News

NewsOver 50s reckon Budget fair enough, but not great hopes
Over 50s reckon Budget fair enough, but not great hopes

Over 50s reckon Budget fair enough, but not great hopes

Last updated by Chris Zinn on

While the argy-bargy about how fair the Budget is (or isn’t) continues in Canberra, it’s reassuring to share some common-sense from the wisdom of the crowd that is FiftyUp Club members.

More than 3,400 of you answered our snap poll after the Budget and found overall it was both fair and unlikely to change your voting intentions.

But you were equally divided as to whether Mr Hockey’s planned expenditures and savings would actually solve any of the long-term challenges facing the country.

There were four concise multiple-choice questions on the Budget; how fair was it in your assessment, what was its impact on your lives and how likely was it to change both your vote and address Australia’s problems?

The results in summary were:

  • Only 1/3 of you say the Budget was unfair on over-50s
  • 42% say it had a negative impact on them, and
  • Nearly 2/3 say it's not a vote-changer.

We know from previous questionnaires that 48% of you are prepared to identify as coalition voters and 22% as Labor.

Some 70% describe themselves as pensioners and part pensioners – or expect to be in their retirement.

Here are the results in more detail:

Fairness: Almost half (47%) felt it was very or quite fair as opposed to 32% who believed it was very or quite unfair. The neutral measured 21%.

Impact: In terms of personal impact 42% thought it would be severely or slightly negative, 33% were neutral and just 25% a slightly or extremely positive impact.

Voting intention: 63% says the Budget was not at all or very unlikely to see them change their vote. Another 23% said it was quite or very likely to change their vote and 13% were neutral.

Long-term solutions: Split down the middle, with 42% on each side finding it equally likely or unlikely to make a difference. The neutrals were 15%.

It’s interesting many of you were prepared to mark the Budget up as being fair while at the same time acknowledging it was going to cost you something.

Perhaps you were one of the 300,000+ who stood to lose pension entitlements through the tighter eligibility requirements.

It’s taken Labor almost two weeks and detailed analysis they commissioned from NATSEM, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, to pronounce the Budget as ‘unfair’ for low-income families on Monday.

ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, says their modelling shows the government’s decisions to hold onto most of last year’s cuts as well as bring in new ones this May would cost lower-income families and Australians some $15 billion over the next four years.

So there’s plenty more argument to come about the Budget and who does, or doesn’t, carry the can in terms of the cost of the cuts. The focus has been on families so far but expect it to return to the highly contested area of retirement incomes soon.

In the meantime we’ll make the pollies aware of what you think in surveys like this.

For starters, we’ll be on air this afternoon talking to Chris Smith about the snap poll on 2GB 873 at 1.10pm, so do tune in!

Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
Over 50s reckon Budget fair enough, but not great hopes

Share your views with other members. 

Want to leave a comment? or .
Read our moderation policy here.
Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

THE CATCH OF THE CENTURY WITH ABBOTT & HIS OBNOXIOUS LIBS AT THE HELM: Millions of average Australian wage earners and low-paid workers will soon be taxed at a higher rate because of what's known as 'bracket creep', but economists across the political spectrum have condemned it as unfair (ABC 7.30 report 12/6/15 transcript): Millions of average Australian wage earners and low-paid workers are in for a rude shock. It's because of what's known as bracket creep, where their wages will soon be taxed at a higher rate. It's been called the stealth tax because the Federal Government quietly pockets more of workers' pay packets without any announcement or fuss, let alone legislation. Economists across the political spectrum have condemned it for its unfairness as Matt Peacock reports. MATT PEACOCK, REPORTER: Millions of Australian wage earners are about to get a nasty shock. ROBERT CARLING, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT STUDIES: It's not fair and it really affects people on lower incomes more than it affects on higher incomes. MATT PEACOCK: It's called the stealth tax. The sneaky way to claw back the federal deficit. SAUL ESLAKE, BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH CHIEF ECONOMIST: What we're relying on is the worst option of bracket creep. AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN 1: What bracket creep? Is this something to do with AFL? AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN 2: Bracket creep? I wouldn't have a clue. MATT PEACOCK: But if you haven't heard of it yet, if you earn less than $80,000 a year, you soon will. GED KEARNEY, ACTU PRESIDENT: I think a lot of people in that middle to low income range may well be in for a shock. This Government is once again placing all of its economic woes onto the shoulders of the people in the economy who can least afford it. Low and middle income earners. AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN 3: Every time I earn more money, I take home less because of tax. AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN 4: We pay too many taxes anyway. We've got taxes on everything. Everything. .../... (1st of three parts) 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

