Why is there prominence given to Budget replies, especially when the Opposition is years away from regaining power in the lower house? I never watched a Labor one during the Howard years, and I didn't watch Nelson tonight.
The Coalition's decision to oppose the "alcopop" tax increase is not going to win much public favour, and I doubt that the 17 - 25 year old demographic of young women who will most appreciate the move are the Coalition's natural constituency anyway.
Did Nelson mention pensions? It seemed to me, listening to talkback radio on the first couple of days after the Budget, that the most common complaint was that the nation had a spare $20 billion that the government wanted to save for future spending, but it couldn't increase aged pensions.
So, what can you do with a spare few billion dollars? According to this Liberal Party publication from 2007 (which is actually full of interesting graphs and stuff about how the Coalition was benefiting pensioners), Australia is spending about $24 billion a year on the aged pension for about 2 million recipients.
A 10% increase in the pension would therefore appear to cost roughly $2.4 billion. Of course, with the aging population, such an increase might be more problematic for the future; but then again, when will all that superannuation sloshing around start to help the government bottom line?
So, yes it does seem there was some room for improvement to pension rates, although I guess it would be better to add the support in some other fashion than a straight rate rise.
Do you know how pitiful the pension is Steve, especially for singles?
ReplyDeleteThey need cold hard cash, and 10% off such a low base wouldn't be much of a boost, but at least it would be a start.
Support in "some other fashion" is often expensive to administer and isn't a "support" needed by all or even many. Might sell well to the public, but doesn't do anything to help pensioners, who have varying and increasingly expensive needs as they age.