19 April 2016

Once a Knight's enough

30 January 2015 | John Hargreaves

So everyone in the known universe is criticising the PM for making the Duke of Edinburgh a Knight of the Order of Australia. I might have a go too.

Much has been written about the hideous anachronism of the reintroduction of the awards of knights and dames and rightly so. Long ago, we shrugged off the apron strings of the British empire and became our own entity.

So much of this stuff is Back to the Future comedy. I am paused to wonder whether there is some sick Blackadder type humour in all of this.

I reckon that Angus Houston is indeed a true hero of our beloved country and should be recognised as such. But rather then make a knight of him (and we respect his humility, so obvious in his entire career), we should have given him Sir Peter Cosgrove’s job in the first place.

But what kind of brain snap made the PM give a knighthood to a bloke who has more unearned bling than a marshal of the Russian Air Force or a North Korean general?

What part of the diminution of the Companion of the Order of Australia, carried so proudly by great Australians is a good idea?

What part of licking the boots of the aristocracy of another country, rendering Australia to the status of a colony yet again is a good idea?

What has the Duke ever done to make this country a better place? It is quoted that the Duke of Edinburgh Awards system has given young Australian such a positive opportunity. Yeah, well, the Duke didn’t start it. He just lent his name to it to give it prestige in much the same way as the Churchill Fellowship bears the name of a former British PM.

From where I sit as an Australian by choice, having been born in England, this is an appalling insult to the whole country and everyone in it, and not something done in my name.

It shows an appalling lack of judgment on the PM’s part and a lack of regard for the community at large. It demeans us all and shows the PM’s disregard for the consultative process which should be part of the process of governance. Captain’s pick is garbage.

It also shows the lack of courage from his parliamentary colleagues who don’t have the guts to stand up to him and tell him to pull his head in.

Since he won’t go to an early election, and he has the triggers for a double dissolution, I am happy for him to stay in his job. He made a good leader of the opposition before the election and is making a good leader of the opposition right now. He’s the best thing for the future of the ALP than anything else.

Anyway, my prediction for 2016 is “Arise Sir John (Howard)!”

Why would you want to do this? Like Sir Robert Menzies, he wants to be Sir Anthony Abbott.

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

dungfungus4:26 pm 05 Feb 15

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

I saw Green Senator Richard DeNatale on ABC News 24 a couple of hours ago (ABC loves The Greens).
He said GPs in Queensland are now charging $100.00 a consultation to offset their losses from the $20 rebate that the evil coalition withdrew.
So, we taxpayers are slugged with anther $20 co-payment to offset the doctor’s income loss because their mates in Labor refuse to force the bludgers in our society to pay $7.
DeNatale also said the coalition’s ongoing attempts to introduce a $7.00 co-payment has been universally condemned. Really? I don’t recall a vote being held on that one.

Apropos of nothing

Maybe, but a lot more than you have offered.

rosscoact2:50 pm 05 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

I saw Green Senator Richard DeNatale on ABC News 24 a couple of hours ago (ABC loves The Greens).
He said GPs in Queensland are now charging $100.00 a consultation to offset their losses from the $20 rebate that the evil coalition withdrew.
So, we taxpayers are slugged with anther $20 co-payment to offset the doctor’s income loss because their mates in Labor refuse to force the bludgers in our society to pay $7.
DeNatale also said the coalition’s ongoing attempts to introduce a $7.00 co-payment has been universally condemned. Really? I don’t recall a vote being held on that one.

Apropos of nothing

dungfungus2:40 pm 05 Feb 15

chewy14 said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The “general” state of Australia’s economy is good, if you ignore Labor’s massive debt that can never be repaid. The RBA stated its reasons for the rate reduction which is very small. Sure, there are revenue problems but these can’t be addressed because of Labor and the other riff-raff in the Senate continue to lock the reforms.
Given the volatility of the global economic situation, interest rates could change direction very quickly irrespective of the state of Australia’s economy.

There is actually no measuring stick that confirms the debt is massive. Its just Liberal party spin.
As a % of GDP its low, much much lower than just about everyone else in the world.
Many economists actually feel the debt could be naturally repaid if no changes to spending are made once revenue increases again.
also its been shown that revenue as a % of GDP has been very steady hovering around 24-25% of GDP, despite what the Liberal party says, the facts actually say otherwise. Revenue however has dropped to around 20-21% GDP and had been up around 27% of GDP. That is the problem with the federal government. They have an ideological agenda of cutting spending now and then when revenue increase there is room to cut taxes again. The problem is essential services start to suffer cause there is no money to pay for them. Paying less taxes usually only helps those with high disposable incomes and not the lower and middle class masses.

The budget facts would disagree.
http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-05.htm

Where has revenue been ever up around 27% of GDP?

Revenue definitely took a hit during the GFC and Labor correctly increased spending to deal with it.

That revenue has however been steadily growing again although it isn’t back to where it was as a % of GDP during the Howard years, which were clearly boom years.

Whilst not denying that there are clear and obvious revenue measures that should be taken, there is no doubt that spending growth needs to be curtailed and it isn’t solely a revenue problem.

Both Labor and the Liberals have failed in enacting policies to rein in the growth in spending programs which will clearly become unsustainable in the medium to long term due to our ageing population.

I saw Green Senator Richard DeNatale on ABC News 24 a couple of hours ago (ABC loves The Greens).
He said GPs in Queensland are now charging $100.00 a consultation to offset their losses from the $20 rebate that the evil coalition withdrew.
So, we taxpayers are slugged with anther $20 co-payment to offset the doctor’s income loss because their mates in Labor refuse to force the bludgers in our society to pay $7.
DeNatale also said the coalition’s ongoing attempts to introduce a $7.00 co-payment has been universally condemned. Really? I don’t recall a vote being held on that one.

chewy1412:53 pm 05 Feb 15

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The “general” state of Australia’s economy is good, if you ignore Labor’s massive debt that can never be repaid. The RBA stated its reasons for the rate reduction which is very small. Sure, there are revenue problems but these can’t be addressed because of Labor and the other riff-raff in the Senate continue to lock the reforms.
Given the volatility of the global economic situation, interest rates could change direction very quickly irrespective of the state of Australia’s economy.

There is actually no measuring stick that confirms the debt is massive. Its just Liberal party spin.
As a % of GDP its low, much much lower than just about everyone else in the world.
Many economists actually feel the debt could be naturally repaid if no changes to spending are made once revenue increases again.
also its been shown that revenue as a % of GDP has been very steady hovering around 24-25% of GDP, despite what the Liberal party says, the facts actually say otherwise. Revenue however has dropped to around 20-21% GDP and had been up around 27% of GDP. That is the problem with the federal government. They have an ideological agenda of cutting spending now and then when revenue increase there is room to cut taxes again. The problem is essential services start to suffer cause there is no money to pay for them. Paying less taxes usually only helps those with high disposable incomes and not the lower and middle class masses.

The budget facts would disagree.
http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-05.htm

Where has revenue been ever up around 27% of GDP?

Revenue definitely took a hit during the GFC and Labor correctly increased spending to deal with it.

That revenue has however been steadily growing again although it isn’t back to where it was as a % of GDP during the Howard years, which were clearly boom years.

Whilst not denying that there are clear and obvious revenue measures that should be taken, there is no doubt that spending growth needs to be curtailed and it isn’t solely a revenue problem.

Both Labor and the Liberals have failed in enacting policies to rein in the growth in spending programs which will clearly become unsustainable in the medium to long term due to our ageing population.

JC10:40 am 05 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

JC said :

The roll of the RBA is to try and meet an agreed inflation rate by controlling interest rates. It does this in response to economic indicators which in turn are driven very much by government policy, and of course outside influences like the GFC. So what the government does, basically government policy has a direct impact on the economy and indirect on intrest rates.

If you say so.

So what are our disagreeing with? The roll of the RBA? If so their roll is quite clear. From their own website

“About the RBA

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is Australia’s central bank and derives its functions and powers from the Reserve Bank Act 1959. Its duty is to contribute to the stability of the currency, full employment, and the economic prosperity and welfare of the Australian people. It does this by setting the cash rate to meet an agreed medium-term inflation target, working to maintain a strong financial system and efficient payments system, and issuing the nation’s banknotes. The RBA provides certain banking services as required to the Australian Government and its agencies, and to a number of overseas central banks and official institutions. Additionally, it manages Australia’s gold and foreign exchange reserves.”

Now if your disagreeing that government policy does not drive/influence the economy and hence the actions of the reserve bank then you must be the only Liebral supporter to think that way.

Remember John Howard, used to say “…I will guarantee that interest rates are always going to be lower under a Coalition government” Of course half right. The bit that is right is he knew that his governments policy could influence interest rates, but wrong that they would always be lower under a Coalition Government.

Then of course we have the current Treasurer who seems to be a bit confused about it all, so I can sympathise with your lack of knowledge on the subject.

