This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/10/bottom-line-of-budget-cuts-they-hurt-low-income-families

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Bottom line of budget cuts? They hurt low-income families Bottom line of budget cuts? They hurt low-income families
(2 months later)
A survey of single parents released this week told the grinding daily life stories of families whose budgets are stretched to the last 50 cents, of school trips missed and superannuation cashed in and possessions pawned and bill paying put off to try to make it through each week.A survey of single parents released this week told the grinding daily life stories of families whose budgets are stretched to the last 50 cents, of school trips missed and superannuation cashed in and possessions pawned and bill paying put off to try to make it through each week.
Four out of five parents – almost all were mothers – reported they would probably run out of food or struggle to pay for school books, uniforms or utility bills if the government’s proposed cuts to family payments become law. Almost three-quarters (72%) thought they would no longer be able to maintain a roadworthy car.Four out of five parents – almost all were mothers – reported they would probably run out of food or struggle to pay for school books, uniforms or utility bills if the government’s proposed cuts to family payments become law. Almost three-quarters (72%) thought they would no longer be able to maintain a roadworthy car.
“I will lose everything I have worked hard for. Have been a single mum for 12 years and I’m barely surviving, even though I work full time!” said one when asked about the impact of the proposed changes.“I will lose everything I have worked hard for. Have been a single mum for 12 years and I’m barely surviving, even though I work full time!” said one when asked about the impact of the proposed changes.
Related: Labor agrees to allow $1bn of Abbott-era spending cuts through Senate
But the cuts the parents were talking about have barely been mentioned in this election campaign. They are subsumed by a big, loud budget discussion of very different kind – a rhetorical fight over economic credibility.But the cuts the parents were talking about have barely been mentioned in this election campaign. They are subsumed by a big, loud budget discussion of very different kind – a rhetorical fight over economic credibility.
In large part, this is a discussion with more noise than insight. Both major parties accept that trying to get the budget back to surplus should be their aim. But neither is within cooeee of doing it. The Coalition is proposing budget deficits of $84.6bn over the next four years before possibly achieving a small surplus of 0.2% of GDP in 2021, as long as all the assumptions turn out to be dandy, which they almost never do.In large part, this is a discussion with more noise than insight. Both major parties accept that trying to get the budget back to surplus should be their aim. But neither is within cooeee of doing it. The Coalition is proposing budget deficits of $84.6bn over the next four years before possibly achieving a small surplus of 0.2% of GDP in 2021, as long as all the assumptions turn out to be dandy, which they almost never do.
Labor, whose deficits will be somewhat higher in the short term (how high, they have not yet said) is projecting a surplus at the same time as the Coalition. Vague versus vaguer.Labor, whose deficits will be somewhat higher in the short term (how high, they have not yet said) is projecting a surplus at the same time as the Coalition. Vague versus vaguer.
If we could be bothered engaging in this “debate” about who is “tough” enough to cut spending, it is easy to reach the conclusion that neither major party is. But surely the better question is not only the quantity, but also the impact of the cuts they are proposing.If we could be bothered engaging in this “debate” about who is “tough” enough to cut spending, it is easy to reach the conclusion that neither major party is. But surely the better question is not only the quantity, but also the impact of the cuts they are proposing.
On Friday, Scott Morrison cranked his hyperbole dial back to his preferred setting of 11 to declare Labor was digging a very deep hole. He added that Labor was trying to drive from Melbourne to Sydney via Adelaide and Perth (no, I’m not sure either what the metaphor meant in this context) because it announced cuts that did not quite cover the cost of a set of decisions about “zombie” savings already baked into the budget bottom line.On Friday, Scott Morrison cranked his hyperbole dial back to his preferred setting of 11 to declare Labor was digging a very deep hole. He added that Labor was trying to drive from Melbourne to Sydney via Adelaide and Perth (no, I’m not sure either what the metaphor meant in this context) because it announced cuts that did not quite cover the cost of a set of decisions about “zombie” savings already baked into the budget bottom line.
