Swanny cuts away at spending with a tomato

tf says:

08:38pm | 10/05/11

How so?

jf says:

09:21pm | 10/05/11

tf says: 08:38pm | 10/05/11

“How so?”

See below.

Mark says:

09:39pm | 10/05/11

GFC lingered longer = over optimistic forecasts from treasury = Swan passing off his errors.

DaveinPerth says:

11:31pm | 10/05/11

No facts. No numbers. Just assertions. Why don’t you just say “Waynes got GIRL germs! I saw have kissing a GIRL!”
Same level as your post.

Steve of Cornubia says:

08:24am | 12/05/11

While the NBN is in progress, forecasting a $3.5 billion surplus is nonsense. As with everything else managed by the ALP, the NBN will go over-budget by much more than that. Guaranteed.

Adam Diver says:

08:44am | 11/05/11

I don’t know, there are some good lies and mistruths. My personal favorites are:

1. Claiming a evy or a tax is “savings”

2. Trumpeting a budget surplus, when the financial position is still a large deficit. I would prefer if the surplus was called a debt-repayment.

CD says:

09:50am | 11/05/11

Did everyone miss the flood levy is suddenly 2 years and not 1 as first promised?

Is this going to be the levy that keeps on giving?

mb says:

11:18am | 11/05/11

CD…..No you weren’t the only one to note the levy is 2 years now. It’s scarey because as you say it will just keep on keeping on

Mitch says:

11:49am | 11/05/11

@Adam Diver: Agreed, with the way the government is talking about it, I bought my unit for $200k, and shouldn’t consider my mortgage payment a bill, I should consider it a surplus!

Tom says:

01:17pm | 11/05/11

@CD/@mb - its only 1 year - its based on individuals’ taxable income for 2011-12 only. They will receive the tax revenue over 2011-12 and 2012-13 as individuals lodge their returns….

CD says:

03:35pm | 11/05/11

Thanks Tom. My bad but can we blame it on Penbo for chucking it in his article?

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

08:45pm | 10/05/11

Sending $ $ to dead people, overseas back packers, giving money to taxpayers by the bucketful, sqaundering the 20 billion that was in the coffers, because of the Howard/Costello teams prudent stewardship Oz wasn’t in recession ye him & Krudd spent $ $ like drunken sailors

jf says:

08:48pm | 10/05/11

Ah, the classic straw man: divert the argument from the key thesis that Swan’s fiscal madness extended the impact of the GFC by that I was somehow denying the impact of the downturn of the US or European economies.

However, to address your straw man, we will undoubtedly feel an impact from the US and European economies. However, we will not gain as much uplift from our significant and disproportionate exposure to Asia, specifically China and India.

Labor’s waste, economic incompetence and fiscal incompetence will lead to unnecessary inflation with consequent increases in interest rates, unsustainably high AUD, reduced productivity and on it goes.

In short, whilst Australia could never have avoided some impact from the GFC, it should have been shallow and brief. Because of Wayne Swan the impact will be deeper and longer than it needed to be.

Economist says:

09:37pm | 10/05/11

JF you made a general statement that revenues were effected because of his spending policies. hhhh? You then try and blame inflation you then claim it should have been briefer. hhhh?

Firstly, our downturn lasted only a few quarters. Before it started to bounce back, I think we went into a technical recession, so I don’ think you could get it much shorter.

Secondly. private investment did fall, and the public expenditure did fill that gap.

This issue is that growth hasn’t been as high as anticipated, this is the lingering effect on revenue Swan’s talking about. The stimulus managed to stave off higher unemployment which would have further reduced revenues and put more pressure on expenditure. Not every dollar spent has been a waste you have to offset it with the opportunity cost. OK.

Revenues have fallen in absolute amounts and in percentage of GDP terms. The government claims the lost revenue as $110B, but it’s just a claim.

As for your claims of higher interest rates, higher dollar, reduced productivity your over egging the governments contribution to these factors. Higher interest rates a due to inflation driven by external factors, . the higher dollar is because our currency is in demand to buy our resources and the fact that the US dollar as fallen 17%.

By all means criticise the size of the debt blow out, criticize the type of expenditure, but don’t try and apportion blame where it isn’t warranted, nor make claims about expenditure effecting revenues. The fact is many of the things you list as a problem would be beneficial to government revenues. Inflation being one of these.

jf says:

10:23pm | 10/05/11

“JF you made a general statement that revenues were effected because of his spending policies.”
No I didn’t. I made a general statement that he caused the impact of the GFC on the Australian economy to be longer and deeper than it needed to be.

“You then try and blame inflation”

No I didn’t. I said that inflation would be a consequence of this government’s profligacy.

“Firstly, our downturn lasted only a few quarters. Before it started to bounce back, I think we went into a technical recession, so I don’ think you could get it much shorter.”

We are still feeling the impact and will be for some time yet. Check out the performance of our sharemarket over the last three years. It has grossly underperformed the rest of the world despite Australia being better placed than any other country in the world to absorb the impact of the GFC and despite Australia being better positioned to take advantage of China’s and India’s industrialisation.

“Secondly. private investment did fall, and the public expenditure did fill that gap.”

I’m not denying that some fiscal stimulus was necessary. Wasteful, blind, meaningless expenditure is not a substitute for encouraging investment in productive enterprise. Sadly, because of this government, investment in productive enterprises in Australia is increasingly unlikely.

“As for your claims of higher interest rates, higher dollar, reduced productivity your over egging the governments contribution to these factors.”

Re. interest rates, I didn’t claim that. I said that this Government’s policies would lead to higher inflation and then higher interest rates. Nor did I say that re. reduced productivity: again, a consequence yet to be fully felt. Re, currency, fair point. However, on that particular issue, this government firstly does not have a clue why currency rates are an issue or how to deal with it.

The rest of your comment is supposition and guess-work.

Economist says:

11:25pm | 10/05/11

thanks JF for the clarification, I’d misread and misinterpreted part of what you wrote, my bad. Though I’d still argue your ignoring the external factors affecting inflation and apportioning to much blame to the government.  The government is attempting, though quite poorly, to slow down its expenditure so as not to crowd out private investment or overheat the economy.

“We are still feeling the impact and will be for some time yet. Check out the performance of our sharemarket over the last three years. ”

We’ll still fell the impact as the rest of the world is. Can you provide me with a list of these countries doing better than us? I’d look at the stock market longer than three years, our falls were not as severe so our bounce back won’t be as big.

Kevon Mason says:

07:58am | 11/05/11

Australia unlike the USA and many others did not go into recession or depression as a result of the GFC, but Swan Rudd and now Gilliard still continue to recklessly spend our money and there is absolutely nothing to show for it except a growing deficit. Swan and Co have always attempted to fool us by saying that his reckless spending saved us from being worse off. Well the USA threw Trillions at their problem and it did not make any difference, it wqs china that made the diffrence, so how is it that Swan managed to save Australia by wasting the $23 billion surplus plus the now $53 billion deficit we now find ourselves with. The fact is that we are experiencing the largest resources boom this country has ever been in, and while this is happening Gilliard,  Swan, the independents and Greens are recklessly wasting our taxes instead of building infrastructure for the future. We really should be capitalising on this resources boom for our future, but instead we are faced with a reckless labour goverment once again, and unfortunately the Coalition will inherit a deficit to clean up before they can once again get us back into the black.

dovif says:

08:44am | 11/05/11

Economist

The share market has risen from 3000 to 5000 in the last 3 years, meaning that most, if not all of the worst is behind us. Its height was 6000.

The facts are the countries who have done very well through the GFC are China, India, who are enjoying excellent growth through the GFC and countries like South Africa, Australia, Norway and Canada.

The reasons that those country all had prosper during the GFC is simple, they supply resources for the China and India boom.

Of those country, only Australia spend a large amount on the GFC, and we know that a portion of that was wasted.

So while the exports to Europe, Japan and America had been affected by the GFC, it has been more then mitigated by exports to China. All you have to look at is how the AU$ had done to see how good Australian exports are going.

There is now so much demand for buying AU$ to purchase our goods that our currency is rising against almost all other currencies.

Swann has not been able to cut back on the large deficit, dispite the Australian economy going well, which is crowding out private investment and investment in the mining sector had been delayed.

Swann is hoping we continue to benefit from the China and India boom to eventually bring the country back into surplus, rather then cutting excessive spending

JohnB says:

09:21am | 11/05/11

How? He stimulated an economy that should have been allowed to sort itself out. He squandered money from the only positive, mining. He propped up an already inflated housing market.

Instead of inefficient parts of the economy taking a hit, the pain will now be much worse and will now linger for decades across the whole economy. You can’t fix horrendous debt by borrowing more money, which is what we have done both as a country and as individuals. We have a ridiculous amount of money tied up in housing. Exactly the wrong sector to have stimulated. Time will prove this correct.

Economist says:

10:07am | 11/05/11

John B totally agree with your assesment on housing. but no government is going to introduce the changes that are required in this sector. that being, negative gearing and captial gains concessions on new dwellings only and the abandonment of any FHOG. This change would hit what I call the successful middle and upper class who have existing multiple properties. It would be a vote changer and neither side of government will maek the necessary reforms.

Knemon says:

10:24am | 11/05/11

@ Kevon Mason - “recklessly wasting our taxes instead of building infrastructure for the future”

Deja Vu…spooky - Costello must have left his politics 101 manual in the chamber.

christine m. says:

10:02pm | 10/05/11

Here it is at last!  In praise of Julia Gillard.  Always saying how nowhere do you read anything positive about the PM.  Not even from the Sisterhood.  So….there you go.

Stephen T says:

06:12am | 11/05/11

I think that Gillard has had light going of it for the last month or so Stephen.  If parliament had been sitting and she was in Australia it may have been different, I was in Beijing at the time she visited trust me she is an embarrassment.  My friends in Beijing are fairly astute with their character assessments and while they were generally polite with their questions they expressed a sense of disbelief that such a character could be our Prime Minister.

Joan says:

07:33am | 11/05/11

Exactly what did Juliar do well?  She was out of the country most of the month and on her return she announced this crazy Malaysia deal 800 of our asylum seekers for 4000 of theirs…. and we pay for the lot. Nuts!

LeftRightOut says:

08:56pm | 10/05/11

Add to that, that all estimates for past several years have been wrong (on the red side) and they expect us to believe that they’ll manage a $3.5b surplus in a couple of years time? $3.5b??? $8b out (in the red) this year, another $10b out for next year… but don’t worry folks, we’re *certain* of that ahem, $3.5 the year after… we truly are mugs to have let this mob run the country for a second term.

Economist says:

10:05pm | 10/05/11

Left Right Out your memory is short. Costello’ estimate were also wrong, but fortunately, and due to his management, his were in the black.

DaveinPerth says:

11:54pm | 10/05/11

“Wayne Swan, the Woody Woodpecker of financial prudence”
Makes an interesting contrast to Joe Hockey, the John Holmes of financial prudence. He’s got more positions than the karma sutra, and you never know which hole he’ll bury himself in. 

