As a family earning a taxable income of $200k+ I concede we will live without the money. However, as a self-educated professional never the recipient of tax payer support, whilst in a high tax bracket for most of my working life, I take issue with the ideology that money should be taken from me and given to others, particularly the long-term unemployed, as a cash donation.

I work hard, pay lots of money for my child to attend daycare ($18k per ann.) in order to do so, and contribute to the taxation pool a significant proportion of my income. I do not take issue with unemployment benefits (read benefit, not entitlement as I believe is the attitude for some of the unemployed) - but you must surely see how this does not exactly seem fair?

To sum up what they're doing in a statement:

The gov't decides to hand back taxes that have been paid in, but instead of handing them back to the people that paid them, they instead go to the people that didn't pay any, or didn't pay much.

To go back to my first point in terms of living without the money: we would also spend the money just like anybody else - so the argument that someone else is more or less likely to spend it doesn't wash with me. We don't have a big-screen TV, we don't own a home, we own one 10 y/o car and bicycles. Do I sound like we're swimming in consumer items?

We're saving, sure. We're saving to move to a country area with an agricultural basis because we know that despite having to fund the baby-boomers ahead of us we're also going to fund our own retirement. This to us means enabling us to support ourselves in whatever way possible (growing our own food etc.) and overcoming the destruction of the environment the generations before us have caused. There is little doubt when we retire we will not have the same luxury of having the tax payer (Gen Y and beyond) pay for us to live comfortably and securely as we are doing for the generation before us.

From my point of view, to see my family miss out on things because we're saving for the future (and don't believe that such things as TV's etc. are where the money is best spent) and then seeing others enjoying such things at our expense certainly doesn't seem like a 'fair go' to me.

I agree with you on your "vote" however. Getting the unemployed back into work must be the ultimate goal and by far the better use of this money in terms of supporting them in doing that. Having infrastructure built for the wider community as a by-product ensures the money we're contributing to society is returning by way of benefit. This is surely the way it's supposed to work? Additionally, why should the future generation (my child, for example) not be the recipient of some community benefit (from said infrastructure) if she is going to be paying for it in her future taxes?

Knowing that nearly $100m of the money will go to people living overseas who are not contributing in anyway to our society while we get nothing makes my blood curdle.

The rest of the money should be directed towards energy efficiency, period. This means energy efficient public transport, energy efficient water treatment plants, energy efficient public buildings, and other clean energy initiatives. If the carbon trading is going to cost so much money as they say, why are we not directing this money at that instead?

"(b) To pay any money at all to people earning more than $50,000 (say) is hard to fathom"

Mr Daniels,
So you think people that are earning more than $50,000 should be exempt from the $950.00 payment, I am one of these people, just to give you an insight on my life.
I am the only breadwinner in my family . I support my Husband and Daughter on my wage,
My daughter has just started an apprenticeship in another town (she has moved 4 hours away to get a job) Not only do I pay her rent and give her money for food,(she is also doing a part time job to contribute) I also pay our mortage , bills and food on my pay. I work extremely long weeks away from home to ensure we have enough money to cover everything. All on a paltry $58,000 BEFORE Tax. I am sick of all these people whinging about handouts, to be honest I don't care whether I get one or not, personally I would prefer all money to go to our Hospital system. I have never taken a cent from centrelink, even when our daughter was born, we survived on one wage (no bonus's and family payments 20 years ago)and if my daughter is entitled to any payment it is all means tested, wow a whole $60 a fortnight, thanks (even though I pay over $10,000 in tax each year! how many unemployed does that help?? at least 2 right?) all these payments been thrown about is disgusting and to give more to these unemployed please, get off your bum and get a job if my child can move away from her family and everything she knows at 19 I am sure anyone can. Next time stop and think before you open your mouth not everyone earning over $50,000 is single , everyone has different circumstances, remembe that.

Aggie

Chances are you will - I am in exactly the same boat. Its dependant on your adjusted tax liability, which must be above 0. In everyday language it means you need to earn $11,000. There is a tax bonus caculator at www.ato.gov.au which will give you a better indication.

From what you have recorded - you sound like a long standing dole bludger - kid?
shane probably has'nt got the time to reply to someone who's got all day to do it - receiving your DSP or dole chq doesnt come with much pride or effort does it

maybe he has got a mattress with money in it- your absurd policies tax & means test hime more if he doesnt- - I think you must be, not only a snotty - baby, but a bludging wanker - a blight on every honest worker in australia- thats my tip - so lets look at your logic -
Because this guy has got of his arse - bettered himself, you want hime to spend his hard earnt Aussie buck - so people like you will be "in a better situation" - like DUR ... tyhank god your not getin the bonus ... you and those like you DONT DESERVE IT - YOU LIKELY HAVNT PAID ANY TAX