(2nd of three parts) MATT PEACOCK: Income tax was designed to be fair and is split into brackets, so lower earners pay a smaller percentage and middle earners and the rich pay the most. But with inflation, average Australian wage earners will soon hit the next bracket, and pay a bigger percentage of their wage. ROBERT CARLING: Over several years, the average rate at average weekly earnings which is currently about 77,000 dollars a year, over a few years, they could be paying maybe an extra $1,500 a year in income tax. Just as a result of bracket creep. MATT PEACOCK: Over the last few decades, this creep has been a boon to the Government's bottom line, with income tax already sucking in more than half of its tax receipts. Soon, it'll be more. ROBERT CARLING: It's been called the tax increase by stealth, because in effect, it increases everybody's average income tax rate without the Parliament having to do anything. GED KEARNEY: People in that middle income range like nurses and teachers might find that they're paying more tax and actually bearing the brunt of the Government's revenue woes. MATT PEACOCK: For the working poor, earning just below $40,000, it's even worse. In a few years, they will be paying eight per cent more income tax. GEORGINA HOOD, UNIVERSITY STUDENT: An eight per cent increase is close to $3,000 more a year on top of what I'm already losing to tax. Which is a fairly big percentage, I think, coming from minimum wage. MATT PEACOCK: Georgina Hood works as a waiter and behind the bar to help her get through university. And like many, she may soon have a disincentive to work. It's certainly concerning you don't want to work over a certain amount of hours a week, a month, a year, because you're suddenly going to be losing a few extra thousand dollars in tax. Which means a lot. GED KEARNEY: People who really do struggle from pay packet to pay packet shouldn't be the ones who have to bear the brunt of the Government's problems. .../... 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

(third and last of three parts) JOE HOCKEY, TREASURER: Australia's budget position is getting stronger each and every year. From a $48 billion deficit we inherited to $35 billion next year, down to a $7 billion deficit in another three years' time. MATT PEACOCK: In this year's budget, no mention was made of bracket creep. But if the tax system is left unchanged, it's a handy way to help pay for the deficit. ROBERT CARLING: It's not good for the democratic process. It's not good for transparency. Because a lot of people are not aware that this is going on month by month, year by year. And that their average tax rate is being increased simply because of inflation, not because of anything that's being done in the Parliament. GED KEARNEY: I can't explain why previous governments haven't done anything. I can't explain really why this Government isn't doing anything. But what we do know is that they have to do something and they have to do it soon. Relying on workers to solve all their revenue problems through something like bracket creep just is not fair. GEORGINA HOOD: They're not doing what I think is the key role of a government, which is to be allocating wealth as efficiently and as fairly as possible and this is reallocating poverty, not wealth to those who can afford it the least. MATT PEACOCK: And while Governments of either persuasion acknowledge the unfairness, neither are promising a change. If only voters would object more vocally about it, then Governments might be more inclined to do something about it in the future. SABRA LANE: Matt Peacock with that report. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Happy with the "bracket Creep" effect omitted purposely by the Libs in the 2015 Budget, for you and your close relatives, your friends? Isn't everything "stealth" with the governance of Abbott and his accomplices? Is that what you expected when you voted him in? Or is it, plainly put, "outrageous" that they should hit us that hard in this snicky way? What can WE do about it? 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

If you missed it (Working Life): Four property Hockey thinks he’s doing it tough: JOE Hockey thinks he understands how difficult it is getting into the housing market, telling ABC radio: "I’ve seen over the years how challenging it can be for people to get into housing. interest rates were much higher when I bought my first home, which was a unit." These days, hard-up Joe’s portfolio consists of four homes, including his Hunters Hill main residence, estimated to be worth $5.4 million, a holiday home in Stanwell Park on the NSW south coast, and a cattle farm in Queensland. When in Canberra, he claims a $270-a-night allowance to stay in a home owned by his wife: located in the exclusive suburb of Forrest, it’s valued at $2 million. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Since this thread is about our dear Treasurer and his 2nd toxic budget at a certain point some must wonder if Joe Hockey has been planted in the government by the ALP (I know, we were spoiled with Keating, weren't we?...). Within 12 months the treasurer has told everyone that “the poorest people either don’t have cars or actually don’t drive very far in many cases”, and that half the people in “higher-income households pay half their income in tax”. And now he has informed us that “if housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no one would be buying it”. So here it is, to clarify exactly what the guy is about, by popular demand (yes, Warren, I heard you): http://workinglife.org.au/2015/06/12/advice-for-joe-try-buying-a-house-on-these-wages/ 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

One point I should have clarified: People are buying Ferraris; that doesn’t make them affordable. 