“I’m re-regulating the banks! No wait, I’m nationalizing the Banks! No wait, I’m leaving the banks just as they are. But take that as a warning! I’m killing off the stimulus package! No wait, I’m keeping 90% of the stimulus package. No wait, I going to check with Mel and Koshie on the stimulus package. Koshie’s pretty smart. I’m stripping our support for secular education of indonesian school girls. No wait, I’m just pretending to strip the money. We wouldn’t REALLY do it if we were in government! I’m just pretending to do it because I’m in opposition. Honest Mel ! ”

Kurisu Sonsaku says:

08:08am | 11/05/11

“the John Holmes of financial prudence” i am going to shamelessly pinch that.

Dave, whatever position Hockey takes is irrelevant at this time, swannee is the treasurer. I also note that the NBN and Carbon Dioxide tax is left out of the budget. This ‘budget’ is just another turd rolled in glitter.

Daniel says:

10:27am | 11/05/11

Why would the NBN be in the budget?

This article lost all credibility as soon as it mentioned the flood/cyclone levy ‘clobbering’ high income earners. What a sad joke.

Our economy seems to be going perfectly fine currently, only the Liberals would have you think otherwise, so his credentials seem to be in place.

Ben81 says:

08:54pm | 10/05/11

Considering it didn’t turn out to be more than necessary at all, yes the surplus was something to be proud of that saved us from a lot of pain.

jf says:

08:54pm | 10/05/11

Yes. How irresponsible of him to ensure that the bounty gained from the mining resource boom Mark I was saved for inevitable downturns.

Adam says:

09:39pm | 10/05/11

@ Saw - Ever stop to wonder why Swan is trying to achieve a surplus also? Ever stop to wonder you taxes where lowered under Costello and you never had to pay a flood levy?

Economist says:

10:10pm | 10/05/11

Now come on people saw makes a reasonable point. Adam, taxes were lowered under Costello but your forgetting about the Howard government levies and the fact that taxes were lowered even further under Swan. Your forgetting the last three tax cuts! Please Costello and Howard wasted a lot of money as well on programs that became permanent fixtures on the budget expenditure side rather than Labor’s one off expenditures as part of their stimulus. Now I know your going to accuse me of defending this government, but personally you can’t make general sweeping statements about all forms of expenditure treat each policy and program on its merit.

fairsfair says:

11:25pm | 10/05/11

but Economist, were’nt most of those tax cuts (delivered by Swan) already included in forward costings by Costello? Sorry I don’t mean to sound like I am trying to get all up in your grill - I just thought that was the case… interested to know.

Overall, this is nowhere near as bad as they made out. It seemed faily OK to me. Sad that we aren’t capitalising on what is currently on our plate, but there is no point dwelling on the past. As long as they cut the waste and begin to plan for the future I am a tad happier. Still interested to hear how the carbon tax fits in to all of this though.

DaveinPerth says:

12:21am | 11/05/11

@Saw - $20B something to be proud of?  YES. Absolutely. If a treasurer can run a surplus when things are good, it gives the next treasurer plenty of room to move when things go pear shaped.

Compared to the rest of the world, we had a small to medium problem with economic contraction. It was handled easily by Rudd/Swann, in no small part because of the balance sheet they inherited.

Does that make Costello a hero? No, not really. If Keating were still running the show, he would have had 12% super by now, and he wouldn’t have gutted education and training like the Libs did.

We would have had St Georges Terrace in Perth full of Aussie engineers earning 500k, instead of Indian engineers earning 800k pa. We would have thousands of Aussie boileys, fitters, plumbers and sparkies building the massive mining projects here, instead of fabrication offshore and shipping in.

Australia has paid a HUGE price for our (Howards) underinvestment in education and training. But that’s another subject.

Dash says:

07:49am | 11/05/11

Economiist, the last three tax cuts you refer to were LNP tax cuts announced in Howard and Costello budgets!! They were not ALP cuts and you should know that! All they did was deliver the cuts announced by Costello. Now that those have dried up, the ALP have delivered none of their own. Your comments are a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

In fact, Swanand the ALP have significantly increased taxes in every one of their budgets. They have introduced a flood tax and a profits tax for starters! They have gouged 2billion out of family payments. They have proposed to means test the private health tax rebate and we haven’t even started to talk about the impact of the Carbon Taxon families!

The ALP are not about families at all. Sdingle mums yes, traditional hard working families clearly not.

The LNP gave something back to taxpayers and still balanced budgets consistently. Last night, Wayne Swan took away from the people contributing the most financially to this nation! He took from families during the largest resources boom this nation has seen and still announced a 50billion defecit!

Economist says:

08:22am | 11/05/11

fairfair, I can;t recall if Costello had these tax cuts in his forward estimates. They were certainly Liberal policy at the election which Labor said they’d match, and did. However I wouldn’t dwell on what were the future estimates at the time, but what was realised. Yes Labor inherited a $20B surplus, by the way it could of been even more if the Liberal were prudent in their expenditure, but this would have evaporated without spending given the falls in government revenue.

Overall yes it isn’t is bad as made out but they weren’t to know that at the time. My problem is this government had a 20/20 conference and the Henry tax review, where some great policy ideas came out to make government and the economy more efficient and aren’t even implementing many of the key recommended changes.

While the debt is certainly an issue, the markets and rating agencies are concerned yet, but they could start to take a interest.

Economist says:

10:02am | 11/05/11

Dash, see my comment under yours. Gross misrepresentation of the truth? Seriously? don’t be so partisan. I’ve acknowledged the situation that you accuse me of not acknowledging, even before your comment was posted. Swan has not increased taxes in everyone of his budgets. If your talking about not indexing some government payments, you’ve quoted $2B,  this is an outlays issue not a revenue issue. I repeat revenues have fallen as a percentage of GDP and in absolute terms.

Do we know the impact of the carbon tax, No. It’s speculation, no detail has been announced.

You seemed to be under the impression that the resources sector didn’t take a hit during the GFC that the boom continued unaffected. No this is not the case. Even company tax revenues fell, but they are expected to bounce back off of the current Mid year profit statements from the Miners and Bankers.

As for Costello giving something back. He introduced new middle class welfare scheme’s that have become substantial permanent fixtures on the expenditure side i.e. mandatory expenditure because they’re enshrined in legislation. Where as many of Labor’s policies and programs have increased discretionary spending. 

Seriously I’m going to repeat my two favourite mantras. Judge each policy/program on its merit. Everything is relative, not absolute.

Dash says:

11:30am | 11/05/11

Economist, too much emphasis is put on the GFC in this country. It is being used way too much as an excuse by the ALP and people like yourself.

We were not and are not in the same position as the US and Europe on this one. For starters, we had a surplus position of $26billion. Second we had China’s appetite for our natural resources and their growth rate continued at 10% during that period. We also had the Howard government’s Financial Services Reform Act and the impact of APRA licencing rules which meant that our financial services sector did not have the type pf toxic assets on their balance sheets that brought down banks in the US and Europe. We also had the majority of our financial services sector listed here in Australia. The four major banks in addition to the major insurers. For example, in the GI space, 90% of the business is with the top 4 companies of which only Allianz (the biggest insurer in the world) is foreign owned.

It is stupidity on a grand scale to compare our economy or our debt levels with that of the US. It is stupidity to compare our economic challenges with the US or with Europe. Anyone who thinks the ALP should take all the credit for the resiliance of our economy just does not understand our economy or the pressures on it!

The economy was hit by largely indirect effects of the GFC. We did not have a GFC here locally. Yes the economy slowed and tax revenues declined as a result. But the ALP did not save this economy! Their management was nothing special and in fact, $900 to dead people and people living over seas was laughable!. And i might add, $47billion for the secon stimulus, when you consider the resultant interest rate rises, was a waste of taxpayers money.

Tax receipts do not equate to increased taxes! The ALP has introduced a flood levy on the rich, a profits tax on the sector driving the economy, reduced access to family tax benefits, want to means test the private health tax rebate and will burden middle Australia with the carbon tax.

Economist says:

01:41pm | 11/05/11

“Too much emphasis on the GFC .... We were not and are not in the same position as the US and Europe on this one.”

Did I say we were? Yes we had a surplus, thanks to Costello. Yes we have China demanding our resources, but globally the top 60 mining companies experienced a 60% drop. Yes we had APRA, but also our banks were to busy in raising funds to lend out to suckers like you and me to fund the demand for domestic housing. They didn’t have time to buy these assets, though I believe the NAB took a billion dollar hit, happy to be corrected.

“Anyone who thinks the ALP should take all the credit for the resiliance of our economy just does not understand our economy or the pressures on it!”
Not all the credit, but certainly some of it. My three cousins jobs/businesses in construction were saved and they continued to pay taxes. Many business owners would disagree with you.

“We did not have a GFC here locally.”.
I disagree, the share market is still not at pre-GFC levels.

“Their management was nothing special and in fact, $900 to dead people and people living over seas was laughable!. ”

Really you tell me then how Centrelink could within 3 months ensure that every Australian who was entitled to the payment have their contact details up to date to send them the money (Are we talking about 10M people here? If it was paid to a dead person I’m sure the money would be recovered by Centrelink. As for paying people overseas. If they’re entitled to a pension they’re entitled to receive it. The Social Security Act is a horrible piece of legislation but the rules are clear.

“And i might add, $47billion for the secon stimulus, when you consider the resultant interest rate rises”
Interest rates were dropped to historic lows, they were bound to bounce back to normal levels. If inflation and the government deficit do result in further increases then Labor can expect a backlash at the ballot box. Wasn’t this one of the killers, along with WorkChoices, of the Howard government. That fact that retail housing loan rates were at about 9.5% with that rise just before the election?

Economist says:

02:05pm | 11/05/11

Sorry, that should have been 40 mining companies experienced a 60% drop in their value and for the benefit of ZSRenn here’s the link.
http://www.leighton.com.au/verve/_resources/AIGpresentation09.pdf

Dash says:

03:52pm | 11/05/11

Economist - you clearly do not understand the APRA capital models at all! Nor the corporate governance rules.

A fall in the share market is not equal to the GFC felt in Europe and the U.S. - LOL!

Further increases in interest rates will occur if the ALP go through with the carbon tax, that is a given. That is s stupid policy!! And rates will rise during this June quarter! And if the US and European currencies recover, that will also have an inflationary impact which could drive rates up. As an economist you should understand that. Ha ha, yes interest rates were an ‘07 election issue. Despite them being at 17% under the previous ALP government! Must have beenthe GFC thatkept interest rates low then using your logic!

jf says:

04:32pm | 11/05/11

“My problem is this government had a 20/20 conference and the Henry tax review”

I think if you finished your comment here Economist you would have hit the nail on the head.

This Government has no vision and provides no inspiration and no leadership.

Previous Government’s knew what they wanted to do, championed the idea, communicated the benefits of their vision to the electorate and convened expert committees to drive the change. These guys pay someone else to do the thinking for them, have a poll and then have no idea or capacity to implement ideas.

