Budget fears

wildturkeycanoe said :

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

So it’s a vanity thing?

What’s vain about that? Seriously? I just don’t want the pompous rich people being the only ones who are allowed to breed, “cause they can afford it”. Isn’t eligibility for parenthood based on financial capacity a form of genocide, whereby only a few wealthy families will be the only ones around in future generations? Imagine a century from now, when there won’t be any lower class and the rich folks’ kids will have to do demeaning things like plumbing and garbage collection.

I go back to my original point. Having children is always a lifestyle choice. Nothing wrong with that at all but people need to accept it instead of coming up with altruistic justifications.

BTW, I am also the last male of a line and the family name will die with me. I’m not that vain to think that really matters. It will make no difference in the scheme of things whether there is someone with my last name on this planet or not.

wildturkeycanoe said :

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

So it’s a vanity thing?

What’s vain about that? Seriously? I just don’t want the pompous rich people being the only ones who are allowed to breed, “cause they can afford it”. Isn’t eligibility for parenthood based on financial capacity a form of genocide, whereby only a few wealthy families will be the only ones around in future generations? Imagine a century from now, when there won’t be any lower class and the rich folks’ kids will have to do demeaning things like plumbing and garbage collection.

I think idiocracy is closer to the mark.

bigfeet said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

So it’s a vanity thing?

What’s vain about that? Seriously? I just don’t want the pompous rich people being the only ones who are allowed to breed, “cause they can afford it”. Isn’t eligibility for parenthood based on financial capacity a form of genocide, whereby only a few wealthy families will be the only ones around in future generations? Imagine a century from now, when there won’t be any lower class and the rich folks’ kids will have to do demeaning things like plumbing and garbage collection.

wildturkeycanoe said :

BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

So it’s a vanity thing?

justin heywood said :

JC said :

Don’t disagree with there being a structural problem with the budget. Since the first intergenerational report was commissioned by Costello and Howard it has been telling us the cost to government of an aging population is going to cost us more and that taxes need to rise to cover it.

Instead what does Howard and Costello do? Yes give tax cuts to win elections. Labor of course is no better on this front of course as they too didn’t address the core issue which is on the revenue side. They of course had to deal with the GFC, though the Liberal lovies deny that was ever an issue in Australia. A crazy statement if ever I heard.

We now have two buffoons running the show who are, to their credit trying to address the core issue of rising costs to government of social services due to aging population, but their solution to it is slash an burn and make those that can least afford to pay either pay more for it or go without. Whilst at the same time blaming economic mismanagement by the previous government as the reason for the need. The real solution needs to be an equitable rise in taxes over time to 1996 levels and a lowering of welfare to those that really don’t need it.

JC, FFS, there have been 6 budgets and 3 Prime Ministers since John Howard. Yet somehow you have managed to convince yourself that it’s all his fault and that the ‘buffoons’ in charge now don’t know what they are doing either. Presumably, your team was the only one who knew what they were doing.

You don’t think there could be a teensy bit of bias in your thinking?

NSS. Did you miss the bit in my post where I said that Labor did nothing too? Did you miss the bit where I at least gave some kudos two the two buffoons? My issue is they are going about it the wrong way, the core issue is lack of income not too much expenditure and with an aging population it is going to get worse, even with retirement pushed out to 70.

As for bias, so what? I am not a journo, I am an individual expressing my personal view, like everyone else on this board.

JC said :

Don’t disagree with there being a structural problem with the budget. Since the first intergenerational report was commissioned by Costello and Howard it has been telling us the cost to government of an aging population is going to cost us more and that taxes need to rise to cover it.

Instead what does Howard and Costello do? Yes give tax cuts to win elections. Labor of course is no better on this front of course as they too didn’t address the core issue which is on the revenue side. They of course had to deal with the GFC, though the Liberal lovies deny that was ever an issue in Australia. A crazy statement if ever I heard.

We now have two buffoons running the show who are, to their credit trying to address the core issue of rising costs to government of social services due to aging population, but their solution to it is slash an burn and make those that can least afford to pay either pay more for it or go without. Whilst at the same time blaming economic mismanagement by the previous government as the reason for the need. The real solution needs to be an equitable rise in taxes over time to 1996 levels and a lowering of welfare to those that really don’t need it.

JC, FFS, there have been 6 budgets and 3 Prime Ministers since John Howard. Yet somehow you have managed to convince yourself that it’s all his fault and that the ‘buffoons’ in charge now don’t know what they are doing either. Presumably, your team was the only one who knew what they were doing.

You don’t think there could be a teensy bit of bias in your thinking?

JC said :

dungfungus said :

.
Yes, it’s the same Wayne Swan who promised us year after year a budget surplus and look at the mess he left us with.

Yep an economy that is the envy of the world. Not a bad mess to be left with hey? But yeah you don’t believe the words independent economists just Joe Hockey and Co. Guess you read it all in the Terrograph.

Name me two of the independent economists you are referring to.
I don’t read the Telegraph except when I go to the barber but I am comfortable knowing you have read what they have to say about our economy.
You made no comment on Wayne Swan (and Penny Wong for that matter) continually failing to deliver budget surpluses that they had promised. You can’t have it both ways anymore you know.

Maya123 said :

Tough, your teenagers want cars. Tell them to wait until they are adults and have an income and can buy their own. Spoilt, if they expect others to buy cars for them.
I also wondered about the above. If one child puts you into a difficult debt, why number two and three child?

Debt problem fixed prior to arrival of #2, then things went south again. It happens. I never have said that having the children put any extra financial burden on us. Even without the kids the circumstances that caused the problems still happened and had their impact. My partner not working had nothing to do with the arrival of our baby, it had already happened. It also coincided with the Liberal government taking power. Funny that things have gone south again, with the Liberals taking the helm.
BTW, having children is not necessarily a financial decision only for a lot of people. Perhaps it is to keep the family line going. I was the last male in my family and if I hadn’t had children, the family name would die with me. [Only one male born, that also fathered children, in each generation going back as far as records show].

milkman said :

We have a structural problem that needs to be fixed BEFORE it’s as bad as other places. Far better to tackle this now.

And giving credit to the previous Labor goverment for profligate spending on crap which ‘saved’ us from recession (by 0.3% GDP for 1 quarter remember) is a bit silly.

And it’s debt, not debit.

Of course this commission of audit looks bad. That way the budget won’t seem so bad in a week and a bit.

Don’t disagree with there being a structural problem with the budget. Since the first intergenerational report was commissioned by Costello and Howard it has been telling us the cost to government of an aging population is going to cost us more and that taxes need to rise to cover it.

Instead what does Howard and Costello do? Yes give tax cuts to win elections. Labor of course is no better on this front of course as they too didn’t address the core issue which is on the revenue side. They of course had to deal with the GFC, though the Liberal lovies deny that was ever an issue in Australia. A crazy statement if ever I heard.

We now have two buffoons running the show who are, to their credit trying to address the core issue of rising costs to government of social services due to aging population, but their solution to it is slash an burn and make those that can least afford to pay either pay more for it or go without. Whilst at the same time blaming economic mismanagement by the previous government as the reason for the need. The real solution needs to be an equitable rise in taxes over time to 1996 levels and a lowering of welfare to those that really don’t need it.

dungfungus said :

.
Yes, it’s the same Wayne Swan who promised us year after year a budget surplus and look at the mess he left us with.

Yep an economy that is the envy of the world. Not a bad mess to be left with hey? But yeah you don’t believe the words independent economists just Joe Hockey and Co. Guess you read it all in the Terrograph.

dungfungus said :

milkman said :

I’m curious as well. What could have cost so much? We have two children and they weren’t a financial burden at all.

I used to think that too; until they became teenagers and wanted tertiary education, cars, gap year funding etc. I hope their teeth are in good shape.

Wanting cars and gap year funding are both great motivators to go out and work. There are plenty of part time jobs suitable for kids.

Handing them everything on a plate is a great way to make them lazy and undisciplined.

