Budget 2014 (2 Viewers)

[OzKo]

When I say high-paying job, I mean one that would pay higher than one that requires no qualifications. I probably should've said that rather than high-paying.
I'm currently undertaking a Bachelor of Business and Commerce (Major in Accounting and Minor in Commercial Law). Plenty of graduate programs in the public service that I would definitely be interested in. I raised an argument the other night with my dad about all the cuts of public sector jobs but he said they will always have graduate programs in place (he works for the ATO which is suffering the biggest cuts atm but many jobs are voluntary redundancies)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I can't speak for the Commonwealth but I know that the State Government introduced new legislation regarding employment within the public service.

They probably will continue grad programs but I expect that the intake will be much lower than years gone by.

 

[isildurrrr1]

When I say high-paying job, I mean one that would pay higher than one that requires no qualifications. I probably should've said that rather than high-paying.
I'm currently undertaking a Bachelor of Business and Commerce (Major in Accounting and Minor in Commercial Law). Plenty of graduate programs in the public service that I would definitely be interested in. I raised an argument the other night with my dad about all the cuts of public sector jobs but he said they will always have graduate programs in place (he works for the ATO which is suffering the biggest cuts atm but many jobs are voluntary redundancies)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You realize there's at least 3000 applicants for 40 grad jobs lol.

Your better pray they take accounting off the skill migration list there's a huge oversupply of accountants currently (lol azn intl students)

 

[Kiraken]

I think the crux of the whole co-payments debate is:

a) Will introducing a $7 fee for GP visits decrease the likelihood that the sick will see a doctor?
b) Is there actually an issue with members of the public visiting the doctor too much?
c) If so, is it worth introducing a fee which will prevent over-utilisation with the knowledge that it might prevent other people who are legitimately ill from visiting the doctor?

If there's evidence that a fee will essentially make the poor sicker, then it's poor policy. From what I can see though, studies have been made into this issue before and the results were inconclusive.

not rly tbh

there is a massive amount of research that shows an increase in copayment reduces compliance with screening, check-ups and receiving appropriate prescription medication

 

[hayleyemma96]

I can't speak for the Commonwealth but I know that the State Government introduced new legislation regarding employment within the public service.

They probably will continue grad programs but I expect that the intake will be much lower than years gone by.

I definitely understand that but I am determined to get a job in the public service. With a business degree, my opportunities are open (rather than if I specialised in a particular area of the public service). Accounting is necessary in every aspect basically.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Kiraken]

I think the crux of the whole co-payments debate is:

a) Will introducing a $7 fee for GP visits decrease the likelihood that the sick will see a doctor?
b) Is there actually an issue with members of the public visiting the doctor too much?
c) If so, is it worth introducing a fee which will prevent over-utilisation with the knowledge that it might prevent other people who are legitimately ill from visiting the doctor?

If there's evidence that a fee will essentially make the poor sicker, then it's poor policy. From what I can see though, studies have been made into this issue before and the results were inconclusive.

to answer the three questions more specifically

a) yes
b) it's exaggerated a lot and is a virtually negligible issue, also for those with Munchausen's (a mental disorder which makes them more inclined to see a doctor) this copayment would be a useless deterrent and according to studies only serves in deterring the poor, the elderly and the chronically sick i.e. people who *need* to see a doctor, plus if doctors get money out of the system they might game it by calling patients for more check-ups and consultations
c) invalid queston considering the answer to b was pretty much no lol

 

[hayleyemma96]

You realize there's at least 3000 applicants for 40 grad jobs lol.

Your better pray they take accounting off the skill migration list there's a huge oversupply of accountants currently (lol azn intl students)

I think a business degree won't limit me to a specific public sector job rather than specialising in a particular area so I obviously won't be applying for just one graduate program.
However, if I'm not successful in gaining a spot in a graduate program, I do have a backup plan. I currently work in a retail store and they are aware of what I am studying. My boss actually offered to give me a job as their bookkeeper (rather than the manager having to do everything) once I finish my degree (or in my final year) -$50,000 a year + superannuation which is a reasonable amount for someone to live on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[isildurrrr1]

I think a business degree won't limit me to a specific public sector job rather than specialising in a particular area so I obviously won't be applying for just one graduate program.
However, if I'm not successful in gaining a spot in a graduate program, I do have a backup plan. I currently work in a retail store and they are aware of what I am studying. My boss actually offered to give me a job as their bookkeeper (rather than the manager having to do everything) once I finish my degree (or in my final year) -$50,000 a year + superannuation which is a reasonable amount for someone to live on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What I'm saying is a lot of people can delay their entrance to university studies and work first and then go to uni to make them qualify for social benefits.

Either way the point of the GP fee at least argued by the libs is to raise funds for medical research. Now sure there are people who find it difficult to make payments due to their income. I'm pretty sure they might even allow the low income health concession to completely cover GP fees. So the argument for people on low incomes finding it tough goes straight out the window.

