http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/13197601/hockey-rejects-govts-deficit-claim/

Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has rejected claims the coalition would be running a $9 billion deficit in the next financial year, if it were in government.

Finance Minister Penny Wong on Sunday produced the 2012/13 estimate, which she said was based on the coalition's current spending promises and pledges to dump the federal government's upcoming mining and carbon emissions taxes.

"I don't think the coalition can run around credibly claiming to be a party that is economically responsible when they continue to say they are going to spend this, we are going to fund this when they are opposing revenue sources that fund it," she told ABC Television.

Senator Wong challenged the coalition to "come clean" on the $70 billion worth of savings it says it has identified and tell the government how its estimates are wrong.

"If they are making cuts of that magnitude Australians are entitled to know what they are," she said.

Mr Hockey said Senator Wong's calculations were wrong and recommitted the coalition to removing government duplication to generate savings.

"Previously she's been claiming we have a $70 billion funding short fall, which is wrong," Mr Hockey told Network Ten.

"Now she says it's a $9 billion funding short fall.

"This is a finance minister who has overseen in the last 12 months a deterioration in the federal budget from a $12 billion deficit to a $37 billion deficit.

"So quite frankly we're not going to take any lectures on numbers or on fiscal prudence from Penny Wong."

Opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said Ms Wong's figures were "shonky analysis".

Labor wants to deliver a $1.5 billion surplus in 2012/13, after an expected $37 billion deficit this financial year.

Mr Hockey declined to run through the budget savings identified by the coalition but said certain government departments, like the Department of Climate Change and the Department of Environment, would be merged and staff levels reduced.

"We've said we are going to merge the departments, reduce the number of staff," he said.

"We stand by that and you'll see all of our savings initiatives before the next election."

Earlier this month, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said a coalition government would commission an audit to review commonwealth public service operations, and singled out the departments of health, education and defence materiel as examples of areas where staff numbers could be reduced.

He has previously promised to scrap Labor's 30 per cent minerals resource rent tax and carbon emissions tax.

Mr Hockey said that under a coalition government, taxes would be lower.

Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower.

"We are going to focus on the overall tax take for Australians," he said.

The coalition has vowed to oppose the government's mining tax, which is currently before the senate, and any other legislation linked to it, including business tax cuts.

Mr Abbott last week said the coalition would deliver "modest" tax cuts for business but declined to recommit to a 2010 election promise to cut corporate tax by 1.5 per cent.

Mr Hockey said the coalition did not know what kind of an economy it would inherit from Labor.

"We don't know what the state of the budget will be ... until just before the election and that's the time when we will finalise all of our numbers and give you all the details on our plans for Australia," he said.

Ahhh yes Doctor Watson but would we be borrowing $200 million dollars a month from China under the Liberals?

And there dear Doctor lies the conundrum for Labor.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower.

C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL!

Gist wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 1:40pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL!

Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did.
Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D

Carbon tax will increase cost of living to everyday Australian families by well over $1,200 per year.

Their tax cut compensation will be $3.

Where does that come from?

MOTR wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 2:23pm:

Where does that come from?

Australian Treasury figures.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 2:26pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:23pm: Where does that come from? Australian Treasury figures.

Do you have a link?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 2:13pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D Carbon tax will increase cost of living to everyday Australian families by well over $1,200 per year. Their tax cut compensation will be $3.

You are assuming that people are to stupid to change their habits.
Most people will cut their use of carbon intensive goods and services by $1,200 a yr and it wont cost them one extra cent if they have any sense.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 2:48pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D Carbon tax will increase cost of living to everyday Australian families by well over $1,200 per year. Their tax cut compensation will be $3. You are assuming that people are to stupid to change their habits. Most people will cut their use of carbon intensive goods and services by $1,200 a yr and it wont cost them one extra cent if they have any sense.

I doubt anyone is capable of changing their habits to the extent that the carbon tax costs them little or nothing unless we all go live in a cave!!!

Gist wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 1:40pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL!

Well you haven't got much to compare with, have you?

Try living thru Whitlam, Keating/Hawke and Juliar... Than you will realise who governs best.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D

Taxes WERE lower during the Howard years after the introduction of the GST. That was one of the main points of the GST: to remove numerous - and in some cases, duplicitous - taxes and replace them with one tax rate at 10%. However, many of the greedy Labor governments have reneged on their agreement to scrap taxes such as stamp duty which they were supposed to. Remind you of anyone - perhaps Gillard not honouring her agreements???

