Back in November we saw the Daily Telegraph cruelly holding the Samuelson family up to ridicule allowing them to complain about the fact that their $150,000 plus income meant that they would not be receiving the same level of compensation given to people on lower incomes to offset price rises due to the Clean Energy package. Now the Australian is having a go, this time taking advantage of a family in Adelaide who will lose government welfare payments if the 30% private health insurance rebate is means tested.
“It’s ridiculous – the better we do, the more the government takes,” Ms Richards said yesterday. “Every time we try to get ahead and don’t rely on the welfare system, we get a guarantee they’ll hit us again.”
It was nice of The Oz to allow Ms Richards to demonstrate that she understands progressive taxation, but a bit mean to make it look like she doesn’t understand that the private health insurance rebate is a part of “the welfare system”.
Without a government rebate on the cost of private health insurance how will this family afford protective equipment or shoes for their children?
Ms Richards estimates the family spends more than $2650 a year on private health insurance, including hospital cover and extras, with Medibank Private.
In all fairness, that is a lot of money. Without the 30% government handout they’re likely to have to find another $1100 from their family budget.
The couple, who own a commercial flooring business in Adelaide, earn a combined income of more than $258,000.Mr Richards, an ironman triathlete, regularly uses his cover to pay for physiotherapy, and Josh has dental braces.
No new carbon fibre frame this year I guess.
It’s a bit nasty of The Australian to take a family who have an income well above average and make them look like a pair of whingers. And the final indignity is that the Oz once again tries to make their subject look ignorant.
“I think if they’re going to take away the 30 per cent, I would be looking at what we’d spent, what we received back with Josh, and whether we need it,” she said.“Then the government would be looking at us and our use of the public system.”
Actually the government probably wouldn’t be looking at them, seeing as there’s no Medicare coverage for dental braces or for sports physio, and the well informed journalists at The Australian would no doubt have been aware of this, but decided to print the quote anyway. Shame on The Australian for using their broad reach to make this family appear entitled and ignorant.
29 Comments
hehe…nice one Dave!
Gotta love the Aussie Battler!
I wonder if the Australian understand how ridiculous they are doing this whinging on behalf of the rather rich.
Perhaps they are all paid so much they will lose their $1,000 a year welfare benefits as well.
Abbott’s Battlers on $258,000 ? How could they manage with $257,000 a year. Maybe Ltd News Paid them for the story ? If so , is that classed as income ?
I can just see the Richardses giving up on their $258k a year and deciding to take it easy on the dole.
Those lucky bastards get to sit back on their arses and luxuriate on $16 a day!
They get these ones off source bottle too?
It’s actually starting to beg for parody, isn’t it? What’s rose porteus up to these days …
“I’m a successful builder, and even I can’t afford new tyres for my 612 scagletti, not with all these carbon taxes and rising electricity prices and other green madness, and if they take away my health insurance rebate I might even have to start driving the maserati to work instead … no, not the MC-12, don’t be silly, I mean the quattroporte parked behind it … sheesh, please, they don’t even LOOK the same, don’t you people know anything? I just bought shares – You’re fired!”
They earn a quarter of a million dollars and they whinge that their middle class welfare is being taken away!
Makes me want to puke.
For the record…
My current position, which I’ve held since 1999, when Howard introduced the Private Health Insurance Rebate, is as follows;
1/. Anybody should be allowed to privately insure themselves, if they wish.
2/. Anybody who privately insures themselves should be allowed to choose the level of cover that they desire (Government should not dictate minimum levels of cover).
3/. Anybody who privately insures themselves should be absolutely exempt from paying the Medicare levy.
4/. As a result of 1,2 & 3, anybody who prefers the private sector, should be compelled to surrender their Medicare card forever with no chance of regaining it.
5/. Regardless of the status of the parents, all children to the age of 18 should be covered by Medicare and shall remain covered until they decide to “go private’.
That should sort out the unfairness.
Cheers.