 

[OzKo]

What I'm saying is a lot of people can delay their entrance to university studies and work first and then go to uni to make them qualify for social benefits.

Either way the point of the GP fee at least argued by the libs is to raise funds for medical research. Now sure there are people who find it difficult to make payments due to their income. I'm pretty sure they might even allow the low income health concession to completely cover GP fees. So the argument for people on low incomes finding it tough goes straight out the window.

Was just about to flag this as well.

If behaviour changes such that health outcomes decline with the introduction of a fee (from having a better read, Kiraken is right), then this is probably the best way to meet people in the middle.

 

[Kiraken]

Was just about to flag this as well.

If behaviour changes such that health outcomes decline with the introduction of a fee (from having a better read, Kiraken is right), then this is probably the best way to meet people in the middle.

which would be a good idea except GP visits also decrease among the chronically sick and the elderly who might not necessarily fit into the low income bracket (and are defined by the very fact they are likely to have more pressing health concerns and a need to visit the GP than low income families)

if you end up including these people in concessions too then you won't end up getting much into the medical research fund from the GP copayments considering that these demographics are pretty much responsible for a large proportion of GP visits

having said that the concession would improve the situation if this does go ahead

 

[SylviaB]

Paid parental leave - cunt's fucked

its necessary to counteract the dysgenic effects of feminism sorry

 

[Anna Wintour]

He is making cuts so that we can pay back the deficit.

Labour's rate of spending was far too unsustainable.

if thats the case why did he axe the mining and carbon taxes and put a hugely expensive maternity leave plan in then

 

[SylviaB]

you mean the carbon tax that was going to cost $4bil and the mining tax that basically raised no money?

also abolishing taxes has the potential to boost revenue elsewhere

 

[Anna Wintour]

wouldnt you delay axing them if there was abudget emergency.

Also the treasury's own figures say if we do nothing we'll be back to surplus by 2018 anyway

 

[isildurrrr1]

wouldnt you delay axing them if there was abudget emergency.

Also the treasury's own figures say if we do nothing we'll be back to surplus by 2018 anyway

Carbon tax did nothing. Lot's of "major polluter" companies even got a net benefit from carbon tax because of write off's and concessions made to them. It was such an ineffectual tax.

There's a social reason for the paid maternity leave, it's an incentive to women in higher income groups of having kids and continue their corporate jobs (even bigger net benefit to the economy).

 

[Anna Wintour]

the carbon tax actually reduced co2 productions, particularly in state run power generation.
The compensation went to families who had to pay more but it incentivized low polluting competitiros.

 

[isildurrrr1]

the carbon tax actually reduced co2 productions, particularly in state run power generation.
The compensation went to families who had to pay more but it incentivized low polluting competitiros.

So we take money from people and give it back to them... don't you see the circular money flow? It doesn't necessarily do anything. Australia is still 75% powered by coal. Unless we go nuclear, were still going to be a net contributor to climate change.

 

[SylviaB]

the carbon tax actually reduced co2 productions, particularly in state run power generation.
The compensation went to families who had to pay more but it incentivized low polluting competitiros.

wait you were just saying that getting rid of it was dumb financially

 

[Graney]

It incentivises emissions reduction. 'the circular money flow', is intended and desired, the ostensible objective is not to make people financially worse off, or to transfer net wealth from people to government, but simply to influence behaviour through incentives, from behaviour A to B, with the highest efficiency possible. According to /u/anna wintour this was occuring, therefore functioning as intended.

The taxation of pollution is probably often worthwhile, because otherwise the impact of emissions (although real and costly) is entirely externalised, the introduction of a regulated price signal reflects the real impact of emissions upon consumers and producers, and incentivises change accordingly.

A carbon tax likely makes a nuclear industry more viable and likely than was previously the case, though perhaps the largest issue for nuclear energy has long been the poor cost effectiveness of investment, with increasing competition and efficiencies from other reduced emissions technologies idk.

 

[isildurrrr1]

A carbon tax likely makes a nuclear industry more viable and likely than was previously the case, though perhaps the largest issue for nuclear energy has long been the poor cost effectiveness of investment.

Nuclear is the cheapest option for high volume electricity production. Reason why don't have it is purely political and people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy.

Carbon tax didn't deter polluters. Hell the big polluters and electric users (mining companies) received huge tax breaks. all costs are simply passed down to the consumer. Carbon tax was very ineffective anyway. Fuel excise tax is a better idea, use the money raise to reinvest into infrastructure or clean energy initiatives.

 

[SylviaB]

It incentivises emissions reduction. 'the circular money flow', is intended and desired,.

yeah so you agree then that eliminating it was not foolish from an immediate budget perspective