On the latest cut he said ““…This is good news for Australian families and it’s good news for Australian business…”

“…The government is working hard to take the pressure off interest rates by keeping inflation low…”

Mr Hockey said the rates decision would lift business and consumer confidence. “The shackles are off the Australian economy,” he said.

Now to show how silly and/or hypocritical this man is, above he is saying how good it is to have a cut and how it would increase confidence, yada yada yada.

BUT when in opposition, the very same man, on the prospect of an interest rate cut on Labor watch said:

“… the expected cut shows Labor has lost control of the economy.”

“… Of course interest rates on average should be lower but if interest rates come down today it is because the economy is struggling, not because it’s doing well,” he told ABC radio on Tuesday morning.”

Hmmm one thing when in charge another when in opposition. Sums up the Government perfectly.

watto239:53 am 05 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

The “general” state of Australia’s economy is good, if you ignore Labor’s massive debt that can never be repaid. The RBA stated its reasons for the rate reduction which is very small. Sure, there are revenue problems but these can’t be addressed because of Labor and the other riff-raff in the Senate continue to lock the reforms.
Given the volatility of the global economic situation, interest rates could change direction very quickly irrespective of the state of Australia’s economy.

There is actually no measuring stick that confirms the debt is massive. Its just Liberal party spin.
As a % of GDP its low, much much lower than just about everyone else in the world.
Many economists actually feel the debt could be naturally repaid if no changes to spending are made once revenue increases again.
also its been shown that revenue as a % of GDP has been very steady hovering around 24-25% of GDP, despite what the Liberal party says, the facts actually say otherwise. Revenue however has dropped to around 20-21% GDP and had been up around 27% of GDP. That is the problem with the federal government. They have an ideological agenda of cutting spending now and then when revenue increase there is room to cut taxes again. The problem is essential services start to suffer cause there is no money to pay for them. Paying less taxes usually only helps those with high disposable incomes and not the lower and middle class masses.

dungfungus9:51 pm 04 Feb 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Well, the RBA has cut interest rates another 0.25%.
This is well below the “emergency” rates that were set several years ago. I can’t see what it will achieve apart from inflating the share market and increasing the size of the housing bubble.
The dollar has fallen sharply which may help exporters but it will also increase prices on about everything we consume. Considering the dollar has lost 25% of value in the past 12 months we can expect prices to increase commensurately in the next few months. I went shopping at the mens’s shed yesterday and prices are all up at least 10% on pre-Christmas ones. It’s the same for white goods and home entertainment stuff. God only know what the price increase on a new home will be. Expect the Canberra tram project to blow out a few hundred million. The days of cheap petrol are numbered.
Higher inflation and lower employment is not what we want but thats what the RBA has ordered.
A probable consequence will be the winding up of a lot of SMSFs in pension mode.

And who is in charge? Hmmm but its Labors fault.

Once again, you are not reading the data.
This is all the doings of the RBA. Nothing to do with Labor or Libs.

The RBA is independent that is for sure, but their decisions are based on the general state of the economy. Who controls the general state of the economy, yep governments and who is the current government? Yep the Liebrals.

If you say so.

So your saying that the government doesn’t have control over the economy. Yeah right, seriously?

Not since banks were deregulated they don’t.
It was controllable before this as governments could “pull the right levers” (like adjusting SRDs and minimum home loan deposits etc.). An induced credit squeeze usually sorted out incipient housing bubbles.
The media is running the country at this time.

The roll of the RBA is to try and meet an agreed inflation rate by controlling interest rates. It does this in response to economic indicators which in turn are driven very much by government policy, and of course outside influences like the GFC. So what the government does, basically government policy has a direct impact on the economy and indirect on intrest rates.

If you say so.

JC9:08 pm 04 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Well, the RBA has cut interest rates another 0.25%.
This is well below the “emergency” rates that were set several years ago. I can’t see what it will achieve apart from inflating the share market and increasing the size of the housing bubble.
The dollar has fallen sharply which may help exporters but it will also increase prices on about everything we consume. Considering the dollar has lost 25% of value in the past 12 months we can expect prices to increase commensurately in the next few months. I went shopping at the mens’s shed yesterday and prices are all up at least 10% on pre-Christmas ones. It’s the same for white goods and home entertainment stuff. God only know what the price increase on a new home will be. Expect the Canberra tram project to blow out a few hundred million. The days of cheap petrol are numbered.
Higher inflation and lower employment is not what we want but thats what the RBA has ordered.
A probable consequence will be the winding up of a lot of SMSFs in pension mode.

And who is in charge? Hmmm but its Labors fault.

Once again, you are not reading the data.
This is all the doings of the RBA. Nothing to do with Labor or Libs.

The RBA is independent that is for sure, but their decisions are based on the general state of the economy. Who controls the general state of the economy, yep governments and who is the current government? Yep the Liebrals.

If you say so.

So your saying that the government doesn’t have control over the economy. Yeah right, seriously?

Not since banks were deregulated they don’t.
It was controllable before this as governments could “pull the right levers” (like adjusting SRDs and minimum home loan deposits etc.). An induced credit squeeze usually sorted out incipient housing bubbles.
The media is running the country at this time.

The roll of the RBA is to try and meet an agreed inflation rate by controlling interest rates. It does this in response to economic indicators which in turn are driven very much by government policy, and of course outside influences like the GFC. So what the government does, basically government policy has a direct impact on the economy and indirect on intrest rates.

JC9:06 pm 04 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Just like Labor sold QR you mean?

Yep, couldn’t agree more.

I did say Labor, not Liberal. You are still reading my posts incorrectly.

Yeah I know who privatised them, so yes reading correctly.

dungfungus12:04 pm 04 Feb 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Well, the RBA has cut interest rates another 0.25%.
This is well below the “emergency” rates that were set several years ago. I can’t see what it will achieve apart from inflating the share market and increasing the size of the housing bubble.
The dollar has fallen sharply which may help exporters but it will also increase prices on about everything we consume. Considering the dollar has lost 25% of value in the past 12 months we can expect prices to increase commensurately in the next few months. I went shopping at the mens’s shed yesterday and prices are all up at least 10% on pre-Christmas ones. It’s the same for white goods and home entertainment stuff. God only know what the price increase on a new home will be. Expect the Canberra tram project to blow out a few hundred million. The days of cheap petrol are numbered.
Higher inflation and lower employment is not what we want but thats what the RBA has ordered.
A probable consequence will be the winding up of a lot of SMSFs in pension mode.

And who is in charge? Hmmm but its Labors fault.

Once again, you are not reading the data.
This is all the doings of the RBA. Nothing to do with Labor or Libs.

The RBA is independent that is for sure, but their decisions are based on the general state of the economy. Who controls the general state of the economy, yep governments and who is the current government? Yep the Liebrals.

If you say so.

So your saying that the government doesn’t have control over the economy. Yeah right, seriously?

Not since banks were deregulated they don’t.
It was controllable before this as governments could “pull the right levers” (like adjusting SRDs and minimum home loan deposits etc.). An induced credit squeeze usually sorted out incipient housing bubbles.
The media is running the country at this time.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back10:00 am 04 Feb 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Well, the RBA has cut interest rates another 0.25%.
This is well below the “emergency” rates that were set several years ago. I can’t see what it will achieve apart from inflating the share market and increasing the size of the housing bubble.
The dollar has fallen sharply which may help exporters but it will also increase prices on about everything we consume. Considering the dollar has lost 25% of value in the past 12 months we can expect prices to increase commensurately in the next few months. I went shopping at the mens’s shed yesterday and prices are all up at least 10% on pre-Christmas ones. It’s the same for white goods and home entertainment stuff. God only know what the price increase on a new home will be. Expect the Canberra tram project to blow out a few hundred million. The days of cheap petrol are numbered.
Higher inflation and lower employment is not what we want but thats what the RBA has ordered.
A probable consequence will be the winding up of a lot of SMSFs in pension mode.

And who is in charge? Hmmm but its Labors fault.

Once again, you are not reading the data.
This is all the doings of the RBA. Nothing to do with Labor or Libs.

The RBA is independent that is for sure, but their decisions are based on the general state of the economy. Who controls the general state of the economy, yep governments and who is the current government? Yep the Liebrals.

If you say so.

So your saying that the government doesn’t have control over the economy. Yeah right, seriously?

The government doesn’t have full control. They can lead the economy using a variety of methods, but they don’t tend to make major changes due to the unforeseen effects. Both sides generally take a softly, softly approach.

Occasionally you get a big change, like GST, or floating the dollar, etc, and the real effects of these can take quite some time to manifest themselves.

A big part of the issue is working out what we actually want to economy to look like. For example,do we want 100% employment? No, that would drive inflation through the roof and would be more damaging and costly than paying the welfare of a half a million or so unemployed people. Do we want to restore Australian manufacturing to its former glory? Sure, but only we’re happy to accept higher prices and potentially lower quality goods.