Jeremy Sear
yes
down from a paltry 706.37 per day
“It’s ridiculous – the better we do, the more the government takes,” Ms Richards said yesterday.
That’s just so wrong. Shouldn’t the government take more from those struggling more? Serves them right, surely.
Jeremy, I think that’s the way the American Republicans have structured their tax system, so Tony may well copy that – since he copies everything else they do.
Whilst I realise my situation may not be typical I actually get my health insurance payments paid for by my company as part of my compensation package. On top of that I get a tax rebate as well – go figure.
Even though I will be affected by the change I certainly don’t mind at all and think it’s long overdue. Funnily enough I don’t expect the Australian will be interested in my views whatsoever.
If they don’t love Australia, they should leave!!
Aren’t they going to have about $6000 extra in the pot when the tax-free threshold goes up to $18200?
Any tax whiz out there?
Marek – I think that you’ve overlooked the point of civis, as did Thathcer.
re #3 pay all one wishes for private insurance but also continue to pay the Medicare levy.
Otherwise why not exempt those who pay for private education to be exempt from that portion of their tax that funds public schools?
And car commuters, why should they have to pay for the plebs’ rail, bus & tram. Or footpaths.
Or defense, or electricity if they can afford a generator (of course they wouldn’t want to partake of subsidies for PhV).
Or sewage since clearly their ordure wouldn’t stink.
Dave I take exception to your insinuation that The Australian is being anything but genuine in its attempt to inform us of the challenges of being a high-income earner.
Only this week its Sydney tabloid stablemate rang an extremely objective and educational article regarding the fiscal challenges facing our State’s MP’s on measley salaries and allowances totalling only $209019 per annum, and their consequent need to claim travel allowances.
News Ltd is very consistent on this point throughout its publications. The wealthy, whether through private earnings or the public purse, need help in these dire times.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/heres-ray-williams-the-mp-for-rest-in-sydney/story-e6freuzi-1226266154498
If they cancel their private health insurance, won’t they then be charged the Medicare Surcharge of 1% extra? Based on the income, that would be a charge of $2,580 (and upwards seeing as the article said they earn more than $258k).
So Paying $2650 for private health cover or $2,580 for not having private health cover… Looking at it that way, $70 for private health cover for a family is very cheap!
And yet prior to any cuts:
“Every dollar in middle-class welfare that continues to be paid to the well-off when the economy slows is one less dollar the Labor Government can spend to support those out of work or to help business start hiring again.” – Editorial in The Australian April 08, 2008.
It’s almost like they just want the opposite of whatever a Labor government does, but that’s crazy-talk, right?
Jees. The supercilious Sear strikes again.
It’s called incentive. Why bother working harder when there is no reward? Honestly when will you Lefties finally join the adult world?
Yeah, PipBoy’s right. What reward do the Richards’ have for owning that business? Apart from FIVE TIMES THE AVERAGE INCOME.
“No” reward whatsoever. “No” incentive.
Haha, incentive. As Jeremy rightly implies nobody in their right mind is going to give up their $250K income because of a little more tax (or in this case, less handouts) and live on the dole of ~$10K. They’ll whinge and bitch about it, but when push comes to shove they have all the incentive they need: all that bloody money!
It’s not even like the government is “taking” anything from them, they’re just not giving as much back. Isn’t that what conservatives whine about constantly: the government taking with one hand and giving back with the other? Oh, right, they only believe that when it’s other, less worthy (re: poor) people who are getting the financial support—the government should be giving more to the rich because, you know, “trickle-down economics”.
This argument is laughable. Where is the evidence that high income earners lose every dollar of their additional income through taxes and withdrawal of these sorts of welfare payments? If you pay 38.5% tax on your marginal income, then that is a whole 61.5% of reward. What gets me is that it seems to me that the higher your income, the more you think you are entitled to even greater rewards.
On the other hand, look at people on Centrelink benefits who suffer ridiculously high effective marginal tax rates as they try to get back into work. No sympathy for them of course.