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D Taxes WERE lower during the Howard years after the introduction of the GST. That was one of the main points of the GST: to remove numerous - and in some cases, duplicitous - taxes and replace them with one tax rate at 10%. However, many of the greedy Labor governments have reneged on their agreement to scrap taxes such as stamp duty which they were supposed to. Remind you of anyone - perhaps Gillard not honouring her agreements???

The Howard govt remains the highest taxing govt in the countries history..check it out for yourself

beware wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Well you haven't got much to compare with, have you? Try living thru Whitlam, Keating/Hawke and Juliar... Than you will realise who governs best.

I reached voting age in 1974 so I lived and voted through all of those. The Howard government was far and away THE worst of the lot thanks very much. King of the weasel word, maker of iron clad non-core promises. He sent us to two pointless wars for absolutely no reason. He lied and he lied and he lied. About everything! At important moments he turned our collective backs on international agreements purely for his own political gain. Basically, he made me ashamed to be an Australian. How anyone can hold that bastard up as some kind of messiah is beyond me. He should be doing time as far as I'm concerned.

In case you think this is a partisan view, forget it. I voted FOR Howard and against Keating. And I definitely voted AGAINST Howard after I realised my mistake.

Gist wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:36pm:

beware wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 3:07pm: Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Well you haven't got much to compare with, have you? Try living thru Whitlam, Keating/Hawke and Juliar... Than you will realise who governs best. I reached voting age in 1974 so I lived and voted through all of those. The Howard government was far and away THE worst of the lot thanks very much. King of the weasel word, maker of iron clad non-core promises. He sent us to two pointless wars for absolutely no reason. He lied and he lied and he lied. About everything! At important moments he turned our collective backs on international agreements purely for his own political gain. Basically, he made me ashamed to be an Australian. How anyone can hold that bastard up as some kind of messiah is beyond me. He should be doing time as far as I'm concerned. In case you think this is a partisan view, forget it. I voted FOR Howard and against Keating. And I definitely voted AGAINST Howard after I realised my mistake.

There has been NO ONE (until Rudd/Gillard) who was anywhere near as bad as Whitlam. Howard is widely regarded as one of our best PM's ever.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:38pm:

There has been NO ONE (until Rudd/Gillard) who was anywhere near as bad as Whitlam. Howard is widely regarded as one of our best PM's ever.

Yes both those views are commonly held by all Liberal party drones. So your point is...?

Gist wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 3:38pm: There has been NO ONE (until Rudd/Gillard) who was anywhere near as bad as Whitlam. Howard is widely regarded as one of our best PM's ever. Yes both those views are commonly held by all Liberal party drones. So your point is...?

That kinda proves my point about modern ultra conservatives having very short memories.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:50pm:

Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 3:45pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 3:38pm: There has been NO ONE (until Rudd/Gillard) who was anywhere near as bad as Whitlam. Howard is widely regarded as one of our best PM's ever. Yes both those views are commonly held by all Liberal party drones. So your point is...? That kinda proves my point about modern ultra conservatives having very short memories.

How's the long term memories of the QLD voters?

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D

Was that tax revenue or tax rate

Wait you don't know the difference

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D

yeah they were higher... but that was because we had more people working and businesses making alot more profit - all of which are taxable.

can we ahve Howard back now?

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 2:48pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D Carbon tax will increase cost of living to everyday Australian families by well over $1,200 per year. Their tax cut compensation will be $3. You are assuming that people are to stupid to change their habits. Most people will cut their use of carbon intensive goods and services by $1,200 a yr and it wont cost them one extra cent if they have any sense.

yay! thank you gillard for a policy where i have to use less electricty, drive less and eat less in order to save nothing on what I currently have.

only in lala labor/green world is that a bonus.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 6:36pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:48pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D Carbon tax will increase cost of living to everyday Australian families by well over $1,200 per year. Their tax cut compensation will be $3. You are assuming that people are to stupid to change their habits. Most people will cut their use of carbon intensive goods and services by $1,200 a yr and it wont cost them one extra cent if they have any sense. yay! thank you gillard for a policy where i have to use less electricty, drive less and eat less in order to save nothing on what I currently have. only in lala labor/green world is that a bonus.

There is nothing stopping you from continuing to be wasteful if you so desire but if I was you I would put solar cells on your roof now they are dirt cheap.

I love how Maqqa is trying to paint a 10 billion dollar DEFICIT as any better then a 70 billion dollar one.