Maybe that’s the discussion the government should be having with the public: what do we want our economy to look like?

dungfungus7:32 am 04 Feb 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Well, the RBA has cut interest rates another 0.25%.
This is well below the “emergency” rates that were set several years ago. I can’t see what it will achieve apart from inflating the share market and increasing the size of the housing bubble.
The dollar has fallen sharply which may help exporters but it will also increase prices on about everything we consume. Considering the dollar has lost 25% of value in the past 12 months we can expect prices to increase commensurately in the next few months. I went shopping at the mens’s shed yesterday and prices are all up at least 10% on pre-Christmas ones. It’s the same for white goods and home entertainment stuff. God only know what the price increase on a new home will be. Expect the Canberra tram project to blow out a few hundred million. The days of cheap petrol are numbered.
Higher inflation and lower employment is not what we want but thats what the RBA has ordered.
A probable consequence will be the winding up of a lot of SMSFs in pension mode.

And who is in charge? Hmmm but its Labors fault.

Once again, you are not reading the data.
This is all the doings of the RBA. Nothing to do with Labor or Libs.

The RBA is independent that is for sure, but their decisions are based on the general state of the economy. Who controls the general state of the economy, yep governments and who is the current government? Yep the Liebrals.

The “general” state of Australia’s economy is good, if you ignore Labor’s massive debt that can never be repaid. The RBA stated its reasons for the rate reduction which is very small. Sure, there are revenue problems but these can’t be addressed because of Labor and the other riff-raff in the Senate continue to lock the reforms.
Given the volatility of the global economic situation, interest rates could change direction very quickly irrespective of the state of Australia’s economy.

dungfungus11:00 pm 03 Feb 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

If you read carefully I said “I THINK the debt was about $90 billion”.
If you add in unfunded government superannuation and contingent liabilities like local government debt it would have probably exceeded the figure I suggested.
I concede that Labor left the ship in good state then – only a debt of $64 billion – an excellent result.
The reference to Labor winning by default is simply echoing what your comrades said on other threads when they were commenting about Abbott’s win in the last Federal election.

Yeah you think, and therein lies the problem. Way too many people think rather than look at facts. Then they sprout their thought bubbles as fact and we get the situation we are in, when reality is different.

Even now you seem to be denying the facts, you are now adding in super liability and LOCAL CGOVERNMENT debt to somehow justify your $90b. Never mind of course the figure of $64B came from a report commissioned by the then new government. A report that many acknoledge was loaded, so $64B is worst case sceonario anyway.

As to whether $64B is bad it all depends. There are times when debt is more than fine and the actual number really depends upon the ability to service the debt.

Interesting no comment from you about your other claim that the LNP reduced debt in QLD, when the opposite was true. Makes you wonder what they did with all the savings they got from their slash and burn, it sure the hell didn’t go to debt servicing did it? Same with the Federal Liebrals, their last budget was all slash and burn, but not one cent to reducing debt, rather reducing tax liability to the wealthy and corporates.

I said they were making inroads into the debt. You seem to have difficulty in reading what I say. Governments always project budget estimates over 4 years but with the falling off of mining royalties the debt could end up higher. It most certainly will if Labor get back into power.

How can adding to the debt be making inroads. Sounds like weazzle words straight out of the Liebral play book. Next you will be blaming Labor and the upper house for not letting Newmans reforms though. Not that they have one in QLD, but never mind the truth hey? Ironically after the Newman government there have been calls for an upper house in QLD.

Read the following and choke on it.
The latest Qld budget papers reveal a debt of $80 billion and plans to reduce that debt by $25 billion.
In the meantime, Qld, with a lower than AAA cedit rating is payng $4 billion a year on debt interest.
http://budget.qld.gov.au/at-a-glance/2014-15/2014-15-queensland-state-budget-at-a-glance.pdf

Aspirations don’t make reality do they? I mean to say before Labor got tossed out Federally they had a budget plan not unlike this that showed debt would be paid down too. Odd quicker than forecast in the last budget by your Liebral mates, though the Liebrals wanted austerity for those less well off and tax cuts and handouts to the upper end. Hmm. But I guess the difference in your eyes is Labor it is not true must be lies bla bla bla, but same document written by the Liebral well that must be the one and only truth.

And oh with QLD the debt was only being reduced by selling, oops in LNP talk lease of state assets. That’s one way of course, but sell your assets, especially the money making ones then further down the track you have income issues, so a short term measure at best. It also begs the question why if the only way to reduce debt was to sell the states assets why they went through their massive public service sackings and service reductions. It is all ideological pure and simple.

Just like Labor sold QR you mean?

JC10:42 pm 03 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

If you read carefully I said “I THINK the debt was about $90 billion”.
If you add in unfunded government superannuation and contingent liabilities like local government debt it would have probably exceeded the figure I suggested.
I concede that Labor left the ship in good state then – only a debt of $64 billion – an excellent result.
The reference to Labor winning by default is simply echoing what your comrades said on other threads when they were commenting about Abbott’s win in the last Federal election.

Yeah you think, and therein lies the problem. Way too many people think rather than look at facts. Then they sprout their thought bubbles as fact and we get the situation we are in, when reality is different.

Even now you seem to be denying the facts, you are now adding in super liability and LOCAL CGOVERNMENT debt to somehow justify your $90b. Never mind of course the figure of $64B came from a report commissioned by the then new government. A report that many acknoledge was loaded, so $64B is worst case sceonario anyway.

As to whether $64B is bad it all depends. There are times when debt is more than fine and the actual number really depends upon the ability to service the debt.

Interesting no comment from you about your other claim that the LNP reduced debt in QLD, when the opposite was true. Makes you wonder what they did with all the savings they got from their slash and burn, it sure the hell didn’t go to debt servicing did it? Same with the Federal Liebrals, their last budget was all slash and burn, but not one cent to reducing debt, rather reducing tax liability to the wealthy and corporates.

I said they were making inroads into the debt. You seem to have difficulty in reading what I say. Governments always project budget estimates over 4 years but with the falling off of mining royalties the debt could end up higher. It most certainly will if Labor get back into power.

How can adding to the debt be making inroads. Sounds like weazzle words straight out of the Liebral play book. Next you will be blaming Labor and the upper house for not letting Newmans reforms though. Not that they have one in QLD, but never mind the truth hey? Ironically after the Newman government there have been calls for an upper house in QLD.

Read the following and choke on it.
The latest Qld budget papers reveal a debt of $80 billion and plans to reduce that debt by $25 billion.
In the meantime, Qld, with a lower than AAA cedit rating is payng $4 billion a year on debt interest.
http://budget.qld.gov.au/at-a-glance/2014-15/2014-15-queensland-state-budget-at-a-glance.pdf

Aspirations don’t make reality do they? I mean to say before Labor got tossed out Federally they had a budget plan not unlike this that showed debt would be paid down too. Odd quicker than forecast in the last budget by your Liebral mates, though the Liebrals wanted austerity for those less well off and tax cuts and handouts to the upper end. Hmm. But I guess the difference in your eyes is Labor it is not true must be lies bla bla bla, but same document written by the Liebral well that must be the one and only truth.

And oh with QLD the debt was only being reduced by selling, oops in LNP talk lease of state assets. That’s one way of course, but sell your assets, especially the money making ones then further down the track you have income issues, so a short term measure at best. It also begs the question why if the only way to reduce debt was to sell the states assets why they went through their massive public service sackings and service reductions. It is all ideological pure and simple.

dungfungus10:01 pm 03 Feb 15

mcs said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

If you read carefully I said “I THINK the debt was about $90 billion”.
If you add in unfunded government superannuation and contingent liabilities like local government debt it would have probably exceeded the figure I suggested.
I concede that Labor left the ship in good state then – only a debt of $64 billion – an excellent result.
The reference to Labor winning by default is simply echoing what your comrades said on other threads when they were commenting about Abbott’s win in the last Federal election.

Yeah you think, and therein lies the problem. Way too many people think rather than look at facts. Then they sprout their thought bubbles as fact and we get the situation we are in, when reality is different.

Even now you seem to be denying the facts, you are now adding in super liability and LOCAL CGOVERNMENT debt to somehow justify your $90b. Never mind of course the figure of $64B came from a report commissioned by the then new government. A report that many acknoledge was loaded, so $64B is worst case sceonario anyway.

As to whether $64B is bad it all depends. There are times when debt is more than fine and the actual number really depends upon the ability to service the debt.

Interesting no comment from you about your other claim that the LNP reduced debt in QLD, when the opposite was true. Makes you wonder what they did with all the savings they got from their slash and burn, it sure the hell didn’t go to debt servicing did it? Same with the Federal Liebrals, their last budget was all slash and burn, but not one cent to reducing debt, rather reducing tax liability to the wealthy and corporates.

I said they were making inroads into the debt. You seem to have difficulty in reading what I say. Governments always project budget estimates over 4 years but with the falling off of mining royalties the debt could end up higher. It most certainly will if Labor get back into power.

