable of economic multitasking. That said who could complain about more money for medical research? Readers will recall that I would personally ditch, in its entirety, the Direct Action climate policy but in the absence of heeding my advice lets hope that there is the sort of secondary benefits from the spending that I have previously postulated, although I do remain sceptical that the scheme will deliver much for the nation.As a confirmed petrol head I welcome improvements to the road network and I also welcome the economic stimulus that the expenditure will bring.
Although the treasurer, Joe Hockey, said the aim of the pain was “budget repair” – a national effort in which Australians “fix the budget together” – he is not promising a surplus in the four years of the forward estimates, with a deficit of $2.8bn forecast for 2017-18: unemployment remains at 6% or higher for the next three, growth is almost unchanged and business investment is weakening.
Lets be thankful for that! I don’t think that I am alone in hoping that we never again see the false hope of a quick return to surplus trotted out in every one of Wayne Swan’s budgets .
Hockey conceded the government “could have gone harder” in paying down deficits, but said “it would have detracted from growth”.
Well we all know that its a balancing act between the need to pay down debt and not kill the economy in the process.
He denied his budget was the start of an “age of austerity”, saying he was in fact ushering in a new “age of opportunity”.
No surprise in trying to change the way that the budget will be perceived.
But for unemployed people under 30, this “age of opportunity” means waiting six months to get the dole, then receiving a payment only for six months and only if they work for it, and then losing the payment again for the next six months, during which a potential employers may get a wage subsidy.
Well this is a great deal tougher than I expected and I can see some individuals could very well suffer severe hardship under such a regime. On the other hand it will clearly incentivise those in this demographic to both accept any work that they can get and to try harder to please their employers to avoid losing their jobs in the first place. I can’t see how it could work in remote indigenous communities that have bugger all jobs though.
For sick people it means paying $7 for every visit to the doctor and every medical test – $5 of which will be invested in a new “medical research future fund” and $2 will be kept by the doctor or test provider, in part to help them waive the payment in cases of “genuine need”. The co-payment will stop after 10 medical payments for concession holders and children. The co-payment for medicines will also increase by $5.
Which means that those sick with concession cards will mostly still be able to see a doctor for free as they do now but I am less than impressed by the increase in co-payment for prescriptions which will almost double with the $5 increase. No more coffee shop stop for me when I get my drugs then 😦
Hockey said the aim of the health changes was to “get the nation to invest in its own healthcare … and for people to accept personal responsibility for their own physical health.”
Most of us do this anyway
For students the new era means paying back a greater proportion of the cost of a degree, and this cost potentially rising as the higher education sector is deregulated – although government loans will be available for a wider range of courses.
I have repeatedly argued that tertiary education is rather over rated and if it is going to cost those who benefit from it more than they will certainly chose their courses with greater care and a consideration of its benefit to their future career. The important thing to keep in mind though is the generous and universal loans scheme means that greater costs will not restrict anyone from doing the course of their dreams no matter what their background may be.
For single-income families it means losing up to $73 per week a child in family tax benefit B payments once the bread winner earns more than $100,000 (rather than the current $150,000) and losing the payment when the youngest child turns six, rather than 18.
Who could object to cutting this? Anyone on 100K a year does not need this kind of benefit at all.
And government payments including family tax benefit, Medicare rebates and private health insurance rebates will be frozen, as will eligibility thresholds for receiving them – instead of rising in line with inflation – an idea Tony Abbott derided as “class warfare” when it was tentatively tried by the former Labor government.
Likewise a reasonable move.
Many disability pensioners under 35 will be “reassessed” and those with “some work capacity” forced to seek employment.
As I have suggested elsewhere this is a largely symbolic matter and that the vast majority of those DSP recipients who will be re-accessed will in fact found to still be compliant with the eligibility criteria which are pretty hard to meet anyway. As for work well it has to be there and suitable for the disabled and I have my doubts that many in this cohort will be able to find work.
But clearly hesitant to break an election promise that no changes would be made to the pension, the government has delayed paring back aged pensions until after the next federal poll.
What the government takes to the next poll will be judged by the people.