JC said :

bigfeet said :

Having children is a lifestyle choice.

That it is, but of course we need children to be the workers of tomorrow to keep the economy alive to pay for everyone else.

Precisely – the only alternative is ever-increasing rates of immigration, which also involves costs to the Budget (immigrants get old, and sick, too). That said, it’s sensible to keep under review the overall amount being spent on family assistance and how it is targeted.

dungfungus said :

milkman said :

magiccar9 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

magiccar9 said :

As was said before, we’re happy to take the government handouts (eg, stimulus packages) for free, but when we need to give something back we throw a tantrum. Wouldn’t you rather give a little bit of money back, and have a stable economy that is in the positive, rather than being selfish and living with debt over our heads?

We need to adjust our standards of living as a first point. No brand new car when we have our first child. No SUV purchase when a small hatchback will do the same job for half the price. Stop buying brand name goods from the super market etc etc. Nobody is looking inside their own homes and realising the areas they can cut back spending so the impact is less on their hip-pocket.

Apart from your generalization of people who received a bit of hope from Mr. Rudd, I’d like to give you a real life sample of how things actually happened.

After our first child we ended up in so much debt that a Datsun 180B barely roadworthy sufficed for a time. Second child we had a clapped out VB Commodore till it leaked oil from the engine, gearbox and differential, plus coolant and fuel. Last child emerged and we struggled with a beautiful KIA Sportage that didn’t fit the two booster seats properly. What could we do? Downgrade to a wider seated, older car that still barely fit them in. There were no magic SUV’s in our budget to provide a legal alternative and the government bonuses went towards paying off debts rather than luxury goods.
For over a decade we have tried to budget foods with the best advice from internet and our own best strategic methods. Our cupboards are usually bare, except every second week when the money comes in and we deliberate on what is most important like paying the mortgage or the electricity bill.
Brand name? Isn’t that Aldi or Woolies nowadays? I Honestly believe I can speak for an abundant amount of persons who don’t have the problems you portray here when a couple of loaves of bread and a “meat” dinner would get them through the week instead adjusting their lifestyle?

So you were in debt after the first child, but you still thought it would be a good idea to have a second? More debt, and you had a third? Am I missing something here?

I also hate to correct you, but a Kia Sportage is a SUV… You can actually fit 2 child seats in cars half the size and cost of a Sportage now days. As for the rest of your comment, would you care to elaborate what got you so far into debt (apart from the aforementioned children) in the first place?

I’m curious as well. What could have cost so much? We have two children and they weren’t a financial burden at all.

I used to think that too; until they became teenagers and wanted tertiary education, cars, gap year funding etc. I hope their teeth are in good shape.

Tough, your teenagers want cars. Tell them to wait until they are adults and have an income and can buy their own. Spoilt, if they expect others to buy cars for them.
I also wondered about the above. If one child puts you into a difficult debt, why number two and three child?

milkman said :

magiccar9 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

magiccar9 said :

As was said before, we’re happy to take the government handouts (eg, stimulus packages) for free, but when we need to give something back we throw a tantrum. Wouldn’t you rather give a little bit of money back, and have a stable economy that is in the positive, rather than being selfish and living with debt over our heads?

We need to adjust our standards of living as a first point. No brand new car when we have our first child. No SUV purchase when a small hatchback will do the same job for half the price. Stop buying brand name goods from the super market etc etc. Nobody is looking inside their own homes and realising the areas they can cut back spending so the impact is less on their hip-pocket.

Apart from your generalization of people who received a bit of hope from Mr. Rudd, I’d like to give you a real life sample of how things actually happened.

After our first child we ended up in so much debt that a Datsun 180B barely roadworthy sufficed for a time. Second child we had a clapped out VB Commodore till it leaked oil from the engine, gearbox and differential, plus coolant and fuel. Last child emerged and we struggled with a beautiful KIA Sportage that didn’t fit the two booster seats properly. What could we do? Downgrade to a wider seated, older car that still barely fit them in. There were no magic SUV’s in our budget to provide a legal alternative and the government bonuses went towards paying off debts rather than luxury goods.
For over a decade we have tried to budget foods with the best advice from internet and our own best strategic methods. Our cupboards are usually bare, except every second week when the money comes in and we deliberate on what is most important like paying the mortgage or the electricity bill.
Brand name? Isn’t that Aldi or Woolies nowadays? I Honestly believe I can speak for an abundant amount of persons who don’t have the problems you portray here when a couple of loaves of bread and a “meat” dinner would get them through the week instead adjusting their lifestyle?

So you were in debt after the first child, but you still thought it would be a good idea to have a second? More debt, and you had a third? Am I missing something here?

I also hate to correct you, but a Kia Sportage is a SUV… You can actually fit 2 child seats in cars half the size and cost of a Sportage now days. As for the rest of your comment, would you care to elaborate what got you so far into debt (apart from the aforementioned children) in the first place?

I’m curious as well. What could have cost so much? We have two children and they weren’t a financial burden at all.

I used to think that too; until they became teenagers and wanted tertiary education, cars, gap year funding etc. I hope their teeth are in good shape.

JC said :

magiccar9 said :

These comments baffle me. People are defending a government who spent till the cows came home, got booted out, and are now complaining about a government trying to recoup the money. If the shoe were on the other foot and Rudd/Gillard were still running the show, wouldn’t they be needing to do exactly the same thing to avoid falling further into debt?

It actually baffles me that people believe the BS spun by the Liberal party and Rupert Murdoch to be honest you seem to be one of them.

Yes Australia has a debit, but a manageable debit that by world wide standards is very very very good. Paying back this debit isn’t hard at all and doesn’t need all these austerity like measures being proposed by the Commission of Audit.

The Commission of Audit is just peddling conservative ideology pure and simple, but using the big bad “Labor Debit” as an excuse for it, when reality is is all just BS.

The libs know full well if they went to an election with this they wouldn’t get a sniff in, but you watch, introduce their ideology now, bribe the electorate come the next election with tax cuts because they are such wonders at economic management and voila a second term. Work for Howard for so long.

Which gets back to my original statement it baffles me how people get sucked into the liberal spin.

PS comments above about the economy supported by world wide economists who applauded Australia through the GFC. Now don’t say that was due to Howard, the man who the same economists said spent like a drunken sailor, at least Labor did it at a time when it was needed, wheras Howard should have been building up the coffers and building the country.

There has been no announcement on a plan to repay current government debt and “managing” the debt is dependant on servicing it. I understand that current annual interest payments are $12 billion but if interest rates were to double where is the governmnet going to find another $12 billion?
Indeed, the debt is still growing so that $12 billion pa will increase anyway.
Accordingly, your claim that it wouldn’t be very hard to repay the debt are ludicrous at least.
Also, this constant referral to the world’s best economists telling us how well we handled the GFC are equally ludicrous as these are the same people that didn’t see the GFC coming (I did) and the same people who annoited Wayne Swan as “world’s best treasurer”.
Yes, it’s the same Wayne Swan who promised us year after year a budget surplus and look at the mess he left us with.

“I also hate to correct you, but a Kia Sportage is a SUV… You can actually fit 2 child seats in cars half the size and cost of a Sportage now days. As for the rest of your comment, would you care to elaborate what got you so far into debt (apart from the aforementioned children) in the first place?”

I wasn’t talking about nowadays Sportages, the early Sportages did not fit a capsule, booster seat and leave enough room in the middle for the third child. They aren’t that wide. No, the Sportage was a Four Wheel Drive with proper transaxles, low range and locking hubs. SUVs are front wheel drive pieces of rubbish that think they can go off road.

I don’t mind elaborating….1st child was born [after many years of trying] just after we’d gone from two incomes to one, forced into rental accommodation that cost twice as much as before and had loans to service that couldn’t be recovered by sale of the vehicles we had at the time. Hence, the $500 Datto result.

By the time our second child came along things were cruising okay, then the rental bombshell hit again [paying 60% of income in rent] and work situation changed for the worse, putting us living day-to-day on what was left.

