The first question is will there be a rise in GST.
I was opposed to the GST before it came in because of its regressive nature, but it's here to stay now.
There's no doubt that the states need more funds and the only way they are going to get them is for a rise in GST revenue. The question is how.
We don't want to see it imposed on food because that only increases the regression.
We don't want it to become more complicated with different, higher rates on certain categories of goods & services otherwise it ends up a nightmare like the old sales tax. But short of an overall rate rise that is the only way to go.
I would go for a general rate rise of 2.5%.

An incoming Abbott govt is going to have budget problems for a few years. It too is going to need increased revenue, especially as it has promised to abolish the mining tax & the carbon tax and there is no way it can go back on those promises. The mining tax imo is carzy anyway, even if it ends up producing significant income, because it sends all the wrong signals to a sector we are desperately reliant on.

I think there is a good case for a rise in income tax, or a supertax, on high income earners, say an additional 5 or 10% on incomes above $150-200,000. It would only apply of course to the part of taxable income above those levels , not to the whole income.
I have no idea what it would produce, I suppose I could find out if I wasn't lazy, but if it wasn't enough put a second higher increase to kick in at say $300,000.
Economists & bureaucrats will tell you a tax has to have simplicity and over the years that has come to mean fewer steps in the income tax scale.
I don't go along with that. Our tax scales used to have about 15 different steps so I don't see that a couple more now would cause problems.

As I said previously hads

The Aust GDP is about 15% higher now than it was in 2007 - back then we achieved a surplus

So we simply need to make sure Aust understand that it's going to take some pain to fix the ALP mess. All clean ups looks big when you start

The alternative is to allow Gillard/Swan run this country into the ground. They will not start the clean up

We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means.

It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% -
Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion.

Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money.

You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement?

scope wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:36pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement?

No - it's just based on a feeling I have.

I have lost all hope in Labor as money managers.

Now - your say -

can Labor manage money?

Added a poll.

scope wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:36pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement?

Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/

---

Bobby. wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? No - it's just based on a feeling I have. I think my point has been made I have lost all hope in Labor as money managers. Now - your say - can Labor manage money?

Of course, I'm not saying Abbott should or would do anything as stupid as flag a supertax before the election.
The dentist doesn't hold up his drill and say look, I'm going to use a No 12.

scope wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:46pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:39pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? No - it's just based on a feeling I have. I think my point has been made I have lost all hope in Labor as money managers. Now - your say - can Labor manage money?

Have your say in the poll then.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

As I said previously hads The Aust GDP is about 15% higher now than it was in 2007 - back then we achieved a surplus So we simply need to make sure Aust understand that it's going to take some pain to fix the ALP mess. All clean ups looks big when you start The alternative is to allow Gillard/Swan run this country into the ground. They will not start the clean up

The abort cutbacks will cause the country to go into a recession. Count be helped I suppose :(

hadrian_now wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Of course, I'm not saying Abbott should or would do anything as stupid as flag a supertax before the election. The dentist doesn't hold up his drill and say look, I'm going to use a No 12.

In the end it will be all the little people like us - who wind our weary way to work -
who have to pay off this debt.

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/

And why is debt such a bad thing?
manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.
 

scope wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:45pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ And why is debt such a bad thing? manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.

Because it costs us 13 billion a year in interest alone to have that debt with little to show for it :(

just look at Europe and USA and then that should answer your question as well ;)

Nail,

Quote:

Because it costs us 13 billion a year in interest alone to have that debt with little to show for it

That's $13 billion that can't go to: hospitals, schools & roads.

JuLiar couldn't care less about the poor.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

Nail, Quote: Because it costs us 13 billion a year in interest alone to have that debt with little to show for it That's $13 billion that can't go to: hospitals, schools & roads. JuLiar couldn't care less about the poor.

The Federal Government has signalled a big shakeup of the $1.2 billion Comcare scheme for injured Commonwealth public servants.

A wide-ranging review ordered last year has recommended 137 changes after finding the scheme open to rorts.

The review revealed there has been a 30 per cent increase in the rate of claims for psychological injuries over the past three years.

It found payouts for conditions like stress, anxiety and depression account for more than one-third of total claims.

In one instance a claimant was flown to a Buddhist retreat in Alice Springs for anxiety.

Another had almost $30,000 of massage therapy, despite the fact there was no curative effect.

Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten has released the report for feedback.

He says he wants to shift the scheme's emphasis away from a payout-oriented system to one that delivers the care needed to get workers back on the job as soon as possible.

Looks like I'll have to join the public service -

I have stress & anxiety from my job -

that Buddhist retreat sounds good to me.  :)

scope wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:45pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ And why is debt such a bad thing? manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.

debt has a purpose - SHORT TERM coverage of inadequate revenue. the problem is that labor cannot even get the budget balanced nevermind actually paying down the debt.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:45pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ And why is debt such a bad thing? manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.   debt has a purpose - SHORT TERM coverage of inadequate revenue. the problem is that labor cannot even get the budget balanced nevermind actually paying down the debt.

How did Howard and Costello balance the budget?
They took the easy way
higher tax and massive sell offs of public assets,
any fool can do this.
Labor paying down the debt, yes they have been , I don't have the figures handy but will post them later.

Nobody interested in discussing actual tax changes that could happen?

scope wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:41pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:45pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ And why is debt such a bad thing? manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.   debt has a purpose - SHORT TERM coverage of inadequate revenue. the problem is that labor cannot even get the budget balanced nevermind actually paying down the debt. How did Howard and Costello balance the budget? They took the easy way higher tax and massive sell offs of public assets, any fool can do this. Labor paying down the debt, yes they have been , I don't have the figures handy but will post them later.

Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels!

hadrian_now wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Nobody interested in discussing actual tax changes that could happen?

i would like to see the GST increased and things like payroll tax and stamp duty removed along with some income tax reductions.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:41pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:45pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ And why is debt such a bad thing? manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.   debt has a purpose - SHORT TERM coverage of inadequate revenue. the problem is that labor cannot even get the budget balanced nevermind actually paying down the debt. How did Howard and Costello balance the budget? They took the easy way higher tax and massive sell offs of public assets, any fool can do this. Labor paying down the debt, yes they have been , I don't have the figures handy but will post them later. Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels!

Yes they sold off assets to pay the debt around $72B I believe, so how much debt pay down did they actually fund, around $24b , not too hard to do when the tax receipts are higher and you spend less on infrastructure. Do you want to compere asset sales in actual figures between the two parties?

The future fund, ( Simon Creans idea I might add) was started with $50B and has since grown to around $80B possibly the only good reform Costello ever did.

As I said I will post the figures later I don't have them on this computer,

scope wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:02pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:41pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:45pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ And why is debt such a bad thing? manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.   debt has a purpose - SHORT TERM coverage of inadequate revenue. the problem is that labor cannot even get the budget balanced nevermind actually paying down the debt. How did Howard and Costello balance the budget? They took the easy way higher tax and massive sell offs of public assets, any fool can do this. Labor paying down the debt, yes they have been , I don't have the figures handy but will post them later. Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels! Yes they sold off assets to pay the debt around $72B I believe, so how much debt pay down did they actually fund, around $24b , not too hard to do when the tax receipts are higher and you spend less on infrastructure. Do you want to compere asset sales in actual figures between the two parties? The future fund, ( Simon Creans idea I might add) was started with $50B and has since grown to around $80B possibly the only good reform Costello ever did. As I said I will post the figures later I don't have them on this computer,

the debt was $96B - not $72B. you are listening to john smith who cannot count or read official documents. and they also had a $22B surplus as well.

thats what actual debt reduction is about. Labor - esp this one - is terrrible at debt reduction.

Longy, you're not pretending that debt reduction was a desireable policy over the last 6 years, are you?