It is then proposing major changes – linking pension increases to inflation rather than average earnings, which will see their buying power decline over time compared with current arrangements, freezing the threshold for assets and income a pensioner can hold even though their value will rise over time, reducing the amount a pensioner can earn from their assets.
It seems to me that this is a reasonable change that brings the aged pension into line with the indexation of other government benefits. As for changes to the assets valuation well I’m undecided on that one.
The pension age will rise to 70 by 2035, but addressing criticism that older people often find it hard to get a job the government is offering a new wage subsidy to employers taking on a worker over 50 who has been unemployed for more than six months.
The subsidy will undoubtedly be welcomed by both small business and older job seekers and is to may mind far more significant than a raising of the pension age in twenty years time.
As I predicted in my last post this budget is not the horror that the pundits were suggesting it would be. Its certainly not perfect in every aspect and only time will tell if the assumptions and expectations that are at its heart will be correct. However one thing we can be sure of is that it has to be better than any of the flights of fantasy delivered by Wayne Swan that were inevitably entirely made of tat hope and bullshit. All big picture instruments like the federal budget are going to be like the curates egg “good in parts” and at this one will be no exception there certainly are some parts that are a bit off smelling but on the whole its seems to be quite reasonable given the mess that we inherited from Labor.
I have repeatedly suggested that when it comes to repealing the carbon tax that the ALP will not be at all obstructive in the upper house because they will have to concede that Tony Abbott will have a mandate to do this. Now I find in today’s Oz the same suggestion from Tony Abbott himself:
My friends from the left have been fooling themselves if they think that the incoming government will not be true to their word, after all being untruthful to the electorate is what will be buying Labor’s very long lease on their wilderness accommodation…
I was going to write about the failure of the Labor government to come anywhere near its expectations for the MRRT but instead I post a Joe Hockey news conference where he is right on the money .
- No pavlovas for Wayne and Julia, or the abject failure of the MRRT (iainhall.wordpress.com)
- PM Gillard rejects changes to mining tax (news.com.au)
- Mining tax takes ‘massive hit’, raises $126m (news.com.au)
- Mining tax raises $126m (smh.com.au)
- Super plan to hit low-wage earners (news.com.au)
- Swan should resign over MRRT: Hockey (bigpondnews.com)
I hope that my dear readers will forgive my laxity of late when it comes to federal politics and the Labor scandals and woes de jour.
For example we have the Craig Tompson police raids:
The NBN hits a big speed bump:
The Greens are still pissing into the wind on the boat people…
The mining Tax is not bringing in any cash
THE failure of the Gillard government’s mining tax to raise any money in its first three months is emblematic of its “sheer incompetence”, the opposition says.
The government today defended the controversial tax, saying it wasn’t supposed to raise revenue when mining profits were being ploughed back into the industry.
But opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said the tax was the “signature illustration of the failure of the Gillard government”.
“The tax has failed. I have never heard of a tax that doesn’t raise a dollar,” Mr Hockey said.
“Even the most incompetent government anywhere in the world would not introduce a tax that raises no money. But, this is a new benchmark in public policy.”
None of Australia’s biggest miners – BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto or Xstrata – has any liability under the minerals resource rent tax so far in 2012-13, The Australian revealed today, and the government did not receive any revenue by Monday’s payment deadline.
Its not looking good for team Labor, but is anyone really surprised given thier track record over the last five years?
- Mining tax not worth a cent: reports (news.smh.com.au)
- Mining tax not worth a cent – reports (bigpondnews.com)
- Mining tax fails to raise any revenue (news.com.au)
- Rudd ‘hopes’ MRRT target will be achieved (news.com.au)
- First MRRT revenue due by end of October (news.smh.com.au)
- Thomson’s home raided (smh.com.au)
- Don’t pre-judge Thomson – Crean (bigpondnews.com)
- Don’t pre-judge Thomson: Crean (news.smh.com.au)
- Police raid embattled MP’s home (stuff.co.nz)
Well Migs this post is just for you.
Instead of going through comments like a forensic accountant I will instead go through your post in that manner
Dazed and Confused
Unable to lure the Government to the early election they have fought so hard for, the Opposition now comes across like a mob of dazed and confused rabbits caught in the headlights of a speeding media convoy. All of a sudden they have nowhere to run. Their incessant gibberish is desperate.