Currently, paying a mortgage that costs us 70% of our income [which is bugger all from worker’s comp] and been trying to get a job for the last four months unsuccessfully.
Sometimes people put themselves into these situations, then sometimes life just keeps throwing spanners into your dreams.
I paid back my government cheque back when I had those huge tax bills a few years ago. There isn’t anything left to give now.

“Having children is a lifestyle choice.”
In some cultures/religions it is an edict.
Anyone done the math on how much money and benefits a family with 10 children who are totally dependant on welfare get from the Australian government?

magiccar9 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

magiccar9 said :

As was said before, we’re happy to take the government handouts (eg, stimulus packages) for free, but when we need to give something back we throw a tantrum. Wouldn’t you rather give a little bit of money back, and have a stable economy that is in the positive, rather than being selfish and living with debt over our heads?

We need to adjust our standards of living as a first point. No brand new car when we have our first child. No SUV purchase when a small hatchback will do the same job for half the price. Stop buying brand name goods from the super market etc etc. Nobody is looking inside their own homes and realising the areas they can cut back spending so the impact is less on their hip-pocket.

Apart from your generalization of people who received a bit of hope from Mr. Rudd, I’d like to give you a real life sample of how things actually happened.

After our first child we ended up in so much debt that a Datsun 180B barely roadworthy sufficed for a time. Second child we had a clapped out VB Commodore till it leaked oil from the engine, gearbox and differential, plus coolant and fuel. Last child emerged and we struggled with a beautiful KIA Sportage that didn’t fit the two booster seats properly. What could we do? Downgrade to a wider seated, older car that still barely fit them in. There were no magic SUV’s in our budget to provide a legal alternative and the government bonuses went towards paying off debts rather than luxury goods.
For over a decade we have tried to budget foods with the best advice from internet and our own best strategic methods. Our cupboards are usually bare, except every second week when the money comes in and we deliberate on what is most important like paying the mortgage or the electricity bill.
Brand name? Isn’t that Aldi or Woolies nowadays? I Honestly believe I can speak for an abundant amount of persons who don’t have the problems you portray here when a couple of loaves of bread and a “meat” dinner would get them through the week instead adjusting their lifestyle?

So you were in debt after the first child, but you still thought it would be a good idea to have a second? More debt, and you had a third? Am I missing something here?

I also hate to correct you, but a Kia Sportage is a SUV… You can actually fit 2 child seats in cars half the size and cost of a Sportage now days. As for the rest of your comment, would you care to elaborate what got you so far into debt (apart from the aforementioned children) in the first place?

I’m curious as well. What could have cost so much? We have two children and they weren’t a financial burden at all.

JC said :

magiccar9 said :

These comments baffle me. People are defending a government who spent till the cows came home, got booted out, and are now complaining about a government trying to recoup the money. If the shoe were on the other foot and Rudd/Gillard were still running the show, wouldn’t they be needing to do exactly the same thing to avoid falling further into debt?

It actually baffles me that people believe the BS spun by the Liberal party and Rupert Murdoch to be honest you seem to be one of them.

Yes Australia has a debit, but a manageable debit that by world wide standards is very very very good. Paying back this debit isn’t hard at all and doesn’t need all these austerity like measures being proposed by the Commission of Audit.

The Commission of Audit is just peddling conservative ideology pure and simple, but using the big bad “Labor Debit” as an excuse for it, when reality is is all just BS.

The libs know full well if they went to an election with this they wouldn’t get a sniff in, but you watch, introduce their ideology now, bribe the electorate come the next election with tax cuts because they are such wonders at economic management and voila a second term. Work for Howard for so long.

Which gets back to my original statement it baffles me how people get sucked into the liberal spin.

PS comments above about the economy supported by world wide economists who applauded Australia through the GFC. Now don’t say that was due to Howard, the man who the same economists said spent like a drunken sailor, at least Labor did it at a time when it was needed, wheras Howard should have been building up the coffers and building the country.

We have a structural problem that needs to be fixed BEFORE it’s as bad as other places. Far better to tackle this now.

And giving credit to the previous Labor goverment for profligate spending on crap which ‘saved’ us from recession (by 0.3% GDP for 1 quarter remember) is a bit silly.

And it’s debt, not debit.

Of course this commission of audit looks bad. That way the budget won’t seem so bad in a week and a bit.

bigfeet said :

Having children is a lifestyle choice.

That it is, but of course we need children to be the workers of tomorrow to keep the economy alive to pay for everyone else.

magiccar9 said :

These comments baffle me. People are defending a government who spent till the cows came home, got booted out, and are now complaining about a government trying to recoup the money. If the shoe were on the other foot and Rudd/Gillard were still running the show, wouldn’t they be needing to do exactly the same thing to avoid falling further into debt?

It actually baffles me that people believe the BS spun by the Liberal party and Rupert Murdoch to be honest you seem to be one of them.

Yes Australia has a debit, but a manageable debit that by world wide standards is very very very good. Paying back this debit isn’t hard at all and doesn’t need all these austerity like measures being proposed by the Commission of Audit.

The Commission of Audit is just peddling conservative ideology pure and simple, but using the big bad “Labor Debit” as an excuse for it, when reality is is all just BS.

The libs know full well if they went to an election with this they wouldn’t get a sniff in, but you watch, introduce their ideology now, bribe the electorate come the next election with tax cuts because they are such wonders at economic management and voila a second term. Work for Howard for so long.

Which gets back to my original statement it baffles me how people get sucked into the liberal spin.

PS comments above about the economy supported by world wide economists who applauded Australia through the GFC. Now don’t say that was due to Howard, the man who the same economists said spent like a drunken sailor, at least Labor did it at a time when it was needed, wheras Howard should have been building up the coffers and building the country.

wildturkeycanoe said :

magiccar9 said :

As was said before, we’re happy to take the government handouts (eg, stimulus packages) for free, but when we need to give something back we throw a tantrum. Wouldn’t you rather give a little bit of money back, and have a stable economy that is in the positive, rather than being selfish and living with debt over our heads?

We need to adjust our standards of living as a first point. No brand new car when we have our first child. No SUV purchase when a small hatchback will do the same job for half the price. Stop buying brand name goods from the super market etc etc. Nobody is looking inside their own homes and realising the areas they can cut back spending so the impact is less on their hip-pocket.

Apart from your generalization of people who received a bit of hope from Mr. Rudd, I’d like to give you a real life sample of how things actually happened.

After our first child we ended up in so much debt that a Datsun 180B barely roadworthy sufficed for a time. Second child we had a clapped out VB Commodore till it leaked oil from the engine, gearbox and differential, plus coolant and fuel. Last child emerged and we struggled with a beautiful KIA Sportage that didn’t fit the two booster seats properly. What could we do? Downgrade to a wider seated, older car that still barely fit them in. There were no magic SUV’s in our budget to provide a legal alternative and the government bonuses went towards paying off debts rather than luxury goods.
For over a decade we have tried to budget foods with the best advice from internet and our own best strategic methods. Our cupboards are usually bare, except every second week when the money comes in and we deliberate on what is most important like paying the mortgage or the electricity bill.
Brand name? Isn’t that Aldi or Woolies nowadays? I Honestly believe I can speak for an abundant amount of persons who don’t have the problems you portray here when a couple of loaves of bread and a “meat” dinner would get them through the week instead adjusting their lifestyle?

So you were in debt after the first child, but you still thought it would be a good idea to have a second? More debt, and you had a third? Am I missing something here?

