Crikey readers talk the budget, what the Labor Party stands for, and the problem with increasing the GST.
Helen Kennedy writes: Re. “The vindictive budget: how the fiscal burden is loaded on low-income earners” (Wednesday). This is an old, white, misogynist male’s budget. The great proportion of Coalition members of Parliament are old. To take money from the education and health budget to fund medical research is a fraud that seriously affects children, families and the less well-off in society.
I am passionate about science and research — medical, agricultural, technology, etc. This budget is about white wealthy males living forever, sucking on cigars and being hopefully cosseted from dementia and Alzheimer’s.
Greg Poropat writes: Responding to charges of broken promises, Coalition politicians have developed the stock-in-trade fob-off of “Our most fundamental commitment was to fix the budget”. Wrong.
There is nothing of substance about the country’s circumstances that the Coalition did not know before the election. Sure it committed to fix the budget, but that commitment was conjoined at the hip with how the Coalition would fix the budget, including no new taxes, no changes to Medicare, no cuts to the ABC, etc, etc. There was no hierarchic of commitments, nor any disaggregation of them; it was a single, simple pledge. There’s no mincing around this: the Coalition stands condemned for lying its way into office and the legacy of its senior members will be that they are a mob of liars.
What does Labor stand for?
Kevin Hancock writes: Re. “Finally, something to really rally against in Abbott’s Australia” (yesterday). Congratulations, Guy Rundle, you absolutely “nailed” the problem in the Labor Party — no passion — they just go through the motions and stand for nothing. Where are the “true believers” in the leadership of this party when you need them?
Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Crikey says: wrong way on the GST, Joe” (yesterday). Crikey’s editorial is contradictory. It favours a rise in the GST (though not in so few words), but it deplores ”stinging the young via cuts to the dole and higher university fees”. Any rise in the GST inevitably stings the young, the old, the unemployed, the infirm, and the poor. The GST is a regressive tax that impacts most heavily on those of low income. What is ”serious”, “mature”, and “sensible” about supporting a crude and unjust tax?