As to saw’s point in relation to Costello’s surplus, by and large I agree with the general principal of not having large surpluses. However, it is not sensible, prudent or possible to continually adjust the tax system to react to cyclically driven higher or lower revenues and/or higher or lower expenditure programs. It is sensible to address the tax system deliberately so that the budget goes in and out of surplus as necessary in response to abnormal and or extraordinary factors. My problem with this government is not that they have created a deficit this year but that the deficit is not cyclical but core.

Economist says:

05:16pm | 11/05/11

@ Dash, geez I know at times I come across as an arrogant know it all tosser, and your right I don’t know all the governance rules and APRA, but your claim that Australian banks had no toxic assets is wrong.
http://www.advfn.com/asx/ASX200News.asp?index=XJO&article=45290536&headline=national-australia-bank-faces-litigation-over-toxic-debt

What are you laughing out loud at? The superannuants and self funded retirees who had over 30-40% of their savings wiped out from the GFC? Are you saying that the fall was a correction that had no relationship to what was going on overseas?

And I stated that if interest rates go up the government will be punished. You seem to have an issue with the last 7 interest rates. Isn’t this a good sign that rates are returning to averages. I repeat they were at historic lows. What you want them to stay below average levels to overstimulate the economy? As to 17% different times, different RBA, different rules.

@JF beautifully said, I concur, but are you willing to acknowledge that we have no idea what would have occurred had their been no fiscal stimulus? That the $200B debt this government will accumulate is a huge issue, but the the debt that would have resulted with no action is unknown?

Adam says:

09:52pm | 11/05/11

@ Economist - No, I’m not forgetting the last three years of tax cuts. The last three years of tax cuts you mention are thanks to Costello/Howard. Swan hasn’t made a single cut yet. Even Persephone (the biggest Labor devotee I know) was forced to admit this on another story. See below.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-budget-for-our-crazy-economic-times/

As for the rest of your post, well it speaks for itself really.

“Please Costello and Howard wasted a lot of money as well on programs that became permanent fixtures on the budget expenditure side rather than Labor’s one off expenditures as part of their stimulus.”

I read, noting what a general sweeping statement this is, then you go on to say:

“Now I know your going to accuse me of defending this government, but personally you can’t make general sweeping statements about all forms of expenditure treat each policy and program on its merit.”

Seems a little hypocritical given what you just said before. I appreciate your opinion, however, if you don’t want to be accused of defending the current Govt, then perhaps you shouldn’t use double standards when comparing the ALP/LNP. You’d appear a little more credible and less biased this way.

persephone says:

09:41am | 12/05/11

How flattering - Adam apparently regards me as an authority in these matters.

However, I didn’t say what he says I said. 

In the discussion linked to, I say that we’re paying lower taxes than we did under Howard, which is a statement of fact.

But then Economist doesn’t say what Adam says he does either, so I guess it’s a problem with comprehension.

Adam says:

12:26pm | 12/05/11

@ Pers - Whoooo, can you turn off the smoke machine before we get a huge Carbon Tax bill! Cut and paste of what you said in http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-budget-for-our-crazy-economic-times/

“persephone says:01:20pm | 29/04/11

Matt

Any of student of mine who couldn’t comprehend what I was saying in those posts would be getting extra homework.

1. FACT: Australians are paying less in tax than they were under the Howard government.

2. FACT: These tax cuts were proposed by the Howard government.

3. FACT: Despite the GFC, the Rudd/Gillard government did not raise these taxes.

4. FACT: I started out by pointing out fact 1. I admitted fact 2.

5. FACT: The post where I said I wasn’t claiming it as an achievement (because I hadn’t) was followed by a post where I did.

That’s not a contradiction. I added information to my original statement.

To say you haven’t said something and then to say it is not a contradiction. “

I think fact 1 and 2 sum it up really. I’ll let others decide for themselves.

P.S. If you are aware of tax cuts Swan has proposed and implemented, feel free to enlighten me?

P.P.S. “But then Economist doesn’t say what Adam says he does either, so I guess it’s a problem with comprehension”. I cut and pasted from Economists post in case you didn’t notice. I’d suggest the reading comprehension fail is all yours Pers.

persephone says:

01:03pm | 12/05/11

Adam

the quote you attributed to me was that I said Swan hadn’t introduced a single tax cut.

Now, I simply don’t know if he has or not.

My reference in the post you post is to a specific income tax cut, the one in 2008.

For all I know, he may have delivered a raft of tax cuts in other areas.

I simply don’t know and I don’t say things I don’t know.

But what does it prove anyway?

Adam says:

01:53pm | 12/05/11

@ Pers - Sorry to confuse you. I was attributing the quote about all the tax cuts being from Howard to you. The comment about Swan not having ever cut taxes was entirely my own and entirely accurate might I add

See above thread where Economist and I were talking if you want to know why it is relevant.

DaveinPerth says:

02:11am | 11/05/11

Louisa would have finished the sentence, but she’s a fool and her brain has been affected by years of ......

Joan says:

08:06am | 11/05/11

Yep, Swan dreaming about some imaginary pathetic surplus in some distant future when the reality today is that he has given us a $50billion deficit… the deficit that we really didn’t to have but given to us by panic stricken Swan. The $50 billion deficit highlights Swan`s failure .... Australians are suckers if they miss this great hole Swan has dug Australia into ... jobs, jobs ,jobs to pay off Juliars and Swans excesses.  Swan rips out $4.3 billion from defence to fund $3.3 billion border protection.  and $1billion for facilticties for Afghani asylum seekers. Juliar and Swan created mess now Swan thinks he can play superman and fix the mess…. the asylum seeker mess entirely the work of Labor.  This budget is a pathetic attempt to fix the mess made since Nov 2007. ... and Swan better watch his inflation genie its about hit big time

Hamish says:

10:55am | 11/05/11

MarK, blind freddy knows Swan will never deliver a surplus as treasurer. Only the extremely credulous could possibly believe he will. I mean seriously a ‘tough’ budget with 22 billion worth of ‘cuts’ plus 17 billion more handed out. So even if one were silly enough to go along with his taxes as cuts nonsense, they’ve managed to save about 2% of spending.

Your name:Buckyboy says:

06:54pm | 11/05/11

The Goose is getting his rocks over a pissy $3.5b surplus in two years, when it will take only a ‘fairy fart’ to blow his ‘impossible dream’ apart. My disappointment will be when this rabble government are political history by 2012-13, and Gillard and Swan will not be held accountable for the fraud they have delivered to the voters of Australia.

Economist says:

10:14pm | 10/05/11

Sorry as a percentage of GDP the Howard Costello government was one our our highest taxing governments in history. In addition, they experienced exceptionally high growth rates in GDP thanks to the mining boom. They effectively double dipped. But we’re getting side tracked. The fact is this budget could have done so much more, but it hasn’t.

ZSRenn says:

08:44am | 11/05/11

Economist? I say you are a labor hack in sheep’s clothing. I have now read many of your posts and the same pattern is evident.

You write long winded monologues attacking a comment with not one link supporting your argument and then when challenged you apologize for your error but then attack the comment on another level. You deny supporting this government but now you quote Simon Crean and Mark Latham and once again offer no evidence to support your claim.

I really do think you should change your name to

Labor Party Supporting Amateur Economist

in fairness to the general reader.

Economist says:

10:28am | 11/05/11

ZSRenn say what you like. It’s bulls**t. What do you want me to link to?Specifically what do you take issue with! tell me and I’ll provide the evidence. Apologise? Well at least I have the decency to do so. It’s called critical thinking, it’s called reassessing your opinion, its called changing your mind when the facts change. It’s being a man and admitting when you’re wrong, rather than being a one-eyed supporter who can’t acknowledge good programs and policies from either side of government. And when questioned simply go quiet on the issue.

If your referring to my exchange with jf above, personally he was all over the place with his first statement. That confused me. His argument is that Labor’s policies have caused inflation. I still think he’s overegging the government’s contribution.

Quote Simon Crean and Mark Latham, how? I don’t even know what they’ve said, let alone what you’re talking about. Did they say something about revenue falling, well perhaps because its true! Geez. As for not being critical of Labor, clearly you haven’t read or can’t recall many of my contributions. I don’t apologise for Labor I acknowledge that the circumstances are different to what the Liberals faced and some of what they claim is the truth. could they do thinks better? Yes.

Perhaps I should apologise once agains for being a moderate, who has voted, Liberal, Labor and Democrat, Oh and Green once.

ZSRenn says:

02:21pm | 11/05/11

“I think she doth protest too much”

jf says:

04:42pm | 11/05/11

“If your referring to my exchange with jf above, personally he was all over the place with his first statement. That confused me. His argument is that Labor’s policies have caused inflation. I still think he’s overegging the government’s contribution.”

Easy on there economist: as you said “thanks JF for the clarification, I’d misread and misinterpreted part of what you wrote, my bad”.

Also, I think that I pointed out that I believe that Labor’s policies will lead to inflation. Nowhere did I say that they have caused inflation. The reason, like you I think that the government is doing a poor job slowing down expenditure and being cunning about pretending they are. Have a look at the budget and you’ll find that they are counting decreased revenue losses as “expenditure cuts”: reducing the ability for family trusts to distribute income to children is not an expenditure cut.

Steve Putnam says:

07:31pm | 11/05/11

Hey Economist that was some mauling ZSRenn just gave you. Must have been like being flogged with a wet lettuce. Please don’t be too hard on the poor simpleton; I’m sure he has a cardiac arrest at the mere sight of x’s & y’s on a blackboard.

Tator says:

11:57am | 12/05/11

Economist,
Yes, Howard and Costello were the highest taxing government as a percentage of GDP.  But you have to remember that there were substantial restructurings of the Federal/State tax system in firstly there was a GST implemented which is counted as a Federal Tax but replaced a number of nuisance state based taxes and secondly, in 1996, the Federal government took over all the state based excises on fuel, tobacco and liquor after a high court challenge ruled the state based excises unconstitutional and distributed all revenue back to the states as if they had collected it themselves.  These two changes account for the miniscule percentage of GDP that puts Howard as the highest taxing government.  In other words -  remove the GST from the equation and Howard looks pretty damn good as it drops the Federal tax take around 3 to 4 % of GDP

Hamishhe says:

11:26am | 11/05/11

A dear, frail old chook in front of us at the Coles checkout with a sparse basket of essentials. . . .
Me: “I guess you’re pleased the Government is going to give you a set-top box?”
She: “Nah, I’ve got a digital telly”
Oh dear . . . . .  $390-odd million . .. .
Allegedly .....

Against the Man says:

09:37pm | 10/05/11

Really? Mmmm news to me but not really surprised. The lying snake Juliar. Time for people to revolt, cause chaos and make Juliar’s life a little more stressful

Shelley says:

10:27pm | 10/05/11

$100,000 p.a. x 1% tax = $1,000.

52 weeks in the year , so $1,000/52 = $20 per week, not $5.

I hope someone is checking these sums!
Aqualung | Sitting on a park bench… - January 27, 2011, 1:18PM

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/levy-to-pay-for-56b-flood-bill-20110127-1a64x.html#ixzz1Lx2Uq5YN

While you’re in revolt, making chaos, and stressing Juliar’s life check Swans adding up. Then double it ‘cause this tax is now for two years.