As usual Dungfungus, where is your evidence for them making ‘inroads’ into the debt – seems the evidence would suggest something different:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/02/03/remember-labors-skyrocketing-debt-the-coalitions-is-much-worse/

Read #75

mcs8:20 pm 03 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

If you read carefully I said “I THINK the debt was about $90 billion”.
If you add in unfunded government superannuation and contingent liabilities like local government debt it would have probably exceeded the figure I suggested.
I concede that Labor left the ship in good state then – only a debt of $64 billion – an excellent result.
The reference to Labor winning by default is simply echoing what your comrades said on other threads when they were commenting about Abbott’s win in the last Federal election.

Yeah you think, and therein lies the problem. Way too many people think rather than look at facts. Then they sprout their thought bubbles as fact and we get the situation we are in, when reality is different.

Even now you seem to be denying the facts, you are now adding in super liability and LOCAL CGOVERNMENT debt to somehow justify your $90b. Never mind of course the figure of $64B came from a report commissioned by the then new government. A report that many acknoledge was loaded, so $64B is worst case sceonario anyway.

As to whether $64B is bad it all depends. There are times when debt is more than fine and the actual number really depends upon the ability to service the debt.

Interesting no comment from you about your other claim that the LNP reduced debt in QLD, when the opposite was true. Makes you wonder what they did with all the savings they got from their slash and burn, it sure the hell didn’t go to debt servicing did it? Same with the Federal Liebrals, their last budget was all slash and burn, but not one cent to reducing debt, rather reducing tax liability to the wealthy and corporates.

I said they were making inroads into the debt. You seem to have difficulty in reading what I say. Governments always project budget estimates over 4 years but with the falling off of mining royalties the debt could end up higher. It most certainly will if Labor get back into power.

As usual Dungfungus, where is your evidence for them making ‘inroads’ into the debt – seems the evidence would suggest something different:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/02/03/remember-labors-skyrocketing-debt-the-coalitions-is-much-worse/

dungfungus7:40 pm 03 Feb 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

If you read carefully I said “I THINK the debt was about $90 billion”.
If you add in unfunded government superannuation and contingent liabilities like local government debt it would have probably exceeded the figure I suggested.
I concede that Labor left the ship in good state then – only a debt of $64 billion – an excellent result.
The reference to Labor winning by default is simply echoing what your comrades said on other threads when they were commenting about Abbott’s win in the last Federal election.

Yeah you think, and therein lies the problem. Way too many people think rather than look at facts. Then they sprout their thought bubbles as fact and we get the situation we are in, when reality is different.

Even now you seem to be denying the facts, you are now adding in super liability and LOCAL CGOVERNMENT debt to somehow justify your $90b. Never mind of course the figure of $64B came from a report commissioned by the then new government. A report that many acknoledge was loaded, so $64B is worst case sceonario anyway.

As to whether $64B is bad it all depends. There are times when debt is more than fine and the actual number really depends upon the ability to service the debt.

Interesting no comment from you about your other claim that the LNP reduced debt in QLD, when the opposite was true. Makes you wonder what they did with all the savings they got from their slash and burn, it sure the hell didn’t go to debt servicing did it? Same with the Federal Liebrals, their last budget was all slash and burn, but not one cent to reducing debt, rather reducing tax liability to the wealthy and corporates.

I said they were making inroads into the debt. You seem to have difficulty in reading what I say. Governments always project budget estimates over 4 years but with the falling off of mining royalties the debt could end up higher. It most certainly will if Labor get back into power.

How can adding to the debt be making inroads. Sounds like weazzle words straight out of the Liebral play book. Next you will be blaming Labor and the upper house for not letting Newmans reforms though. Not that they have one in QLD, but never mind the truth hey? Ironically after the Newman government there have been calls for an upper house in QLD.

Read the following and choke on it.
The latest Qld budget papers reveal a debt of $80 billion and plans to reduce that debt by $25 billion.
In the meantime, Qld, with a lower than AAA cedit rating is payng $4 billion a year on debt interest.
http://budget.qld.gov.au/at-a-glance/2014-15/2014-15-queensland-state-budget-at-a-glance.pdf

JC5:58 pm 03 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

If you read carefully I said “I THINK the debt was about $90 billion”.
If you add in unfunded government superannuation and contingent liabilities like local government debt it would have probably exceeded the figure I suggested.
I concede that Labor left the ship in good state then – only a debt of $64 billion – an excellent result.
The reference to Labor winning by default is simply echoing what your comrades said on other threads when they were commenting about Abbott’s win in the last Federal election.

Yeah you think, and therein lies the problem. Way too many people think rather than look at facts. Then they sprout their thought bubbles as fact and we get the situation we are in, when reality is different.

Even now you seem to be denying the facts, you are now adding in super liability and LOCAL CGOVERNMENT debt to somehow justify your $90b. Never mind of course the figure of $64B came from a report commissioned by the then new government. A report that many acknoledge was loaded, so $64B is worst case sceonario anyway.

As to whether $64B is bad it all depends. There are times when debt is more than fine and the actual number really depends upon the ability to service the debt.

Interesting no comment from you about your other claim that the LNP reduced debt in QLD, when the opposite was true. Makes you wonder what they did with all the savings they got from their slash and burn, it sure the hell didn’t go to debt servicing did it? Same with the Federal Liebrals, their last budget was all slash and burn, but not one cent to reducing debt, rather reducing tax liability to the wealthy and corporates.

I said they were making inroads into the debt. You seem to have difficulty in reading what I say. Governments always project budget estimates over 4 years but with the falling off of mining royalties the debt could end up higher. It most certainly will if Labor get back into power.

How can adding to the debt be making inroads. Sounds like weazzle words straight out of the Liebral play book. Next you will be blaming Labor and the upper house for not letting Newmans reforms though. Not that they have one in QLD, but never mind the truth hey? Ironically after the Newman government there have been calls for an upper house in QLD.

JC3:43 pm 03 Feb 15

Mysteryman said :

JC said :

Easy, make people like me (I earn about $180k p/a) pay some more. Take away negative gearing, reintroduce the mining tax and carbon taxes. Already I am up to around $50B p/a and I’ve just started.

It can be done easily without punishing those that cannot afford it.

Those who earn over 180,000 p.a. already pay 45% tax for every dollar over that amount. For every dollar they earn between $80,000 and $180,000, they pay 37% tax. They also receive far less from the government in regards to benefits, subsidies, and allowances than lower income earners. When you take into account the amount of money high income earners pay in tax compared to how much they receive from the government, you’ll see that they actually pay well and truly more than their fair share. By contrast, those who are in the lower and middle range of earners actually cost the government more than they pay in taxes, on average. Even more so when you take into account other services like schooling, hospitals, etc, which are funded by government and enjoyed “for free” by lower/middle income earners (while high income earners tend to choose and pay for the private options). Take a look at the ABS data and you’ll see.

The problem isn’t that the rich aren’t taxed enough. They are. But there are too many ways for people to get out of paying – fancy financial footwork, if you will. The other problem is that there are too many people on the lower end of the earnings scale that are costing a lot of money – many of which are receiving more than they should be. The Left like to perpetuate the idea that the lower earners are being hard done by and forced to struggle. They aren’t. They get generous tax benefits and pay far lower tax rates than the rich, and still get all the benefit of the services and government payments that the rich are either ineligible for, or choose not to utilise.

Having said all that, increasing tax on the rich would still not be enough to make up your magical amount of $50b. It might help a small amount, but so would paying less to those who are rorting the system at the lower end of the earnings scale.

I am one of them and am happy to go back to the Howard days tax rates. Might mean I cannot afford a yearly overseas holiday, maybe every 18 months, or I might have to keep my car a year or two more, but as a higher income earner I am willing.

chewy141:57 pm 03 Feb 15

JC said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

The reality is that we get the majority of our tax revenue from the wealthy. The bottom half (wealth-wise) contribute very little.

And you believe that government debt is good? You must love the US, then. Perhaps we should become more like them?

You are making the typical Liebral comment with no context what so ever. There is nothing inherently wrong with government debt. Putting context around it the debt that Australia has is quite low and easily serviced, so not so bad.In fact I would say the worse fiscal performance was Howard and Abbott squandering a boom on tax bribes when more of that money should have been saved and more should have been spent on infrastructure. Tell me during the boom what did Howard build?

Of course we also need to look at what would have happened if the previous government didn’t spent on stimulating the economy. Just look to the US and the UK to get your answer. So Debt of the US size not good, debt like we have is piddle and easily serviced.

I would like to hear your thoughts on how Australia will ever repay our debt when it peaks at about $700 billion.
Current servicing costs are about $1 billion a month which is capitalised from ongoing borrowings. The debt continues to increase, meantime.
This may be manageable in the short term but when we lose our AAA credit rating and our bonds slip to junk status it will be a different story.
Australia cannot manufacture consumer goods at competitive prices anymore so how are we going to trade our way out like all the other debt ridden economies (who mythically once envied Wayne Swan’s economy)?
Reality check: THE MINING BOOM IS OVER , FOREVER.
We have some huge holes in the ground which would be ideal for burying the rest of the world’s garbage and nuclear waste. This could be the industry that enables us to still generate enough money to pay all those welfare entitlements and penalty rates that the voters are desparately clinging to.