A deficit is a deficit, and the fact it is coming from a Party that is supposed to be Conservative is a laughable joke.

labor wouldnt have a clue, but the clue labor have left for the people is not to trust them and they are incompetent fools.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:04pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:48pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Gist wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: Asked if big business would pay less tax, Mr Hockey said "overall tax" would be lower. C'mon Joe, we lived through the Howard era. We've been educated in the way of the weasel word by a master at it! We're not dopes and you're no good at that game. We know what you mean. This translates to your party scrapping the mining tax for your couple of billionaire mates while at the same time increasing taxes on thousands of small and middle sized business. "Overall" taxes will be lower? For the government maybe. For the billionaires definitely. For the little guy? BULL! Over all taxes were much higher under the Howard Liberal govt than its ever been in this countries history so what gives Hockey the idea that he and Abbott can deliver lower taxes than Howard and Costello or even this govt which incidentally taxes us much less overall than Howard ever did. Maybe hes found the Magic Pudding  ;D Carbon tax will increase cost of living to everyday Australian families by well over $1,200 per year. Their tax cut compensation will be $3. You are assuming that people are to stupid to change their habits. Most people will cut their use of carbon intensive goods and services by $1,200 a yr and it wont cost them one extra cent if they have any sense. I doubt anyone is capable of changing their habits to the extent that the carbon tax costs them little or nothing unless we all go live in a cave!!!

Lol, trying to argue the need for the status quo in a post 9-11 world!
  ;D ;D ;D ;D  :D

America is dead, FMD! [next!!]  :o

The Great Big New Economic and Market Quiz

There seems to be a lot of mis-information, twisting, spin and outright lies peddled about the Australian economy, its markets and policy settings.

I thought a quiz of pretty basic factual questions would help sort a few things out.  I hope all economic Ministers and their Shadows undertake the quiz and indeed look at the answers, so that they might stop spreading distortions and misunderstanding to what are easy to find facts.

The quiz comprises 20 questions.  The answers produced below each question come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, The Reserve Bank of Australia or Treasury.

There is no prize – other than hopefully a better knowledge of important facts in the political economy debate. 

Question 1:

In what year, did the tax to GDP ratio reach a record high?  Which political party presided over this record tax take?

24.2% of GDP in both 2004-05 and 2005-06.  The Coalition.


Question 2:

In terms of big taxing governments, in how many years since 1982-83 has the tax to GDP ratio been above 23.5%? 

7


Question 3:

In relation to Question 2, in how many years did the tax to GDP ratio exceed 23.5% under a Coalition Government?  In how many years did the tax to GDP ratio exceed 23.5% under a Labor Govenrment?

7 under the Coalition; zero under Labor.


Question 4:

Between 1971-72 and the latest Budget forward estimates out to 2014-15, in how many years has real government spending fallen (using the Treasury preferred CPI deflator)? 

5


Question 5:

With reference to question 4, in how many years has real government spending fallen under a Coalition government?  In how many years has real government spending fallen under the Labor Party?

Zero under the Coalition, 5 under Labor.


Question 6:

Since 1982-83, in how many years has the tax to GDP ratio been at or below 21.0%?

6


Question 7:

In relation to question 6, in how many years was the tax to GDP ratio below 21.0% when the Coalition was in government?  In how many years was the tax to GDP ratio below 21.0% when Labor was in government?

Zero under the Coalition, 6 under Labor.


Question 8: 

When was the last time (which year) a Coalition government delivered a budget where the tax to GDP ratio was below 21.0%

1979-80.


Question 9:

How many times in the last two completed financial years (ie, 2009-10 and 2010-11) has the tax to GDP ratio been below 21.0%

2 out of 2.


Question 10: 

In the last 8 Labor Budgets where the budget outcome is known (five for Hawke/Keating and three for Rudd/Gillard), how many times has the tax to GDP been above 22.0%

None.


Question 11.

In the 12 Howard Government Budgets, how many times was the tax to GDP ratio above 22.0%?

All 12.


Question 12:

What has been the lowest cash rate ever recorded under either the Howard or Fraser governments*? 
*  Prior to 1990, using 90 day bank bill.

4.25%


Question 13.

What is the current cash rate and what is priced in for the cash rate next week after the RBA Board meeting?

4.25% now; 4.0% after next week.


Question 14:

What was the average official cash rate under the Howard Government (April 1996 to December 2007)?

5.43%


Question 15:

What has been the average official cash rate under the Rudd/Gillard Governments (January 2008 to January 2012)?

4.72%


Question 16:

What was the average standard variable mortgage interest rate under the Howard Government (April 1996 to December 2007)?

7.25%


Question 17:

What has been the average standard variable mortgage rate under the Rudd/Gillard Governments (January 2008 to January 2012*)?

7.48%


Question 18: 

Between 1972-73 and 2000-11 (ie 39 completed years), how many years has the Budget been in surplus?

16


Question 19:

Of the 16 surpluses, how many have been delivered by the Coalition, how many by Labor?

Coalition 10; Labor 6.


Question 20:

Of the 23 deficits, how many have been delivered by the Coalition, how many by Labor?

9 Coalition; 14 Labor.

Stephen Koukoulas

Stephen Koukoulas is Managing Director of Market Economics Ptd Ltd, a macroeconomic, policy and financial market advisory firm.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/13197601/hockey-rejects-govts-deficit-claim/ Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has rejected claims the coalition would be running a $9 billion deficit in the next financial year, if it were in government.

So basically, you socialists want to live on Government welfare in million dollar homes, you want cheap fridges, so you have to sell out our jobs and have them made for nothing in China, you want a consumption based economy and a tax regimen and immigration regimen that allows you to lay off all externalities.  You know your economic theory is fundamentally flawed because you keep screaming for more productivity from wealth that just isn't being created.  And you cant bring yourself to simply admit you are addicted to the Government welfare and your belief that you are entitled to a million dollar home and a cheap fridge - so because of that we get ridiculous unjustifiable consumption taxes, one on top of the other.  You even want to tax air consumption. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 4:43am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/13197601/hockey-rejects-govts-deficit-claim/ Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has rejected claims the coalition would be running a $9 billion deficit in the next financial year, if it were in government. So basically, you socialists want to live on Government welfare in million dollar homes, you want cheap fridges, so you have to sell out our jobs and have them made for nothing in China, you want a consumption based economy and a tax regimen and immigration regimen that allows you to lay off all externalities.  You know your economic theory is fundamentally flawed because you keep screaming for more productivity from wealth that just isn't being created.  And you cant bring yourself to simply admit you are addicted to the Government welfare and your belief that you are entitled to a million dollar home and a cheap fridge - so because of that we get ridiculous unjustifiable consumption taxes, one on top of the other.  You even want to tax air consumption. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Slightly hypocritical, aren't you? Don't YOU live on Government welfare???

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 5:42am:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 4:43am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/13197601/hockey-rejects-govts-deficit-claim/ Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has rejected claims the coalition would be running a $9 billion deficit in the next financial year, if it were in government. So basically, you socialists want to live on Government welfare in million dollar homes, you want cheap fridges, so you have to sell out our jobs and have them made for nothing in China, you want a consumption based economy and a tax regimen and immigration regimen that allows you to lay off all externalities.  You know your economic theory is fundamentally flawed because you keep screaming for more productivity from wealth that just isn't being created.  And you cant bring yourself to simply admit you are addicted to the Government welfare and your belief that you are entitled to a million dollar home and a cheap fridge - so because of that we get ridiculous unjustifiable consumption taxes, one on top of the other.  You even want to tax air consumption. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) Slightly hypocritical, aren't you? Don't YOU live on Government welfare???

No actally, I and the Australian working class subsidize the Government welfare state.  We subsidize their million dollar homes and cheap fridges they get from the Government.  We just want the Government to lift the sanctions and bludging consumption taxes they imposed on us and stop leeching off us. :P :P :P :P.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 6:44am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:42am: corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 4:43am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:10pm: http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/13197601/hockey-rejects-govts-deficit-claim/ Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has rejected claims the coalition would be running a $9 billion deficit in the next financial year, if it were in government. So basically, you socialists want to live on Government welfare in million dollar homes, you want cheap fridges, so you have to sell out our jobs and have them made for nothing in China, you want a consumption based economy and a tax regimen and immigration regimen that allows you to lay off all externalities.  You know your economic theory is fundamentally flawed because you keep screaming for more productivity from wealth that just isn't being created.  And you cant bring yourself to simply admit you are addicted to the Government welfare and your belief that you are entitled to a million dollar home and a cheap fridge - so because of that we get ridiculous unjustifiable consumption taxes, one on top of the other.  You even want to tax air consumption. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) Slightly hypocritical, aren't you? Don't YOU live on Government welfare??? No actally, I and the Australian working class subsidize the Government welfare state.  We subsidize their million dollar homes and cheap fridges they get from the Government.  We just want the Government to lift the sanctions and bludging consumption taxes they imposed on us and stop leeching off us. :P :P :P :P.

You're a moron.