And don’t forget for the purpose of this tax a high income starts at 50 grand.

Ribald Gadfly says:

10:47pm | 10/05/11

Hi Shelley - I’ve had a look at the budget papers but don’t see a reference to the two years. Can you give a link?
I certainly remember the promise for a one year levy was cast iron. But then so was the carbon tax, so a backflip wouldn’t surprise me.

The Badger says:

08:06am | 11/05/11

Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you Shelley? First time user of the internet?

http://www.treasury.gov.au/floodrebuild/content/default.asp

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1949/XLS/Flood_Levy_Calculator.xls
If you are making 100,000 you pay $4.81 per week
The levy will apply to individual taxable income only in the 2011-12 financial year.

Steve Smith says:

08:15am | 11/05/11

Against the man
Did you actually read the article for yourself or are you just taking Shelley’s word as “The Gospel Truth”

Dash says:

09:46am | 11/05/11

Shelley, If you are in Middle or High income (at least the ALPs definition of high) Australia, you have a target on your back. They have gouged $2billion away from families last night. Hit families with the flood tax, drove interest rates up by overheating the economy with the second stimulus, they want to means test the private health tax rebate (despite promising not to), and their carbon tax costs will be met by middle and high income Australia. Not by polluters but by families!

In fact, the carbon tax compensation scheme will see families descriminated against on the basis of income, not pollution! It’s a fraud.

The Howard government, balanced the budget, produced consistent surpluses and then gave back to the taxpayer! This ALP has eroded everything that the LNP delivered to hard working families. They have delivered $100billion in debt within 4 years of office after starting with a surplus of $26billion! Now the LNPs PAYG tax cuts are delivered, they produced zero tax savings to families in last nights budget! And now they want to burden our economy with a carbon tax.

They eroded the LNP border protection laws and have done a deal with Malaysia that will cost the taxpayer $200m to receive 4,000 in a 5 to 1 ratio! Illegal arrivals since watering down those laws are now up over 10,000.

The flood levy will cost me over $2,500 next year. The only thing I stand to lose from last night is the Health care tax rebate for being dilligent enough to pay my family’s way in the health system. Given I pay shitloads of medicare levy, I think we may just go on to the public health system now. The private health care wont stack up financially without the rebate. The insurance industry warned the government about the impact of removing the levy and they have been ignored. Once again, disagree with the ALP and your a fringe dwelling minority extremist. What’s worse, it’s just another deceitful ALP lie on election eve! You think waiting lists are bad now? You think health premiums are bad now? Just wait until this change gets through.

Health premiums will be yet another cost to families that has been increased as a direct result of ALP policy. Add that to your water rates, electricity rates, interest rates, fuel prices and grocery prices. And to think they campaigned in 2007 on the back of reducing living costs for Australian working families. How stupid were people to fall for that!!!

The ALP are a pack of incompetent socialist fools. They are not for families at all and they are definetely not for the hard working, successful PAYG taxpayer!

TheRealDave says:

09:46am | 11/05/11

@Steve, why would Liberal hacks do any research? Just the word of another one of their country club members is surely enough isn’t it?

CD says:

10:14am | 11/05/11

@The Badger…..do you have a calculator and do you have a brain or do you just accept all the data fed to you by Labor?

Do the sums fool.  I have been shouting it out from day 1. The figures do not tie in with the PDF if the levy is 0.5% from $50,000 and 1% from $100,000.

If the PDF is correct show me and Shelley how we are wrong coz I can show how these idiots did the maths wrong.

Shelley is spot on but hey just put your faith in the idiots running this country. Again check the article stating 2 years and unless people have been living under a cabbage patch it has always been stated it was for one year only.

Deena says:

11:15am | 11/05/11

@ The real Dave

The last time I checked this so called ALP government had no details on the carbon tax, NBN, health care reform. Seems like the ALP government who are getting paid to do a job are not doing their job.

Maybe you should be asking them for the details.

Man with a brain says:

12:44pm | 11/05/11

CD and Shelley - before you claim people are idiots how about you learn simple arithmatic.  The first $50000 earned by an individual is not subject to the flood levy.  If you earn $100000 you pay the levy only on the second   $50000 you earn -  i.e. around $5 a week.  The Badger has provided you with the evidence that it doesn’t cost as much as you claim and that it is only for 1 year - try reading it instead of believing all the crap fed to you by other Liberal sycophants.

Dash says:

01:42pm | 11/05/11

Man with a brain - That’s right, the people who are already paying the most tax are the ones who get hammerred yet again by the ALP! The ones who are successful and contribute the most financially to our society are asked to pay even more yet again! And largely because the ALP in Queensland didn’t insure and opened the floodgates! We pay yet again for ALP incompetence.

Perhaps if they didn’t piss away $2billion on an insulation fiasco, or waste 13m not to deliver grocery choice or $21m not to deliver fuelwatch, or $30million advertising the profits tax, or allow taxpayers money to be rorted under the BER, or throw $900 at dead people, or overheat the economy wasting billions in the second stimulus - they wouldn’t need the fucking tax!

Against the Man says:

02:48pm | 11/05/11

@ Dash - Look dude, the ALP support base is shrinking and shrinking fast. Gilltard is f@#king up far worse than we could have expected. The hard working people in this country have had enough and I’ve said that Gilltard is making enemies left, right and center. It justs seems impossible to defend this useless government! $400 set-top boxes! WTF!!!!!!!!!!! The wheels are in motion ..........

The next poll should seal this government and Gilltard’s fate

CD says:

04:13pm | 11/05/11

@ man with a brain - apparently.  Figures taken directly from the Flood Levy PDF.
55,000 - 0.48
60,000 - 0.96
100,000 - 4.81
http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1949/PDF/Flood_Levy_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Look them up.  Where’s that $5 per week for $50,000 you’re quoting from the supposed levy site?

They are wrong.  What is it you don’t get?  It’s not 48c for $55,000 per week quoted all over the media for months.  It’s $5.28 or more precisely $5.288 per week.  I am well aware it starts after $50,000. That was merely a simple way to show the figure was incorrect so I found the link for you so you can do your own figurework.

Who cares if it seems just a cup of damn coffee, it’s about the correct figures people have a right to know about.

$100,000 is not $4.81 per week.  It is 1% which is $1,000 annually or $19.23 per week so again what is it you don’t get?

Now again tell me how smart your Labor toadies are and how smart The Badger is again?

WTH says I vote for Libs anyway? I never have.

The Badger says:

06:04pm | 11/05/11

CD
Go to the links I supplied and acknowledge your idiocy.

PS They only assume you vote liberal because you only have half a brain.
Go to the xls link, plug in your salary and be amazed at your stupidity.

The Badger says:

06:10pm | 11/05/11

CD
Go to the link you supplied

first sentence
“The flood levy will apply to individual’s taxable income only in the 2011-12 financial year.”

Now, scroll down to the table provided
Taxable Income ($pa) 100,000
Levy Amount Per Week ($) 4.81

Who is a fool CD?

TCB 24 X 7 says:

01:14am | 11/05/11

Nossy ,
What will you do when Tones takes office in 20 or so months time.
Maybe a dose of the Stockholm Syndrome might do you good.

Christian Real says:

08:05am | 11/05/11

Nossy,
Joe Hockey has such big mathematical problems himself, so he is incompetent of even criticizing or ridiculing Labor’s budget.
It wasn’t so long ago,at the last federal Election, that Joe Hockey failed to recognise a “deficit of between 7 billion and 11 billion on the coalition’s bottom line” of their policy costings.
Such great fiscal managers the Liberal/national party are that they can’t even get their own sums right in adding up their own policy costings.
If they can’t manage their own policy costings, there is simply no way they would ever be able to handle the “budget” if they were in Government.

nossy says:

08:05am | 11/05/11

@TCB 24 X 7 - dear sweet TCB - hope thats all that drives you sad little Libs on doesnt it fella !  It will never happen my man - however if Turnbull takes over then you are in with a chance . Hope on my boy !  hhahahaha

Steve Smith says:

09:27am | 11/05/11

TCB24X7
As the old proverb says, Don’t count your chickens before they hatch, Tony Abbott could get replaced before the next election or he may even miss out on enough votes to even put him in office.
He was runner up at the last Federal election and he will be runner up again.
Tony Abbott will always be the bridesmaid, never the bride as another saying goes

Christian Real says:

09:35am | 11/05/11

nossy
Malcolm Turnbull would have more of a chance winning Government than Mr “Don’t believe everything say” Abbott.
Malcolm Turnbull would even outshine Joe Hockey as Treasurer, considering that Hockey could not even get the Liberal/National parties own policy costings right during the last federal election.
A blackhole that Treasury found of around $11 billion dollars that Hockey and his bad mathematics fell into.

nihonin says:

10:29am | 11/05/11

At the moment what we have in government is an orgy of incompetence.

TimB says:

11:45am | 11/05/11

And Christian Real and Steve Smith reappear at the exact same time…

How odd.

Christian you are wrong. The black hole did not exist and I have shown you this repeatedly. Ignoring facts does not make them go away.

You, Steve and Nossy also remain spectacularly wrong about Turnbull. His ratings when Opposition leader were consistently lower than Abbott’s now. *Consistently*.  He would not have a chance.

And Steve, have you seen the last couple months worth of polls? Julia’s government is finished. No one is listening. No-one beleves them. They are a joke, and Labor voters everywhere are defecting in droves to the Coalition. Your party is at a mere 30% primary vote.

Barring a miracle, Tony Abbott will be our next PM. Suggest you stop wallowing in denial and get used to the idea now. It’ll be less of a shock in 2013

TCB 24 X 7 says:

12:14pm | 11/05/11

Hey nossy and steve,
Dont ever forget Tones did beat giggling gillard by 1 seat at last election.
I bet that it bothers you two that most Aussies think like Abbott.
C’mon boys get a dose of the Stockholm Syndrome up ya and join the Libs.
P.S. Steve i think you meant to say Your PM will never be a bride.

nossy says:

12:40pm | 11/05/11

@TimB - yes Timmy Tones’s troops are “right behind him” - ready to stab him in the back when the time is right - big Mal isnt in Prliament for the money Timmy - unlike Tones with a jaw dropping $700k mortgage ! hahaha P.S . please forward this to dear MarK as he files everyones blogs - needs to get a life doesnt he sweet boy ! I wonder will he ever get that job with old Whiney Pyney ?  hahahahahh

MarK says:

01:56pm | 11/05/11

I file blogs?

This is interesting. Must do that in future. Terrible to rely on memory at my age.

And that job with Pyne? Maybe if I actually applied for one I might get it I suppose. I am sure Pyne is actively searching the internet right now because he recruits all his staff direct form blogs so let’s just keep our fingers crossed eh.

The only thing I am concerned about is nosthow thinks about me a lot. He should probably see someone about that. Then again I am a good sort so whatever floats his boat I guess.

