25 October 2016

State handouts lead to sense of entitlement

| Greg Cornwell
Join the conversation
49
Emergency department. Photo: iStock

Elections always result in a bidding war between political parties to attract votes by granting gifts or concessions. Bidding wars are not confined to elections however they are the greatest manifestation and deny the community its responsibilities at the expense of the public purse.

Governments cannot take back these freebies and each of these taxpayer-funded gifts further encourages a sense of entitlement among the population. This overlooks the cost of these services and their contribution to limiting real help to those who need it.

Hospital emergency departments should charge a fee, not to recoup some of the expensive overheads but to remind patients there is a cost. This might encourage people to seek other assistance for frivolous complaints, freeing up services for more serious cases.

Subsidies abound. For having numerous children (never mind population pressures) or childcare (so you can go back to work). So do concessions: pharmaceuticals, transport, rates and rents, for example, and particularly for the elderly, justified because they have paid taxes all of their life (but why should we expect a refund?). Often there is no or inadequate means-testing in granting these benefits. The issue is not that there is a test, deficient as it may be, but that such concessions exist at all.

What is ignored in government largesse is someone has to pay and it is usually those who are perceived to be able to do so, overlooking the effort and sacrifice they might have made to achieve financial comfort. Why should those who spend income in other ways than providing for old age expect to receive the charity of the State?

Further, if those who pay are so charged they will seek ways to minimise these payments and the reduced return to government either will create a bigger deficit or deprive those who do need help from receiving it in proper quantity because others are benefiting who should do without.

The most damning example of misplaced government philanthropy however is in the fields of art and sport.

The arts does not enjoy the populist appeal of sport and thus is funded with care. Nevertheless if people want culture they should pay more for it or do without. Cutting cloth to suit purse would curb extravagances.

Leaving aside profitable ACT land deals (still raising unanswered questions), ongoing financial aid to football codes already backed by poker machine-supported clubs or healthy payments to build and upgrade other sporting venues raise issues of genuine public benefit and indulging minorities. Any claim Canberra benefits by incoming tourist profits from such investment should be backed by publicly released audited accounts, otherwise governments should not have a role at this level and should concentrate upon amateur junior activities, if at all.

We have drifted so far from a sense of personal responsibility it will be a brave government which acknowledges the problem. It will be an even braver administration which attempts to address the community expectations of dependency seemingly now part of our DNA.

500 words

Join the conversation

49
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Nightshade said :

pink little birdie said :

Watch people squeal when they suggest taking away the private health insurance rebate.

Since people are bullied into having private health insurance whether they find it good value or not (via the Medicare Levy Surcharge), so there should be a tax rebate on the premiums! If both the carrot and the stick were removed, fair enough – people could then choose health insurance or not based on its merits. But removing the surcharge along with the tax rebate never gets proposed.

That’s the way it used to be and it worked well.

There was no Medicare surcharge and private health care premiums were tax deductible as were doctors fees, hospital, dental and pharmaceutical etc.

In the town I lived in GPs would do consultations and home visits for free where there was financial hardship involved.

The universal health care introduced by the Whitlam government was not needed at all.
All it did was create an industry with endless guaranteed income and doctors became businessmen overnight.

pink little birdie said :

Watch people squeal when they suggest taking away the private health insurance rebate.

Since people are bullied into having private health insurance whether they find it good value or not (via the Medicare Levy Surcharge), so there should be a tax rebate on the premiums! If both the carrot and the stick were removed, fair enough – people could then choose health insurance or not based on its merits. But removing the surcharge along with the tax rebate never gets proposed.

pink little birdie9:07 pm 01 Nov 16

justin heywood said :

dloudon said :

The real sense of entitlement came about as a result of “middle class welfare” policies. It enabled a culture where people could be jealous and resentful of society’s most vulnerable. The right would be dead if people couldn’t blame equal or lower SES people for their problems.

Wow. Just reading a couple of pages of this thread, the Libs, and Howard in particular, are responsible for:

– Middle class ‘jealously’ of the disadvantaged (?)
– Obesity
– The general sense of entitlement
– Deficits, past, present and future

All this, and they haven’t been in power for the majority of the last decade!

A visitor could be forgiven for thinking that the Libs must be true evil geniuses, able to wreak such havoc that successive Labor governments are unable to correct the damage.

That, or maybe some people’s thinking is clouded by outrageous bias.

Watch people squeal when they suggest taking away the private health insurance rebate.

John Moulis said :

Now that we have a discussion about the Howard government going it is pertinent to mention their role in creating the obesity epidemic in this country. Thanks to September 11 and the middle class welfare handouts we developed a bunkering down mentality. People spent their Baby Bonus handouts on plasma TVs and home theatres. Instead of the happy, healthy society we had during the Hawke/Keating era we had a society where – instead of going to the gym and jogging – people stayed on the couch watching TV and ordering in pizzas with their mobile phones.

I remember being disgusted every time I walked into Woolworths Queanbeyan and seeing the grossly obese slugs waddling around. I always thought “Is this what we’ve become”? “Is this the result of having Howard and Costello balancing the Budget and paying off the foreign debt”?

The Howard era was a shameful period in our history in more ways than one. A lazy era, an era of excess and misery for the country. When we binged on the handouts, became fat and complacent and let our self-respect and self image go flying out the window. Let’s hope it never happens again.

Hey, here’s this handy graph:

http://www.aihw.gov.au/assets/0/140/10737418828/10737418829/10737418830/05cea3e5-dac6-4a4b-b9bb-6caca46fc44c.png?n=9124

As you can see, the dramatic increase in obesity rates began during the Hawke era, and continued during the Keating era. You might need to revise your version of history.

justin heywood10:57 am 01 Nov 16

dloudon said :

The real sense of entitlement came about as a result of “middle class welfare” policies. It enabled a culture where people could be jealous and resentful of society’s most vulnerable. The right would be dead if people couldn’t blame equal or lower SES people for their problems.

Wow. Just reading a couple of pages of this thread, the Libs, and Howard in particular, are responsible for:

– Middle class ‘jealously’ of the disadvantaged (?)
– Obesity
– The general sense of entitlement
– Deficits, past, present and future

All this, and they haven’t been in power for the majority of the last decade!

A visitor could be forgiven for thinking that the Libs must be true evil geniuses, able to wreak such havoc that successive Labor governments are unable to correct the damage.

That, or maybe some people’s thinking is clouded by outrageous bias.

dloudon said :

The real sense of entitlement came about as a result of “middle class welfare” policies. It enabled a culture where people could be jealous and resentful of society’s most vulnerable. The right would be dead if people couldn’t blame equal or lower SES people for their problems.

Where did you source that opinion from?
It sounds like a rejected Bob Ellis speech.

The real sense of entitlement came about as a result of “middle class welfare” policies. It enabled a culture where people could be jealous and resentful of society’s most vulnerable. The right would be dead if people couldn’t blame equal or lower SES people for their problems.