Agreed, Jeremy. And this story focuses on income only, not capital position. I’m sure that Discount City Carpets, “South Australia’s largest floor covering retailer with 13 stores in South Australia” isn’t worth only 20 cents. And other than a 50% capital gains concession, and every other tax concession their advisers have told them to take advantage of, the Richards get NO INCENTIVE WHATSOEVER to make lots and lots of money. The government should certainly help them out to give them more.
My favourite bit of the story: “”We chose not to go through the public system so we don’t have to put any strain on it”. That being the only reason. Honestly, your honour.
As someone who will lose the rebate through this amendment, I say bring it on. The principle is more important than the money to anyone who earns that much anyway. And let’s not lose sight of the fact that $240k+ per year – even ignoring capital position – is a very substantial income.
I’m sick of people who want governments to subsidise their choice to have better services than the majority. You want private education – knock yourselves out. Pay for it yourself though, because I have no interest in entrenching intergenerational wealth transfer.
I’m sick of people who feel that they are being “penalised” by a high tax rate and forget that it’s because they’re doing better than the majority of others in the first place. You don’t like paying 45 cents in the dollar? I don’t like that we apparently don’t have enough public funding to pay for basic services.
And most importantly, I’m sick of people wilfully confusing cost of lifestyle with cost of living.
As for the “no incentive” bit – how much incentive do you need? 0% tax gives more incentive than 45%, does that mean that we’ll keep on hearing this argument until then? Because it gets raised every once in a while notwithstanding that tax cuts have been focussing on “incentive” for as long as I can remember. I’ve never ever believed this argument, not only because it shows a touching (and perhaps deliberate) naivete about the real world, but also because it’s always put forward by people who would sell their grandmas for an extra dollar, even if they had to pay 50 cents tax on it. I guess they had probably leveraged the poor old dear anyway and won’t declare the income.
Given that, apparently, over half the adult population of Australia subscribes to private health insurance, they undoubtedly could have found a family possessed of a more convincing tale of woe.
PipBoy
You miss the whole point of the rebate, it was supposed to help those who could only just afford it a chance to get private health insurance, it wasn’t to give those who already have the ability to pay a tax break. It is iniquitous to pay the rebate to those who can well afford the insurance, the money they save could pay off the deficit.
So PipBoy should the government keep paying those who can afford it to stay insured of should they balance the budget? Can’t have it both ways.
Correct, but one might add that ceteris paribus, if you work harder, you do get more, regardless of one’s access to the rebate. AIUI, once you exceed the family income with allowances for dependents of 150k you lose the government rebate. So working harder and smarter above that level still leaves you better off, though one can make the case that the last couple of thousand you earn reaching that threshhold may have reduced or even negative marginal utility.
Globally though, anyone on a family income of 150K is still appreciably better off than someone on a family income of 120k, even allowing for the rebate forfeiture.
Imagine you are told that you are to win a lottery to the value of $30k. Then you find out that if you collect the prize, you have to forefeit a benefit of $2500 from the government. Disappointing perhaps, but will anyone decide not to collect the prize on that basis? Of course not. There’d be a queue around the corner and down the next street for that deal.
Right on pipboy, the harder the rich work the more they should suck off the welfare tit designed to help the poor who stay poor no matter how hard they might work.
Makes sense to about nobody.
Peter Hartcher had a go at this family, and the general ‘entitlement mentality’, in the SMH today.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/for-a-few-dollars-more-20120210-1sksf.html
“It seems entirely reasonable that, if you’re a single person earning double the average income, or a couple earning a quarter of a million dollars, you should be able to arrange your own health insurance without a handout from the government.
Yet the entitlement mentality has become so entrenched that the media had no trouble finding people to whine about it. For instance, Kylie Richards of Adelaide, who, with her husband, earns over $258,000 a year, told The Australian: ”It’s ridiculous. The better we do, the more the government takes.” No, Ms Richards. It’s ridiculous that anyone able to stand on their own feet would demand a government subsidy for an act of discretionary spending.”