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 4:16pm:

Longy, you're not pretending that debt reduction was a desireable policy over the last 6 years, are you?

during the GFC of course not, but in the last couple years we should have balanced the budget at least and starting to reduce debt now. labor is on a continual and expanding trajectory of deficit spending and increased debt that shows no sign of changing.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:02pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:41pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:45pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ And why is debt such a bad thing? manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.   debt has a purpose - SHORT TERM coverage of inadequate revenue. the problem is that labor cannot even get the budget balanced nevermind actually paying down the debt. How did Howard and Costello balance the budget? They took the easy way higher tax and massive sell offs of public assets, any fool can do this. Labor paying down the debt, yes they have been , I don't have the figures handy but will post them later. Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels! Yes they sold off assets to pay the debt around $72B I believe, so how much debt pay down did they actually fund, around $24b , not too hard to do when the tax receipts are higher and you spend less on infrastructure. Do you want to compere asset sales in actual figures between the two parties? The future fund, ( Simon Creans idea I might add) was started with $50B and has since grown to around $80B possibly the only good reform Costello ever did. As I said I will post the figures later I don't have them on this computer, the debt was $96B - not $72B. you are listening to john smith who cannot count or read official documents. and they also had a $22B surplus as well. thats what actual debt reduction is about. Labor - esp this one - is terrrible at debt reduction.

Show me where I claimed the debt was $72B ? I said the asset sales where around $72B and they funded a further $24B in debt reduction together they equal $96B
Comprehension is not your strong point is it.
So debt reduction is selling your home to pay off the debt leaving you with nothing but a surplus.
As I said any idiot could do that.

And how much of that debt was actually accumulated by Howard, one off the worst treasurers we have ever had.

scope wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 4:11pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:02pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:41pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:45pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ And why is debt such a bad thing? manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.   debt has a purpose - SHORT TERM coverage of inadequate revenue. the problem is that labor cannot even get the budget balanced nevermind actually paying down the debt. How did Howard and Costello balance the budget? They took the easy way higher tax and massive sell offs of public assets, any fool can do this. Labor paying down the debt, yes they have been , I don't have the figures handy but will post them later. Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels! Yes they sold off assets to pay the debt around $72B I believe, so how much debt pay down did they actually fund, around $24b , not too hard to do when the tax receipts are higher and you spend less on infrastructure. Do you want to compere asset sales in actual figures between the two parties? The future fund, ( Simon Creans idea I might add) was started with $50B and has since grown to around $80B possibly the only good reform Costello ever did. As I said I will post the figures later I don't have them on this computer, the debt was $96B - not $72B. you are listening to john smith who cannot count or read official documents. and they also had a $22B surplus as well. thats what actual debt reduction is about. Labor - esp this one - is terrrible at debt reduction. Show me where I claimed the debt was $72B ? I said the asset sales where around $72B and they funded a further $24B in debt reduction together they equal $96B Comprehension is not your strong point is it. So debt reduction is selling your home to pay off the debt leaving you with nothing but a surplus. As I said any idiot could do that.

to be reasonable, your statement was a tad ambiguous. however, it was more than $24B. you forget the $22B surplus as well as the future fund. It was hardly small potatoes and still flies in the face of this last 6 years of labor increasing debt and deficit to record levels.

Net debt is running at about 10% of GDP. This is far from being at record levels.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

Net debt is running at about 10% of GDP. This is far from being at record levels.

when keating had $96B debt what was the % of GDP then?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 4:11pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:02pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 2:41pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:45pm: scope wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:36pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:18pm: We don't need MORE taxes - we need to live within our means. It wouldn't matter if the GST was 25% - Labor would still spend it all & borrow another $300 billion. Labor cannot & will never be able to manage money. You know Bobby it's c rap  statements like this that make me wonder just how smart the average Australian is, do you ever think for yourself? do you do any research? do you have any data to back up your statement? Really it's not that hard to do research http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ And why is debt such a bad thing? manageable debt that is, you like many others have been brainwashed by Howard and Costello.   debt has a purpose - SHORT TERM coverage of inadequate revenue. the problem is that labor cannot even get the budget balanced nevermind actually paying down the debt. How did Howard and Costello balance the budget? They took the easy way higher tax and massive sell offs of public assets, any fool can do this. Labor paying down the debt, yes they have been , I don't have the figures handy but will post them later. Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels! Yes they sold off assets to pay the debt around $72B I believe, so how much debt pay down did they actually fund, around $24b , not too hard to do when the tax receipts are higher and you spend less on infrastructure. Do you want to compere asset sales in actual figures between the two parties? The future fund, ( Simon Creans idea I might add) was started with $50B and has since grown to around $80B possibly the only good reform Costello ever did. As I said I will post the figures later I don't have them on this computer, the debt was $96B - not $72B. you are listening to john smith who cannot count or read official documents. and they also had a $22B surplus as well. thats what actual debt reduction is about. Labor - esp this one - is terrrible at debt reduction. Show me where I claimed the debt was $72B ? I said the asset sales where around $72B and they funded a further $24B in debt reduction together they equal $96B Comprehension is not your strong point is it. So debt reduction is selling your home to pay off the debt leaving you with nothing but a surplus. As I said any idiot could do that. to be reasonable, your statement was a tad ambiguous. however, it was more than $24B. you forget the $22B surplus as well as the future fund. It was hardly small potatoes and still flies in the face of this last 6 years of labor increasing debt and deficit to record levels.

A tad ambiguous , yes I will give you that.
$24B was debt reduction that was what the discussion was about the $22b surplus is another item that should be included yes, The future fund was funded by more asset sales this time Telstra so total asset sales $122B

So after all this we ended up with a surplus of $22B a future fund which will pay the unfunded super ( which is a good thing) but is at the whim of ivestment bankers and could be reduced overnight to less than the $80B it is at present
Increased taxation under Howard ( not personal income tax) and less infrastructure spending
and assets that we no longer own.
There where other ways that this outcome could have been achieved but Costello took the easy way.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels!

Lowering taxes too much and not spending on infrastructure went a long way towards leaving us vulnerable to the economic downturn, he had structured our income levels to be dependant on the best booming economy in over a century to be able to do little better than to break even.

Our economy had been re structured to a position where any economic downturn was going to be a huge problem, the economy did turn down and we have paid the price.

It remains true however that they eliminated net debt and then some, something labor doesnt seem able to care enough about to do. and that is the point. costello and howard took us from record debt and deficit to record surplus yet in only a few years rudd and co ruined all that good work.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:02pm: Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels! Lowering taxes too much and not spending on infrastructure went a long way towards leaving us vulnerable to the economic downturn, he had structured our income levels to be dependant on the best booming economy in over a century to be able to do little better than to break even. Our economy had been re structured to a position where any economic downturn was going to be a huge problem, the economy did turn down and we have paid the price.

nobody except a union hack and a labor apologist agrees with that adel-crow like imaginary retelling of history. and quite the contrary to you last sentence, a massive global downturn occured and we were scarcely affected. your analysis skills are apalling.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 4:33pm: Net debt is running at about 10% of GDP. This is far from being at record levels. when keating had $96B debt what was the % of GDP then?

17.3%.

A fair chunk of that they inherited from Howard/Fraser.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 4:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 4:34pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 4:33pm: Net debt is running at about 10% of GDP. This is far from being at record levels. when keating had $96B debt what was the % of GDP then? 17.3%. A fair chunk of that they inherited from Howard/Fraser.

and todays debt is 22.9% of GDP.

and fraser left a debt of $8.4B - nor more than a very small portion of keatings debt.

You are confusing gross debt with net debt. Our current net debt is about 10% of GDP.

The 17.3% is also net debt.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 4:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:02pm: Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels! Lowering taxes too much and not spending on infrastructure went a long way towards leaving us vulnerable to the economic downturn, he had structured our income levels to be dependant on the best booming economy in over a century to be able to do little better than to break even. Our economy had been re structured to a position where any economic downturn was going to be a huge problem, the economy did turn down and we have paid the price. nobody except a union hack and a labor apologist agrees with that adel-crow like imaginary retelling of history. and quite the contrary to you last sentence, a massive global downturn occured and we were scarcely affected. your analysis skills are apalling.

We took a $160 billion hit to revenues during the 2008-2009 global financial crisis and your'e saying we weren't affected?