John Moulis said :

Now that we have a discussion about the Howard government going it is pertinent to mention their role in creating the obesity epidemic in this country. Thanks to September 11 and the middle class welfare handouts we developed a bunkering down mentality. People spent their Baby Bonus handouts on plasma TVs and home theatres. Instead of the happy, healthy society we had during the Hawke/Keating era we had a society where – instead of going to the gym and jogging – people stayed on the couch watching TV and ordering in pizzas with their mobile phones.

I remember being disgusted every time I walked into Woolworths Queanbeyan and seeing the grossly obese slugs waddling around. I always thought “Is this what we’ve become”? “Is this the result of having Howard and Costello balancing the Budget and paying off the foreign debt”?

The Howard era was a shameful period in our history in more ways than one. A lazy era, an era of excess and misery for the country. When we binged on the handouts, became fat and complacent and let our self-respect and self image go flying out the window. Let’s hope it never happens again.

That was a good laugh, John.

pink little birdie said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

Yes of course, Now I understand your argument.

Government policies have no lasting effects and economic cycles don’t exist. Along with Australian government’s having total control of the global economy depending on who’s in power.

You’re right, it truly is amazing that according to your argument Howard was both omnipotent whilst in government but his policies ceased to have any impact post the 2007 election.

I think you’re underselling him as a magician, sounds like he’s your deity.

I am not “arguing”; more so putting some balance in the debate.
The fact that Howard was around a long time is proof he was delivering what most Australians wanted. How many Labor PMs followed and how long did they last after Howard lost in 2007?
I think Howard, as a PM, was as good as it gets. The fanatical Howard Haters will always disagree with me.

Funnily enough, I thought I was providing the balance to the debate.

I have no doubt that Howard was delivering what the people wanted, “free” money seems to do that to voters (see recent ACT election for another perfect example).

Which Is why I don’t blame Howard for his actions, he was simply playing the politician and doing what was necessary to stay in power. If he had acted in the right way as I’ve suggested here and set up a sovereign wealth fund, he would have been potentially gifting a future Labor government a massive spending war chest that they could then use to buy votes as Howard made an artform of.

It may have been the right thing to do but it would have taken a brave Australian politician to do it and we don’t have many of those around.

One subtle difference about that “free” money though.

Howard wasn’t borrowing it. He should have said “it’s free as long as we are prosperous and don’t have to borrow it”

As soon as Labor got in they blew the lot and started borrowing but they didn’t withdraw the “free” money (aka entitlements).
Instead, created more entitlements.

We still have a few “brave” politicians around but they don’t have the numbers in both houses to do anything and that situation doesn’t appear to changing.

I find it amazing that a lot of people still call Australia a “rich” country. In fact, we are so rich that we can even borrow more money to pay the interest on exiting debt.

How long will that last?

That’s the point though, Howard was borrowing it. Off future generations.

The Liberals stated economic policy was to have a balanced budget across the economic cycle. This means they should be running very large surpluses in the unbelieveably good economic conditions we faced in the late 90’s through to mid-late 2000’s. This would then be offset by deficit spending during economic downturns, such as the GFC.

So although Howard’s surpluses were good, they should have been much bigger, particularly in his last term when the reserve bank was forced to raise interest rates to try and rein in the economic heat. Instead of government fiscal policy being complementary to the monetary policy, they were actively spending in a pro-cyclical manner assuming that their revenue growth rates were a new normal.

“That’s the point though, Howard was borrowing it. Off future generations.”

I’ve heard some spin in my time but that wins the gold medal.

It was during Howard’s time that the senate committees were told the copper communications network needed wholesale replacement and fibre was the best thing to replace it.
A large part of why Howard was voted out was that schools and hospitals were being starved of funds, there were minimal large infrastructure projects happening. I would have rather funding in to health and free University and TAFE training than tax cuts and selling national assets.

Well, Howard hasn’t been running things for nearly 10 years and you can honestly say things are so much better?

Give me a break!

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

Yes of course, Now I understand your argument.

Government policies have no lasting effects and economic cycles don’t exist. Along with Australian government’s having total control of the global economy depending on who’s in power.

You’re right, it truly is amazing that according to your argument Howard was both omnipotent whilst in government but his policies ceased to have any impact post the 2007 election.

I think you’re underselling him as a magician, sounds like he’s your deity.

I am not “arguing”; more so putting some balance in the debate.
The fact that Howard was around a long time is proof he was delivering what most Australians wanted. How many Labor PMs followed and how long did they last after Howard lost in 2007?
I think Howard, as a PM, was as good as it gets. The fanatical Howard Haters will always disagree with me.

Funnily enough, I thought I was providing the balance to the debate.

I have no doubt that Howard was delivering what the people wanted, “free” money seems to do that to voters (see recent ACT election for another perfect example).

Which Is why I don’t blame Howard for his actions, he was simply playing the politician and doing what was necessary to stay in power. If he had acted in the right way as I’ve suggested here and set up a sovereign wealth fund, he would have been potentially gifting a future Labor government a massive spending war chest that they could then use to buy votes as Howard made an artform of.

It may have been the right thing to do but it would have taken a brave Australian politician to do it and we don’t have many of those around.

One subtle difference about that “free” money though.

Howard wasn’t borrowing it. He should have said “it’s free as long as we are prosperous and don’t have to borrow it”

As soon as Labor got in they blew the lot and started borrowing but they didn’t withdraw the “free” money (aka entitlements).
Instead, created more entitlements.

We still have a few “brave” politicians around but they don’t have the numbers in both houses to do anything and that situation doesn’t appear to changing.

I find it amazing that a lot of people still call Australia a “rich” country. In fact, we are so rich that we can even borrow more money to pay the interest on exiting debt.

How long will that last?

That’s the point though, Howard was borrowing it. Off future generations.

The Liberals stated economic policy was to have a balanced budget across the economic cycle. This means they should be running very large surpluses in the unbelieveably good economic conditions we faced in the late 90’s through to mid-late 2000’s. This would then be offset by deficit spending during economic downturns, such as the GFC.

So although Howard’s surpluses were good, they should have been much bigger, particularly in his last term when the reserve bank was forced to raise interest rates to try and rein in the economic heat. Instead of government fiscal policy being complementary to the monetary policy, they were actively spending in a pro-cyclical manner assuming that their revenue growth rates were a new normal.

“That’s the point though, Howard was borrowing it. Off future generations.”

I’ve heard some spin in my time but that wins the gold medal.

Annnnddd, I’m done. There seems to be zero point continuing a discussion about economics when you refuse to even acknowledge basic concepts.

I’d bet that you’re one of those people that think a country’s budget is the same as your household’s budget. Repeat after me: Surplus good, deficit bad.

Oh and I’ll just leave this here:
http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/callie-rogers-says-she8217s-never-been-happier-since-losing-32m-lotto-win/story-e6frfmd9-1226680548118

Another one of Dungfungus’ financial guru’s, how did she do it? Amazing, she’s still got $2k in the bank.

pink little birdie5:28 pm 31 Oct 16

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

Yes of course, Now I understand your argument.

Government policies have no lasting effects and economic cycles don’t exist. Along with Australian government’s having total control of the global economy depending on who’s in power.

You’re right, it truly is amazing that according to your argument Howard was both omnipotent whilst in government but his policies ceased to have any impact post the 2007 election.

I think you’re underselling him as a magician, sounds like he’s your deity.

I am not “arguing”; more so putting some balance in the debate.
The fact that Howard was around a long time is proof he was delivering what most Australians wanted. How many Labor PMs followed and how long did they last after Howard lost in 2007?
I think Howard, as a PM, was as good as it gets. The fanatical Howard Haters will always disagree with me.

Funnily enough, I thought I was providing the balance to the debate.

I have no doubt that Howard was delivering what the people wanted, “free” money seems to do that to voters (see recent ACT election for another perfect example).

Which Is why I don’t blame Howard for his actions, he was simply playing the politician and doing what was necessary to stay in power. If he had acted in the right way as I’ve suggested here and set up a sovereign wealth fund, he would have been potentially gifting a future Labor government a massive spending war chest that they could then use to buy votes as Howard made an artform of.

It may have been the right thing to do but it would have taken a brave Australian politician to do it and we don’t have many of those around.

One subtle difference about that “free” money though.

Howard wasn’t borrowing it. He should have said “it’s free as long as we are prosperous and don’t have to borrow it”

As soon as Labor got in they blew the lot and started borrowing but they didn’t withdraw the “free” money (aka entitlements).
Instead, created more entitlements.

We still have a few “brave” politicians around but they don’t have the numbers in both houses to do anything and that situation doesn’t appear to changing.

I find it amazing that a lot of people still call Australia a “rich” country. In fact, we are so rich that we can even borrow more money to pay the interest on exiting debt.

How long will that last?

That’s the point though, Howard was borrowing it. Off future generations.

The Liberals stated economic policy was to have a balanced budget across the economic cycle. This means they should be running very large surpluses in the unbelieveably good economic conditions we faced in the late 90’s through to mid-late 2000’s. This would then be offset by deficit spending during economic downturns, such as the GFC.

So although Howard’s surpluses were good, they should have been much bigger, particularly in his last term when the reserve bank was forced to raise interest rates to try and rein in the economic heat. Instead of government fiscal policy being complementary to the monetary policy, they were actively spending in a pro-cyclical manner assuming that their revenue growth rates were a new normal.

“That’s the point though, Howard was borrowing it. Off future generations.”

I’ve heard some spin in my time but that wins the gold medal.

It was during Howard’s time that the senate committees were told the copper communications network needed wholesale replacement and fibre was the best thing to replace it.
A large part of why Howard was voted out was that schools and hospitals were being starved of funds, there were minimal large infrastructure projects happening. I would have rather funding in to health and free University and TAFE training than tax cuts and selling national assets.

Now that we have a discussion about the Howard government going it is pertinent to mention their role in creating the obesity epidemic in this country. Thanks to September 11 and the middle class welfare handouts we developed a bunkering down mentality. People spent their Baby Bonus handouts on plasma TVs and home theatres. Instead of the happy, healthy society we had during the Hawke/Keating era we had a society where – instead of going to the gym and jogging – people stayed on the couch watching TV and ordering in pizzas with their mobile phones.

I remember being disgusted every time I walked into Woolworths Queanbeyan and seeing the grossly obese slugs waddling around. I always thought “Is this what we’ve become”? “Is this the result of having Howard and Costello balancing the Budget and paying off the foreign debt”?

The Howard era was a shameful period in our history in more ways than one. A lazy era, an era of excess and misery for the country. When we binged on the handouts, became fat and complacent and let our self-respect and self image go flying out the window. Let’s hope it never happens again.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

Yes of course, Now I understand your argument.

Government policies have no lasting effects and economic cycles don’t exist. Along with Australian government’s having total control of the global economy depending on who’s in power.

You’re right, it truly is amazing that according to your argument Howard was both omnipotent whilst in government but his policies ceased to have any impact post the 2007 election.

I think you’re underselling him as a magician, sounds like he’s your deity.

I am not “arguing”; more so putting some balance in the debate.
The fact that Howard was around a long time is proof he was delivering what most Australians wanted. How many Labor PMs followed and how long did they last after Howard lost in 2007?
I think Howard, as a PM, was as good as it gets. The fanatical Howard Haters will always disagree with me.

Funnily enough, I thought I was providing the balance to the debate.

I have no doubt that Howard was delivering what the people wanted, “free” money seems to do that to voters (see recent ACT election for another perfect example).

Which Is why I don’t blame Howard for his actions, he was simply playing the politician and doing what was necessary to stay in power. If he had acted in the right way as I’ve suggested here and set up a sovereign wealth fund, he would have been potentially gifting a future Labor government a massive spending war chest that they could then use to buy votes as Howard made an artform of.

It may have been the right thing to do but it would have taken a brave Australian politician to do it and we don’t have many of those around.

One subtle difference about that “free” money though.

Howard wasn’t borrowing it. He should have said “it’s free as long as we are prosperous and don’t have to borrow it”

As soon as Labor got in they blew the lot and started borrowing but they didn’t withdraw the “free” money (aka entitlements).
Instead, created more entitlements.

We still have a few “brave” politicians around but they don’t have the numbers in both houses to do anything and that situation doesn’t appear to changing.

I find it amazing that a lot of people still call Australia a “rich” country. In fact, we are so rich that we can even borrow more money to pay the interest on exiting debt.

How long will that last?

That’s the point though, Howard was borrowing it. Off future generations.

The Liberals stated economic policy was to have a balanced budget across the economic cycle. This means they should be running very large surpluses in the unbelieveably good economic conditions we faced in the late 90’s through to mid-late 2000’s. This would then be offset by deficit spending during economic downturns, such as the GFC.

So although Howard’s surpluses were good, they should have been much bigger, particularly in his last term when the reserve bank was forced to raise interest rates to try and rein in the economic heat. Instead of government fiscal policy being complementary to the monetary policy, they were actively spending in a pro-cyclical manner assuming that their revenue growth rates were a new normal.

“That’s the point though, Howard was borrowing it. Off future generations.”

I’ve heard some spin in my time but that wins the gold medal.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

Yes of course, Now I understand your argument.

Government policies have no lasting effects and economic cycles don’t exist. Along with Australian government’s having total control of the global economy depending on who’s in power.

You’re right, it truly is amazing that according to your argument Howard was both omnipotent whilst in government but his policies ceased to have any impact post the 2007 election.

I think you’re underselling him as a magician, sounds like he’s your deity.

I am not “arguing”; more so putting some balance in the debate.
The fact that Howard was around a long time is proof he was delivering what most Australians wanted. How many Labor PMs followed and how long did they last after Howard lost in 2007?
I think Howard, as a PM, was as good as it gets. The fanatical Howard Haters will always disagree with me.

Funnily enough, I thought I was providing the balance to the debate.