I also hate to correct you, but a Kia Sportage is a SUV… You can actually fit 2 child seats in cars half the size and cost of a Sportage now days. As for the rest of your comment, would you care to elaborate what got you so far into debt (apart from the aforementioned children) in the first place?

wildturkeycanoe said :

After our first child we ended up in so much debt that a Datsun 180B barely roadworthy sufficed for a time. Second child we had a clapped out VB Commodore till it leaked oil from the engine, gearbox and differential, plus coolant and fuel. Last child emerged and we struggled with a beautiful KIA Sportage that didn’t fit the two booster seats properly. What could we do? Downgrade to a wider seated, older car that still barely fit them in. There were no magic SUV’s in our budget to provide a legal alternative and the government bonuses went towards paying off debts rather than luxury goods.
For over a decade we have tried to budget foods with the best advice from internet and our own best strategic methods. Our cupboards are usually bare, except every second week when the money comes in and we deliberate on what is most important like paying the mortgage or the electricity bill.
Brand name? Isn’t that Aldi or Woolies nowadays? I Honestly believe I can speak for an abundant amount of persons who don’t have the problems you portray here when a couple of loaves of bread and a “meat” dinner would get them through the week instead adjusting their lifestyle?

Having children is a lifestyle choice.

magiccar9 said :

As was said before, we’re happy to take the government handouts (eg, stimulus packages) for free, but when we need to give something back we throw a tantrum. Wouldn’t you rather give a little bit of money back, and have a stable economy that is in the positive, rather than being selfish and living with debt over our heads?

We need to adjust our standards of living as a first point. No brand new car when we have our first child. No SUV purchase when a small hatchback will do the same job for half the price. Stop buying brand name goods from the super market etc etc. Nobody is looking inside their own homes and realising the areas they can cut back spending so the impact is less on their hip-pocket.

Apart from your generalization of people who received a bit of hope from Mr. Rudd, I’d like to give you a real life sample of how things actually happened.

After our first child we ended up in so much debt that a Datsun 180B barely roadworthy sufficed for a time. Second child we had a clapped out VB Commodore till it leaked oil from the engine, gearbox and differential, plus coolant and fuel. Last child emerged and we struggled with a beautiful KIA Sportage that didn’t fit the two booster seats properly. What could we do? Downgrade to a wider seated, older car that still barely fit them in. There were no magic SUV’s in our budget to provide a legal alternative and the government bonuses went towards paying off debts rather than luxury goods.
For over a decade we have tried to budget foods with the best advice from internet and our own best strategic methods. Our cupboards are usually bare, except every second week when the money comes in and we deliberate on what is most important like paying the mortgage or the electricity bill.
Brand name? Isn’t that Aldi or Woolies nowadays? I Honestly believe I can speak for an abundant amount of persons who don’t have the problems you portray here when a couple of loaves of bread and a “meat” dinner would get them through the week instead adjusting their lifestyle?

p1 said :

bigfeet said :

p1 said :

As much as I dont want to pay more tax, and think that MrRabbot

That is where I stopped reading.

Anyone who has to resort to foolish name calling (MrRabbot, Juliar, Krudd, Mad Monk etc) obviously has very little of substance to add to the discussion.

But by stopping there you just miss the bit where I call him a stinking liar.

Don’t worry about it too much p1, he/she chipped me about it once. Must be anti Triumph riders or something…

bigfeet said :

p1 said :

As much as I dont want to pay more tax, and think that MrRabbot

That is where I stopped reading.

Anyone who has to resort to foolish name calling (MrRabbot, Juliar, Krudd, Mad Monk etc) obviously has very little of substance to add to the discussion.

But by stopping there you just miss the bit where I call him a stinking liar.

p1 said :

As much as I dont want to pay more tax, and think that MrRabbot

That is where I stopped reading.

Anyone who has to resort to foolish name calling (MrRabbot, Juliar, Krudd, Mad Monk etc) obviously has very little of substance to add to the discussion.

Mysteryman said :

You’re right. Maybe they should just ask everyone really nicely to stop wasting their GP’s time.

At least that wouldn’t result in people deciding not to attend a GP when maybe they should? But even that isn’t really the point. Any payment large enough to actually disincentive time wasters is going to do the same for a number of people in genuine need of healthcare. Is keeping away those time wasters worth keeping away the needy people? I don’t think so, but I clearly lean just left of MrJockey.

I think it is about making an ideological point by removing the idea of ‘free’ healthcare from the Australian public.

Will they make co-payments for emergency treatment in hospitals mandatory too, to deter the inevitable increase in people fronting the ED with a cold?

magiccar9 said :

These comments baffle me. People are defending a government who spent till the cows came home, got booted out, and are now complaining about a government trying to recoup the money. If the shoe were on the other foot and Rudd/Gillard were still running the show, wouldn’t they be needing to do exactly the same thing to avoid falling further into debt?

These sorts of measures need to be done, regardless of who is in charge. If we keep on the road we’re heading into a deep deep hole. It’s strange nobody can see it.

As was said before, we’re happy to take the government handouts (eg, stimulus packages) for free, but when we need to give something back we throw a tantrum. Wouldn’t you rather give a little bit of money back, and have a stable economy that is in the positive, rather than being selfish and living with debt over our heads?

We need to adjust our standards of living as a first point. No brand new car when we have our first child. No SUV purchase when a small hatchback will do the same job for half the price. Stop buying brand name goods from the super market etc etc. Nobody is looking inside their own homes and realising the areas they can cut back spending so the impact is less on their hip-pocket.

Well said. I couldn’t agree with you more.

p1 said :

magiccar9 said :

These comments baffle me. People are defending a government who spent till the cows came home, got booted out, and are now complaining about a government trying to recoup the money. If the shoe were on the other foot and Rudd/Gillard were still running the show, wouldn’t they be needing to do exactly the same thing to avoid falling further into debt?

As much as I dont want to pay more tax, and think that MrRabbot is a stinking liar of the sort he painted Gillard of being, I think that more tax on people that make enough to pay it is a good thing. Middle class (and upper class, and large corporate) welfare should certainly be scaled back.

What I can’t stand is the blatant ideolgically driven parts (of both the audit report and the Liberal party policy platform) which are poorly supported by evidence (or those which are logical but mean spirited).

Saying “people have too many unnessesary GP appointments” is probably a fair statement. Saying “if less of those unnessesary appointments happen we’ll save money” is also probably fair.
Trying to acheive it by simply making it harder for everyone to get a GP appointment (with a fee), addresses this problem in the simplest, most mean spirited way.

You’re right. Maybe they should just ask everyone really nicely to stop wasting their GP’s time.

magiccar9 said :

These comments baffle me. People are defending a government who spent till the cows came home, got booted out, and are now complaining about a government trying to recoup the money. If the shoe were on the other foot and Rudd/Gillard were still running the show, wouldn’t they be needing to do exactly the same thing to avoid falling further into debt?

These sorts of measures need to be done, regardless of who is in charge. If we keep on the road we’re heading into a deep deep hole. It’s strange nobody can see it.

As was said before, we’re happy to take the government handouts (eg, stimulus packages) for free, but when we need to give something back we throw a tantrum. Wouldn’t you rather give a little bit of money back, and have a stable economy that is in the positive, rather than being selfish and living with debt over our heads?

We need to adjust our standards of living as a first point. No brand new car when we have our first child. No SUV purchase when a small hatchback will do the same job for half the price. Stop buying brand name goods from the super market etc etc. Nobody is looking inside their own homes and realising the areas they can cut back spending so the impact is less on their hip-pocket.

There is a generation of people out there who have never faced financial hardship of any kind.
The morally vain get involved in things like 24 hour famines and sleeping rough for one night but they have never done it hard nor have they experiened hunger. The media gets obsessed with relative trivia like who murdered the asylum seeker on Manus Island.
Things can change overnight – Australia and its economy are mere minnows in the global scope of things and while we may have “only a 34% debt to GDP ratio” this is 34% more than we had 6 years ago. I don’t believe that figure includes state, territory and local government debt either and there is also massive personal debt (highest in the world). No one says they are envious of us in that regard.
Anything like another oil shock, sovereign default, loss of commodities market and we are stuffed.
How much food do you have in your pantry or larder? Remember, you can’t eat your superannuation.

magiccar9 said :

These comments baffle me. People are defending a government who spent till the cows came home, got booted out, and are now complaining about a government trying to recoup the money. If the shoe were on the other foot and Rudd/Gillard were still running the show, wouldn’t they be needing to do exactly the same thing to avoid falling further into debt?

