23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone -1 points 1 day ago

It's as if Labor designed a budget to turbocharge more anti-establishment sentiment and pump up One Nation's tyres.

Facts

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 23 hours ago

It's actually pretty good though

[-] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 1 points 5 hours ago

No it isn’t, it’s terrible.

It’s got one decent thing, the overdue tax concessions which are cynically used to cover the cruelty and the infrastructure gift, which no one seems to have a clue about.

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

It's pretty good for a neoliberal government. Better than we've had in a long time, there is at least some substance beyond bribes to mates.

NDIS was always gonna get slashed, you can't afford to deliver healthcare through a chain of parasites and the government is too neoliberal to actually run anything anymore.

[-] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 1 points 36 minutes ago* (last edited 32 minutes ago)

It’s pretty good

Not really. Labor have released far better ones in the past.

Better than we’ve had

I don’t agree there either. The NDIS cuts, which I’ll get to further down, are atrocious and will kill people. The developer giveaway is disgraceful.

substance behind bribes to mates

I’m not sure what’s meant by that but bribes to mates are never good for the country. That kind of thing along with jobs for mates costs us billions of dollars.

NDIS was always gonna get slashed

NDIS needs some overhaul in certain areas which have already been identified and worked on, but there is no justification at all for 50% cuts to community and social participation budgets. That will result in suicide; that’s already been flagged by NDIS clientswanting to access assisted dying, clients who will probably lose much or all of their funding. The minister dismissing clients without review is subject to political whim. There is no need to change the definition of functional capacity.

you can’t afford to deliver healthcare

There’s another problem; the NDIS is distinct from ‘healthcare’ and it serves a number of areas conventional healthcare doesn’t, to the point where it can’t be called healthcare. I’m a plan manager so I see what services the scheme covers which were never available elsewhere before it, which should have been. Before we had this scheme, a lot of things now addressed were taken care of by carers and parents at great cost, personally and financially. We only now know what that cost is. The upshot is the increased quality of life for the vast majority of clients on the scheme plus the industry it’s created. Yeah, certainly, there were and are issues around providers and licensing, those parts of the amendment bill aren’t really under debate. I look forward to the licensing requirements.

We can afford to deliver this program, even without tax cuts that really don’t help, or an export tax on gas, or even a developer giveaway. We’re a wealthy country.

the government is too neoliberal

Yeah righto.

The government provide people like me a good platform with the NDIS scheme, to manage my sons needs without too much interference from them. Furthermore, this governments platform, it’s checks and balances and what it expects from us in return is much tighter and better managed than the last ones system, where I could have done dodgy invoices and pulled thousands if I wished. I don’t get a lot of oversight from the NDIA but they’re fairly supportive with issues and they process claims very quickly.

What this government has failed in, in its quest to run this like an Excel program in an accountants office, is the ability of the people reviewing plans to make the proper decisions on funding we need. Before, they seemed to fund on actual need and capacity. Now, it’s money saving and a push toward services outside that don’t exist.

Anyway, nup, it’s not a great budget. I’m furious about that infrastructure giveaway, that’s a shocking policy, stolen from fucking Jarrod Bleijie of all people. They wouldn’t lend that 2b to low income people and families to buy property but they’ll hand it to Comiskey Group who’ll buy another pub with it or bank it. And they will buy land and bank it, not put pipes in with it.

Edit: I’ll note here as well, in light of funding difficulties in terms of appropriateness with this government, it’s both ways; I’ve told them we don’t need certain things funded that have still been funded and provided medical evidence for things we’ve needed but been refused. The funding turned in has been higher than that requested. It’s just confusing.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 21 hours ago
[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 20 hours ago

The budget you silly sausage. Unsurprising that you think it's a bad one with reading comprehension like that

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone -2 points 18 hours ago

It is bad, the changes discourage investment in creating new businesses in Australia. It's going to screw the country in the long term

[-] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Yeah unfortunately, that part of the budget is probably the decent bit.

I hear your point on business outside housing investment and agree with it somewhat, which could be amended, but these tax concession changes where housing is concerned are well overdue.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 4 hours ago

Makes sense for housing but don't understand why it wasn't just for housing

[-] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 1 points 4 hours ago

It makes sense full stop for housing, not just in a way. It and lack of public supply are the two core reasons we have the problem we do.

As for other businesses, I guess that’s why we should look at amendments. Remembering of course that these are, as you point out elsewhere, very large and wealthy businesses who despite the changes will probably still invest if it’s worth it.

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 18 hours ago

citation needed.

CGT changes are adjusted for inflation and still represent an extremely attractive vehicle for people. What else are you going to do with money you've amassed, sit on it like a dragon?

All it does is shift some or the tax burden to rich arseholes and make hoarding land less attractive (even adam smith thought landlords fucking sucked).

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Increasing CGT to one of the most expensive in the world doesn't need a citation... Engage in some basic thought.

You create a business, take on massive risks, fund it yourself even, then when you go to sell you're looking at essentially 100% capital gain

That's not extremely attractive. Why not create the business in New Zealand where that would incur 0% tax, because they don't have CGT?

[-] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 1 points 5 hours ago

why not create

Because people choose to open businesses based on the market they’re targeting, not CGT. That might be a factor with a comparable business, for instance a corner store, but you’re not likely to start a reptile relocation business in NZ or a fjord touring company in Australia.

You’ll open it where the demand for it is.

[-] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 hours ago

That's a hilarious misrepresentation of tax laws in NZ lol but just taking the logic, why doesn't everyone just only invest in panama or some other tax haven?

Could it be because more than just "how lowest tax?" goes into where people can start businesses? Hmmmmmmm?

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 3 hours ago

There is literally no tax in NZ on selling shares in private companies.

this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
23 points (87.1% liked)

Australian Politics

1814 readers
129 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS