1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Beer and wine tax rise

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by byso, Apr 29, 2008.

  1. byso

    byso Well-Known Member

    9,609
    83
    Ratings:
    +83 / 0
    Beer and wine tax rise Sue Dunlevy
    April 29, 2008 12:00am

    A 300 PER CENT increase in beer and wine taxes is being proposed by the Rudd Government's new preventive health taskforce as families battle rising petrol, grocery and mortgage prices.

    The call follows the surprise weekend announcement of a 70 per cent tax hike on spirit-based alcopop drinks to combat teenage binge drinking.

    Australian General Practice Network chief Kate Carnell yesterday became the second member of the Rudd Government's new National Preventive Health Taskforce to call for punitive new health taxes.

    "We believe the liquor excise should be the based on alcohol content not what the drink looks like," Ms Carnell said.

    Currently beer and wine are taxed less heavily than spirits.

    A uniform alcohol tax rate would increase the cost of a beer by 46¢ and bottled wine by 63¢ a glass.

    Taskforce chairman Rob Moodie has previously called for a 2.5¢-per-cigarette rise in the tax on cigarettes to raise $400 million a year for anti-smoking measures.

    The suggestions come as Kevin Rudd has ramped up his warnings about the federal Budget, saying the process has been as "tough as all hell" as Cabinet yesterday considered massive spending cuts.

    The Prime Minister and his leadership team were locked in a marathon Cabinet Budget session yesterday finalising spending reductions of more than $3 billion for next financial year.

    Another series of high-level meetings today in Canberra is expected to formalise the tough measures to be unveiled on May 13.

    In a short break from the Cabinet room yesterday, Mr Rudd indicated people should brace themselves for a hardline economic statement on Budget night.

    The warning came just days after Mr Swan foreshadowed that the Budget would slash programs inherited from the Howard government.

    It is expected major programs in health, defence and social security will be slashed and there will be job cuts to the Canberra bureaucracy.

    However Mr Rudd said the Government would do its best to protect low and middle-income earners from Budget fallout.

    Mr Rudd said the rising cost of living was one of the prime reasons the Government pushed ahead with $31 billion worth of tax cuts that start on July 1.

    A person on an average wage of $50,000 will be almost $20 a week better off under the tax cuts from July. Modelling has shown families on average incomes with very young children will be almost $136 a week better off after the combined impact of tax cuts and the 50 per cent childcare rebate
     
  2. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    I have to go along with your criticism (implied) byso. I am the first to say that the new government is a breath of fresh air from the stale and divisive efforts of Howard and co, but there is a whiff of having been here before from the latest announcements.

    The social do-gooder groups are seriously attempting to infiltrate the thoughts of Rudd and his team. The recommendations from 2020 included taxes as a proportion of stamp duties on house sales being used to help the homeless, a volumetric tax on alcohol to combat alcoholism, a tax to encourage public transport use, and a new tax on alcohol, junk food and cigarettes to pay for the creation of a national preventive health agency. Then there were the calls for more multi-millions to be poured into another ATSIC style body, a universal tax-payer funded maternity leave, and workers with sedentary jobs to be forced to do 30 minutes exercise a day.

    Looks to me like a continuation of Labor's large scale social engineering financed by anyone who earns a pay packet. Those who lives in Manly knows the lengths that that Council is going with idiotic recommendations that bear no relation to governance on local issues. It looks like the disease is spreading. I am not saying that some of these ideas don't have merit but I can see where we face a raft of new taxes and I am losing a bit of my enthusiasm.

    Any thoughts?
     
  3. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    13,234
    186
    Ratings:
    +212 / 5
    There will not be new taxes any time soon. However you have to identify issues in order to think about them. There are a lot of people trying to win favour with a new government and the rubber will hit the road in the upcoming federal budget when a lot of people find that there is not too much in it for them.

    The one issue is the alchopop type drink which was produced surely to try and win over young girls in particular. I love a drink but anyone who doesn't admit that there are huge problems with binge drinking and our alchohol culture is kidding themselves. Not sure how to solve it - but kids as young as 12 are off their faces and the problems of aged people with all sorts of medical issues is having a huge impact on our health system. How to deal with it is an issue - it has been 30 years of action on smoking for there to be a significant decline - some would argue that taxing is not the way to change attitudes and behaviour.
     
  4. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    ill quite happily pay more tax on my beer.

    In return they can pay my gym fees to keep me healthy
     
  5. Garts

    Garts Well-Known Member

    5,482
    363
    Ratings:
    +672 / 18
    Binge drinking has always been a problem hasnt it?  Just gets reported on more nowdays.  I am nearly 30 and still do it every couple of weeks, nothing will change.
     
  6. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    How is everyone feeling this morning about a recommendation put to the Rudd government for a .5% tax on all wages to fund a 6 month 100% wage for mothers and 4 weeks 100% wage for fathers? This is on Fox news.
     
  7. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    3,475
    37
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0
    Maybe I would have gone for a bit smaller scheme, maybe 3 months pay instead of six, but I think it is a great thing to do and way overdue.  Pretty gutsy as well as it will be easy to criticise.  It's only a proposal atm though. 

    As someone who hopes to have kids pretty soon it makes it a whole lot easier as well.

    Getting rid of the baby bonus wuold be good too, as you don't have to work to get that like you do for this. 

    And for those who already have kids and won't benefit directly it will be still good for them in the long run as with an aging population we need more births to pay for walking frames etc. for when all you old bastards retire. 
     
  8. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    My wife says that 100% for 6 months is reasonable. I don't quite see it that way but on principal I agreed with the Howard government's baby bonus as it is a timely payment at a time of need, good for the community, and covers those who don't have employment for whatever reason. I certainly hope this proposal is capped at some level. As for walking frames, mine is going to be made of gold ;P
     
  9. nodd

    nodd Well-Known Member

    1,115
    90
    hiding from the kids
    Ratings:
    +105 / 5
    As someone who is about to have a Bub I will certainly take the baby bonus but if they scrap it, so be it. I certainly don't feel We are entitled to a handout just cause we decided to have a child.
     
  10. SilentBob

    SilentBob Well-Known Member

    1,368
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0
    Don't want kids, don't plan on having kids, don't want to pay for others choosing to do so.
     
  11. nodd

    nodd Well-Known Member

    1,115
    90
    hiding from the kids
    Ratings:
    +105 / 5
    Can't pull a root SilentBob  :D

    Fair enough. You shouldn't have to pay for someone else to have a kid.

    I reckon $5000 grand a year for single blokes to be spent on the TAB, or at the pub or on the pokies.

    That's what the single mothers do with it.
     
  12. Garts

    Garts Well-Known Member

    5,482
    363
    Ratings:
    +672 / 18
    I assume the maternity leave would be capped at a certain level? I assume they would not pay the wages for 6 months for someone who earns $150 to $200k pa.
     
  13. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    3,475
    37
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0
    Well I think it is still at the proposal stage so that detail may be yet to come. 
     
  14. Garts

    Garts Well-Known Member

    5,482
    363
    Ratings:
    +672 / 18
    I also hope they do not scrap the baby bonus yet.  I will probably be having kids in the next 2 years and want to get something back from the bloody gov't at some point.  I have never claimed anything from them in my 12 years of working, well maybe about $100 through medicare.
     
  15. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    3,475
    37
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0
    well 6 months pay will be more than the $3k baby bonus
     
  16. clontaago

    clontaago Well-Known Member

    6,405
    89
    Ratings:
    +121 / 0
    The baby bonus system is flawed. All it does is encourage unemployed bogans to have more children, those of whom will no doubt end up on welfare 16 years from now and the cycle continues.

    I'd rather be contirbuting to a paid maternity leave scheme than a baby bonus scheme. 
     
  17. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,462 / 74
    I also would rather contribute to paid maternity leave but then some sectors like the gay community may be disadvantaged by this.

    The baby bonus however should instead of being cash be in the form of copuons that can only be used for specific ranges of things.

    However the population has started growing already and the baby bonus is starting to be irrelevant
     
  18. Garts

    Garts Well-Known Member

    5,482
    363
    Ratings:
    +672 / 18
    I agree however I figure the paid maternity thing might take a couple of years to get off the ground, just hoping they do not scrap the BB before that kicks in, purely for selfish reasons.
     
  19. clontaago

    clontaago Well-Known Member

    6,405
    89
    Ratings:
    +121 / 0
    Completely understand Garts, and no doubt you guys deserve it. Its only the fact that the bogans take advantage of it that is the problem.

    The majority of us could all do with $3000 when we have a baby no doubt, but we wouldnt actually have a child just so we could get $3000. There are many people who are doing that though.

    I just find it funny that they offer a $3000 cash bonus to encourage population growth, yet the only people who it really encourages to have children are the ones who people like ourselves already support because they are unemployed, then in addition we will have to pay for their single mums pension as well.
     
  20. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    3,475
    37
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0
    I agree however I figure the paid maternity thing might take a couple of years to get off the ground, just hoping they do not scrap the BB before that kicks in, purely for selfish reasons.
    [/quote]


    Well we will all find out what happens in next week's budget.  They aren't fans of the baby bonus, because it is just a handout, rather than an encouragement to be employed and contributing to the economy, but personally I would be very suprised if they canned it without some sort of replacement. 
     

Share This Page