As much as I dont want to pay more tax, and think that MrRabbot is a stinking liar of the sort he painted Gillard of being, I think that more tax on people that make enough to pay it is a good thing. Middle class (and upper class, and large corporate) welfare should certainly be scaled back.

What I can’t stand is the blatant ideolgically driven parts (of both the audit report and the Liberal party policy platform) which are poorly supported by evidence (or those which are logical but mean spirited).

Saying “people have too many unnessesary GP appointments” is probably a fair statement. Saying “if less of those unnessesary appointments happen we’ll save money” is also probably fair.
Trying to acheive it by simply making it harder for everyone to get a GP appointment (with a fee), addresses this problem in the simplest, most mean spirited way.

magiccar9 said :

No brand new car when we have our first child. No SUV purchase when a small hatchback will do the same job for half the price.

I resemble this remark.

These comments baffle me. People are defending a government who spent till the cows came home, got booted out, and are now complaining about a government trying to recoup the money. If the shoe were on the other foot and Rudd/Gillard were still running the show, wouldn’t they be needing to do exactly the same thing to avoid falling further into debt?

These sorts of measures need to be done, regardless of who is in charge. If we keep on the road we’re heading into a deep deep hole. It’s strange nobody can see it.

As was said before, we’re happy to take the government handouts (eg, stimulus packages) for free, but when we need to give something back we throw a tantrum. Wouldn’t you rather give a little bit of money back, and have a stable economy that is in the positive, rather than being selfish and living with debt over our heads?

We need to adjust our standards of living as a first point. No brand new car when we have our first child. No SUV purchase when a small hatchback will do the same job for half the price. Stop buying brand name goods from the super market etc etc. Nobody is looking inside their own homes and realising the areas they can cut back spending so the impact is less on their hip-pocket.

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Nice to see single income families with kids are to be hit hard with slashing of FTB part B. How many home makers are going to have to find work now to supplement their family income that extra $4000+ dollars a year [almost $80 a week]? This will only make it harder for all the other people trying to find work and those looking for child care.
As for assets testing for pensioners, yay, there goes the nest egg people have been working all their lives for, making it even harder to enjoy their retirement. As well as having to sell their home [which may have been where their super went towards funding], they also will have to pay more to see the doctor and buy their life-supporting medications. The future looks bleaker than I thought and the poor are definitely going to suffer to support the likes of the mining companies and politicians.
Turncoat Tony, back-flipping all the way to good old Pommy standards, just see how tough they are doing it.

I don’t think Rudd gave the mining companies a truck full of $900 cheques to waste on frivolous, imported household appliances or overseas holidays.
In fact, he imposed a super tax on them.
There is something fundamentally wrong in this country when people prioritise seeking welfare and then rely on it as income. If everyone actively sought a second job to make ends meet then we would have a better outcome. I think an American president called it “rugged individualism”.

A $900 cheque to a big business is one lunch meal, a drop in the ocean of wealth. If any cheques were given to the big business end of town, they would simply have been absorbed into the golden handshake of whoever was in charge for that year. For Australian families it could have been car registration, electricity bill or yes, perhaps a big screen TV. Any of these items kept big business going whilst the world’s finances were in chaos..

Not all people actively pursue welfare as income. It just happens that those so-called second jobs are as harder to get than the first job. If those who already had a first job got the second one as well, it just puts the people who missed out on the first job into welfare. Nobody can survive easily on welfare alone with the cost of living today. Minimum wage, apparently around $600+ a week, would only go so far for a family with a few children. The family benefit payments put food on the table, whilst the rest goes to living expenses such as rent, electricity and water. That is “rugged individualism”, maybe you should try it for comparison. Anyone who has two jobs, rakes in over $100k/annum and still lives with mom and dad would be a “selfish capitalist”. Not that there’s anything wrong with that in a free country such as ours, just saying how it looks to those who worry daily about keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table.

bigfeet said :

The sole purpose of the audit report is so that the government can hold it up and say “Look at all the terrible things we could do. Aren’t you lucky we are being so nice. You should be grateful”

Labor tried that for 6 years and it didn’t work. Now we have to pay the bill.
Sarah Ferguson-Jones on ABC TV 7.30 last night just kept asking Mathius Corman (between interrupting him) for an explanation of why the governmnet had broken a pre-election promise.
Pity she didn’t ask Wayne Swan why he broke continuous promises to deliver budget surpluses.

bigfeet said :

The sole purpose of the audit report is so that the government can hold it up and say “Look at all the terrible things we could do. Aren’t you lucky we are being so nice. You should be grateful”

Spot on. It is a Conservative wish list. The government knows that if they try and implement any of it they will be thrown out at the next election. In any case we have an insurance policy called the Senate which will swing into action to keep the traditional Aussie lifestyle intact.

The sole purpose of the audit report is so that the government can hold it up and say “Look at all the terrible things we could do. Aren’t you lucky we are being so nice. You should be grateful”

pierce said :

Now that the commission of audit has come out, it’s worth remembering that this is simply a set of recommendations (almost entirely) from the Business Council of Australia, an organisation representing the 100 biggest companies in Australia.

The Libs are free to accept or reject any of the recommendations – or, water them down and say, well at least we aren’t that monstrous.

Nice to see what big business really thinks of the little people – funny that they didn’t identify a single area where subsidies to business or the rich might be cut.

I think you are confusing concessions and subsidies.

davo101 said :

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

I have to agree – I almost fell asleep reading his rant.

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

Meanwhile the ACT Government has wracked up a massive debt and now they’ll throw restraint to the wind and wrack up more. In a few electoral cycles time, Canberra won’t be able to afford to water the grass it can’t afford to cut now.

But losing 1 in 2 EL1s is a start. The knock on effect should burst the housing bubble as all those full mortgage investment rentals go vacant. A lot of people are going to go to the wall, but only as a symptom of their own greed. A 40% drop would be nice, but 20% is more realistic.

Those betting on a 1996 contractor lead recovery may be in for a surprise. The ERC also remembers what happened and would prefer it happened to marginal seats this time round, not a staunch Labor stronghold drunk on public cash.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Nice to see single income families with kids are to be hit hard with slashing of FTB part B. How many home makers are going to have to find work now to supplement their family income that extra $4000+ dollars a year [almost $80 a week]? This will only make it harder for all the other people trying to find work and those looking for child care.
As for assets testing for pensioners, yay, there goes the nest egg people have been working all their lives for, making it even harder to enjoy their retirement. As well as having to sell their home [which may have been where their super went towards funding], they also will have to pay more to see the doctor and buy their life-supporting medications. The future looks bleaker than I thought and the poor are definitely going to suffer to support the likes of the mining companies and politicians.
Turncoat Tony, back-flipping all the way to good old Pommy standards, just see how tough they are doing it.

I don’t think Rudd gave the mining companies a truck full of $900 cheques to waste on frivolous, imported household appliances or overseas holidays.
In fact, he imposed a super tax on them.
There is something fundamentally wrong in this country when people prioritise seeking welfare and then rely on it as income. If everyone actively sought a second job to make ends meet then we would have a better outcome. I think an American president called it “rugged individualism”.

Now that the commission of audit has come out, it’s worth remembering that this is simply a set of recommendations (almost entirely) from the Business Council of Australia, an organisation representing the 100 biggest companies in Australia.

The Libs are free to accept or reject any of the recommendations – or, water them down and say, well at least we aren’t that monstrous.

Nice to see what big business really thinks of the little people – funny that they didn’t identify a single area where subsidies to business or the rich might be cut.

Nice to see single income families with kids are to be hit hard with slashing of FTB part B. How many home makers are going to have to find work now to supplement their family income that extra $4000+ dollars a year [almost $80 a week]? This will only make it harder for all the other people trying to find work and those looking for child care.
As for assets testing for pensioners, yay, there goes the nest egg people have been working all their lives for, making it even harder to enjoy their retirement. As well as having to sell their home [which may have been where their super went towards funding], they also will have to pay more to see the doctor and buy their life-supporting medications. The future looks bleaker than I thought and the poor are definitely going to suffer to support the likes of the mining companies and politicians.
Turncoat Tony, back-flipping all the way to good old Pommy standards, just see how tough they are doing it.