Easy, make people like me (I earn about $180k p/a) pay some more. Take away negative gearing, reintroduce the mining tax and carbon taxes. Already I am up to around $50B p/a and I’ve just started.

It can be done easily without punishing those that cannot afford it.

Carbon tax revenue was what $6-7B a year.
Negative gearing is maybe $5B a year assuming people don’t change their investment behaviour, which is unlikely.
Mining tax was 2/5ths of FA, Lets say $1B/year.

Doesn’t quite add up to $50B a year.

You left of the bit that said make people like me pay more.

As for the mining tax yeah it didn’t raise much in the first few years but that was because business was allowed to write investment off against it. It was expected to rise to significantly more in outwards years. Besides if it was such a low burden why do you rekcon the mining companies wanted it gone?

And you didn’t specify how much more and what effect such a rise on taxes would have on the economy and investment as a whole. It’s extremely unlikely to raise the revenue you are predicting without causing significant damage to our economy. In the exact same way as you’re saying government spending during the GFC reduced harm to our economy.

As for the mining tax, it was a good idea as stated in the Henry review, turned into a dog by politics and an inability to effectively consult and communicate.

Mysteryman1:43 pm 03 Feb 15

JC said :

Easy, make people like me (I earn about $180k p/a) pay some more. Take away negative gearing, reintroduce the mining tax and carbon taxes. Already I am up to around $50B p/a and I’ve just started.

It can be done easily without punishing those that cannot afford it.

Those who earn over 180,000 p.a. already pay 45% tax for every dollar over that amount. For every dollar they earn between $80,000 and $180,000, they pay 37% tax. They also receive far less from the government in regards to benefits, subsidies, and allowances than lower income earners. When you take into account the amount of money high income earners pay in tax compared to how much they receive from the government, you’ll see that they actually pay well and truly more than their fair share. By contrast, those who are in the lower and middle range of earners actually cost the government more than they pay in taxes, on average. Even more so when you take into account other services like schooling, hospitals, etc, which are funded by government and enjoyed “for free” by lower/middle income earners (while high income earners tend to choose and pay for the private options). Take a look at the ABS data and you’ll see.

The problem isn’t that the rich aren’t taxed enough. They are. But there are too many ways for people to get out of paying – fancy financial footwork, if you will. The other problem is that there are too many people on the lower end of the earnings scale that are costing a lot of money – many of which are receiving more than they should be. The Left like to perpetuate the idea that the lower earners are being hard done by and forced to struggle. They aren’t. They get generous tax benefits and pay far lower tax rates than the rich, and still get all the benefit of the services and government payments that the rich are either ineligible for, or choose not to utilise.

Having said all that, increasing tax on the rich would still not be enough to make up your magical amount of $50b. It might help a small amount, but so would paying less to those who are rorting the system at the lower end of the earnings scale.

JC1:23 pm 03 Feb 15

chewy14 said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

The reality is that we get the majority of our tax revenue from the wealthy. The bottom half (wealth-wise) contribute very little.

And you believe that government debt is good? You must love the US, then. Perhaps we should become more like them?

You are making the typical Liebral comment with no context what so ever. There is nothing inherently wrong with government debt. Putting context around it the debt that Australia has is quite low and easily serviced, so not so bad.In fact I would say the worse fiscal performance was Howard and Abbott squandering a boom on tax bribes when more of that money should have been saved and more should have been spent on infrastructure. Tell me during the boom what did Howard build?

Of course we also need to look at what would have happened if the previous government didn’t spent on stimulating the economy. Just look to the US and the UK to get your answer. So Debt of the US size not good, debt like we have is piddle and easily serviced.

I would like to hear your thoughts on how Australia will ever repay our debt when it peaks at about $700 billion.
Current servicing costs are about $1 billion a month which is capitalised from ongoing borrowings. The debt continues to increase, meantime.
This may be manageable in the short term but when we lose our AAA credit rating and our bonds slip to junk status it will be a different story.
Australia cannot manufacture consumer goods at competitive prices anymore so how are we going to trade our way out like all the other debt ridden economies (who mythically once envied Wayne Swan’s economy)?
Reality check: THE MINING BOOM IS OVER , FOREVER.
We have some huge holes in the ground which would be ideal for burying the rest of the world’s garbage and nuclear waste. This could be the industry that enables us to still generate enough money to pay all those welfare entitlements and penalty rates that the voters are desparately clinging to.

Easy, make people like me (I earn about $180k p/a) pay some more. Take away negative gearing, reintroduce the mining tax and carbon taxes. Already I am up to around $50B p/a and I’ve just started.

It can be done easily without punishing those that cannot afford it.

Carbon tax revenue was what $6-7B a year.
Negative gearing is maybe $5B a year assuming people don’t change their investment behaviour, which is unlikely.
Mining tax was 2/5ths of FA, Lets say $1B/year.

Doesn’t quite add up to $50B a year.

You left of the bit that said make people like me pay more.

As for the mining tax yeah it didn’t raise much in the first few years but that was because business was allowed to write investment off against it. It was expected to rise to significantly more in outwards years. Besides if it was such a low burden why do you rekcon the mining companies wanted it gone?

chewy1412:57 pm 03 Feb 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

The reality is that we get the majority of our tax revenue from the wealthy. The bottom half (wealth-wise) contribute very little.

And you believe that government debt is good? You must love the US, then. Perhaps we should become more like them?

You are making the typical Liebral comment with no context what so ever. There is nothing inherently wrong with government debt. Putting context around it the debt that Australia has is quite low and easily serviced, so not so bad.In fact I would say the worse fiscal performance was Howard and Abbott squandering a boom on tax bribes when more of that money should have been saved and more should have been spent on infrastructure. Tell me during the boom what did Howard build?

Of course we also need to look at what would have happened if the previous government didn’t spent on stimulating the economy. Just look to the US and the UK to get your answer. So Debt of the US size not good, debt like we have is piddle and easily serviced.

I would like to hear your thoughts on how Australia will ever repay our debt when it peaks at about $700 billion.
Current servicing costs are about $1 billion a month which is capitalised from ongoing borrowings. The debt continues to increase, meantime.
This may be manageable in the short term but when we lose our AAA credit rating and our bonds slip to junk status it will be a different story.
Australia cannot manufacture consumer goods at competitive prices anymore so how are we going to trade our way out like all the other debt ridden economies (who mythically once envied Wayne Swan’s economy)?
Reality check: THE MINING BOOM IS OVER , FOREVER.
We have some huge holes in the ground which would be ideal for burying the rest of the world’s garbage and nuclear waste. This could be the industry that enables us to still generate enough money to pay all those welfare entitlements and penalty rates that the voters are desparately clinging to.

Easy, make people like me (I earn about $180k p/a) pay some more. Take away negative gearing, reintroduce the mining tax and carbon taxes. Already I am up to around $50B p/a and I’ve just started.

It can be done easily without punishing those that cannot afford it.

Carbon tax revenue was what $6-7B a year.
Negative gearing is maybe $5B a year assuming people don’t change their investment behaviour, which is unlikely.
Mining tax was 2/5ths of FA, Lets say $1B/year.

Doesn’t quite add up to $50B a year.

JC12:43 pm 03 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

JC said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

The reality is that we get the majority of our tax revenue from the wealthy. The bottom half (wealth-wise) contribute very little.

And you believe that government debt is good? You must love the US, then. Perhaps we should become more like them?

You are making the typical Liebral comment with no context what so ever. There is nothing inherently wrong with government debt. Putting context around it the debt that Australia has is quite low and easily serviced, so not so bad.In fact I would say the worse fiscal performance was Howard and Abbott squandering a boom on tax bribes when more of that money should have been saved and more should have been spent on infrastructure. Tell me during the boom what did Howard build?

Of course we also need to look at what would have happened if the previous government didn’t spent on stimulating the economy. Just look to the US and the UK to get your answer. So Debt of the US size not good, debt like we have is piddle and easily serviced.

I would like to hear your thoughts on how Australia will ever repay our debt when it peaks at about $700 billion.
Current servicing costs are about $1 billion a month which is capitalised from ongoing borrowings. The debt continues to increase, meantime.
This may be manageable in the short term but when we lose our AAA credit rating and our bonds slip to junk status it will be a different story.
Australia cannot manufacture consumer goods at competitive prices anymore so how are we going to trade our way out like all the other debt ridden economies (who mythically once envied Wayne Swan’s economy)?
Reality check: THE MINING BOOM IS OVER , FOREVER.
We have some huge holes in the ground which would be ideal for burying the rest of the world’s garbage and nuclear waste. This could be the industry that enables us to still generate enough money to pay all those welfare entitlements and penalty rates that the voters are desparately clinging to.

Easy, make people like me (I earn about $180k p/a) pay some more. Take away negative gearing, reintroduce the mining tax and carbon taxes. Already I am up to around $50B p/a and I’ve just started.

