“If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated.”

- George Orwell in the novel 1984.

Well, it appears the struggling, lowest level of society has now been exposed a number of times by front page exposure. Most recently it’s been the apocalyptic carbon tax that will bankrupt everyone. Though a while back I wrote a draft (that I am now publishing) about the “poor well off” after a budget plan to HOLD STEADY FOR TWO YEARS the cut off for certain welfare at AUD$150K. Note: that’s not “cut” anything as is reported, just decided not to raise it with inflation/CPI etc. Very similar to the carbon tax that includes generous payouts for poorer families which trail off so that those earning plenty have to pay a bit.

Well, they finally got to a small part of it.

Every time this happens we see papers queue the pictures of concerned looking families (with their cars conspicuously not in shot lest we see two urban 4WDs sitting in a McMansion driveway) and bleating like Stephen Boyle did in the SMH letters:
“I’m just a wage slave to the ungrateful masses“:

I am one of those people who earn just over $150,000 a year. My wife has decided to stay at home this year and look after our new baby while I continue my work designing internet infrastructure in Third World countries.
Because I have worked very hard and diligently and contribute to society in a specialist way that few others can – but am not greedy and amoral enough to be truly rich – I end up paying for every one else’s welfare.
When our little one was born, we missed out on the baby bonus because my income was just above the $150,000 threshold. I pay $44,450 a year in tax and the Medicare levy, which I do not begrudge. By contrast, if my wife and I both earned $75,000 a year, we would collectively pay, in raw terms, $32,700 a year in tax between us. Upon that, we would not pay a Medicare surcharge.

As a result of Wayne Swan’s budget, I don’t get the dependant spouse rebate, which would have partially redressed the imbalance that my family pays in tax compared with a couple of $75,000 earners. Yet I am not wealthy enough to avoid this tax burden.
I now look at my child with sadness. I tried to do my best for her, but the government parasites got the better of me.
She shall have to attend public school and be treated at public hospitals while I contemplate the folly of working hard for the ungrateful masses.
Stephen Boyle, Gosford

It could almost be a piss take.. But not quite.

The Struggling Proles and their Plasma TV scraps of society
I’d like to suggest a term for “slaves” like Stephen Boyle who complain when they don’t get as many unnecessary handouts: “The Plasma Proletariat”. These are the well off types who think they are on Struggle Street or hard done by when they are denied another handout for a bigger plasma TV or mortgage repayments they decided to over-commit to.

Where do the taxes go?
For your information Stephen your $44.5K of tax pays for the following: Social security & welfare: $14,085, general govt. services: $11,377, health: $6,969, education: $4,043, defence: $2,573, industry & workforce: $1,804, infrastructure, transport & energy: $1,536 and community services & culture: $1,063 (From www.wheredomytaxesgo.com.au ).

Ungrateful or just stupid?
Ungrateful would be someone who thinks they (or their children) don’t benefit from that list in any significant way, particularly when they mention schools and hospitals in the same breath. Not to mention the massive amount of investment from every taxpayer back to the dawn of the nation who paid for things like the snowy river hydro scheme, highways, airports, hospitals, schools etc.

I don’t have kids, so can Mr Boyle send me a cheque for the money he is sponging relative to me by having a kid (education, hospital, DOCS funding, medical research, swimming pools, playground equipment, baby changing rooms, time spent by politicians kissing said babies)? I don’t see that kid earning its keep like they do in developing nations where they’d be stitching together our shoes/clothes and sticking apple logos to iPhones.

Happy to refund it if/when I have kids but in the meantime I don’t see why I should be a slave to the breeding masses like Mr Boyle when I’m not doing the same.

Why stop there: what about my parents generation: “lazy” buggers are starting to retire after (only) working their entire lives, paying for us to be fed/clothed/educated/housed and now they’ll be wanting healthcare, kids off their lawns and a bit of time to travel and relax.. Oh the gall of them to make “slaves” of us all by daring to retire!

Prediction time
Quite why we give out baby bonuses as a reward for adding to the global population problem I’m not sure. The bonus should be to anyone who helps REDUCE or HOLD STEADY the population by having 2 or less kids. Mark my words they’ll be looking back in the future when the population is double today (and our planet completely stripped bare) and scratching their heads.

Impact of the baby bonus

Some facts please
You watch, I’ll bugger up something in these.. But here goes.

Contrary to the assertions in articles on this $150K thing that it affects a big chunk of people it doesn’t really. Some articles do a bit more homework but still make it sound like it affects more people than it does e.g. this one says at the start the measures affect 17% of the population but this measure would only affect the portion of the 17% of community that (in year 1 of the freeze) earn between $150K and $154K (assuming 3% inflation). In year 2 anyone who is earning between $150K and $159K. It might also include people who get a pay cut and would have earned those amounts or ones who get a pay rise. Under the old system the cut off would be $154K at the end of the 1st year.

So if for the 2 years you always earn $160K and above then this whole thing is irrelevant, if you earn $150K and below likewise.

I can haz moar handout?

Just how many could that be that might fit in this $150-160K over two years transition?