Joan says:

02:06pm | 11/05/11

12 out 10 sums up Swanie perrrrrrfectly Nossy ....nearly died laughing watching delusional Swanie at Press Club today…. his head just got bigger and bigger, as he bragged how he had turned the $20billion surplus into a $50 billion deficit and presented the deficit as gift to Australian tax-payers, as he outlined how he will screw the tax payer dollar by dollar to make his imaginery surplus a reality. ....to fullfil his delusional Wayne world dream… that he is Worlds Greatest Treasurer. .  Wayne the greatest scam artist .... as he tells Australians how lucky we are. Ha ha ha ha ha…. nobody believes Wayne scam except Nossy ha ha ha ha ha. Wayne the loser scam artist who made billions disappear, his big trick now in play -  rip it out of Ozie pay packets and any other way possible.way ... anyway will do ..let it rip let them pay ........ha,ha,ha,ha ` Im the World`s greatest Traesurer` ha, ha, ha, ha.

Steve Putnam says:

07:49pm | 11/05/11

Yeah Faux Joe would be a good nick name for Hockey. Why the Liberals persist with someone who is so obviously out of his depth in the most important portfolio is beyond me. Granted he’s mastered year 6 arithmetic by now which puts him streets ahead of Abbott, but that’s damming with faint praise. Meanwhile Turnbull’s talents are wasted doing a job he really doesn’t believe in, so Abbott doesn’t have to worry about a leadership challenge. What a barrel of monkeys!

John Kerry says:

10:04pm | 10/05/11

Maybe it’s because it took 10 years to get us out of the last mess Labor created and in one term they have put us straight back into it and are now stumbling around in the dark pretending they have a way out. Why celebrate such a pathetic surplus when we now have a massive debt to pay off… yet again.

Seano says:

10:13pm | 10/05/11

It’s because it’s what they do.

Moving back to surplus is what they said they’d do. Also Ross Gittins says it’s courageous but the right thing to do now and will likely reduce the number or inflationary rate hikes in the coming boom. Sounds good to me.

MarK says:

10:15pm | 10/05/11

Lol.

You believe the surplus line do you? Ever known a 2 year forecast on the budget to be correct?

Economist says:

10:16pm | 10/05/11

No, but they could actually implement some real reform.

Paul Sunshine says:

10:13am | 11/05/11

This red cordial team of economic dodos had a huge bankroll to start with courtesy of a real treasurer Peter Costello.  Despite Howard’s spending sprees Costello managed to build the nation’s piggy bank.
Swanny spent it in a minute and now brags about sometime in the unforeseeable future getting out of the red. I’d take bets on this if I wasn’t so certain we are heading for yet another recession and this time not a near miss.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

10:27am | 11/05/11

Flood Tax? Carbon Tax?

Hamish says:

11:32am | 11/05/11

‘Raises no new taxes’, Oliver? Which budget are you talking about?

Gough says:

08:10am | 11/05/11

sockpuppet
return to base

Mahhrat says:

11:30am | 11/05/11

The best part of this puppet is he just called everyone in NSW stupid.

It never ceases to amaze me that the further right you go, the smarter you think you must be.

Me, I’d rather be stupid and happy than superior and grumpy all the time.

Against the Man says:

02:50pm | 11/05/11

A little from column A, a little from column B….........

Adam Diver says:

09:17am | 11/05/11

Bland is right. The only redeeming feature is that Labor are “trying” to create a surplus. Whilst I have no doubt they will fail, and fail miserably, at least they are “shooting for the stars and falling on the moon”.

Although its easy, correct and justified to criticise the Labor party and the budget I thought I would throw my hat into the ring and come up with m own budget of sorts (from an armchair perspecive of course).

1. Sell the budget as a tough sell to get back in black. Don’t mix this message. People won’t like it, but they will respect it and it nots an election year anyway.

2. No new levys

3. No set top boxes.

4. No “green programs” unless they deal with a specific environmental issue and not a global issue which requires a global solution.

5. Cut foreign aid, and focus on a specific cause. Probably our closest geographic neighbours, stimulating economic outcomes in those nations only.

6. Reduce the beaurocracy, without the insight of being in government its a fairly broad demand, but I have no doubt there are too many departments, officials and administrators. You could start by employing less “consultants” and media advisors.

7. Scrap the home building program for indiginous.

8. Reduce family tax benefit payments. (slowly over 10 years to reduce pain).

9. Increase policing of social security benefits particularly disability pension.

10. Allowing people taking disability pension to work up to 29 hours to get them in the work force without losing the pension, simply des not make sense. One would assume people accessing the pension do so because they can’t work.

11. Depending on the amounts saved etc I would definately increase spending on hospitals, and the number of hospital beds.

12. Fix the boat people issue, by accepting no refugees at all that land on our shores. 6 months of this, and I guarantee there wouldn’t be a boat left. (of course we accept the same or increase the number of refugees, from camps, already processed). That will save a few funds.

13. No government advertising, unless it benefits the population.

I could probably think of more, but that will do for now. Hpefully a few other punchers can throw there hat into the ring, and provide us thier budget.

Time for a Revolution!! says:

06:16am | 11/05/11

I wouldn’t employ him as my Chief Dunny Cleaner.

Against the Man says:

06:28am | 11/05/11

I’ve said it a million times, the way Swan/Gilltard perform they wouldn’t last 10 seconds in the private sector. Full of crap and incompetence. So next year we either have more cuts than this country can tolerate or not see a surplus budget. Which is it Swany? If you ALP twits didn’t waste so much money and had an ounce of understanding of financial issues we would so be a lucky country!

TChong says:

07:26am | 11/05/11

Agree with you completely AtM, - youve said it a millionn times.
Meant bugger all the first time, and nothing has changed.

TChong says:

07:34am | 11/05/11

Time for Revolution- Swanny not good enough to be a dunny cleaner ?
What ? ,  you still have a “closed shop"in yur industry?

nossy says:

08:10am | 11/05/11

@JohnC - then of course we look at the Shadow Treasurer one Joe Hockey , a decent man but hopelessly inumerate - remember Libs he was a whopping $12 BILLION out in his election budget estimates in 2010 - that would choke a herd of camels fella !  hahaahah Or Barnaby Joyce who only lasted just over a month as Shadow Finace Minister - see clip of Barnaby at his peak !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbHgP7cVn2o

Dave-o says:

09:58am | 11/05/11

I would have him in for an interview along with Barnaby. It would be like the scene out of “Fun with Dick and Jane” where they bring him in for the novelty factor.

John C says:

11:45am | 11/05/11

Nossy, I have to agree with you. Hockey is a buffoon and would be as bad as Swann. The Libs are short on financial talent too. To belabor my point; apart from their potential value as lobbyists, who amongst the front benches on either side would hold down a top job in business? Turnbull certainly but who else?

DaveinPerth says:

12:05pm | 11/05/11

@John C - Swann has kept us from negative CPI. Just.
Swann has kept the building industry from completely collapsing. Just.

If you go by the facts and numbers he’s done exactly the right thing.
No. Wait. Why would you go by facts and numbers? This is The Punch. So much easier to hurl mindless insults, with no reference to reality.

John C says:

01:03pm | 11/05/11

Well DaveinPerth, it is a simple question. Would you employ him, or indeed Joe Hockey, as your chief CFO?

CD says:

04:21pm | 11/05/11

@DaveinPerth I’ve read several of your comments and you really hate The Punch huh?

Mind if I ask why you hang around?

Against the Man says:

04:28pm | 11/05/11

TChong is like his hero Gillard - an empty vessel.

Time to grow up Mr Chong, being pathetic is only funny for so long…......

ps: Still haven’t answered my question huh? You do know you have lost all credibility. Too funny!

DaveinPerth says:

04:34pm | 11/05/11

@John C - Joe Hockey as a CFO of a public company ? That’s a FANTASTIC concept. (And I mean fantastic in the outrageously unbelievable way.)

Release Time 11-5-11 9:00am Market Sensitive.
XYZ Corp will be conducting an On Market buyback of $95 Billion Dollars in securities.
J Hockey.

Release Time 11-5-11 9:14am Market Sensitive.
Correction. Million. I meant to say $95 Million. (With an ‘M’)
J Hockey.

Release Time 11-5-11 9:56am Market Sensitive.
After an emergency Board meeting, I can confirm that XYZ Corp will be conducting an On Market buyback of $9.5 Million Dollars in securities. I can further confirm that the market capitalisation of XYZ Corp is $82 Million, so a $95 Million On Market buyback woiuld be a stretch.
J Hockey. 

Release Time 11-5-11 10:35am Market Sensitive.
After a second emergency Board meeting, it is with much sadness that the Board announces the resignation of CFO, J Hockey, due to family commitments.  Joe has had a big impact in the week he has been in the position of CFO, and will be leaving a big hole when he goes.
F Nerk.
Chairman.

Mike says:

09:01am | 11/05/11

i like that and so true. “Swans budget” should be renamed “Swans psychic reading”. Rubbery future forecasts mean nothing, as he has proven since being treasurer.

Dash says:

09:18am | 11/05/11

Stimulus spending drove interest rates up and we had 7 rate rises prior to the last election largely due to the fact that the ALP overheated the economy with $47billion. Much of it wastefully unneccessary!

Last night Wayne Swan ripped $2billion away from families. The Middle and High income earners of this country clearly have a target on their back as far as Wayne Swan and the ALP are concerned! Those that contribute the most financially to the wealth and prosperity of our nation are the ones the ALP targets!

The ALP wrote to Health insurers in 2007 and gave them a guarantee that they would not touch the private health tax rebate. Last night once again, the ALP introduced plans to means test it. In other words yet another ALP LIE!!! And it’s dumb politics. Middle Australia will be hit yet again. The industry anticipates that over 1 million people will come out of privtae health cover and straight onto the public health waiting list. Others will significantly reduce the amount of cover they have. As a result, private health premiums will increase to alarming levels!

If you live in mortgage belt and are a traditional family with children, the ALP have a target on your back!!! You will pay the biggest part of the flood levy, you will slowly lose the family entitlements given to you by the LNP when the budget was in surplus, you will lose your private health tax rebate, you will be means tested out of family assistance, you will be hit by the interest rate rise that will come in June, and you will be the ones expected to foot the bill for the ALPs deceitful carbon tax! The Australian dollar is keeping a lid on inflation. But if the European and US currencies rebound at the same time as the carbon tax is introduced, interest rates and prices will rise significantly and families will be hit yet again.

We are in the biggest resources boom this country has ever seen, and yet the ALP can not give anything back to taxpayers! They tell you they are for working families and yet they gouge $2billion out of familiy assistance! And they still can’t balance a budget!

Net debt will reach over $100Billion within 4 years of this ALP government. And they started with a $26billion surplus! They are borrowing over $130million a day during the biggest mining boom in our history! They tell us they will have the budget in surplus. But when will they pay off their debt???? I suspect they never will.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

09:20am | 11/05/11

Business day . com . au (foreward slash), OPINION.

simon says:

09:51am | 11/05/11

Persephone all the stimulus did is defer the impact of the GFC. We would have been better off cutting spending and not taking on further debt like the smart countries did. Other countries that did that will have the jump on us as the spending cuts have already been impacted. Australia will now be further placed behind those countries that took these early measures meaning we will now be behind the 8 ball and playing catch up. I give this budget 1 out of 10, the mental health boost is the only measure i like!!!