Alain
Alain from NSW commented:

Better unemployment figures, today the 11th of June? Do not be fooled, two third of the 42000 new jobs are... PART-TIME JOBS !!! 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

The government of Jesus Abbott is the problem, they have not addressed any of the numerous problems which could give the economy a boost, we live in fear now under the nasty rulership of the worst PM in the history of Australia and here is some proof (dated today 10/6/15): Consumer confidence has slumped as people become more concerned about stock market losses, job market uncertainty and house prices. The Westpac/Melbourne Institute index showed consumer sentiment fell by 6.9 per cent in June to 95.3 points, after rising 6.4 per cent the previous month following the federal budget and the Reserve Bank's rate cut. With the index dipping below 100 points, the June reading indicates there are more pessimists about the economy than optimists. Westpac senior economist Matthew Hassan described the result as "surprisingly weak", with people concerned about falls on the share market, soft conditions in the labour market, and the outlook for house prices. "It now appears that last month's surge of optimism was a brief relief rally" he said. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

But remember, if you struggle to buy a home, get a good job... 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

On a more serious note: Two "Budgets" (or are they? Shams rather! ) have done this to the economy, my fellow Aussies can read thru them, toxic Budgets... Good on ya, mates ! 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Getting rid of the "cause" for our misery starts with this "lack of confidence"... and since a leadership spill did not achieve it... 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Did you know: both sides of government have failed to address loopholes in the superannuation system that cost the Federal Budget about $30 billion a year in lost revenue. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

GAMBLING is an illness for many, and 'cause of their illness, some parents CANNOT PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE, did you know? So if you are an obnoxious Libs government with a pretend "budget emergency" what do you do under the cover of a long weekend? Please, read below ! You wanted the Libs, you have now got to accept their culture -religion?- of the almighty dollar before you, people: <The NSW government has substantially increased the money pokie players can store in an account or a smartcard to $5000, prompting a warning the move is "dangerous" for problem gamblers. It coincides with a decision to increase the threshold below which poker machine winnings can be paid in cash instead of by cheque or electronic funds transfer from $2000 to $5000. The concessions are among a raft of changes to poker machine rules in a regulation recently approved by Deputy Premier Troy Grant. Under the current rules, the maximum a player can hold in an account or smartcards is $200. This may be increased to $1000 but only after a club or hotel receives special permission from gambling authorities. From July 3, the maximum amount will increase to $5000. Monash University gambling researcher Charles Livingstone said it was "hard to fathom" why a player would want $5000 loaded on their account or smart card unless they had a "very serious issue with poker machine gambling". "In that case it will be dangerous, and in my view likely to exacerbate issues with problem gambling and lead to 'chasing' losses amongst those at risk, which is a key factor in the development of major gambling problems," he said. Players would be able to stay at machines "all day without needing to move". Dr Livingstone highlighted the increase to the cheque and electronic transfer threshhold to $5000 as a of particular concern, warning that it "has the capacity to seriously exacerbate gambling problems." (1 of 2).../... 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

(continued 2 of 2) The government has said the change is "counterbalanced" by reducing the cash insertion limit from $10,000 to $7500. But Dr Livingstone said it was "a recipe to ensure that problem gamblers – and those in the moderate-risk category – simply pour their winnings back into the machine ASAP". A spokesman for Mr Grant defended the change, which he said would "ensure additional security for players as they will not be required to have to carry large sums of cash, and as such is not expected to result in additional ATM withdrawals". He stressed that a pokie player "is not bound to spend the $5000 in a single session, as the unspent balance on the stored-value card can be gambled at later sessions over an extended period of time". The spokesman also noted that the regulation also contained strengthened harm-minimisation measures such as increasing the minimum period for problem gambler self-exclusion schemes from three months to six months.(Sean Nicholls TSMH) 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

As a Pierre M. from Vaucluse commented: "The new tobacco industry The state government's decision to announce an increase in the gambling card limit from $200 to $5000 on the Friday evening of a long weekend shows it is ashamed of its own decision. The state government should realise that Clubs NSW and all those who advocate for gambling, hiding behind excuses that their industry supports and benefits the community, are no different from the tobacco companies 20 years ago, trying to hide the damage their industry does by obfuscating facts and statistics. Like smoking, the harm gambling does far outweighs any pleasure or benefit. Like smoking, I don't suggest gambling should be illegal. But, like smoking, it should be discouraged and not facilitated. The NSW government has shown itself to be craven in the face of pressure from the club industry." 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Where does Joe Hockey hide? Get a good job he says. Getting a job, of any type is hard enough and unemployment is high. I just wonder about this most obnoxious of governments - the worst ever- as they seem to live in a different world to the rest of the population. Add to this the new trend which consists for bosses -to cut costs- in increasingly forcing their workers to pretend to be contractors, thereby depriving them of their right to superannuation, proper wages, and leave benefits (the problem known as 'sham contracting' is especially prevalent in low-paid service sectors, and is only getting worse, said recently a senior lawyer at Maurice Blackburn) and you have it, wannabe home owners cannot get a job that pays well: THEY CAN'T EVEN GET A PAY SLIP to APPLY FOR A HOME LOAN ! And while this could pretend to show a firm grasp of the obvious, it is surprising from a member of a government that routinely opposes pay rises for workers because they "cost jobs". It seems everyone knows it is investors who are buying except Hockey. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Can you see a nasty problem deriving from housing affordability in Sydney? Has Hockey ever thought of it ? Has his little perverted brain of a mediocre pollie thought of it? Here it is in a few words: SOON THERE WON'T BE ANY SERVICES LEFT IN SYDNEY ! TEACHERS, POLICE, NURSES, FIRIES, ETC.. I ASKED THEM: THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO RESIDE NEAR THEIR PLACE OF WORK ! 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