I have no doubt that Howard was delivering what the people wanted, “free” money seems to do that to voters (see recent ACT election for another perfect example).

Which Is why I don’t blame Howard for his actions, he was simply playing the politician and doing what was necessary to stay in power. If he had acted in the right way as I’ve suggested here and set up a sovereign wealth fund, he would have been potentially gifting a future Labor government a massive spending war chest that they could then use to buy votes as Howard made an artform of.

It may have been the right thing to do but it would have taken a brave Australian politician to do it and we don’t have many of those around.

One subtle difference about that “free” money though.

Howard wasn’t borrowing it. He should have said “it’s free as long as we are prosperous and don’t have to borrow it”

As soon as Labor got in they blew the lot and started borrowing but they didn’t withdraw the “free” money (aka entitlements).
Instead, created more entitlements.

We still have a few “brave” politicians around but they don’t have the numbers in both houses to do anything and that situation doesn’t appear to changing.

I find it amazing that a lot of people still call Australia a “rich” country. In fact, we are so rich that we can even borrow more money to pay the interest on exiting debt.

How long will that last?

That’s the point though, Howard was borrowing it. Off future generations.

The Liberals stated economic policy was to have a balanced budget across the economic cycle. This means they should be running very large surpluses in the unbelieveably good economic conditions we faced in the late 90’s through to mid-late 2000’s. This would then be offset by deficit spending during economic downturns, such as the GFC.

So although Howard’s surpluses were good, they should have been much bigger, particularly in his last term when the reserve bank was forced to raise interest rates to try and rein in the economic heat. Instead of government fiscal policy being complementary to the monetary policy, they were actively spending in a pro-cyclical manner assuming that their revenue growth rates were a new normal.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

Yes of course, Now I understand your argument.

Government policies have no lasting effects and economic cycles don’t exist. Along with Australian government’s having total control of the global economy depending on who’s in power.

You’re right, it truly is amazing that according to your argument Howard was both omnipotent whilst in government but his policies ceased to have any impact post the 2007 election.

I think you’re underselling him as a magician, sounds like he’s your deity.

I am not “arguing”; more so putting some balance in the debate.
The fact that Howard was around a long time is proof he was delivering what most Australians wanted. How many Labor PMs followed and how long did they last after Howard lost in 2007?
I think Howard, as a PM, was as good as it gets. The fanatical Howard Haters will always disagree with me.

Funnily enough, I thought I was providing the balance to the debate.

I have no doubt that Howard was delivering what the people wanted, “free” money seems to do that to voters (see recent ACT election for another perfect example).

Which Is why I don’t blame Howard for his actions, he was simply playing the politician and doing what was necessary to stay in power. If he had acted in the right way as I’ve suggested here and set up a sovereign wealth fund, he would have been potentially gifting a future Labor government a massive spending war chest that they could then use to buy votes as Howard made an artform of.

It may have been the right thing to do but it would have taken a brave Australian politician to do it and we don’t have many of those around.

One subtle difference about that “free” money though.

Howard wasn’t borrowing it. He should have said “it’s free as long as we are prosperous and don’t have to borrow it”

As soon as Labor got in they blew the lot and started borrowing but they didn’t withdraw the “free” money (aka entitlements).
Instead, created more entitlements.

We still have a few “brave” politicians around but they don’t have the numbers in both houses to do anything and that situation doesn’t appear to changing.

I find it amazing that a lot of people still call Australia a “rich” country. In fact, we are so rich that we can even borrow more money to pay the interest on exiting debt.

How long will that last?

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

Yes of course, Now I understand your argument.

Government policies have no lasting effects and economic cycles don’t exist. Along with Australian government’s having total control of the global economy depending on who’s in power.

You’re right, it truly is amazing that according to your argument Howard was both omnipotent whilst in government but his policies ceased to have any impact post the 2007 election.

I think you’re underselling him as a magician, sounds like he’s your deity.

I am not “arguing”; more so putting some balance in the debate.
The fact that Howard was around a long time is proof he was delivering what most Australians wanted. How many Labor PMs followed and how long did they last after Howard lost in 2007?
I think Howard, as a PM, was as good as it gets. The fanatical Howard Haters will always disagree with me.

Funnily enough, I thought I was providing the balance to the debate.

I have no doubt that Howard was delivering what the people wanted, “free” money seems to do that to voters (see recent ACT election for another perfect example).

Which Is why I don’t blame Howard for his actions, he was simply playing the politician and doing what was necessary to stay in power. If he had acted in the right way as I’ve suggested here and set up a sovereign wealth fund, he would have been potentially gifting a future Labor government a massive spending war chest that they could then use to buy votes as Howard made an artform of.

It may have been the right thing to do but it would have taken a brave Australian politician to do it and we don’t have many of those around.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

Yes of course, Now I understand your argument.

Government policies have no lasting effects and economic cycles don’t exist. Along with Australian government’s having total control of the global economy depending on who’s in power.

You’re right, it truly is amazing that according to your argument Howard was both omnipotent whilst in government but his policies ceased to have any impact post the 2007 election.

I think you’re underselling him as a magician, sounds like he’s your deity.

I am not “arguing”; more so putting some balance in the debate.
The fact that Howard was around a long time is proof he was delivering what most Australians wanted. How many Labor PMs followed and how long did they last after Howard lost in 2007?
I think Howard, as a PM, was as good as it gets. The fanatical Howard Haters will always disagree with me.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

Yes of course, Now I understand your argument.

Government policies have no lasting effects and economic cycles don’t exist. Along with Australian government’s having total control of the global economy depending on who’s in power.

You’re right, it truly is amazing that according to your argument Howard was both omnipotent whilst in government but his policies ceased to have any impact post the 2007 election.

I think you’re underselling him as a magician, sounds like he’s your deity.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

Howard was really a magician; I mean he gave away all that money and he wasn’t even in government.

Amazing.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Only problem of course he was able to get surpluses etc because of two things. Mining boom and asset sell offs. Mining boom is over and the most valuable assets have been sold.

I agree that Howard was rather silly, selling Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Your really showing you have a very limited understanding of economics with that last comment.

Of course Howard had no problem funding his recurrent spending, he was drowning in rivers of cash from the mining boom and asset sales.

The problem was he ramped up recurrent spending to match his temporary windfall revenues, instead of saving it or investing in major infrastructure projects.

And what happens when the temporary revenue reduces to normal long term averages? Structural deficit.

He could have had a few hundred billion in a sovereign wealth fund but instead he gave it all away in unneeded tax cuts and middle/ upper class welfare.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

Only problem of course he was able to get surpluses etc because of two things. Mining boom and asset sell offs. Mining boom is over and the most valuable assets have been sold.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Howard had no problem funding the recurrent spending programmes he put in place. In fact, he made recurrent surpluses.

He also created the Future Fund which is the next best thing to sovereign wealth fund.
Ironically, the Future Fund is replacing Australian investments with international ones which is a real sign of confidence in this country’s future.

Unfortunately, this money will be used to pay part of parliamentary and federal public servants’ retirements. That is another area of “entitlement” that needs review.

Sure, Howard made some outrageous promises like “no child shall live in poverty….” and his introduction of the unnecessary, unfunded, open-ended Gonski and NDIS has taken entitlements to a new level.

Oh, I wish we could return to those profligate Howard years.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

The money went to recurrent spending programs put in place by your saviour John Howard.

Instead of creating a sovereign wealth fund or implementing nation building infrastructure projects, he bought votes.

The fact that successive governments have not reduced this spending is on them (and us) but to deny that Howard wasted his windfall gains as if they were normal is ignoring reality.

Although it’s interesting that you think me talking about fiscal responsibility from successive governments is left wing or socialist. It just shows how far the public perception has been warped by those profligate Howard years.

Deref said :

They certainly do lead to a sense of entitlement.

The sooner we cut the umbilical and stop companies and the wealthy sucking on the public teat, the sooner we can use taxes to do the important stuff – improving public health and education.

Agree with you deref – except you forgot to mention long time politicians who have forgotten what the real world is like – if they ever knew.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

But if the Rudd/Swan stimulus actions “saved” Australia’s economy and made us the envy of the other debt ridden nations, why was it necessary for successive Labor governments to borrow vast amounts of foreign money?

Where did this money go?

That’s where your structural deficit was started, comrade.

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

Federal Government net debt should still be under $300bn based on some figures from earlier this year. Of that the single largest component would be the roughly $72bn in personal income tax cuts that both parties took to the 2007 election. It was economically irresponsible for Howard to promise them, just as it was economically irresponsible for Rudd to implement them. The direct stimulus costs were something like $66bn. The Gonski reforms have cost something like $26bn so far and the NDIS maybe $20bn. The interest costs in relation to all the above are probably around $40bn now. All up the changed budgetary settings since Howard lost government have probably contributed 75%+ to the increase in net debt meaning his earlier decisions may have contributed the balance. If the Libs had kept power in 07 and kept their policy settings, cut the personal taxes and not engaged in stimulus spending, the net debt figure may be have been something like $140bn lower. If they had engaged in the first round of stimulus that they said they agreed with, it may have been $105bn lower. Bottom line is only a portion of the current debt can be blamed on Howard and Labor needs to take responsibility for the initiatives they introduced and the tax cuts they agreed with and implemented. Possibly my biggest gripe with Labor style economic management is that if they want to increase spending, they should also increase taxation to pay for it.

Additionally, while the stimulus spending may have saved Australia from a technical recession, what it did was spread out the pain over a longer period. The economy was already over stimulated when the GFC hit due to the 07/08 Howard/Rudd personal tax cut package, and once the initial shock passed our interest rates started climbing again quickly, while the rest of the world was still lowering theirs. This drove up the dollar and our manufacturing sector lost international competitiveness, closing businesses. It also reduced receipts from the end of the mining boom.

My personal view is that Australia’s federal government economic management has been poor for about the last 12 years.

chewy14 said :

The whole point of the stimulus payments was to get money circulating in the economy immediately. If they did as you suggest with regards to identity letters and opting in, the entire purpose of the program would not have been achieved.

It’s the same argument as those who say that the tax rates should have been lowered instead of stimulus. Too slow and not targetted correctly for immediate impact. The first stimulus clearly worked, the second part was arguable although you’re only talking about $20-40B dollars which is a tiny proportion of the total debt mainly caused by the structural deficit locked in by Howard’s recurrent spending largesse in the mid 2000’s.

He spent like the mining boom was a forever thing, it was always going to end badly.

Yes, the stimulus program got money circulating. But it wasn’t necessary. It had almost no impact in keeping Australia afloat during the GFC. It was money wasted.

dungfungus said :

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

$500B debt hey?

How much of that was due to the stimulus? $40? $80?

I wonder where the rest of that figure comes from?

Hmmm structural deficit?

And that came from?

Howard.

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

pink little birdie said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

I don’t agree with your version of how entitlements came to be, John.

Howard certainly extended them to the wider community but Whitlam was the one responsible for creating the mentality by enabling single mothers to claim welfare benefits.

Unemployment benefits, just $10 a week in 1972, were lifted to the pension level, which itself was raised substantially with women being guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

I forgot to mention that in the 2007 election campaign (where the Howard government was defeated by Kevin Rudd), John Howard promised in his policy speech to introduce free child care for all parents. Park your kids in a crèche all day and the government will pick up the tab. They also promised an extension to the Education Tax Rebate, a new welfare payment to families with more than three children and a new Family Tax Benefit payment. They also committed to increasing the Baby Bonus to a staggering $7,500.00 by the end of their term.

Indeed he did John, however they were prosperous times and a lot of us saw that as a social dividend. Also, sovereign debt was neglible.

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

The cheques to dead people thing that people go on about displays a total lack of understanding of how our tax system works.
The deceased people who received cheques died in the new financial year, had a eligible previous tax return and their families had not yet submitted their final tax return (which tells the tax department that they are deceased).
Also the $900 cheques kept people spending in the retail sector which is a fairly large employer.

Both you and I are aware of that but obviously Rudd and his minions weren’t. They were the ones who had “a complete misunderstanding of how things work”. Even though the payments were structured on taxable income levels which the ATO would obviously have the information on, the programme should have first sent out letters (one of the best forms of identity audit) to all approved participants and they could have then made a claim. A lot of people did not want the money.

Similarly, the pink bats stimulus was badly thought out with tragic consequences.

All the stimulus programmes were funded by borrowed money for which we are still paying interest on by borrowing more money.

You are quite correct to say the money was spent in the retail sector which was then a big employer. Not so now though, is it.

The problem with stimulus programs is that the suck up tomorrows demand today. Sooner or later the supply/demand situation will have to revert. That’s when the tears will start to fall.

The whole point of the stimulus payments was to get money circulating in the economy immediately. If they did as you suggest with regards to identity letters and opting in, the entire purpose of the program would not have been achieved.

It’s the same argument as those who say that the tax rates should have been lowered instead of stimulus. Too slow and not targetted correctly for immediate impact. The first stimulus clearly worked, the second part was arguable although you’re only talking about $20-40B dollars which is a tiny proportion of the total debt mainly caused by the structural deficit locked in by Howard’s recurrent spending largesse in the mid 2000’s.

He spent like the mining boom was a forever thing, it was always going to end badly.

Yes, Howard will never be forgiven for uttering those word “this is the recession we had to have”

Yes, lottery winners are clearly superior financial managers than the rest of us.
I mean look at all that money they have, they must be investment gurus.

I am a Rabbit™ said :

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

The GFC was a northern hemisphere problem and it happened before Rudd announced the stimulus packages. Let’s not forget the scandalous “school halls” programmes either.

Was it really worth the $500 billion debt that has resulted to give some of you people a warm feeling?

How would Rudd have repaid his debt? Any suggestions?

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

pink little birdie said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

I don’t agree with your version of how entitlements came to be, John.

Howard certainly extended them to the wider community but Whitlam was the one responsible for creating the mentality by enabling single mothers to claim welfare benefits.

Unemployment benefits, just $10 a week in 1972, were lifted to the pension level, which itself was raised substantially with women being guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

I forgot to mention that in the 2007 election campaign (where the Howard government was defeated by Kevin Rudd), John Howard promised in his policy speech to introduce free child care for all parents. Park your kids in a crèche all day and the government will pick up the tab. They also promised an extension to the Education Tax Rebate, a new welfare payment to families with more than three children and a new Family Tax Benefit payment. They also committed to increasing the Baby Bonus to a staggering $7,500.00 by the end of their term.

Indeed he did John, however they were prosperous times and a lot of us saw that as a social dividend. Also, sovereign debt was neglible.

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

The cheques to dead people thing that people go on about displays a total lack of understanding of how our tax system works.
The deceased people who received cheques died in the new financial year, had a eligible previous tax return and their families had not yet submitted their final tax return (which tells the tax department that they are deceased).
Also the $900 cheques kept people spending in the retail sector which is a fairly large employer.

Both you and I are aware of that but obviously Rudd and his minions weren’t. They were the ones who had “a complete misunderstanding of how things work”. Even though the payments were structured on taxable income levels which the ATO would obviously have the information on, the programme should have first sent out letters (one of the best forms of identity audit) to all approved participants and they could have then made a claim. A lot of people did not want the money.

Similarly, the pink bats stimulus was badly thought out with tragic consequences.

All the stimulus programmes were funded by borrowed money for which we are still paying interest on by borrowing more money.

You are quite correct to say the money was spent in the retail sector which was then a big employer. Not so now though, is it.

The problem with stimulus programs is that the suck up tomorrows demand today. Sooner or later the supply/demand situation will have to revert. That’s when the tears will start to fall.

The whole point of the stimulus payments was to get money circulating in the economy immediately. If they did as you suggest with regards to identity letters and opting in, the entire purpose of the program would not have been achieved.

It’s the same argument as those who say that the tax rates should have been lowered instead of stimulus. Too slow and not targetted correctly for immediate impact. The first stimulus clearly worked, the second part was arguable although you’re only talking about $20-40B dollars which is a tiny proportion of the total debt mainly caused by the structural deficit locked in by Howard’s recurrent spending largesse in the mid 2000’s.

He spent like the mining boom was a forever thing, it was always going to end badly.

Yes, Howard will never be forgiven for uttering those word “this is the recession we had to have”

I am a Rabbit™1:02 am 28 Oct 16

dungfungus said :

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

Australia avoided the main effects of the global financial crisis BECAUSE of Labor’s fiscal stimulus package . The fact you think that the GFC “wasn’t an Australian problem” is a testament to how successful the stimulus was. The consensus by economists about our response to the GFC is one of praise…

the counterfactual

dungfungus said :

pink little birdie said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

I don’t agree with your version of how entitlements came to be, John.

Howard certainly extended them to the wider community but Whitlam was the one responsible for creating the mentality by enabling single mothers to claim welfare benefits.

Unemployment benefits, just $10 a week in 1972, were lifted to the pension level, which itself was raised substantially with women being guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

I forgot to mention that in the 2007 election campaign (where the Howard government was defeated by Kevin Rudd), John Howard promised in his policy speech to introduce free child care for all parents. Park your kids in a crèche all day and the government will pick up the tab. They also promised an extension to the Education Tax Rebate, a new welfare payment to families with more than three children and a new Family Tax Benefit payment. They also committed to increasing the Baby Bonus to a staggering $7,500.00 by the end of their term.

Indeed he did John, however they were prosperous times and a lot of us saw that as a social dividend. Also, sovereign debt was neglible.

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

The cheques to dead people thing that people go on about displays a total lack of understanding of how our tax system works.
The deceased people who received cheques died in the new financial year, had a eligible previous tax return and their families had not yet submitted their final tax return (which tells the tax department that they are deceased).
Also the $900 cheques kept people spending in the retail sector which is a fairly large employer.

Both you and I are aware of that but obviously Rudd and his minions weren’t. They were the ones who had “a complete misunderstanding of how things work”. Even though the payments were structured on taxable income levels which the ATO would obviously have the information on, the programme should have first sent out letters (one of the best forms of identity audit) to all approved participants and they could have then made a claim. A lot of people did not want the money.

Similarly, the pink bats stimulus was badly thought out with tragic consequences.

All the stimulus programmes were funded by borrowed money for which we are still paying interest on by borrowing more money.

You are quite correct to say the money was spent in the retail sector which was then a big employer. Not so now though, is it.

The problem with stimulus programs is that the suck up tomorrows demand today. Sooner or later the supply/demand situation will have to revert. That’s when the tears will start to fall.

The whole point of the stimulus payments was to get money circulating in the economy immediately. If they did as you suggest with regards to identity letters and opting in, the entire purpose of the program would not have been achieved.

It’s the same argument as those who say that the tax rates should have been lowered instead of stimulus. Too slow and not targetted correctly for immediate impact. The first stimulus clearly worked, the second part was arguable although you’re only talking about $20-40B dollars which is a tiny proportion of the total debt mainly caused by the structural deficit locked in by Howard’s recurrent spending largesse in the mid 2000’s.

He spent like the mining boom was a forever thing, it was always going to end badly.

Deref said :

They certainly do lead to a sense of entitlement.

The sooner we cut the umbilical and stop companies and the wealthy sucking on the public teat, the sooner we can use taxes to do the important stuff – improving public health and education.

Interesting that you think the government taking less of a person’s money is somehow equivalent to that person sucking on the public teat.

Although I do agree with you that if we cut wasteful and unnecessary entitlements and concessions we can use the extra money for important stuff – like lowering the overall tax burden for the vast majority of taxpayers who don’t have access to those entitlements or concessions.

Those people can then personally choose what they believe is important and spend accordingly.

pink little birdie said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

I don’t agree with your version of how entitlements came to be, John.

Howard certainly extended them to the wider community but Whitlam was the one responsible for creating the mentality by enabling single mothers to claim welfare benefits.

Unemployment benefits, just $10 a week in 1972, were lifted to the pension level, which itself was raised substantially with women being guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

I forgot to mention that in the 2007 election campaign (where the Howard government was defeated by Kevin Rudd), John Howard promised in his policy speech to introduce free child care for all parents. Park your kids in a crèche all day and the government will pick up the tab. They also promised an extension to the Education Tax Rebate, a new welfare payment to families with more than three children and a new Family Tax Benefit payment. They also committed to increasing the Baby Bonus to a staggering $7,500.00 by the end of their term.

Indeed he did John, however they were prosperous times and a lot of us saw that as a social dividend. Also, sovereign debt was neglible.

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

The cheques to dead people thing that people go on about displays a total lack of understanding of how our tax system works.
The deceased people who received cheques died in the new financial year, had a eligible previous tax return and their families had not yet submitted their final tax return (which tells the tax department that they are deceased).
Also the $900 cheques kept people spending in the retail sector which is a fairly large employer.

