# Increase in Medicare levy to 2.5% (from 2%) of taxable income from 1 July 2019



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

The Treasurer in his 2017-18 Budget speech foreshadowed an increase in the Medicare levy from 1 July 2019 from 2% of taxable income to 2.5%. This represents a 25% increase.

This increase is linked to funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Take an Uber driver with taxable income of $50,000. At present, he or she pays Medicare levy of $1,000. This is foreshadowed to ncrease to $1,250 from 1 July 2019.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

This was a good move in my view. The NDIS is exactly the kind of scheme that should be funded in this way. The National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) has also seen all state-based motor vehicle CTP schemes transition to being no-fault schemes. It's good to see our governments working together for our benefit.


----------



## fields (Jul 11, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> This was a good move in my view. The NDIS is exactly the kind of scheme that should be funded in this way. The National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) has also seen all state-based motor vehicle CTP schemes transition to being no-fault schemes. It's good to see our governments working together for our benefit.


I think its a very bad move. It should have been paid for through savings. My income is not going up, but I am expected to pay more tax. This government has got to go!


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

fields said:


> I think its a very bad move. It should have been paid for through savings. My income is not going up, but I am expected to pay more tax. This government has got to go!


Something as important as this should be fully funded through its own levy, not consolidated revenue. And good luck getting enough savings measures through the Senate.


----------



## fields (Jul 11, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> Something as important as this should be fully funded through its own levy, not consolidated revenue. And good luck getting enough savings measures through the Senate.


We are being bombarded with ads from companies offering disability services for those who qualify for the NDIS. It will inevitably prove to be a bonanza for private companies, not so for those who have disabilities.

Sorry but I dont want to pay for it. As it is an insurance scheme, I should be able to opt out.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

fields said:


> Sorry but I dont want to pay for it. As it is an insurance scheme, I should be able to opt out.


I've never had a motor vehicle accident, let alone one that's my fault. I'd love to be able to opt out of CTP insurance and save myself ~$600 per year, but alas the C in CTP means Compulsory.


----------



## Jack Malarkey (Jan 11, 2016)

In his Budget reply speech, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said that the Opposition supported the Government's proposed Medicare levy increase only for those taxpayers with a taxable income exceeding $87,000.

See http://www.alp.org.au/bill_shorten_budget_reply_2016.

$87,001 is where the second-highest marginal tax rate of 37 per cent cuts in.


----------



## Icecool (Feb 8, 2016)

Jack Malarkey said:


> In his Budget reply speech, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said that the Opposition supported the Government's proposed Medicare levy increase only for those taxpayers with a taxable income exceeding $87,000.
> 
> See http://www.alp.org.au/bill_shorten_budget_reply_2016.
> 
> $87,001 is where the second-highest marginal tax rate of 37 per cent cuts in.


Bill shorten wants to be a Robin Hood stealing from the rich and give it to the poor. But what he is doing is killing the middle class and make everybody lazy



UberDriverAU said:


> I've never had a motor vehicle accident, let alone one that's my fault. I'd love to be able to opt out of CTP insurance and save myself ~$600 per year, but alas the C in CTP means Compulsory.


I'm with fields I don't want to pay for it . We paying enough taxes in this country already . I don't like how our government uses our hard earn tax moneys . I don't think it matter which party run the office liberal or labour . Nothing is going change . What we need is a real president like Putin to kick ass then things will change .


----------



## fields (Jul 11, 2016)

UberDriverAU said:


> I've never had a motor vehicle accident, let alone one that's my fault. I'd love to be able to opt out of CTP insurance and save myself ~$600 per year, but alas the C in CTP means Compulsory.


Cannot argue with that logic.

Nevertheless, wages and Uber fares aren't going up. The Government knows this full well. Higher taxes mean a cut in living standards for most Australians. The NDIS should have been funded by savings.


Icecool said:


> I'm with fields I don't want to pay for it . We paying enough taxes in this country already . I don't like how our government uses our hard earn tax moneys . I don't think it matter which party run the office liberal or labour . Nothing is going change . What we need is a real president like Putin to kick ass then things will change .


We certainly pay enough taxes.

I am thinking of backing the new and improved Mark Latham, who has joined the Liberal Democrats.


----------



## UberDriverAU (Nov 4, 2015)

fields said:


> Nevertheless, wages and Uber fares aren't going up. The Government knows this full well. Higher taxes mean a cut in living standards for most Australians. The NDIS should have been funded by savings.


If you're removing a program that benefits society to fund another program that benefits society, has there been a net increase in our welfare? I'm all for increasing efficiency (ie. savings without the removal of programs), and our governments should do this as a matter of course, but we should be careful about cutting programs to fund other programs.


fields said:


> We certainly pay enough taxes.


For Australia, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are on the lower end of the scale among developed countries. Also, a report by the Productivity Commission found that implementing the NDIS would lead to a ~1% increase in our GDP. That's a *net positive* economic impact:


http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/disability-support/report/disability-support-overview-booklet.pdf said:


> The bottom line is that the NDIS would have substantial economic impacts, and its benefits would significantly exceed the additional costs of the scheme.


Also, if the Labor amendments are accepted, would you be paying any more tax than you do now?


----------