It can be done easily without punishing those that cannot afford it.

dungfungus12:14 pm 03 Feb 15

JC said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

The reality is that we get the majority of our tax revenue from the wealthy. The bottom half (wealth-wise) contribute very little.

And you believe that government debt is good? You must love the US, then. Perhaps we should become more like them?

You are making the typical Liebral comment with no context what so ever. There is nothing inherently wrong with government debt. Putting context around it the debt that Australia has is quite low and easily serviced, so not so bad.In fact I would say the worse fiscal performance was Howard and Abbott squandering a boom on tax bribes when more of that money should have been saved and more should have been spent on infrastructure. Tell me during the boom what did Howard build?

Of course we also need to look at what would have happened if the previous government didn’t spent on stimulating the economy. Just look to the US and the UK to get your answer. So Debt of the US size not good, debt like we have is piddle and easily serviced.

I would like to hear your thoughts on how Australia will ever repay our debt when it peaks at about $700 billion.
Current servicing costs are about $1 billion a month which is capitalised from ongoing borrowings. The debt continues to increase, meantime.
This may be manageable in the short term but when we lose our AAA credit rating and our bonds slip to junk status it will be a different story.
Australia cannot manufacture consumer goods at competitive prices anymore so how are we going to trade our way out like all the other debt ridden economies (who mythically once envied Wayne Swan’s economy)?
Reality check: THE MINING BOOM IS OVER , FOREVER.
We have some huge holes in the ground which would be ideal for burying the rest of the world’s garbage and nuclear waste. This could be the industry that enables us to still generate enough money to pay all those welfare entitlements and penalty rates that the voters are desparately clinging to.

JC11:51 am 03 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

milkman said :

You should change your username to “Rusted_On”.

The above rant was nice, but very one-sided. For example, Rudd’s boat policy was put in place because it was under him that the government dropped the ball and people started coming – and dying – again.

You can talk does rust ever form on a black kettle? Hmmm.

As for Rudd’s asylum seeker people policy MKI, it worked. Yeah people arrived, as they did everywhere else in the world, so what makes us think we are so different that we should turn our backs. As for the reason people died was because it was turned into a political football to appeal to xenophobes, and that is how the whole thing has remained. Certainly a no win for any self respecting government.

Rudd’s policy didn’t include turning back the boats. In fact, several of their ministers said “it can’t be done”.
Another Labor lie.

Who said it did? All I said is it was his policy (Manus Island and no settlement in Aus) that stemmed the flow. The statistics are there to be seen, boat arrivals were slowing to a trickle before the Liebrals got into power.

If you say so.

I know you will say Fact Check as it is run by the ABC is biased, but here goes:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-10/scott-morrison-not-telling-full-story-asylum-seeker-arrivals/5119380

Look at that arrivals went from 950 a week when Rudd implemented the Manus island policy and had dropped to 50 per week at the time of the election. Then rose as high as 200 under the Liebrals before slowing once more. Of course who is to know how many may have arrived, afterall that information is classified as ‘on water’.

Oh and the peak under Gillard and Rudd MKI, have a look at worldwide assylum seeker statistics and you might see the whole world peaked around that time, due in no small part to the end of the war in Sri Lanaka and Afganistan. And where did the bulk of the arrivals come from. Hmmm yep these two countries.

dungfungus9:19 am 03 Feb 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

The Libs have failed totally to explain to the voters why they have to do what a lot of their detractors see as punitive.
Anyone with wealth at risk clearly understands what has to be done.

Most Australians have enough problems with personal debt (thanks to low interest rates and the high dollar) so they haven’t got the capacity to understand why they should be targeted to forego entitlements and welfare that is no longer sustainable.

We are all going to suffer more if Labor are re-elected next year.

Hmm interesting post. I could twist it a bit if you like.

I reckon anyone with wealth knows what to be done but doesn’t want to cough up. The core issue with our economy is lack of income. Indeed look at any of the intergenerational reports produced over the years (originally started by Howard) and you can see the core issue is lack of income, not too much spending. But what did Howard do, yep reduce income through tax cuts, spending like a drunken sailor (though the Liebrals try to turn this onto Labor despite an international economic mob saying it was Howard), middle class wealfare that at the time wasn’t needed but now has been factored into household budgets so is hard to remove, this is all part of the structural deficit that many quitle fairly blame on Howard and Costello.

But where do you get the bulk of your income from, yep the wealthy. So the Liebral/tea party solution is to deamonise and punish those they see as unworthy.

Your correct a lot of Australians have a lot of personal debt, but still fall for the line from the Liebrals that government debt is bad. Never mind of course the governments debt in terms of their ability to repay is infantly better than most Australians. But of course it does help the Liebral line if we trot out big scary numbers with no context what so ever.

As for suffering more under labor, matter of opinion I guess.

Let me tell you about the realities of “lack of income”.
Since I retired, my pension income has halved. This is because I choose to invest my superannuation in minimum risk investments. I still have my capital though but if interest rates are reduced again today, I will have to start drawing down my capital.
Who cares, when the capital runs out I can always go on the aged pension and access those millions of dollars in tax I paid when I was working!
When an individual is faced with this situation you have to cop it sweet even though the cost of living is rising. Disposable income, as meagre as it was, simply disappears and a night out at a restaurant or updating the family car become distant memories. This does not help the wider economy.
When a government is faced with this situation it can try to rein in debt by curtailing entitlements and conditioning the means testing for them. If legislation for these changes is not passed the only option is to borrow but this has limitations.
If that is what the people want then so be it. I am sorry I can’t help out though because my wealth has already been depleted.

dungfungus8:59 am 03 Feb 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

The Libs have failed totally to explain to the voters why they have to do what a lot of their detractors see as punitive.
Anyone with wealth at risk clearly understands what has to be done.

Most Australians have enough problems with personal debt (thanks to low interest rates and the high dollar) so they haven’t got the capacity to understand why they should be targeted to forego entitlements and welfare that is no longer sustainable.

We are all going to suffer more if Labor are re-elected next year.

Hmm interesting post. I could twist it a bit if you like.

I reckon anyone with wealth knows what to be done but doesn’t want to cough up. The core issue with our economy is lack of income. Indeed look at any of the intergenerational reports produced over the years (originally started by Howard) and you can see the core issue is lack of income, not too much spending. But what did Howard do, yep reduce income through tax cuts, spending like a drunken sailor (though the Liebrals try to turn this onto Labor despite an international economic mob saying it was Howard), middle class wealfare that at the time wasn’t needed but now has been factored into household budgets so is hard to remove, this is all part of the structural deficit that many quitle fairly blame on Howard and Costello.

But where do you get the bulk of your income from, yep the wealthy. So the Liebral/tea party solution is to deamonise and punish those they see as unworthy.

Your correct a lot of Australians have a lot of personal debt, but still fall for the line from the Liebrals that government debt is bad. Never mind of course the governments debt in terms of their ability to repay is infantly better than most Australians. But of course it does help the Liebral line if we trot out big scary numbers with no context what so ever.

As for suffering more under labor, matter of opinion I guess.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Hey, how about that great default win by Labor in Queensland?
I wonder how many dead people voted Labor this time.
Labor’s leader has no policies and doesn’t even know how much the GST rate is. She has pledged not to sell anymore assets (were there any left after the Bligh government got busy and sold some?)
I think Queensland’s debt was about $90 billion when the LNP won office and they had made significant inroads to reducing it.
I wonder how long Labor will take to restore the “satus quo”.
Queenslanders deserve the government they have just voted for.

Lies from the Liebral mouth peice.

QLD’s debt when the LNP got in was $64b. Source the commission of audit commissioned by Cambell Newman.

http://www.commissionofaudit.qld.gov.au/reports/interim-report-state-balance-sheet.pdf

The debit at the time the QLD budget was written in 2014/2015 was $80b. Source QLD budget at a glance.

http://budget.qld.gov.au/at-a-glance/2014-15/2014-15-queensland-state-budget-at-a-glance.pdf

So lie 1 of yours, the debt was NOT $90B, it was almost 2/3rds that amount. I know Liebrals love to over estimate to make things sound so much worse, but pleeeease!

Lie 2 of yours debt increased to the tune of $16b, yet you claim it as a reduction. How do you work that one out?

Also how do you come to the conclusion that Labor won by default? Be careful I reckon any argument you can put together to prove this would also be equally applied to Abbott.

If you read carefully I said “I THINK the debt was about $90 billion”.
If you add in unfunded government superannuation and contingent liabilities like local government debt it would have probably exceeded the figure I suggested.
I concede that Labor left the ship in good state then – only a debt of $64 billion – an excellent result.
The reference to Labor winning by default is simply echoing what your comrades said on other threads when they were commenting about Abbott’s win in the last Federal election.

dungfungus5:07 pm 02 Feb 15

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

milkman said :

If it weren’t for lots of media taking constant shots at Abbott for being a conservative, the Laborites would be even further into the wilderness than now.