None of our politicians have ever discussed long-term energy security, nor affordability, long-term food security, nor affordability (nor quality...), long-term housing, nor availability (neither short-term...), nor affordability, THEY ARE TOO BUSY PLAYING POLITICAL GAMES with NO BENEFIT for YOU, WHAT-SO-EVER, WHATEVER THEY DO WILL BENEFIT THE BIG END OF TOWN, ALWAYS, YOU NUTS... AND YOU VOTED FOR THIS MOB: NOTHING, REALLY NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF ! 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Investors, essentially, investing in housing for negatively gearing their incomes, reducing their tax burden/obligations in the process are purchasing the housing stock: understand now why YOU MUST vote for The Greens? For their project of eliminating this privilege some -too many, really- better-offs abuse as if there were no tomorrow in Australia? A grandfather clause will smooth the "sharp angles" to what is a smart move by The Greens which will save over 40 billions in a relatively short time and guarantee more stock for our children and their kids (your grand children, remember who these are?)... 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

...why "no tomorrow" you may wonder? Approx. THIRTY TWO THOUSAND (32000) landlords in Australia own more than... FIVE (5) properties negatively geared! 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

* Source ATO: ATO figures show 15,264 landlords own at least six investment properties, which they claim run at a loss, another 14,555 own five, etc... It costs the nation over $5 billion a year in lost revenue. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Emergency budget Mr Hockey? Look no further... 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

House affordability in Australia under Jesus Abbott is like Healthcare affordability: check your most recent Private Health Insurance Premium YOU PAID and compare it to the one before: YOU WERE GOUGE WITH A 20% INCREASE when the most recent CPI figure is??? 2.3 % The increase WAS ALLOWED by your LIBS GOVERNMENT, HEALTH FUNDS WERE ALLOWED by the Libs to HIT YOU THE HARDEST THEY COULD, THAT IS A FACT ! 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

As Forbes reported last year, one of the keys to German success — in housing policy, high wages and economic growth — is the fact it doesn’t treat its real estate market like the boom bust casino as the US, UK and Australia do. According to Forbes… ‘German house-builders just focus on building good-quality homes cheaply, secure in the knowledge that additional land will become available at reasonable cost when needed.’ --Not only that, the German banking system is structured to funnel national credit into productive enterprise. That’s why asset booms haven’t brought Germany to its knees in the last fifty years in the same way as the US was in the Panic of 2008. --And if that doesn’t convince you, consider that all this keeps German beer — some of the best in the world — cheap! It’s half the cost of what it is here, according to pintprice.com. (C. Newman) 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Re. 2014 Budget (2015? I let you find out...): I have now discovered another nasty little trick in Abbott’s budget. All community legal centres have been forbidden from taking part in any law reform activities or any kind of policy activities upon threat of their funding being cut. They have been explicitly banned from criticism on the Commonwealth government or any of its agencies. One of the major purposes of community legal centres is to develop a policy to improve the law and make proposals for law reform. It is clear the Abbott government opposes freedom of speech and is determined to stop all voluntary bodies from criticising it if at all possible. John Green http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/pr-article/john-green-freedom-of-speech/ 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

The Greens: "abolishing negative gearing could save $3 billion in four years & improve housing affordability" . The PBO estimated the proposal would increase Government revenue by $42.5 billion over the period to 2024-25. Greens senator Scott Ludlam said scrapping the measure was "long overdue". "I don't think it's fair that low and middle income taxpayers should be subsidising property investors and that's really at the heart of why we're making this proposal," he said. 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

About time we stopped subsidizing the 2nd? 3rd? 4th? 5th? 6th? 7th?... 25th... property of some guys who legally evade taxes in here! And some young Uassies need somewhere to live, you i***** ! 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

"some" meaning also some of our politicians, would you like the list of whom owns what? 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

... but unfortunately, a "grandfather" rule would apply (i.e. if you have already enrolled in the scheme, you won't be affected)... 

Comment Guidelines