TheRealDave says:

10:00am | 11/05/11

So Dash, what you are saying when you state: “Those that contribute the most financially to the wealth and prosperity of our nation”  is that the majority of Australians, who actually live in the ‘lower’ income bracket, contribute bugger all to the prosperity of this nation?

Let me guess, Liberal voter.

Middle Australia, of which apparently I am a member DESERVES to take a hit. If you are earning combined more that $150 000 you have bugger all to whinge about. Most Australian families aren’t even bringing in half that amount and can still get by. If you are screaming poor on $150 000 p/a then might I suggest you didn’t get these wages based on any kind of actual merit since you aren’t cluey enough to manage your money properly? Maybe we should be sacking more of these incompetents on $150 000+ a year who can’t manage their money with people who make $50k a year and can raise a family, feed them, clothe them, educate them etc on 1/3rd of the money?

persephone says:

10:31am | 11/05/11

Dash

so Swan is taking away money from the people he gave it to? Seems fair to me - the stimulus wasn’t a gift, you know.

Far from overheating the economy, the judgement (by economists internationally, rather than your source, the guy down the pub) has been that it was pretty well right.

In an economic crisis, it’s imperative to keep confidence high. The stimulus payments were aimed at doing this in the short term - which they did - and the infrastructure spending did this in the longer term.

By and large, we spent less on our stimulus with better results than comparable countries.

As for ‘waste’ - although I contend that there was far far less wastage of these monies than is commonly accepted, the aim of the stimulus spending was not to get value for money, but to get money circulating in the economy at a time when private investment was drying up. Getting actual buildings, roads, etc in exchange for this was a side benefit.

Private health is a lifestyle choice. It’s only a necessity for a very few people. I don’t see why average taxpayers who make use of the perfectly good public health system should subsidise the choices of those wealthy enough to afford private health insurance. If you can’t afford it, give it up.

The money you save the government in subsidies will, in all probability, far outweigh the extra cost you are to the public system.

As for the rest of the rant, at the moment you’re $23 a week better off than you were. If your expenses have risen to such an extent that you can’t see this, then obviously there’s a lot of fat you can cut back on.

As is quite rightly pointed out by other comments here, many families - the vast majority, in fact - manage to get by on a lot less.

We may be in a resources boom, but as the article I linked to points out (didn’t read it, did you?) we’re not seeing the returns from this at present, due to the way mining companies can structure their tax (I’m quite happy for this to change; if you are, then please express your support for the proposed mining tax).  The government is, in fact, getting far less money coming in than there was under Howard (partly because you’re paying less in taxes then you were then).

Simon

please name these ‘smart’ countries.

I don’t think they exist.

It would be good if you provided some supporting evidence for your other statements as well - as far as I know, nothing you’re saying is actually true.

Economist says:

10:44am | 11/05/11

@the real Dave, your being unfair there. We don’t know Dash’s personal circumstances i.e. he may of only gotten into the housing market recently, where $150000 covers bugger all on a $600,000 mortgage. For example where I live the median house prices are now $750000 and no modest 3 bedroom house within a 30Km radius is less than $500000.

The fact is we are a product of our choices and Dash’s work and living requirements could be more expensive then your own. I wouldn’t criticise the fact that he is one of the 62% of Australians that’s a net tax payer. He has a right to complain as much as the next person and the welfare and tax systems could be far more efficient.

TimB says:

02:54pm | 11/05/11

Perse, exactly what is different from how the miners are structuring their tax affairs now as opposed to how they structured them just a few years ago during the Coalition’s mining boom? Have things really changed that drastically? If so, how and why?

If not, please explain why the Coalition-era mining boom delivers rivers of gold whilst the Labor-era one delivers squat.

persephone says:

04:35pm | 11/05/11

TimB

absolutely nothing - did I say there was?

Obviously you didn’t bother to read the article.

Businesses can ‘save up’ tax write offs in years when they don’t pay much tax and write them off in later years (so, for example, if Business A has tax deductions worth $100 this year but only pay $50 in tax, they can write off the other $50 next year; if they still have a deductions credit next year, they can write it off against the next…..)

During the GFC, profits fell, so the tax take fell, so the ability to write off all tax deductions fell. It’s taking a few years for the write offs to work their way through the system, which means less money for the government.

A mining tax might fix that!

CD says:

04:47pm | 11/05/11

@TheRealDave….I think the problem arises that so many live in different regions and costs differ so much that a house considered to be just average can cost you close to $750,000 in Sydney but buy you a mansion elsewhere.

Cost of living is so different all around this country that I just don’t see how anyone can throw a blanket over every single person and say this amount should be sufficient to live on etc.

As for me I would love to have close to half of $150,000 coming into this house but we do fine.  Opposite side of the country and our son finds it hard to make ends meet on more than double our wages.

I guess it’s a matter of where you live, cost of living and what you consider necessities.  I no longer make any judgements on people now as we really do have such different costs to bear.  Not having a go at you at all just commenting.

Please Perse take your time

Dash says:

05:17pm | 11/05/11

Real Dave and Persephone - Fact is, I lost nothing in last nights budget. I pay too much tax to get any of the stuff they have taken away!

The only impact to me is the money I have to fork out for the flood levy (which is bloody heaps I might add, just because the Qld ALP stuffed things up and the ALP are a pack of socialist pigs!) and the means test to the private health rebate which is a bloody disgrace and another ALP lie.

@The real Dave, you will notice the word “financially” is used. You actually quote it yourself. I never said low income earners do not contribute. The point I am making is that the people who contribute the most financially to our society (in other words the ones who already pay the most tax) are continually walking around with a target on their back as far as the ALP government is concerned. If the government didn’t waste billions, those people may not mind. But to stick their hands in our pockets every time they fuck up is a disgrace! I’m not crying poor at all. I’m just sick of forking out because the ALP are a pack of morons who couldn’t organise a root in a brothel!

@Perse, no lovie, Swan is taking away money from people that got it from the previous LNP government. You remember those guys who managed to balance the budget, provide PAYG tax cuts (the ALP has delivered all the announced LNP cuts and now they delivered none of their own) and pay off $96billion of ALP debt! Once they had us soundly in the black, they gave something back to taxpayers!

Perse, If you are comparing our economy with any other Western country, you are an economic fool! That’s what Swan does and he’s one! The ALP try to do this comparison all the time. But we do not have the US economy, we did not start with their debt (infact the opposite), we did not have the toxic assets, they do not have China’s appetite or a resources boom, they did not have the Howard government’s Financial Services Reform Act. I mean seriously!!! The ALP is an economics free zone!

As a result of the second stimulus, interest rates rose 7 times before the last election! That’s overheating the economy! It was largely wasteful.

Yes I will give private health up. And so will millions of others. Lets see how the ALPs health system copes shall we!! I pay probably three times as much medicare levy as you so I should use it I guess! The idea of the rebate was to encourage those that could afford private health to take it out and stay off the public purse! Now the ALP are forcing people back into public health when the system can’t cope with existing numbers. And health premiums will go through the roof! And I might add, the ALP promised not to touch it. Yet another ALP LIE!!!!

So you’re saying that with the increase in fuel, groceries, childcare payments, electricity rises, interest rate rises, inflation in general and the flood levy I’m $23 better off???? Bullshit Perse. Where the fuck did you pull that number from???? Another ALP script you read from? This government has done nothing but take from me and my family since they came to power.

For God’s sack, wake up and realise that Middle Australia are hurting at the moment! Swan delivered nothing but pain for families and now they want to punish Middle and high income Australia with the carbon tax on the basis of income yet again! Either you and your party wake up, or they will get kicked out!

persephone says:

05:55pm | 11/05/11

Dash

I’m sorry, but if you’re paying all that out, you’re not middle Australia.

Middle Australia earns well less than $100 k a year - only 3% of workers receive incomes above that, and only 0.5% of families are on something like $150 k.

So, regardless of your expenditure - which is a result of your choices - you are well off compared to Middle Australia.

If things are really so bad for you poor rich sods, the solution is in your hands - take a lower paid job, pay less tax and get that target off your back.

By your logic, you’ll be better off.

Dash says:

07:09pm | 11/05/11

Perse - Oh OK, so I’m not middle Australia then. OK well there you go, I should be happy the ALP waste my taxes and f-uck me over! Thank you ALP for being so crap! Please take from me again.

persephone says:

08:46pm | 11/05/11

Dash

hard cheese, matey.

If you didn’t realise that Labor supports the working classes over the well off by now, you’ve been asleep for the last century and a bit.

We’re not after your vote.

The real Middle Australia’s what we’re after.

Economist says:

09:23pm | 11/05/11

@CD has summed it up.  Now that we’re going a little off topic I’ll have another little rant, because I like the sound of my own typing.

Surprisingly I think many commentors on this have more in common then’s realised.

The 20/20 Summit was a crap PR exercise. It was unnecessary. Governments get enough advice. Angencies provide advice on their respective portfolios, lobbyists provide advice on what they and there members need. You have Senate standing committees, Senate enquiries, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Australian National Audit Office, you have constituents visiting their local members. With all this advice all a government has to do in determine geniune need, cost it, make a decision and implement it effectively. Hell, I’ll even say I can sympathise with those who view government as a major imposition, i.e a waste, if it wasn’t for the fact that I’ve seen private enterpise behave just as badly.

The Henry tax provided the perfect template for government reform to initiate coming out of the GFC. Instead they choice one new tax only, tried to sweeten with a small cut to company tax and an increase in super. No I would’ve gone hell for leather at implementing most of it, while I wa riding so high in the polls. Why wouldn’t you want to be the government that was known to implement the most effective, efficent tax system without necessarily affecting underlying revenue?
So what do I want from what will more than likely be the next Liberal government. A tax free threshold that provides incentives to work, a base income support payment, with supplements tailored to your individual need, based on things like your location, disability etc. (Just as private education is funded on an SES model, welfare should be the same).  Each indnvidual should be assessed individually including participation requirements. Centrelink effectively do this now so it wouldn’t be hard to tailor it more. If your liefstyle, smoke drink etc, exceeds your income support I have no problem quarantining the income. As far as I’m concerned just as the government has a social contract to provide a basic level of income to feed, house and support yourself, you have an obligation to society to provide a positive contribution. I want to see what the Liberal Government were working towards, but they knew it would be unpopular, an Australia Card. A card that allows you to receive benefits, access health care, a one stop shop. Obviously privacy consideration would need to be abided by, but we need more efficiency. I’ll shut up now.

Adam says:

08:48am | 12/05/11

@ Pers - “Middle Australia earns well less than $100 k a year - only 3% of workers receive incomes above that, and only 0.5% of families are on something like $150 k”.

Where did you get that figure from? The latest I’ve seen suggest it’s closer to 15% of families are on 150k (see link below). I don’t have figures for how many families are on 100k but I’d suggest they are probably much higher too given that even a dump truck driver working out in the mines gets over 100k. 30-40% Perhaps? Furthermore, I know of many tradesmen earning over $100k. Are you suggesting they are not the working class and Labor does not want their votes? I think it is more likely Labor is just so out of touch they don’t even know who the working class is, hence they are running around screwing them over like they just did in the budget and just like they will with this massive new Carbon Tax that will cost jobs.