“Zombie” policies are government plans that are factored in to the budget calculations but have not yet been legislated and were not put forward as triggers for this double-dissolution election either. These “half-dead” policies are usually 2014 budget savings the government wants to continue to count in its budget bottom line but would rather not talk about. They’re like the debris from Tony Abbott’s 2014 budget disaster, shoved in the back of a closet for sorting out later.“Zombie” policies are government plans that are factored in to the budget calculations but have not yet been legislated and were not put forward as triggers for this double-dissolution election either. These “half-dead” policies are usually 2014 budget savings the government wants to continue to count in its budget bottom line but would rather not talk about. They’re like the debris from Tony Abbott’s 2014 budget disaster, shoved in the back of a closet for sorting out later.
Related: Guardian Live election special event with Lenore Taylor and Katharine Murphy
By contrast, Labor now has a stated position on each of them and has factored that into its costings, leaving its budget bottom line worse off by $3.4bn over the next four years ($8.9bn better off, if you add in the savings it had announced previously.)By contrast, Labor now has a stated position on each of them and has factored that into its costings, leaving its budget bottom line worse off by $3.4bn over the next four years ($8.9bn better off, if you add in the savings it had announced previously.)
Among the cuts it will now cop is the plan to force students to start repaying higher education loan debts sooner.Among the cuts it will now cop is the plan to force students to start repaying higher education loan debts sooner.
But most of the measures it will continue to oppose and factor the cost of not making them into its own budget calculations. Among these are the four-week wait for the dole, the plan to force under-25s onto youth start payments and, at least in part, the family benefits cuts which the single parents were being asked about in the survey.But most of the measures it will continue to oppose and factor the cost of not making them into its own budget calculations. Among these are the four-week wait for the dole, the plan to force under-25s onto youth start payments and, at least in part, the family benefits cuts which the single parents were being asked about in the survey.
The prospect of the family benefit cuts has been hanging over low-income families for over two years and because the government says those cuts are needed to pay for its childcare revamp that policy has been in long-term limbo too.The prospect of the family benefit cuts has been hanging over low-income families for over two years and because the government says those cuts are needed to pay for its childcare revamp that policy has been in long-term limbo too.
Instead of cutting an end-of-year supplement entirely – costing $726 per child – as the government is proposing, a Labor government would halve it for families earning over $100,000, so they’ll lose about $366. That’s not quite what was suggested in Labor’s previous website campaigning against the government’s proposed cuts which goes some way to explain the low-key Friday afternoon announcement.Instead of cutting an end-of-year supplement entirely – costing $726 per child – as the government is proposing, a Labor government would halve it for families earning over $100,000, so they’ll lose about $366. That’s not quite what was suggested in Labor’s previous website campaigning against the government’s proposed cuts which goes some way to explain the low-key Friday afternoon announcement.
But for very low-income families and single parents – like those who answered the survey – it means a welcome reprieve, should Labor win the election.But for very low-income families and single parents – like those who answered the survey – it means a welcome reprieve, should Labor win the election.
And in the electoral fight, the Friday afternoon backdown gives Labor some chance of pulling the contest back to its chosen framework.And in the electoral fight, the Friday afternoon backdown gives Labor some chance of pulling the contest back to its chosen framework.
The government will continue to attack Labor’s alleged lack of economic credibility. Its rhetorical onslaught is working.The government will continue to attack Labor’s alleged lack of economic credibility. Its rhetorical onslaught is working.
Pulling the Abbott budget measures out of the closet and figuring out how to pay for their retention, or disposal, gives Labor some chance of wresting the electoral contest back into the real world of human impacts rather than economic theory, and the fairness of the spending choices both parties are making for people such as the parents who answered the survey.Pulling the Abbott budget measures out of the closet and figuring out how to pay for their retention, or disposal, gives Labor some chance of wresting the electoral contest back into the real world of human impacts rather than economic theory, and the fairness of the spending choices both parties are making for people such as the parents who answered the survey.
• Join Lenore Taylor and Katharine Murphy in Sydney and Melbourne as they host our Guardian Live election special event featuring a panel of prominent political guests• Join Lenore Taylor and Katharine Murphy in Sydney and Melbourne as they host our Guardian Live election special event featuring a panel of prominent political guests