#15
Totally agree with you, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer!

The rich have ways of hiding their money, always the average working person or the poor who are most hit.
Australia could have been a lot worse off if it wasn’t for Rudd, and Gillard, most countries have suffered, eg: America.

#15 mtz

Totally agree with you.

As far as I’m concerned Gillard kept Australia afloat, unlike most other countries, eg: America, Australia could have done a lot worse, Abbott will ruin us.

banco said :

Masquara said :

What was the bid about counting your home as an asset against pension entitlements at $500,000? How are people going to move out of their Canberra shoebox flat into cheaper accommodation? That would simply push ALL accommodation to $500,000 and reduce entitltments even further. Oh. I get it. That’s the plan.

Lots of one bedroom apartments coming on to the market for $400,000 or less. Can fit a couple of oldies that are living off the Government teat in one of those no worries.

Come off it banco. Those pensioners generally paid tax for up to 60 years (often starting work at 15) and are a class of people who never had tax deductions. I’d say a person in a mere $500,000 house in, say, Macquarie, or a cheap flat in town, would have carried the largest proportional tax burden of anyone in our society. I think this is unreasonable.

Masquara said :

What was the bid about counting your home as an asset against pension entitlements at $500,000? How are people going to move out of their Canberra shoebox flat into cheaper accommodation? That would simply push ALL accommodation to $500,000 and reduce entitltments even further. Oh. I get it. That’s the plan.

Lots of one bedroom apartments coming on to the market for $400,000 or less. Can fit a couple of oldies that are living off the Government teat in one of those no worries.

What was the bid about counting your home as an asset against pension entitlements at $500,000? How are people going to move out of their Canberra shoebox flat into cheaper accommodation? That would simply push ALL accommodation to $500,000 and reduce entitltments even further. Oh. I get it. That’s the plan.

farout said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

If everybody owes money to everyone else, how does that add up?

Governments don’t have to borrow from a bank or from another country; they just create debt by issuing bonds which are effectively IOU notes. When an investor buys a US bond, they are lending money to the US government to fund its deficit, and the US government is promising to pay it back with interest in x years time. Problem is, unless they raise taxes or cut spending, they’re just going to get the money to pay it back by issuing more bonds.

You probably hold bonds like this in your super or other investments, the only way for a government to “wipe the slate clean” is to raise the revenue or cut spending to pay back the debt. Or default on its debt and we know how that ends.

I think the government issues the bonds after the money has been ‘spent’ into bank accounts in order to enable banks to buy bonds to balance off the liabilities created by the deposits.

The other approach that governments can use to reduce their debt (in real terms) is to stimulate inflation, which, over time, reduces the real value of the debt but of course gives rise to increased interest cost.

This seems to be what the US has been doing for some years.

The audit report will be released tomorrow; we will see how bad things are then.
BTW, the GFC was confined to the Northern Hemisphere, Rudd used it as an excuse to waste money.

So you’re telling us that countries like Brazil (10th largest economy in the world) and South Africa (one of the world’s largest producer of diamonds) were not affected by the GFC???

Oh and the Audit Report will tell us exactly what the Abbott Government want’s it to tell us. It’s hardly an independant document.

wildturkeycanoe said :

If everybody owes money to everyone else, how does that add up?

Governments don’t have to borrow from a bank or from another country; they just create debt by issuing bonds which are effectively IOU notes. When an investor buys a US bond, they are lending money to the US government to fund its deficit, and the US government is promising to pay it back with interest in x years time. Problem is, unless they raise taxes or cut spending, they’re just going to get the money to pay it back by issuing more bonds.

You probably hold bonds like this in your super or other investments, the only way for a government to “wipe the slate clean” is to raise the revenue or cut spending to pay back the debt. Or default on its debt and we know how that ends.

Looking up foreign debt on the internet it appears every country in the world has a substantial foreign debt except for a couple. If everybody owes money to everyone else, how does that add up? Who ends up with it if everybody actually pays off their debt? Must be one or two very wealthy countries that have a lot of leverage with the favors they’ve given.
Why doesn’t the entire world just clean the slate till we get countries that have no debt, then look at how much we actually owe. I’m no mathematician, but in a room of four people if each owed around 3 or 4 dollars to each other, it wouldn’t be difficult to work out by paying each other in theory to see who ends up still owing and who has a surplus without changing any cash.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I’ve seen ridiculous comparisons, such as comparing government debt to the household mortgage. Such comparisons are pretty well meaningless.

I agree that direct comparisons between government/business/household debt have their problems. In both business and government there are often different reasons for borrowing (you need to spend money to make money, build critical infrastructure, etc).

However for many people government debt is an abstract concept so sometimes you need to remind people the money is real, it needs to be repaid and borrowing for things like funding early retirements (e.g Greece) is always going to end badly.

Roundhead89 said :

The fact is we are in this mess – not because of Rudd and Gillard – but because of the tax cuts, middle class welfare and constant pork barreling of the Howard government which squandered the proceeds of the mining boom and China boom. It was excascerbated by the big spending Rudd and Gillard governments and their obsession with huge, unrepealable legacy programs such as the NBN, NDIS, Climate change and other nonsense which we cannot afford and which nobody wanted.

You should have stopped at the tax cuts as lack of income is the core issue as identified by the first Costello intergenerational report.

The big spending of Labor a you so put it is a drop in the ocean compared to the lack of income. Though for the record you mention NBN and NDIS, well NBN wasn’t actually being funded by consolidated revenue, so had very little effect on past budgets, and NDIS was a reorganisation of existing funding between Commonwealth and the States plus some new funding, very little of which has come to fruition. So neither has really had an impact on the budget bottom line. And speak for yourself when it comes to NBN and NDIS, this little black duck supported both.

dungfungus said :

JC said :

The audit report will be released tomorrow; we will see how bad things are then.
BTW, the GFC was confined to the Northern Hemisphere, Rudd used it as an excuse to waste money.

If it was a northern hemisphere thing then it would have been called a NHFC, not a GFC. The G in GFC is for GLOBAL.

Whilst I will agree Australia didn’t feel it as much, the worlds economic leaders have stated it was due to the fiscal policies of the Labor government in charge at the time.

You can disagree with the latter, but trying to say the GFC wasn’t global, pull the other one.

Roundhead89 said :

Remarkable how the F word has made a comeback since the debate over the tax levy started. Families. “The tax will hit families”, “Families will be worse off”. I even heard that goose Ray Hadley read out an email saying that if the tax comes in the writer won’t be able to buy 1000 nappies over the following year. Diddums. If you can’t afford to have babies, don’t. Don’t go running off to politicians demanding tax breaks, Baby Bonuses and an easy ride just because you choose a lifestyle which involves procreation. The fact is we are in this mess – not because of Rudd and Gillard – but because of the tax cuts, middle class welfare and constant pork barreling of the Howard government which squandered the proceeds of the mining boom and China boom. It was excascerbated by the big spending Rudd and Gillard governments and their obsession with huge, unrepealable legacy programs such as the NBN, NDIS, Climate change and other nonsense which we cannot afford and which nobody wanted.

Nailed it!

Remarkable how the F word has made a comeback since the debate over the tax levy started. Families. “The tax will hit families”, “Families will be worse off”. I even heard that goose Ray Hadley read out an email saying that if the tax comes in the writer won’t be able to buy 1000 nappies over the following year. Diddums. If you can’t afford to have babies, don’t. Don’t go running off to politicians demanding tax breaks, Baby Bonuses and an easy ride just because you choose a lifestyle which involves procreation. The fact is we are in this mess – not because of Rudd and Gillard – but because of the tax cuts, middle class welfare and constant pork barreling of the Howard government which squandered the proceeds of the mining boom and China boom. It was excascerbated by the big spending Rudd and Gillard governments and their obsession with huge, unrepealable legacy programs such as the NBN, NDIS, Climate change and other nonsense which we cannot afford and which nobody wanted.