The politicians who are truly desperate are of course Julia Gillard and her motley crew who lurch from disaster to disaster with hardly a pause for breath in between, Their expectation that the introduction of the carbon tax and its attendant fiscal bribes would lift their fortunes in the polls has been a total failure, in fact I would suggest that never before has the pork barrel been so deeply dipped into with such a poor rise in the the government’s standing with the voters.
And that’s how they come across. A pack of rabbits running off in all directions with no leader to follow. Every decision contradicted. Lost for ideas.
Ok Migs let me take your Rabbit analogy just one step further. If the opposition are running rabbits then they are clearly a more healthy bunch than the rabbits in government who are all in the thrall of the Black rabbit of Inle and all ready to meet their maker.
But enough of the analogies (though they do behave as a dazed and confused party).
Yes that sums up the government most succinctly 😉
Let’s examine this.
OK I’ll examine your examination 😉
Earlier this week Cory Bernardi was critical of the Government for providing assistance to families via ‘carbon tax’ rebates:
They’re sending tens of millions of dollars out to people that are just finding their way into poker machines rather than into areas in which they’re meant to assist families and communities.
That’s right, poker machines! Is he not aware that his party is vigorously opposed to pokie reforms? His ‘alleged’ leader addressed a rally side by side with Alan Jones who told the crowd that:
. . . the proposed pokies reforms would erode the nation’s social fabric.
“What happens when the local club is gone?” he asked.
“The social repercussions of mandatory pre-commitment are enormous”.
Mr Bernardi is confused. His party loves gamblers so he must obey. Oh how it must frustrate him that gamblers are only able to maintain the nation’s social fabric (as Jones would say) if the money for gambling comes from Labor Government rebates.
You miss the point of Cory’s criticism of the blatant pork barrelling “compensation” which is more about the poor cost benefit relationship between the payments and the subsequent improvement in the government’s standing. The so called “pokies reform” was nothing of the sort and as such it was entirely reasonable to oppose something that would be so useless. That said I am totally unsympathetic to any sort of gambling no mater how much revenue it puts into Clubs or pubs or the government coffers.
I can see why he’s dazed.
Yes but only because of your confirmation bias 😉
As a duo, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are definitely confused. As I pointed out in my previous post, Tony Abbott was critical of the Gillard Government presiding over an interest rate rise in April by bleating:
The Federal Government’s economic policy is to blame for the latest interest rate hike . . .
Well isn’t it wonderful that the ‘hike’ has been reversed? But Joe Hockey doesn’t find it wonderful, fuming:
. . . the rate cut is a sign the Government has lost control of the economy.
“Again I state that we and all Australians who have home loans and small business loans would welcome this cut from the Reserve Bank but nothing here gives credit to the Government, in fact it’s the absolute opposite,” he said.
“The Reserve Bank is moving because the Government has lost control of the economy.”
One of them is confused, but more than likely both of them are confused. I’m confused as I thought the Liberal Party liked lower interest rates. John Howard told us so.
Gee you seem to be missing the simple and sound point being made by Joe that the government can’t claim credit for the result I see no confusion here at all 🙄
Mr Bernardi could make the situation even more confusing by nominating lower interest costs as a reason for more pokie gambling. Damn Labor!
Fortunately Labor are not in need of any more damnation than they are already experiencing from the voters 😉
The Tony and Joe team dazzle me with their contradictory statements, begging me to ask the question: Do they ever talk to each other? You may ask the same after hearing that Tony Abbott:
. . . gave “a categorical no”, when asked if he would raise the GST.
“We will not change the GST,” he told radio 2SM
Joe must never listen to his boss or 2SM because he turned around and said there was a case for it being raised. This is an issue that has them confused. Joe must be left in a daze.
How is that a contradiction? A case exits for altering any or all government charges and taxes but that does not oblige a party to change them. So both Tony and Joe are correct and not in anyway confused.
Tony Abbott may well be confused about many things, but thankfully, climate change isn’t one of those as it’s absolute crap.