Small number really and majority of the articles I’ve read appear to have not done their homework or else made little real attempt at highlighting the facts as they try to make a storm in a teacup.

Saying that because 17% of households or 3% of individuals earn over $150K is like saying that if the USA lowered the drinking age to 18 that affects the ability to drink of everyone over age of 18.
No, it only affects anyone falling between ages of 18 and 21. Well aside from extra queues at the bar.. But anyone already able to drink can still do it, anyone younger than 18 still can’t drink anyhow. Politicians seem to realise this quite well when it comes to retrospectively punishing younger generations by removing the things that they enjoyed or made use of to get to where they are today (e.g. Federal Liberals gutting public education and in particular universities and their funding cuts/HECS fee increases under Howard).

More facts.. MOAAAR!
How does $150K compare to the average wage? I won’t compare it to say poorer nations to really show how well off that is.. Let’s stick to Australia only:

A salary of $150K/year is around 105K AFTER TAX. That’s $8,750/month or $2020/week AFTER TAX or $287/day if you need to go that far down.

According to most recent ABS stats on average weekly earnings Public & Private sector

So the $150K salary is 2.26 times the average before tax.
If we make it completely skewed: $2020/week after tax is still multiples of the before tax rates that mere average people earn.
So even with just stephen working and his wife earning nothing: his household income is still 2.26 times that of a household with just one average earner. There’s that .26 hanging around as a nice buffer as well, so he could hire someone on an average wage for a quarter of the working week to just hang around the house and it’d still be as if the house had two average earners in the house.
So $150K is not a bad household income, there’s little need for complaining about “missing out”.

Glass houses and all that..
I’ll take a moment to be clear that I’m not intending to give the misleading impression I’m on a low income by comparing these. I could, quite rightly, be one of the low income people in the country that are having a genuinely tough time. Stuck in poorly paid jobs or unemployment/underemployment.
But I’m not one of those people and I’m well aware of my stable job, good wage, literate, tertiary educated, no debt, high savings, no kids, quick commute, no mortgage existence in a safe, modern, civilised country called Australia. I do things like volunteer to teach kids and donate to charity because I’m in that nice stable position where I can afford to do so. Someone actually struggling to afford to eat and the like is the type of person who really needs access to govt assistance, but not me and not people like Stephen (who I think tried slyly to dismiss his high paying job as some sort of charity effort he was doing for the developing world rather than the reality of a well paying IT job that is most likely something to do with outsourcing so that a company can do away with hiring as many people in Australia).

I’m complaining about people in a comfortably high wage bracket (like me) who really are in no state of “struggle” other than that which they manufacture out of greed and desire to keep up with the neighbours. I might think I had an expensive weekend because I went out drinking or to an expensive dinner a few times. I don’t for an instant look to the govt to make up my drinking money shortfall: it did plenty in supplying me with the stable environment in which to get educated and grow up healthy (yes, mum and dad probably had a teeny bit to do with that too). I don’t look to the govt to pay my rent in the same way these people seem to want the govt to pony up money for their mortgage payments or new car loan.

Unlike these greedy insatiable sods I am very aware that I did grow up in a great country with great education, health, incredibly high quality of life, extremely high literary rate, safetynets etc that makes us VERY fortunate. So fortunate that even with paying a wheelbarrow of tax and without getting lump sums thrown at me: I seem to be doing ok. Perhaps I’m just not rich enough to be struggling like BHP and Gina Rinehart who seem perpetually about to shut up shop forever if they paid anywhere near my tax rate. Gina: I’ve also read Ayn Rand and she’s wrong: selfishness is not a virtue unless you’re a sociopath.

One needs assistance, the other is probably ok

There’s no need for me to pursue a selfish desire to get as much raw cash handout from the tax system as possible as I think the churches and billionaires do enough of that for all of us.

Solution for the Plasma Proletariat
I have a solution for these poor downtrodden over-mortgaged upper class welfare struggle street proles: charity. They should be used to the concept from a receiving end as they hold their moisturised hands out for a slice of the tax cake (that’s after the First Home Owner’s Grant rort, baby bonuses, Ruddmoney and so on on top of everything else in society).
Stephen or anyone else for that matter is free to donate to charity to reduce his taxable income, but like taxation, charity requires thinking of more than just yourself and your family.
If you get a pay rise (heavens!) that bumps you over $150K and you’d rather not pay your own way but rather rort an unnecessary handout: just give the excess away to a charity like Oxfam or perhaps the Red Cross can heal their bleeding hearts.

Although anyone that blinded by a desire to grab at govt handouts should probably donate to Fred Hollows.

Perhaps this whole $150K freeze will remove the barrier that was forcing these people to turn down any pay rises that would have pushed them over the $150K limit.
*PHEW*
What a relief huh?

Not about a particular person, I'd be here all year filling these out!

Pretty big industry this tax evasion thing.

Let's be clear: negative gearing robs taxpayers and feeds bank profits.

Have my doubts it'll be fixed.. But..

Wonder whether they'll actually look into it?

Hope it gets a chuckle from someone at the ATO..