You could also argue if it wasn’t for the media taking constant shots at Gillard that Labor would still be in power. Afterall their policies were pretty sound, what killed them was the constant cheap unfounded shots, and a lack of media scrutiny on policy rather than personality.

The key difference with Abbott is his policy clearly sucks, I mean to say by his own admissions he has had 3 wins. Stopping the boats (using of course the policy that Rudd put in before he got voted out), repealing the carbon tax, for all the good it has done, and repealed a mining tax that effected no one, though was due to hit is conservative mates. What else have they done?

The other difference with Abbott is he set the standards, but now people such as yourself adn Dungfungus have a whine that he is being held to these same standards.

But yeah it is a Labor town so no one here will understand what your saying.

Labor’s core policy was fairly sound for their ideology, it was the infighting and policy wet dreams that did them in.

The Liberals core policy is also fairly sound, but they went too far on some of their policies and the middle class won’t accept any cuts to their welfare gravy train. They’re entitled to other people’s money, don’t you know?

I don’t think Labor has a particularly sound or useful policy basis, because it’s hard to tell what that is (beyond taking whatever they can from whoever they can and giving it to unions and welfare recipients).

The Libs are far from useful right now, but the concept of reducing costs is at least half right. Delivering services sensibly would be good progress, though.

The Libs have failed totally to explain to the voters why they have to do what a lot of their detractors see as punitive.
Anyone with wealth at risk clearly understands what has to be done.
Most Australians have enough problems with personal debt (thanks to low interest rates and the high dollar) so they haven’t got the capacity to understand why they should be targeted to forego entitlements and welfare that is no longer sustainable.
We are all going to suffer more if Labor are re-elected next year.

Completely agree, except that the Libs have been very bad with their lies. They tried to paint a picture that everyone on any kind welfare, are drinkers, smokers and have 100″ TV’s and holiday in Bali each year and thats just not true. They attack those on a welfare, meanwhile the wealthy expect for more subsidies, and policies to line their pockets. It really is no different how the government provides for you, whether its a cash handout, or a tax concession, IMO its leaching off taxpayers and the wealthy are just as guilty as anyone else.

The facts show that spending has been very constant over the last 20 odd years, however right now revenue is down as a percentage of GDP. Many economists believe because of our low debt that by doing nothing we’ll probably recover in under better global circumstances. However I can accept we have a debt and the government wants to pay it off (how any of them ever bought a house without going into debt would be a question worth asking). The problem is none of the failed policies were about reducing debt. In fact it was all about fulfilling their right wing ideology. If there was a genuine attempt to reign in debt, there are many ways that would be more popular with voters to do this. I’d argue adding an extra 0.5% to say medicare levy, would not be the most popular, but the public would understand it better than the attempt to dismantle medicare.

Same for university deregulation. It had nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with deregulation. They even offered to not cut funding if the senate passes the deregulation part thus not saving anything, plus most of the savings were going to fund TAFE’s etc.

We won’t even get into the boat people issue. Its the most politically contrived and twisted issue to win votes in the history of politics. Was it an issue? Yes. Was it as big an issue as it was made out to be? Definitely not. Both parties used it to win votes of the conservative and used fear monger tactics to win those votes in western Sydney. We did need to stop the boats. But there was a lot of rubbish especially around off shore detention centres and the lies about how wealthy these people are. Apparently they are all wealthy or terrorists. The facts are most were neither, but how else do you win votes? You con them into thinking we have a serious problem and then argue about who is doing it best.

I don’t know if there is a solution. I reckon Malcolm Turnbull could reform the democrats and have a good chance at winning to be honest, because both parties have been bad for a long time now.
I’d like to see an end to certain penalty rates, i’d like to see a tax of some kind on polluters. The country has a fixation that to be wealthy one must reduce the taxes you pay. How about getting a mindset that to earn more wealth you need to run a better business model and increase your earnings and profits, just as much as focussing on cost cutting.

“…adding an extra 0.5% to say medicare levy, would not be the most popular, but the public would understand it better ……..”
This would mean that people who are under the income tax threshold and superannuated retired people who receive pensions that are not assessable income would not contribute to the debt rein-in.
There are also a lot of people in this country who wilfully cheat the system to get a pension or any type of entitlement.
I am sorry, a Medicare type levy is not an equitable way to get us out of debt. The national debt is so big it will never be repaid anyhow.

watto233:56 pm 02 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

milkman said :

If it weren’t for lots of media taking constant shots at Abbott for being a conservative, the Laborites would be even further into the wilderness than now.

You could also argue if it wasn’t for the media taking constant shots at Gillard that Labor would still be in power. Afterall their policies were pretty sound, what killed them was the constant cheap unfounded shots, and a lack of media scrutiny on policy rather than personality.

The key difference with Abbott is his policy clearly sucks, I mean to say by his own admissions he has had 3 wins. Stopping the boats (using of course the policy that Rudd put in before he got voted out), repealing the carbon tax, for all the good it has done, and repealed a mining tax that effected no one, though was due to hit is conservative mates. What else have they done?

The other difference with Abbott is he set the standards, but now people such as yourself adn Dungfungus have a whine that he is being held to these same standards.

But yeah it is a Labor town so no one here will understand what your saying.

Labor’s core policy was fairly sound for their ideology, it was the infighting and policy wet dreams that did them in.

The Liberals core policy is also fairly sound, but they went too far on some of their policies and the middle class won’t accept any cuts to their welfare gravy train. They’re entitled to other people’s money, don’t you know?

I don’t think Labor has a particularly sound or useful policy basis, because it’s hard to tell what that is (beyond taking whatever they can from whoever they can and giving it to unions and welfare recipients).

The Libs are far from useful right now, but the concept of reducing costs is at least half right. Delivering services sensibly would be good progress, though.

The Libs have failed totally to explain to the voters why they have to do what a lot of their detractors see as punitive.
Anyone with wealth at risk clearly understands what has to be done.
Most Australians have enough problems with personal debt (thanks to low interest rates and the high dollar) so they haven’t got the capacity to understand why they should be targeted to forego entitlements and welfare that is no longer sustainable.
We are all going to suffer more if Labor are re-elected next year.

Completely agree, except that the Libs have been very bad with their lies. They tried to paint a picture that everyone on any kind welfare, are drinkers, smokers and have 100″ TV’s and holiday in Bali each year and thats just not true. They attack those on a welfare, meanwhile the wealthy expect for more subsidies, and policies to line their pockets. It really is no different how the government provides for you, whether its a cash handout, or a tax concession, IMO its leaching off taxpayers and the wealthy are just as guilty as anyone else.

The facts show that spending has been very constant over the last 20 odd years, however right now revenue is down as a percentage of GDP. Many economists believe because of our low debt that by doing nothing we’ll probably recover in under better global circumstances. However I can accept we have a debt and the government wants to pay it off (how any of them ever bought a house without going into debt would be a question worth asking). The problem is none of the failed policies were about reducing debt. In fact it was all about fulfilling their right wing ideology. If there was a genuine attempt to reign in debt, there are many ways that would be more popular with voters to do this. I’d argue adding an extra 0.5% to say medicare levy, would not be the most popular, but the public would understand it better than the attempt to dismantle medicare. Same for university deregulation. It had nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with deregulation. They even offered to not cut funding if the senate passes the deregulation part thus not saving anything, plus most of the savings were going to fund TAFE’s etc.

We won’t even get into the boat people issue. Its the most politically contrived and twisted issue to win votes in the history of politics. Was it an issue? Yes. Was it as big an issue as it was made out to be? Definitely not. Both parties used it to win votes of the conservative and used fear monger tactics to win those votes in western Sydney. We did need to stop the boats. But there was a lot of rubbish especially around off shore detention centres and the lies about how wealthy these people are. Apparently they are all wealthy or terrorists. The facts are most were neither, but how else do you win votes? You con them into thinking we have a serious problem and then argue about who is doing it best.

I don’t know if there is a solution. I reckon Malcolm Turnbull could reform the democrats and have a good chance at winning to be honest, because both parties have been bad for a long time now.
I’d like to see an end to certain penalty rates, i’d like to see a tax of some kind on polluters. The country has a fixation that to be wealthy one must reduce the taxes you pay. How about getting a mindset that to earn more wealth you need to run a better business model and increase your earnings and profits, just as much as focussing on cost cutting.

dungfungus11:42 am 02 Feb 15

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

chewy14 said :

JC said :

milkman said :

If it weren’t for lots of media taking constant shots at Abbott for being a conservative, the Laborites would be even further into the wilderness than now.

You could also argue if it wasn’t for the media taking constant shots at Gillard that Labor would still be in power. Afterall their policies were pretty sound, what killed them was the constant cheap unfounded shots, and a lack of media scrutiny on policy rather than personality.

The key difference with Abbott is his policy clearly sucks, I mean to say by his own admissions he has had 3 wins. Stopping the boats (using of course the policy that Rudd put in before he got voted out), repealing the carbon tax, for all the good it has done, and repealed a mining tax that effected no one, though was due to hit is conservative mates. What else have they done?