Both you and I are aware of that but obviously Rudd and his minions weren’t. They were the ones who had “a complete misunderstanding of how things work”. Even though the payments were structured on taxable income levels which the ATO would obviously have the information on, the programme should have first sent out letters (one of the best forms of identity audit) to all approved participants and they could have then made a claim. A lot of people did not want the money.

Similarly, the pink bats stimulus was badly thought out with tragic consequences.

All the stimulus programmes were funded by borrowed money for which we are still paying interest on by borrowing more money.

You are quite correct to say the money was spent in the retail sector which was then a big employer. Not so now though, is it.

The problem with stimulus programs is that the suck up tomorrows demand today. Sooner or later the supply/demand situation will have to revert. That’s when the tears will start to fall.

pink little birdie said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

I don’t agree with your version of how entitlements came to be, John.

Howard certainly extended them to the wider community but Whitlam was the one responsible for creating the mentality by enabling single mothers to claim welfare benefits.

Unemployment benefits, just $10 a week in 1972, were lifted to the pension level, which itself was raised substantially with women being guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

I forgot to mention that in the 2007 election campaign (where the Howard government was defeated by Kevin Rudd), John Howard promised in his policy speech to introduce free child care for all parents. Park your kids in a crèche all day and the government will pick up the tab. They also promised an extension to the Education Tax Rebate, a new welfare payment to families with more than three children and a new Family Tax Benefit payment. They also committed to increasing the Baby Bonus to a staggering $7,500.00 by the end of their term.

Indeed he did John, however they were prosperous times and a lot of us saw that as a social dividend. Also, sovereign debt was neglible.

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

The cheques to dead people thing that people go on about displays a total lack of understanding of how our tax system works.
The deceased people who received cheques died in the new financial year, had a eligible previous tax return and their families had not yet submitted their final tax return (which tells the tax department that they are deceased).
Also the $900 cheques kept people spending in the retail sector which is a fairly large employer.

I could equally say that

They certainly do lead to a sense of entitlement.

The sooner we cut the umbilical and stop companies and the wealthy sucking on the public teat, the sooner we can use taxes to do the important stuff – improving public health and education.

pink little birdie10:58 am 27 Oct 16

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

I don’t agree with your version of how entitlements came to be, John.

Howard certainly extended them to the wider community but Whitlam was the one responsible for creating the mentality by enabling single mothers to claim welfare benefits.

Unemployment benefits, just $10 a week in 1972, were lifted to the pension level, which itself was raised substantially with women being guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

I forgot to mention that in the 2007 election campaign (where the Howard government was defeated by Kevin Rudd), John Howard promised in his policy speech to introduce free child care for all parents. Park your kids in a crèche all day and the government will pick up the tab. They also promised an extension to the Education Tax Rebate, a new welfare payment to families with more than three children and a new Family Tax Benefit payment. They also committed to increasing the Baby Bonus to a staggering $7,500.00 by the end of their term.

Indeed he did John, however they were prosperous times and a lot of us saw that as a social dividend. Also, sovereign debt was neglible.

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

The cheques to dead people thing that people go on about displays a total lack of understanding of how our tax system works.
The deceased people who received cheques died in the new financial year, had a eligible previous tax return and their families had not yet submitted their final tax return (which tells the tax department that they are deceased).
Also the $900 cheques kept people spending in the retail sector which is a fairly large employer.

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

I don’t agree with your version of how entitlements came to be, John.

Howard certainly extended them to the wider community but Whitlam was the one responsible for creating the mentality by enabling single mothers to claim welfare benefits.

Unemployment benefits, just $10 a week in 1972, were lifted to the pension level, which itself was raised substantially with women being guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

I forgot to mention that in the 2007 election campaign (where the Howard government was defeated by Kevin Rudd), John Howard promised in his policy speech to introduce free child care for all parents. Park your kids in a crèche all day and the government will pick up the tab. They also promised an extension to the Education Tax Rebate, a new welfare payment to families with more than three children and a new Family Tax Benefit payment. They also committed to increasing the Baby Bonus to a staggering $7,500.00 by the end of their term.

Indeed he did John, however they were prosperous times and a lot of us saw that as a social dividend. Also, sovereign debt was neglible.

Rudd “trumped” Howard using the GFC (which was never an Australian problem) as an excuse to give $900 cheques to everybody, even dead people, and the rest is economic history.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Apparently I paid in the order of somewhere between one and two thousand dollars of my tax last year towards the health system. I also paid close to just as much for specialist appointments and other treatments out of my own pocket too. So if you are going to call for the emergency department to become a user pays service, then I will have my tax money back thank you very much. Then I will have the funds available to get help when I desperately need it.
We all pay tax, even those getting government welfare pay tax. Most every item we purchase, our utility bills and other services incur a GST charge. So everyone spending money pays 10% GST to the government on top of the income tax already paid. This means that if you are in a higher income bracket, you pay around 37% tax plus the GST, so effectively they are being taxed nearly half what they earn.
Calling for a user pays emergency department is going to cost lives, there is nothing surer. If you are ill and you haven’t got a credit card with a nice balance, will the ER turn you away, such as in the United States? Will there be an assets test question in the triage paperwork, to determine if you are rich enough to afford treatment? What if you are hanging out for pay day and need urgently to see a GP for a sickness? You simply won’t get an appointment or will have to go into a payment plan to fix the consultation fee. People won’t be able to afford health care and will get sicker, meaning initially there will be less strain on the hospitals, but when these illnesses go untreated and get worse, we will end up with beds full of very sick people. These patients could have been treated earlier, for less cost and would have gone about their daily lives, but now they push the emergency services to the brink.
Prevention is better than cure and for the health of our citizens, that is absolutely true.
Free public health care is one thing that makes Australia great. Other countries in Europe have much better free health services than us and they get along just fine. Do not advocate for the destruction of something that has potentially saved thousands of lives.

The author wasn’t saying we should have a fully user pays health system, he said there should be a fee charged at the ED to stop people using it as their personal GP to drive efficiencies in the system.

The problem we have in this country is exactly the argument displayed by your comment, that health care should be “free”. It isn’t free now, someone is always paying, so why not try and improve the system and ensure its efficiently run?

A small price signal with lower income people protected by a safety net would do just that.

dungfungus said :

John Moulis said :

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

I don’t agree with your version of how entitlements came to be, John.

Howard certainly extended them to the wider community but Whitlam was the one responsible for creating the mentality by enabling single mothers to claim welfare benefits.

Unemployment benefits, just $10 a week in 1972, were lifted to the pension level, which itself was raised substantially with women being guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

I forgot to mention that in the 2007 election campaign (where the Howard government was defeated by Kevin Rudd), John Howard promised in his policy speech to introduce free child care for all parents. Park your kids in a crèche all day and the government will pick up the tab. They also promised an extension to the Education Tax Rebate, a new welfare payment to families with more than three children and a new Family Tax Benefit payment. They also committed to increasing the Baby Bonus to a staggering $7,500.00 by the end of their term.

wildturkeycanoe6:38 am 27 Oct 16

dungfungus said :

But it is not “FREE” here, in Europe or anywhere, can’t you see that?
The problem is that the freeloaders don’t always use the ED for emergencies, it is their first port of call for everything else too.
People are not going to die because they will be denied services if they can’t rustle up the co-payment.