Could someone please tell his party he’s not confused? Or could someone please tell Tony Abbott that his party is confused? Because . . . wait for it . . . in the same breath Tony wants a policy to address it and has debated himself on this very issue.
It has left him dazed.
You know hat Migs I agree with you that the colaition could do better on Climate Change policy by dropping in its entirety their direct action policy however compared to Labor on this issue Tony Abbott absolutely Lucid. because he did not go to the people making an unequivocal promise that “there will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead” the way that Gillard did.
Here’s more evidence.
On January 20 this year he admitted to South Australians he will slash $500 million in car industry grants. On the same day he says there’s “an abundance” of money available to car manufacturers and has committed the Coalition to maintaining $1 billion worth of subsidies for the automotive industry. He really is caught in the spotlight, isn’t he? He doesn’t know which way to run. Just follow his mouth.
Both sides of politics have desire to maintain our manufacturing capabilities and the point of debate here is how to do it what is confused is that our esteemed author felt the need to use the same citation twice .
Sophie Mirabella is confused. She is upset that the nation’s 500 biggest polluters will be hit with the evil ‘carbon tax’ but anybody who witnessed her recent appearance on Q&A would be surprised that she has no problem with Tony Abbott introducing a paid parental leave scheme that will be funded by placing a levy on an estimated 2,500 companies. The scheme has been rejected by big business. This must leave Ms Mirabella slightly dazed.
Migs have you ever considered that the fact that business dislikes the parental leave scheme is actaully evidence against the often made claim that the coalition is a servant of big business? In any event do we want the only people to produce children to be the less well of and unmotivated? I think not especially when its clear that motivated parents produce motivated children.
As is Andrew Robb, the appointed spokesperson given the job of fronting his boss to whisper in his ear that the scheme is a white elephant. He is confused as to why his ‘alleged’ leader wants to introduce a scheme that won’t work. This is another issue Mr Abbott shows no confusion:
“I am very, very proud to be the first leader of the Coalition to go to the people with a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme and I’m proud to be the only leader who will be going into the next election with a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme as part of our policy.”
Nobody else in his party wants it. They must all be left in a daze.
Having reservations about what will be possible after two terms of Labor in the Lodge is just being prudent and unlike Labor the coalition actaully values being honest about what is possible and they have seen the folly of Gillard’s promise anything (like “no carbon tax” ) and then back flip as necessary when the Greens and Indies had hold of her short and curlies.
Malcolm Turnbull must also be confused.
Nearly two years after Tony Abbott vowed to tear down the beginnings of the national broadband network and to “demolish” it, the Coalition now says it will not roll back or cancel it, if it comes to power at the next election.
Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband Malcolm Turnbull told IT Pro firmly this week: “No, the Coalition will not cancel or roll back the NBN. The NBN will continue to roll out but we will do so in a cost-effective manner in particular in built-up areas.”
Now that the government has spent a huge amount of money on the NBN what would you expect the coalition to do? tear up the fibre optic cables? or try to get some value to the Australian people by making the roll out more cost effective? No one doubts that the NBN has some merit what has always been in doubt has been its business model and the fact that it seems to be a Rolls Royce solution to a Ford problem
Which way does Malcolm run? Or does he run? Maybe he’ll be transfixed in the media spotlight like the rest of them . . . all dazed and confused. Continuing to talk gibberish.
Your conclusion contains the reason that you are fighting a straw man of your own imagination Migs. The opposition are not confused or dazed at all they ahve been focused and on message for all of the time that Tony Abbott has been their leader. Whilst the government flounders on the issue that you have steadfastly ignored here which is the failure of Labor to address the issue of unauthorised arrivals by boat. Gillard has been reeling on this issue ever since she Knifed her predecessor and none of the so called bright lights in the Labor party dares to admit the shocking truth that coalition are right . Fortunately the people do know and admit that fact which is why they will choose Tony and his team to govern at the next election at which point I will salute you for putting up such a spirited defence of the lost cause of Labor government, after all you will have a very long time to think about where they went wrong as they languish in the political wilderness for at least a decade.
Cheers Comrade Miglo