The other difference with Abbott is he set the standards, but now people such as yourself adn Dungfungus have a whine that he is being held to these same standards.

But yeah it is a Labor town so no one here will understand what your saying.

Labor’s core policy was fairly sound for their ideology, it was the infighting and policy wet dreams that did them in.

The Liberals core policy is also fairly sound, but they went too far on some of their policies and the middle class won’t accept any cuts to their welfare gravy train. They’re entitled to other people’s money, don’t you know?

I don’t think Labor has a particularly sound or useful policy basis, because it’s hard to tell what that is (beyond taking whatever they can from whoever they can and giving it to unions and welfare recipients).

The Libs are far from useful right now, but the concept of reducing costs is at least half right. Delivering services sensibly would be good progress, though.

The Libs have failed totally to explain to the voters why they have to do what a lot of their detractors see as punitive.
Anyone with wealth at risk clearly understands what has to be done.
Most Australians have enough problems with personal debt (thanks to low interest rates and the high dollar) so they haven’t got the capacity to understand why they should be targeted to forego entitlements and welfare that is no longer sustainable.
We are all going to suffer more if Labor are re-elected next year.

milkman4:51 pm 31 Jan 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

Why had voters (other than yourself of course) had enough of the Labor party.
Surely Labor wasn’t doing things that were worse than handing out knighthoods? Maybe they were but I haven’t heard anyone allude to what they were. I am waiting.
And Tony Abbott was indeed voted in (as leader of the opposition party 8 years ago) by one vote. He then led the coalition to a resounding victory 18 months ago in case you have already forgotten.

Every man and his dog knows Abbott got voted in by default. Why was Labor on the nose? Hmm well maybe because of 6 years of constant lies about the economy (still going on), lie about leadership and Abbott playing politics for his own personal gain rather than the good of the country. Just look at the litany of lies he took to the last election and Abbotts lies about Gillards so called lie. Back of course by the self interest of Australia’s wealthy, and of course one token ex Australian, who owns a few news papers around the country.

Ironically the people that made the difference in the vote at the last election, vis the middle class swinging voters are the ones that the governments policies are the same people that are getting screwed over. They won’t take too much of that, though they may change their minds if there is some bribes heading their way in the 2016 budget.

Abbot’s not much chop, sure, but he was voted in because Australians thought Labor was even worse, and I reckon it was the right move.

The current crop of Libs are pretty average, but if we’re being fair and honest then most of Labor is at least as bad. If it weren’t for lots of media taking constant shots at Abbott for being a conservative, the Laborites would be even further into the wilderness than now.

About the only group worse than the LIbs and Labs right now are the Greens.

Of course, I wouldn’t expect a lot of people here to agree with me. Canberra is a Labor town, and it would take something big to change that.

dungfungus3:12 pm 31 Jan 15

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I think you owe Tony Abbott an apology John for was it not Bob Hawke, a Labor prime minister, who about 1980 recommended that Prince Philip receive an OAM which what was then Australia’s highest honour?
Funny how no one thought that was an appalling decision then and also how it has been forgotten about.

So Liebral, blame Labor. What happened 30-35 years ago is irrelevant in 2015

The country has changed and attitudes to awards such as these have changed, except is seems in the eyes of hardcore Liebrals such as Tony Abbott and yourself.

If the changes you cite have happened, how come the coalition was elected with a big majority and Tony Abbott became PM 18 months ago?
I don’t really care about the awards and I believe the voters don’t either. The Abbott haters are in full flight now with this confectioned beat up about the knighthood.
It must be a difficult dilemma for the left to accept the support of Rupert Murdoch who is constantly derided for his support of the conservatives by you and your peers.
I gather you supported Bob Hawke’s decision then?

The coalition got in by default as the voters had had enough of the Labor Party. Not because of themselves. Abbott was voted in by one vote.

Why had voters (other than yourself of course) had enough of the Labor party.
Surely Labor wasn’t doing things that were worse than handing out knighthoods? Maybe they were but I haven’t heard anyone allude to what they were. I am waiting.
And Tony Abbott was indeed voted in (as leader of the opposition party 8 years ago) by one vote. He then led the coalition to a resounding victory 18 months ago in case you have already forgotten.

Um, er, bit presumptuous there…I didn’t vote Labor. I didn’t see the Liberals as an alternative though; absolutely NOT with Tony Abbott. Over the years I have voted Labor, Liberal, Green and possibly Democrat, and I am willing to vote for independents and small parties too. I am not aligned to any party. I often vote for a party, not because I particularly want to, but because the alternative is worse, and I believe we should all vote. You should never make assumptions and pigeon-hole people because they consider issues and just don’t vote unchangingly as from your writing you would likely do. But unless the Liberals come back from the far right and drop the Christian fanatical right, I am unlikely to ever consider them again.

Gee, that’s a first. Someone in Canberra actually admitting to not voting for Labor and defending the reason they didn’t.
Don’t worry, you won’t be expelled from the union and I don’t think the Liberals will miss your vote in the future.

dungfungus3:05 pm 31 Jan 15

JC said :

dungfungus said :

If the changes you cite have happened, how come the coalition was elected with a big majority and Tony Abbott became PM 18 months ago?
I don’t really care about the awards and I believe the voters don’t either. The Abbott haters are in full flight now with this confectioned beat up about the knighthood.
It must be a difficult dilemma for the left to accept the support of Rupert Murdoch who is constantly derided for his support of the conservatives by you and your peers.
I gather you supported Bob Hawke’s decision then?

You just proved my point. You seem to think there have been no changes in the attitudes of Australians towards the Monarchy and archaic awards over the past 30 years. You cannot be that deluded can you?

Also none of this has anything to do with the election 18 months ago, I don’t recall it ever being an issue. Though maybe if Tones announced before hand that he was going to bring back Knights and Dames then maybe some would have changed their vote. Likewise if he presented any policy to the electorate for scrutiny rather than peddling 3 word slogans and lies the world may be a different place.

As for Hawke, what he did 30 years ago is totally irrelevant, as I said different times, different attitudes. Ironic of course that it was Hawke that actually discontinued awarding Knights and Dames a few years later.

If I am deluded (accordinging to your perceptions about Australians changing their attitudes towards the monarchy) the millions of other Australians are also.
The media still love the monarchy and whenever a royal visits Australia people fall over each other to get a glimpse. Every day it’s about some royal’s baby bump, Prince Harry’s latest stunt etc.
I am not interested but obviously many others are.
I don’t think Hawke, still living in his multi-million dollar mansion, puffing cigars and enjoying his wealth, would agree with you that what he did 30 ears ago was totally irrelevant.
On the subject of awards, were you happy when Manning Clarke received the Lenin Medal?

Maya12312:49 pm 31 Jan 15

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

dungfungus said :

I think you owe Tony Abbott an apology John for was it not Bob Hawke, a Labor prime minister, who about 1980 recommended that Prince Philip receive an OAM which what was then Australia’s highest honour?
Funny how no one thought that was an appalling decision then and also how it has been forgotten about.

So Liebral, blame Labor. What happened 30-35 years ago is irrelevant in 2015

The country has changed and attitudes to awards such as these have changed, except is seems in the eyes of hardcore Liebrals such as Tony Abbott and yourself.

If the changes you cite have happened, how come the coalition was elected with a big majority and Tony Abbott became PM 18 months ago?
I don’t really care about the awards and I believe the voters don’t either. The Abbott haters are in full flight now with this confectioned beat up about the knighthood.
It must be a difficult dilemma for the left to accept the support of Rupert Murdoch who is constantly derided for his support of the conservatives by you and your peers.
I gather you supported Bob Hawke’s decision then?

The coalition got in by default as the voters had had enough of the Labor Party. Not because of themselves. Abbott was voted in by one vote.

Why had voters (other than yourself of course) had enough of the Labor party.
Surely Labor wasn’t doing things that were worse than handing out knighthoods? Maybe they were but I haven’t heard anyone allude to what they were. I am waiting.
And Tony Abbott was indeed voted in (as leader of the opposition party 8 years ago) by one vote. He then led the coalition to a resounding victory 18 months ago in case you have already forgotten.

Um, er, bit presumptuous there…I didn’t vote Labor. I didn’t see the Liberals as an alternative though; absolutely NOT with Tony Abbott. Over the years I have voted Labor, Liberal, Green and possibly Democrat, and I am willing to vote for independents and small parties too. I am not aligned to any party. I often vote for a party, not because I particularly want to, but because the alternative is worse, and I believe we should all vote. You should never make assumptions and pigeon-hole people because they consider issues and just don’t vote unchangingly as from your writing you would likely do. But unless the Liberals come back from the far right and drop the Christian fanatical right, I am unlikely to ever consider them again.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Professional Services

RSM

We share skills, insight and resources, as well as a client-centric approach that's based on a deep understanding of your business.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more