It's this sort of stuff that Labor always criticised Howard for.Less clear is the justification for making the same payments to all those on part-pensions, including couples who can earn private incomes of up to $66,000 a year and own assets of up to $857,000, not counting their home. Some of them will exercise the discretion to put the money into savings rather than spend it. Weaker still are the grounds for extending the payments to all those with a seniors health card, available to self-funded single retirees with incomes of up to $50,000 and couples up to $80,000. They already benefit from the superannuation tax concessions that become more generous as income rises.
If the Government thinks these people should receive payments, then why not those on much lower incomes who would relish the opportunity for some additional spending power? There still may be the odd bludger among those on Newstart, but they do not have the option of keeping their benefit while they earn $66,000 a year and hold substantial assets.
As for the First Home Owners Grant, people tend to forget that the thing is not means tested at all, and is paid whether you are buying a $200,000 fibro house in Cunnamulla, or a $2,000,000 apartment with harbour views. As Steketee (jeez I wish he would change his name by Deed Poll) says:
If the aim was truly to maximise the spending bang for the government buck, at least some of the money could have been better used to expand the new and promising scheme to subsidise the building of low-rent housing. As well, the Government could have taken the opportunity of slack in the building industry to increase public housing, which, after taking account of population growth, has fallen 100,000 homes below the level of 10years ago.I am still waiting to see more criticism of the short fuse of this spending too. If blown too quickly, I don't see how it will do much more than delay a big slow down by more than a quarter or two.
No comments:
Post a Comment