P.S. Here is the link I promised.

http://www.news.com.au/money/federal-budget/youre-rich-enough-on-150000-a-year-says-wayne-swan/story-fn84fgcm-1226054360259

Adam says:

09:18am | 12/05/11

@ Economist - Well said mate. The only part I disagree with is “with supplements tailored to your individual need, based on things like your location, disability etc. (Just as private education is funded on an SES model, welfare should be the same).  Each indnvidual should be assessed individually including participation requirements.”

I just figure cut away the nanny state stuff (any welfare beyond that for unemployed or severly disabled people), give the peoples money back via tax breaks, and let them make their own decisions (unless they are on welfare). It might also pay to put a five year lifetime limit on unemployment benefits too and perhaps implement a flat tax rate. Other than that, I agree

persephone says:

09:33am | 12/05/11

Adam

Here’s my link:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3213690.htm

‘On the Treasury’s figures, there are 40,000 households earning $150,000 a year or more. There are 8.5 million households in Australia so we are talking less than half a per cent of all households who are on that money.’

‘There is only about 3 per cent of workers who earn more than $100,000 a year; average weekly earnings are $65,000.’

‘We are talking about people who are relatively well-off and a tiny, tiny proportion of households overall and the benefits that they will lose, we are talking of less than $30 a year for a child with the winding back of the supplement to the various family tax benefit arrangements. Small money for people who are relatively well to do.’

‘....in fact they are not actually cuts. All they’re saying is that the threshold for the cut off, $150,000 is not going to be indexed upwards with the CPI ...’

’ It is remarkable how they have done this. I mean some of it is counted in money like the flood levy and so forth which strictly speaking isn’t a cut but it is remarkable how they’ve done this in a fairly painless way.’

Economist says:

09:57am | 12/05/11

@Adam, Pers figures come from Stephen Long.

https://www.macquarie.com.au/edge/article/MARKET/1f58d5b6e00ef210VgnVCM100000c502890aRCRD/

Personally I have a hard time believing these figures as well. Now my HH doesn’t earn any where near this much. But I can’t see how anyone on less can afford a mortgage unelss they had significant assistance from family members or an inheritance. A $500000 mortgage, quite modest for any major city, currently requires a repayment of $3800 a month. A HH above $100000, supposedly only 3% of the workforce, would after tax and super clear about $5800. That only leave $2000 a month including for expenses like rates, land tax etc . Yet a family earning around $40000 and receiving around $10000 in welfare ($3600), wouldn’t be able to afford such a mortage, but a reasonable rent may be $1600 a month and would give them a disposable income of $2000 a month (40000-5000(tax) + 10000 welfare-45000/12) without things like rates, land tax and the expenses you have with a home.

So you can see why Dash would get upset. Our choices dictate our lifestyle, but the person earning 100000 pays over $26000 in income tax while the person earning $40000 receives $5000 from the tax payer. Both in the end have the same disposable income.

Adam says:

10:38am | 12/05/11

@ Pers - Cheers for that. I guess it comes back to who do you believe given they are both using the same underlying data. The Australian (private media), supported by the HILDA director (The Govts expert who writes their reports on this stuff, employed by the Dept of Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs) and Melbourne uni:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/were-not-rich-but-wealthier-than-most-sydney-family/story-fn8gf1nz-1226054297260

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/families/progserv/Pages/ldi-hilda.aspx

http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/

Or the ABC (Govt media), interpreted by one of their journo’s:

Your link http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3213690.htm

I’ll let people make up their own mind on that one but I know which I think is ore credible

I am also confused. You said “If you didn’t realise that Labor supports the working classes over the well off by now, you’ve been asleep for the last century and a bit.” Since when did being part of the working class become a function of wealth? Does this mean if a tradesmen, struggling with rising costs, starts working weekends to make ends meet he may no longer meet Labors definition of “working class” because he earns too much? And if someone moves from the city to the mines to drive dump trucks in an effort to save some money to buy a house they no longer meet Labors definition of “working class” so they don’t care about them?

I also question when someone’s marital status (and if they have children) became part of the definition of “working class”.

Like I said earlier, I think they are out of touch and forgetting who the working class really are. They are simply people with jobs who work hard. Something Labor seems to have forgotten many eons ago when they started pandering towards the greens, underachievers and bludgers at the expense of the “working class”.

Adam says:

10:43am | 12/05/11

@ Economist - I don’t believe the figures either mate (see above). And as you correctly demonstrate, their is little incentive to work hard in Australia under the current socialist, wealth redistribution policies. It’s sad really because I was always taught hard work pays off; now when I tell children that I feel like a liar.

persephone says:

11:08am | 12/05/11

Adam

I’m quite happy to query Long’s methodology. It is quite possible that there are more than 40,000 families earning more than $150k, and that it is only 40,000 who are affected by these cuts (there may be several thousand who never qualified in the first place).

But whether it’s less than 1% or 15%, the point is that these are not typical families. They are considerably better off than the majority of Australian families, however you tweak the numbers.

Government assistance - I note we call it ‘handouts’ when we’re talking about poor people getting dosh from the government, but change our language when we get to those on higher incomes - is not meant to act as a top up to your income. It is meant to provide help to those who are struggling.

But a fair slab of my reply to Dash should be taken with a dose of salt. I can’t stand whingers, particularly well off ones with an advanced sense of entitlement.

Adam says:

12:09pm | 12/05/11

@ Pers - “I’m quite happy to query Long’s methodology. It is quite possible that there are more than 40,000 families earning more than $150k, and that it is only 40,000 who are affected by these cuts (there may be several thousand who never qualified in the first place)”

Yep, I believe Long is using incompatible data sets to calculate his final percentage.

“But whether it’s less than 1% or 15%, the point is that these are not typical families. They are considerably better off than the majority of Australian families, however you tweak the numbers.”

Perhaps, but when you start to consider that potentially 30-40% of working families are on around the 100k mark, the “typical family” income bracket rises significantly. Very quickly we are talking about almost half of all working families. I’d say this makes such people hardly a tiny minority. Perhaps Dash’s views are not representative of as tiny a minority as you’d like to believe; this was the main point I wanted to make.

“Government assistance - I note we call it ‘handouts’ when we’re talking about poor people getting dosh from the government, but change our language when we get to those on higher incomes - is not meant to act as a top up to your income. It is meant to provide help to those who are struggling.”

I call them handouts whoever they go to. Personally, I think there should be none. Less handouts, less tax. Unemployment benefits should have a lifetime limit of 5 years. The only exception I see is those with SEVERE mental/physical disabilities (noting my definition of severe would exclude a large numbers of those 800,000+ Aussies currently drawing the disability pension).

“But a fair slab of my reply to Dash should be taken with a dose of salt. I can’t stand whingers, particularly well off ones with an advanced sense of entitlement.”

Roger dodger. Still doesn’t change the fact I think Labor not longer looks after “the workers” cause their definition of what constitutes the “working class” is screwed up.

persephone says:

01:10pm | 12/05/11

Adam

Well, if they’re on $100 k, they’re not affected by these cuts, so they’re out of the picture.

To suggest that their income is going to leap by 50% within a very short timeframe to put them into this bracket is being a little more optimistic about wages growth in the short term than I am.

If you’re against handouts (and I know you are, but there is no political party in Australia worth speaking about who supports you here), why on earth would you be placing yourself alongside the likes of Dash?

The vast majority of families are in the $60 - $70 000 range. This is exactly who Labor is catering for.

http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/what-is-the-typical-australians-income/

Adam says:

01:45pm | 12/05/11

@ Pers - “Well, if they’re on $100 k, they’re not affected by these cuts, so they’re out of the picture.
To suggest that their income is going to leap by 50% within a very short timeframe to put them into this bracket is being a little more optimistic about wages growth in the short term than I am.”

I was just highlighting the demographic Labor is not looking after is larger than you originally proposed.

“If you’re against handouts (and I know you are, but there is no political party in Australia worth speaking about who supports you here), why on earth would you be placing yourself alongside the likes of Dash?”

You almost answered your own question. Since there is no political party totally against handouts (or for a flat tax rate), the only way to get a similar level of equality through wage brackets is for the wealthy (i.e. Dash) to pursue handouts to offset their tax burden. This is why I sympathise with his position.

“The vast majority of families are in the $60 - $70 000 range. This is exactly who Labor is catering for.”

Why target a specific bracket? We should just give people money back via tax breaks and let them decide what to do with their money. I think people are bright enough to spend their money on what is important to them. This is democratic and caters to everyone who works.

PolyWatcher says:

11:57am | 11/05/11

When he hasn’t anything or any body to blame, he wheels out Tony Abbott or the Liberal Party to blame for his short comings.

Andrea says:

09:37am | 11/05/11

Spot on….......NO NO NO to an incompetent Government.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:06pm | 11/05/11

Well, what *have* they done to stop the boats? I can’t see anything in this budget that will stop them - can you? If so, how and why?

Steve says:

12:37pm | 11/05/11

Knemon. It might be too subtle for you but “typical ALP budget” means increased wastage,new or increased taxes, increased Govt debt. It is the job of the opposition to um oppose. It is also the job of the opposition to highlight the weaknesses of the Govt of the day and air alternatives. Perhaps also too subtle “stop the boats” is a call to revert to Howard days policies which bit by bit Gillard is starting to introduce. On this issue the coalition’s opposition has been effective. I hope Abbott keeps saying NO NO NO to more taxes, more debt and wasted Govt spending for all or long term sakes including you.

MarK says:

02:04pm | 11/05/11

“calling this budget a real Labor budget”

$50 billion deficit - tick

Yep, Labor budget all right

Geoff - Brisbane says:

12:16pm | 11/05/11

Stopped reading when you claimed GST was 20%.

I figure the rest of it would be based on imaginary figures that would support a labor government.

ReasonPlease says:

01:04pm | 11/05/11

Maybe you should have at least finished the sentence.  20% figure was an average return of GST, company tax, income tax.  Since Gov tax take is around 24% of GDP I’d say 20% is a conservative estimate.

Yes, all figures in a blog comment are going to be approximations, but I think I’m generally on the money.

Economist says:

01:49pm | 11/05/11

@Reason Please, personally I thought your statements/assertions were reasonable, but your not going to satisfy those who have only ever voted Liberal. Though it’s important to acknowledge that Labor have had many policy and program failures and waste.

Confused Fuddy Duddy says:

04:54pm | 11/05/11

$40 Billion to save 200,000 jobs. Is that $200,000 per job?

persephone says:

11:05am | 11/05/11

Simon

given that TA has never indicated the slightest real desire to actually do anything that might upset anyone, I doubt he’d be paying off debt.

Last budget, he was so at a loss for something to say that he handballed the response to Hockey, who handballed it to Robb.

Robb came out with AN A4 sheet of paper, which journos weren’t allowed to see until after the press conference.

Abbott is not interested in economics and certainly not interested in being fiscally reponsible, as his various uncosted or undercosted policy commitments demonstrate.