JC said :

magiccar9 said :

Anyone stopped to ask themselves why we’re in the situation anyway?

We can all blame the current Government at the time – be it Labor or Liberal – but we never hold previous Governments accountable for the trouble they cause.

This trouble hasn’t stemmed from recent choices, it’s stemmed from choices made 2,3,4,5 + years ago.

We all need to quit complaining about it too. There isn’t anything we can do about it, so just pay up and shut up.

Actually the core issue relates to decisions made 10-15 years ago under Howard, specifically income tax cuts (read re-election bribes). Turning those cuts around will never win a party government.

Indeed Howard and Costello introduced the intergeneration report that as far back as then has highlighted the fact that over the coming years tax rates need to rise to cover the aging population, there is only so much that cuts to government can cover.

Both sides of politics have to date ignored the obvious, so credit to Abbott and co for at least addressing it. But trying to blame decisions made by Labor during the GFC (which kept the country afloat) is ignoring and misleading the population about the core cause of the problem which is aging population putting more demand on services and less workers to cover the cost of the demands. I also don’t like the fact that they didn’t take these plans to the electorate at the election. Instead they will make excuses that they didn’t know how bad things were etc, which is all total BS that they should be called on. Again the intergeneration report, which has been public for years and regularly updated is in the public domain.

The audit report will be released tomorrow; we will see how bad things are then.
BTW, the GFC was confined to the Northern Hemisphere, Rudd used it as an excuse to waste money.

Why isn’t Abbott calling the liar’s tax ‘A Great Big New Tax’? I thought that’s what the muppets did.

The problem as I see it is that the media has popularised economic management by government, meaning that government now makes decisions to appeal an electorate that, by and large, has no real understanding of how government economics actually work.

I’ve seen ridiculous comparisons, such as comparing government debt to the household mortgage. Such comparisons are pretty well meaningless.

What we should be focussing on is maintaining high employment and continual productivity gains. If anything, we should be borrowing to spend on major infrastructure and productivity related projects, while interest rates are so low.

There are problems, though, such as Australians’ very high incomes which, in conjunction with cheap credit, have led to cost of living increases, and property price increases.

Personally, I focus more on the economy of my immediate family, and ensuring that we consistently spend less than we earn, invest consistently, maintain professional skills that are both marketable and in demand, and ensure our children are well provided for in terms of education and experiences.

The economy ebbs and flows over the years and decades, this is actually very normal. As individuals we need to take responsibility for ensuring we take care of ourselves and our families.

magiccar9 said :

Anyone stopped to ask themselves why we’re in the situation anyway?

We can all blame the current Government at the time – be it Labor or Liberal – but we never hold previous Governments accountable for the trouble they cause.

This trouble hasn’t stemmed from recent choices, it’s stemmed from choices made 2,3,4,5 + years ago.

We all need to quit complaining about it too. There isn’t anything we can do about it, so just pay up and shut up.

Actually the core issue relates to decisions made 10-15 years ago under Howard, specifically income tax cuts (read re-election bribes). Turning those cuts around will never win a party government.

Indeed Howard and Costello introduced the intergeneration report that as far back as then has highlighted the fact that over the coming years tax rates need to rise to cover the aging population, there is only so much that cuts to government can cover.

Both sides of politics have to date ignored the obvious, so credit to Abbott and co for at least addressing it. But trying to blame decisions made by Labor during the GFC (which kept the country afloat) is ignoring and misleading the population about the core cause of the problem which is aging population putting more demand on services and less workers to cover the cost of the demands. I also don’t like the fact that they didn’t take these plans to the electorate at the election. Instead they will make excuses that they didn’t know how bad things were etc, which is all total BS that they should be called on. Again the intergeneration report, which has been public for years and regularly updated is in the public domain.

I am not fearing the budget because it has already done its damage. Has anyone else noticed how the entire construction industry has suffered in the last 12 months or more from the apprehension of government changing hands and spending being tightened until future details are released? Just look how many electrical contracting firms closed up shop and left Canberra or dissolved entirely. Building construction companies struggle to find work, undercutting one another to below cost price if only to keep their guys employed till things pick up. Drafting firms report the same, having not enough domestic housing to keep themselves busy.
Source – personal experience from having spoken to people in the industry over the last 6 months whilst trying to find work and hearing first hand how badly it has hit our big employers.
All of this is exasperated by the sacking of public service staff, who flood the job markets that already suffer due the lack of consumer confidence. I mean, having 80 applicants for one recruitment role shows how many out there are trying to find work at the moment and that is the same story for all the jobs out there right now. Competition is tight whilst government spending isn’t happening. Even government jobs are being closed to the public and only being offered to previous employees.
House prices dropping someone mentioned? Another piece of evidence to show that the budget outcome isn’t the killer, it has already done the job long ago.
I am looking forward to the budget’s release so that we know where and when the money is going to be spent and business picks up again. If there isn’t any extra money, well, nothing really changes in Canberra except we tighten the belt a bit more.

I’d say get used to it. Even if the Abbott Government turns out to be a one term wonder, a subsequent Labor or Labor/Green(?) government will have little scope to spend up in a way that will benefit Canberra. Falling terms of trade, the retirement of the baby boomer cohort, and highly indebted Australian households mean that the sources of previous economic “growth” and consequent government revenue windfalls are no longer available – all the signs are that things will be constrained (at the least) for many years to come.

If the Coalition gets a second or third term, the federalism review also has obvious risks for Canberra. Some functions might be centralised (but that does not necessarily mean more federal jobs and spending in Canberra) but it seems likely that more functions will be devolved to the States and Territories with far fewer officials needed in Canberra to keep an eye on things.

bigfeet said :

housebound said :

Sometimes, when you borrow money, you have to pay it back.

Our household got a few big fat cheques in the mail a few years ago – for nothing we did or deserved. Now it’s time to send them back.

Anyone who received any part of the stimulus package should be advised ‘You are stimulated enough. In your next tax return we will be recouping that money. It was only a temporary measure.”

After that anyone who received flood/bushfire money should start paying it back, as well as farmers who were subsidised for ‘bad years’. If they are starting to make a profit, time to start paying it back.

I tend to agree. The problem however, is that things aren’t as good now as they were during the second half of Howard’s time, or the first half of Rudd’s. The mining boom isn’t as booming as it was. The GFC did slow down the world economy (regardless of what you think about stimulus here). We can’t sell Telstra, or airports, because that is what Howard did to put Rudd in a starting position of no debt.
The time to ‘pay back’ was when things were as rosy as possible. But there was no suggestion of cutting middle class welfare then. Howard cracked down on dole bludgers. The ‘Big New Tax on Mining’ was an attempt at reaping some of that cream from the good time, but in typical Rudd megalomaniacal style, it was rushed and got too many people offside contributing to his demise, and in typical Gillard fashion was watered down trying to please people who would only ever have been happy with its complete removal.
While I wonder if Hockey’s ‘budget emergency’ is as evil as it sounds, it all seems a little like waiting until you lose your job, then saying ‘ermahgerd, better be responsible and start paying off the credit card…’
I shall now end my rambling, directionless rant, and let you return to everyone else’s spray.

housebound said :

Sometimes, when you borrow money, you have to pay it back.

Our household got a few big fat cheques in the mail a few years ago – for nothing we did or deserved. Now it’s time to send them back.

Anyone who received any part of the stimulus package should be advised ‘You are stimulated enough. In your next tax return we will be recouping that money. It was only a temporary measure.”

After that anyone who received flood/bushfire money should start paying it back, as well as farmers who were subsidised for ‘bad years’. If they are starting to make a profit, time to start paying it back.

Sometimes, when you borrow money, you have to pay it back.

