No family that earns $150,000 a year can afford a Ferrari…but that’s rich enough regardless, says Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan.
Not ‘rolling in it’ rich, but rich enough. The terms are important.
The Treasurer has been blasted for the cut-off in his middle class welfare tweaking, which now stands at $150k but there’s an argument on both sides here.
Some say the ‘rich or not’ question is clearly a diversion and we should really be focusing on whether or not those earning $150,000 combined need ‘hand-outs’.
On the other side, the goal posts have changed over the past few decades. It’s expensive to live.
In any case, the Opposition says the new class war has already been set in motion.
Mr Swan, who has been accused of triggering a new class war with his decision to freeze the indexing of family payments to 40,000 families, said: “I don’t think a couple on $150,000 a year is rich, I don’t think that at all.
“Families come in different shapes and sizes and with different incomes. There are plenty of families on incomes of $60,000 or $70,000 a year.”
But given the median Australian household income is about $67,000 (that’s all households, not just families) you can see there are plenty below the $150,000 cut-off that need extra help. The Prime Minister says the money should go to those who need it most and those on $150,000 are not quite on the level.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott says the Government is punishing ‘aspiration and hard work’.
Then there’s the case for what $150,000 really means in cities across the country. Clearly, $150,000 with a mortgage, three kids and a car isn’t going to go very far in Sydney (where the Treasurer said he based his figure of $150K on). It’s just not. But that doesn’t change the fact there are still plenty earning less and living in Sydney too.
The Prime Minister dodged the question a little bit and added that those who miss out on some of the welfare still have access to schools and hospitals which the Government is also funding to the tune of billions of dollars. Not to mention child care and paid parental leave.
So, what do you think? Are families on $150,000 household incomes collateral damage in the fight to help the most needy, or should we start seriously looking at redefining what ‘wealthy’ really is?
What is wealthy?
Top Comments
interesting comments. some say we should live within our means and all move to the outer suburbs, be interesting if 90% of Sydney or Melbournes population lived in the outskirts, although we would need to spend billions on new housing, roads etc to make that work.
Ignoring that, I don't understand why someone earning 150k and paying 70k in tax already isn't considered to be paying their share. why do we only say that someone on X amount of money can afford more, why not say they are doing their fair share and shouldn't be punished for paying their way.
If people want to live in a country where everyone is made to live the same regardless of effort, move to a communist one, it's been so successful I'm pretty sure there are still one or two around.
Wake up Australia!
What is this Government implementing? All our lives we have been taught to work hard and you will be rewarded. Through the Labour budget, they are installing a new mind set in the future generation!
‘You don’t need to work hard because the Labour government will support you!’ Those who work hard will be punished.
The repercussion of our future generations will establish poor Morals and ethics.
WAKE UP!!
It's outrageous that we think earning a lot of money gives us a right to more government money. This is the kind of attitude you think is ethical: 'I earn a lot, therefore I should get government handouts as a reward. Not those lazy folks on minimum wage! There is absolutely no way they could work as hard as I do'.
I'm sorry, but my partner and I work VERY hard, but have chosen careers where our combined income is around $80000. We do fine, and I don't think we have some sort of right to government handouts. But this nonsensical attitude that people on high incomes are the only ones who work hard is driving me crazy. There has to come a point where welfare is no longer available - after all, welfare was designed as a safety net, not a right. (And nor is it a reward - for hard work or for learning enough to live comfortably on.) Or maybe Gina Reinhardt (sorry re spelling) should get more welfare than anyone? As Australia's richest person she's obviously worked the hardest.