In his few rare policy commitments, he has committed to increasing expenditure whilst not raising taxes, a neat trick if he can pull it off.

fairsfair says:

11:17am | 11/05/11

Persephone this post once and for all proves that you are a hack.

persephone says:

05:43pm | 11/05/11

Brilliant rebuttal, there, fairsfair.

If I’m a hack, you should be able to refute my arguments easily.

Come on, have a go.

Mouse says:

07:39pm | 11/05/11

Persephone, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you? If you honestly believe half of what you said, you were either asleep or not in the country for the last budget. If you follow your line, where is gillard’s imput to the budget, as all we have heard from is Swan.  You are becoming less and less believable in your posts and your statements are becoming more and more desperate rants.
Pity, you used to be fun!

MarK says:

08:34pm | 11/05/11

“If I’m a hack, you should be able to refute my arguments easily.”

Well yah. We have been doing that for nearly 2 years.

persephone says:

07:03am | 12/05/11

I take it from the above that noone can actually show that anything I’ve said here isn’t true?

Good.

So we’re agreed that Abbott is an economic ignoramus.

simon says:

10:23am | 11/05/11

Spot on janine, no mention of the new taxes or the fact that all these cuts represent an increase in tax burden on the economy. This will reduce discretionary spending in the economy further pressuring retail spending and jobs.

fairsfair says:

11:43am | 11/05/11

Yep Shane, look at the pie graph on Confused’s link - total PAYE revenue is only just higher than what is paid out in welfare. Scary. More than twice is spend on welfare then our hospitals.

I wish people would wake up and see just how toxic this is going to be when they are old or one of their children get sick.

ian says:

12:31pm | 11/05/11

Shane,Don’t worry about all of the $$ being sent overseas or the $$ to support the illegal immigrants,or the money given to dole cheats and people who breed for the welfare $$.  No get pissed off at the middle class families and so called middle class welfare, wake up we actually work and pay taxes too, unlike the bludgers mentioned above so maybe grind your axe in that direction.

fairsfair says:

02:22pm | 11/05/11

Ian, I think Shane means people who breed for the welfare $$. If it was straight middle class welfare it would be going to the middle class - not just the ones who have kids.

I know you pay taxes. I do too and I already miss out on heaps in order to fund the lifestyle choices of others. I don’t begrudge that a large proportion of my tax dollars go to your child’s education - I once used that facility as did almost every Australian.  Giving a middle class family tax breaks which ultimately allows you to buy your son a Wii for Christmas - that is not what I think my tax dollars should be doing.

Feel free to crack it at me for that opinion - but you must recognise that what is going on is an utter waste of money while roads fall apart and you have to wait 8 hours for a hospital bed. I am sure you would in heartbeat give up the $4000 your teenage child will receive by the extension of the family tax bracket - if you knew that in the event your entire family was in a car accident (god forbid) - the ambulance that should be attending the scene was being ramped at the local hospital as there was no bed to offload the current occupant. Ignore it if you must, but this is a reality for some.

I think Shane is simply thinking bigger picture - I wish more people would do so.

ian says:

04:36pm | 11/05/11

Fairsfair,  my children are under 10 years old, so you wont be buying them a wii for christmas this year, in fact we receive little from the government because of my wage.  i thought shane was talking about FTB and childcare rebates for working families my mistake, and before you assume we do not get childcare rebates either, but it might pay to remember that all the children you are whinging about supporting just might be the ones wiping your arse in the old folks home oneday.

fairsfair says:

04:58pm | 11/05/11

Ian, like I said - I don’t begrudge you and your family from being provided basic services. I am glad I live in a country that affords that to its people.

I don’t hate children and I think I want my own in the distant future, but a cash injection at the time of their birth and their ongoing ability to net me tax breaks is not going to sway my decision. Clearly, it did not sway your’s either but unfortunately, by simple design - this is what initiatives like the baby bonus and the PPL scheme are doing.

Like you say, you earn too much money to obtain assistance. I see no problem with that because I don’t believe anyone should be getting cash payments and substancial tax breaks to encourage them to breed.

Two income families with kids are struggling. Well, so are single income single people who have the bulk of family expenses to contend with.

Shane from Melbourne says:

05:02pm | 11/05/11

@ian- I have no problem with paying for infrastructure- schools, hospitals etc. I have no problem with paying for the less fortunate in society- the genuinely unemployed, disabled, the pensioners who haven’t saved up for retirement. There are only two groups that I seriously object to subsidizing- the cheats who rort the welfare and taxation system and those that think that their lifestyle choice to have children entitles them to have the state fund their lifestyle. I believe that the Australian welfare state is ultimately destructive to Australia by breeding a sense of entitlement by the middle to upper class, creates disincentives and is economically unsustainable in the long term. As I’ve said before, middle class welfare is crack cocaine and ultimately destructive to the user (Australian public) and to the pusher (Australian government)

P.S. I’m not happy about the waste in foreign aid and the botch up in the handling of refugees but without making the hard decisions i.e. withdrawal from the UNCHR and jailing illegal arrivals, there is not much that can be done.

simon says:

12:35pm | 11/05/11

I agree 100% Anna C, you and I think alike. The thing that really pisses me off about this budget is the $6 billion increase in foreign aid, with $251 million going to the UN for climate programs (agreed by Combet at the Cancun climate conference last year). Meanwhile this so called government who believes in global warming has cut green programs by $1.6 billion. Yet we are told we need a carbon tax to deal with climate change. This is a perfect example of their lack of vision and hypocrisy and just goes to prove they are not serious on the climate and the carbon tax is just a revenue stream to pay for the NBN and to plug holes in the budget.

Horthy says:

12:53pm | 11/05/11

So humour us and tell us how you would vote if there were an election tomorrow?

For I too am single, working full time, in the black and and have plenty of disposable income, but this budget _does_ affect me. It probably does you too, but you’re too zzz to mind.

Yours is a case for voluntary voting.

Or is this just a troll?

HappyCynic says:

01:13pm | 11/05/11

I vote differently each time.  Usually for the person who has no chance of winning since voting for any of the major parties is a wasted vote.  The budget affects me by a whole $1 a week, wow, what an imposition (sarcasm).

And I disagree vehemently with voluntary voting, sure I’m too lazy to vote sensibly (or too cynical) but at least votes from people who don’t really care for politics keeps the ‘special interest’ groups, religious nutjobs and lobbyists from having any meaningful influence.

Steve says:

01:35pm | 11/05/11

Happy cynic. So voting for someone who can’t win isn’t a wasted vote?
Don’t you think that the ones with no chance of winning are the nut jobs that you are hoping to keep out. In any case under the preferential system the chances are you are in fact voting for a major party. The exception is the odd green and independant. You might not be happy with the pollies we have now but if the whole country disengaged in politics then I can assure you the quality and intentions of the polititions would deteriorate. Democracy is not perfect but it is still the best system but requires the citezens to be engaged to some extent at least.

Elphaba says:

01:47pm | 11/05/11

@HappyCynic, well said about voulntary voting, I comepletely agree.

I get nothing in the budget, but I don’t lose anything either.  Oh well.

Horthy says:

01:50pm | 11/05/11

Thanks for responding.

I’m affected more than $1/w. I think I’m mostly upset by waste when we have major holes in our health industry (including R&D).

Elphaba says:

02:17pm | 11/05/11

@Steve, any vote cast correctly is not a wasted vote.

Shane from Melbourne says:

02:43pm | 11/05/11

@HappyCynic- so you like wealth redistribution from singles and childless couples to middle class family welfare? You must like working to subsidize other people. Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for their lifestyle choices?

HappyCynic says:

03:43pm | 11/05/11

@Shane

Doesn’t really bother me, to be honest.  Someone always ends up subsidising someone else in a fair society, whether it’s singles paying for families or the healthy paying for the sick, or the law-abiding paying for criminal’s legal aid etc. just so long as there’s no real tangible effect to my after-tax income, I’m rather ambivalent to it.

Besides as I understand it didn’t some $20 odd billion get pulled away from families in this budget?

@Steve - you can (obviously) redirect your preferences by voting below the line, in fact I recommend it because it effectively invalidates all those silly preference deals the Greens et al make  

Enrico says:

10:27pm | 11/05/11

Yep.  By the length of a country straight and pulling away.

Greg says:

01:55pm | 11/05/11

Just like every post from nossy is comedy

Aitch B says:

03:59pm | 11/05/11

@Greg

Glad you think so….....

Knemon says:

02:45pm | 11/05/11

@ Ryan - “prepare yourselves for at least a 1% increase in interest rates over the next year”- I’d be happier if it went higher, but of course, not everyone’s as selfish as me

Ryan says:

04:44pm | 11/05/11

@Knemon: for what reason? If interest rates continue to climb in an attempt to stifle inflation you will see a side effect of the dollar climbing, especially since the rest of the western world has super low interest rates.
So I am sure you are keen on stagflation which will be the by-product of this situation, then again you probably don’t care because you probably aren’t in manufacturing.

Markus says:

11:03pm | 11/05/11

I have a secure job, zero debt and a healthy amount of savings. Bring on a 5% interest rate hike for all I care!

Ryan says:

09:43am | 12/05/11

@Markus: then you are deluding yourself, no Job (an acronym for Just Off Broke) is secure, ever!

Bruce says:

12:26am | 14/05/11

Ryan: “There will be NO carbon tax under a government I lead !  Says it all !

MarK says:

03:02pm | 11/05/11

Ha.

That will be cheap stuff and hardly noticeable by the time the “green jobs” under the “Carbon Tax” (sic) are brought on line. Real small change.

Ben81 says:

06:25pm | 11/05/11

“the estimates are that Howard /Costello wasted about 400 BILLION from their “resources boom” (on baby bonuses and super contributions for the wealthy etc etc)”

I don’t remember any $400 billion baby bonus and super contribution scheme, can you point them out for me?  If I didn’t know better i’d assume you were just making things up and typing whatever you think sounds good.

jb says:

05:39am | 12/05/11

do you have a life or are you just employed to boost TA’s standing in the community because the more idiots like you hate him the more ‘normal’ Australians are starting to like him…
You speak total and utter crap and nothing you say has any factual basis, you make it up, we prove it time and time again here and it’s absolutely awesome how day after day you prove us right, I swear you must be Julia the muggers best pal or at least you come from the unions in the ol’ blighty… feeling a little insecure fat man?

nossy says:

07:09pm | 11/05/11

@Steve - why thank you for that good advice Stevey ! I am looking forward to Tones actually giving us one - repeat one - good idea for the future ! Surely Dr No cant go on forever opposing everything - or can he ? Say hasnt poor old Joe Hockey been funny today - he must be in Actors Equity - if not he should be ! Stock up wth some “hard likka” Steve - I think Tones reply will have the same effect as scoffing valium !  hahaahh

jb says:

05:46am | 12/05/11

Hey Nobby, I will give you a few, how about,
Stop the boats!
Stop the waste!
and stop the new big dumb stupid taxes.
Oh and stop the lying.
And stop mugging Australia…

Enrico says:

10:24pm | 11/05/11

An oldy but a goodie.