Look up Universal Health Care and see what other countries have to offer the poor in terms of health care. There are plenty of systems that operate better then ours, but the OP seems determined that everyone should pay to go to the hospital, even though we already do.
Poor people go to the ED because they either can’t afford to go to a private practice, are too tight to do so, or they can’t get in to see a doctor because the appointment books are filled up till next week. This is a problem everywhere, even paying customers have to sometimes book way ahead to see the GP, so the backup plan is to go to the hospital ED for immediate attention.
How do you know people aren’t going to die because they can’t afford a GP co-payment or to see the ED if there is a fee attached for services? From the Harvard Gazettte, Sep 17, 2009 – “Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health”.
If you can’t get medical aid because you are too poor to get health insurance, there is the possibilty you will die depending on the circumstances. This is the system our government is trying to push on us. I disagree with it wholeheartedly. Why should life have a price tag put on it?

pink little birdie12:46 am 27 Oct 16

The PBS is a great scheme. Often in Countries that have it is cheaper than not having the medicine.
For instance I was previously on a medication that cost the government $1700 a month. That is approximately what I pay in income taxes each month (also making me a decent earner and ineligible for other subsidies). With it I can walk, use my hands work and live a fairly normal life. Without it I would probably now not be able to walk unaided, self care. I wouldn’t be working and probably be on disability for life.
Even if I had to pay for it myself I would be spending and saving significantly less in mainly local businesses such as coffee and meals out as the medicine would come first. I would also probably be living at my mum’s
Oh and it’s a genetic degenerative disease. That hit in my early 20’s and killed my original career plan (phyiscal education – no one wants a teacher hopped up on pain pills all the time and slowly loosing mobility)
The PBS is a great scheme particularly for non essential products and services businesses in Australia. Many people would prioritise medication over a lot of things.
Medical debt including medicatioms is a huge issue in the USA and takes large chunks of money of middle and lower income bracket communities.

John Moulis said :

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

I don’t agree with your version of how entitlements came to be, John.

Howard certainly extended them to the wider community but Whitlam was the one responsible for creating the mentality by enabling single mothers to claim welfare benefits.

Unemployment benefits, just $10 a week in 1972, were lifted to the pension level, which itself was raised substantially with women being guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

Greg, you forgot to mention that the entitlement mentality in this country was fostered by the Howard government, probably the worst government in this country’s history.

Prior to John Howard welfare was seen as a last resort. In fact is was quite shameful to go onto welfare because you felt as if you had failed. However Howard and Costello created the middle class welfare monster and mainstreamed welfare handouts in order to hang onto the Howard battler seats and woo families who were the favoured ones for that government. Baby Bonus, Family Tax Benefit, Schoolkid’s Bonus, even bonus payments for pensioners and war veterans every Budget day. Unlike the battlers who thought welfare was shameful, the middle class recipients of welfare felt entitled to it and saw any attempt to interfere with it as an attack on the family.

It will be many years before the damage Howard and Costello did to this country and the national psyche will be overcome.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Apparently I paid in the order of somewhere between one and two thousand dollars of my tax last year towards the health system. I also paid close to just as much for specialist appointments and other treatments out of my own pocket too. So if you are going to call for the emergency department to become a user pays service, then I will have my tax money back thank you very much. Then I will have the funds available to get help when I desperately need it.
We all pay tax, even those getting government welfare pay tax. Most every item we purchase, our utility bills and other services incur a GST charge. So everyone spending money pays 10% GST to the government on top of the income tax already paid. This means that if you are in a higher income bracket, you pay around 37% tax plus the GST, so effectively they are being taxed nearly half what they earn.
Calling for a user pays emergency department is going to cost lives, there is nothing surer. If you are ill and you haven’t got a credit card with a nice balance, will the ER turn you away, such as in the United States? Will there be an assets test question in the triage paperwork, to determine if you are rich enough to afford treatment? What if you are hanging out for pay day and need urgently to see a GP for a sickness? You simply won’t get an appointment or will have to go into a payment plan to fix the consultation fee. People won’t be able to afford health care and will get sicker, meaning initially there will be less strain on the hospitals, but when these illnesses go untreated and get worse, we will end up with beds full of very sick people. These patients could have been treated earlier, for less cost and would have gone about their daily lives, but now they push the emergency services to the brink.
Prevention is better than cure and for the health of our citizens, that is absolutely true.
Free public health care is one thing that makes Australia great. Other countries in Europe have much better free health services than us and they get along just fine. Do not advocate for the destruction of something that has potentially saved thousands of lives.

But it is not “FREE” here, in Europe or anywhere, can’t you see that?
The problem is that the freeloaders don’t always use the ED for emergencies, it is their first port of call for everything else too.
People are not going to die because they will be denied services if they can’t rustle up the co-payment.

wildturkeycanoe2:32 pm 26 Oct 16

Apparently I paid in the order of somewhere between one and two thousand dollars of my tax last year towards the health system. I also paid close to just as much for specialist appointments and other treatments out of my own pocket too. So if you are going to call for the emergency department to become a user pays service, then I will have my tax money back thank you very much. Then I will have the funds available to get help when I desperately need it.
We all pay tax, even those getting government welfare pay tax. Most every item we purchase, our utility bills and other services incur a GST charge. So everyone spending money pays 10% GST to the government on top of the income tax already paid. This means that if you are in a higher income bracket, you pay around 37% tax plus the GST, so effectively they are being taxed nearly half what they earn.
Calling for a user pays emergency department is going to cost lives, there is nothing surer. If you are ill and you haven’t got a credit card with a nice balance, will the ER turn you away, such as in the United States? Will there be an assets test question in the triage paperwork, to determine if you are rich enough to afford treatment? What if you are hanging out for pay day and need urgently to see a GP for a sickness? You simply won’t get an appointment or will have to go into a payment plan to fix the consultation fee. People won’t be able to afford health care and will get sicker, meaning initially there will be less strain on the hospitals, but when these illnesses go untreated and get worse, we will end up with beds full of very sick people. These patients could have been treated earlier, for less cost and would have gone about their daily lives, but now they push the emergency services to the brink.
Prevention is better than cure and for the health of our citizens, that is absolutely true.
Free public health care is one thing that makes Australia great. Other countries in Europe have much better free health services than us and they get along just fine. Do not advocate for the destruction of something that has potentially saved thousands of lives.

Given that a Federal coalition government tried and failed to get a $5 co-payment from all freeloaders using the national health system I would give two chances of it happening locally, Buckley’s and none.

Sometime during the next 4 years the excesses of the ACT Labor/Green minority government will come home to roost and it will be interesting to see where the axe falls.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.