Our household got a few big fat cheques in the mail a few years ago – for nothing we did or deserved. Now it’s time to send them back.

gazket, no one would complain about cutbacks or increased taxes if they were fair. I’d gladly pay a doubled Medicare levy for hospitals, but I don’t see why I should now pay more for an unfair PPL or tax breaks for the wealthy.
Unfortunately this govt seems intent on unpicking the things that even up the playing field – diddling public schools (Gonski), messing with uni funding (flagging an intention to make our system like the most unequal place in the world – the US), talking of cutting pensions but reinstating super tax lurks for the very wealthy, introducing co-payments for bulk billing (which will only affect really poor people) – are you sensing a theme here? Not to mention the BS about a budget emergency. You would only believe that if you don’t listen to international economic commentary, which consider Australia to have a gold standard economy with very low debt levels. You should get out more.
Face it, this govt is hardline economic rationalist, considering that circumstances are completely the ‘choice’ of the individual – so difficult circs (e.g. disabled child preventing you from working) is actually all your own fault so suffer baby, and on the flip side, the wealthy are the only deserving people on the planet. They do not really care about ordinary struggling people, only their wealthy friends like the Packers and Rineharts, and clearly think the country would be a better place if they – the entitled – are in charge. They actually let that slip before the election (‘the grown ups are in charge’), but no one recognised it for what it was. God I truly hope they are a one term wonder…

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

gazket said :

when Labor leave a black hole of debt and lie for 6 years about surpluses expect some cutbacks. The debt averages out to every household owes $25k with nothing to show for it. When Rudd/Gillard came in every house hold had $2K of savings with nothing to show for it.

Get ready for more pain when Rattenburger and Labor borrow more money to waste .

Source?

Um, I’d say looking at the last 6 odd years of history is a good source…. You’d be blind not to see at least a little bit of accuracy.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Source?

Damn, I hoped I would never see that again.

dungfungus said :

I am sure the homeless will feel your pain in knowing your house price has tanked.
No doubt they will be elated for you when there is a massive recovery.
Your self-interest makes me puke.

and how many of those people are homeless because the gov’t of the day decided Canberra’s public servants are overpaid and worthless and thus sent in razor gangs whilst at the same time the gov’t was crying over a small group of workers in a doomed industry in “Real Australia”?

gazket said :

when Labor leave a black hole of debt and lie for 6 years about surpluses expect some cutbacks. The debt averages out to every household owes $25k with nothing to show for it. When Rudd/Gillard came in every house hold had $2K of savings with nothing to show for it.

Get ready for more pain when Rattenburger and Labor borrow more money to waste .

Source?

Rollersk8r said :

I think (hope) it’s the standard routine of delivering months and months of bad news to make the budget look nowhere-near-as-bad-as-it-could-have-been when finally announced.

Still, I’m sick and tired of everything being a GFC emergency, a climate change emergency, a budget emergency, an aging population emergency…

I wish, amongst all the budget kite-flying we’re copping right now, there’d be a few announcements like “politicians will forego their extraordinarily generous entitlements and super, along with not voting themselves a pay-rise for the next few years.”

Pigs are fuelled and ready to fly…

I think (hope) it’s the standard routine of delivering months and months of bad news to make the budget look nowhere-near-as-bad-as-it-could-have-been when finally announced.

Still, I’m sick and tired of everything being a GFC emergency, a climate change emergency, a budget emergency, an aging population emergency…

when Labor leave a black hole of debt and lie for 6 years about surpluses expect some cutbacks. The debt averages out to every household owes $25k with nothing to show for it. When Rudd/Gillard came in every house hold had $2K of savings with nothing to show for it.

Get ready for more pain when Rattenburger and Labor borrow more money to waste .

dungfungus said :

Madam Cholet said :

‘Moment in the sun’…he’s the Treasurer, and bringing down the budget is what they do…every year. What government doesn’t leak and grandstand about any event, regardless of the good or bad news? Who’d be the Treasurer at this time of year? No end of groups trying to get to you, decisions no one wants to have to make. A totally thankless task.

Deloittes (I think it was them), last week said that pain for Canberra would not be as long lived as maybe first thought (better in the 14-15 financial year). My house price has tanked (I only know this through recent valuations and the news that everywhere else is doing great thanks very much) so I’m clinging to the possibility of a short-lived hit (with a massive recovery at the end!).

I am sure the homeless will feel your pain in knowing your house price has tanked.
No doubt they will be elated for you when there is a massive recovery.
Your self-interest makes me puke.

At which point did I say ‘stuff the homeless, save my house price’? It was an example of the effect of the pain already being inflicted on Canberra. I could be housing homeless people left right and centre in my small 3 bedroom suburban work in progress for all you know. And if I got on and gloated about my house price rocketing would you still have had your whinge at me? I think so.

But what is me not saying anything about my house price going to do for the homeless? I have a well paying job, I pay my taxes, I pay my bills, I own an investment property, I donate to charity, stumped up money for the QLD flood through my taxes and will take the NDIS hit in my tax return I assume, etc etc. I therefore contribute everything that I am supposed to and more. Stop looking over your shoulder and concentrate on your own shortcomings.

I was pointing out the fact that Deloittes or whomever said it, assessed it as short term pain whatever the budget throws up.

farout said :

I certainly hope the ‘deficit levy’ applies to companies and trusts, in addition to individuals.

Will it be tacked onto the Medicare levy (like the Qld. Flood Levy)?
If it is, then all those with no taxable income who aren’t obliged to submit a tax return and subsequently do not get an assessment will be exempt.
This could exclude from the levy all those filthy rich self-funded retirees and even the Governor General.

Anyone stopped to ask themselves why we’re in the situation anyway?

We can all blame the current Government at the time – be it Labor or Liberal – but we never hold previous Governments accountable for the trouble they cause.

This trouble hasn’t stemmed from recent choices, it’s stemmed from choices made 2,3,4,5 + years ago.

We all need to quit complaining about it too. There isn’t anything we can do about it, so just pay up and shut up.

I certainly hope the ‘deficit levy’ applies to companies and trusts, in addition to individuals.

Madam Cholet said :

‘Moment in the sun’…he’s the Treasurer, and bringing down the budget is what they do…every year. What government doesn’t leak and grandstand about any event, regardless of the good or bad news? Who’d be the Treasurer at this time of year? No end of groups trying to get to you, decisions no one wants to have to make. A totally thankless task.

Deloittes (I think it was them), last week said that pain for Canberra would not be as long lived as maybe first thought (better in the 14-15 financial year). My house price has tanked (I only know this through recent valuations and the news that everywhere else is doing great thanks very much) so I’m clinging to the possibility of a short-lived hit (with a massive recovery at the end!).

I am sure the homeless will feel your pain in knowing your house price has tanked.
No doubt they will be elated for you when there is a massive recovery.
Your self-interest makes me puke.

If they scrap or at least defer the PPL till the deficit it gone, it will make the rest of the pain more bearable.

Higher taxes are inevitable because no Govt has the guts to rein in middle class welfare. Yet they are all too quick to dole out taxpayers money.

My main gripe is that instead of a levy, it should be a normal tax increase staggered according to the tax levels. From today’s leak, it sounds like someone earning $79,900 will be better off than someone earning a round $80,000 because the former pays zero levy but the latter pays $800. The increase/levy should be x% of the amount above $80,000 or whatever. Also, why stop at 2% above $130K, why not 3% above 350K and 4% above 500K?

‘Moment in the sun’…he’s the Treasurer, and bringing down the budget is what they do…every year. What government doesn’t leak and grandstand about any event, regardless of the good or bad news? Who’d be the Treasurer at this time of year? No end of groups trying to get to you, decisions no one wants to have to make. A totally thankless task.

Deloittes (I think it was them), last week said that pain for Canberra would not be as long lived as maybe first thought (better in the 14-15 financial year). My house price has tanked (I only know this through recent valuations and the news that everywhere else is doing great thanks very much) so I’m clinging to the possibility of a short-lived hit (with a massive recovery at the end!).