"To rip this amount out of the economy in the face of severe global turmoil would have driven our economy into recession and resulted in even higher debt levels," Mr Bradbury said in a statement.
federal Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/3/27/politics/government-reducing-debt-bradbury

scope wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 4:56pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 4:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 3:02pm: Costello atually lowered income taxes and the sell off of assets was soemthing labor has also done but Howard managed to pay off $96B of detb, gets  surplus AND an $80B future fund. at least they had something to show for it. I cant wit to see u explain how this labor govt has reduced debt levels! Lowering taxes too much and not spending on infrastructure went a long way towards leaving us vulnerable to the economic downturn, he had structured our income levels to be dependant on the best booming economy in over a century to be able to do little better than to break even. Our economy had been re structured to a position where any economic downturn was going to be a huge problem, the economy did turn down and we have paid the price. nobody except a union hack and a labor apologist agrees with that adel-crow like imaginary retelling of history. and quite the contrary to you last sentence, a massive global downturn occured and we were scarcely affected. your analysis skills are apalling. We took a $160 billion hit to revenues during the 2008-2009 global financial crisis and your'e saying we weren't affected? "To rip this amount out of the economy in the face of severe global turmoil would have driven our economy into recession and resulted in even higher debt levels," Mr Bradbury said in a statement. federal Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/3/27/politics/government-reducing-debt-bradbury

you seem to think the brilliant state of the economy in 2007 had no effect on how it rode out the GFC. that position is unsupportable.

Hawke and Keating left such a robust economy, Howard should have done much better job leaving a bigger war chest. Instead he sold off assets, entrenched a culture of middle class welfare dependency and left a massive infrastructure deficit. By 2007 the economy should have been in a much better position.

hadrian_now wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

The first question is will there be a rise in GST. I was opposed to the GST before it came in because of its regressive nature, but it's here to stay now. There's no doubt that the states need more funds and the only way they are going to get them is for a rise in GST revenue. The question is how. We don't want to see it imposed on food because that only increases the regression. We don't want it to become more complicated with different, higher rates on certain categories of goods & services otherwise it ends up a nightmare like the old sales tax. But short of an overall rate rise that is the only way to go. I would go for a general rate rise of 2.5%. An incoming Abbott govt is going to have budget problems for a few years. It too is going to need increased revenue, especially as it has promised to abolish the mining tax & the carbon tax and there is no way it can go back on those promises. The mining tax imo is carzy anyway, even if it ends up producing significant income, because it sends all the wrong signals to a sector we are desperately reliant on. I think there is a good case for a rise in income tax, or a supertax, on high income earners, say an additional 5 or 10% on incomes above $150-200,000. It would only apply of course to the part of taxable income above those levels , not to the whole income. I have no idea what it would produce, I suppose I could find out if I wasn't lazy, but if it wasn't enough put a second higher increase to kick in at say $300,000. Economists & bureaucrats will tell you a tax has to have simplicity and over the years that has come to mean fewer steps in the income tax scale. I don't go along with that. Our tax scales used to have about 15 different steps so I don't see that a couple more now would cause problems.

Typical conga line, always want more/ higher taxes, under the illusion the conservative assholes need to "save us".

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

Hawke and Keating left such a robust economy, Howard should have done much better job leaving a bigger war chest. Instead he sold off assets and left a massive infrastructure deficit.

robust economy??? in record debt, in deficit, high unemployment and interest rates and crawling out of recession...

you have an interesting definition of robust. and 12 years later howard left no debt, no deficit, near record low unemployment and a booming economy and you call it a poor result.

you get hard to take seriously with comments like that.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:26pm: Hawke and Keating left such a robust economy, Howard should have done much better job leaving a bigger war chest. Instead he sold off assets and left a massive infrastructure deficit. robust economy??? in record debt, in deficit, high unemployment and interest rates and crawling out of recession... you have an interesting definition of robust. and 12 years later howard left no debt, no deficit, near record low unemployment and a booming economy and you call it a poor result. you get hard to take seriously with comments like that.

You have a very superficial understanding of economics, longy.

Perhaps you need to read this to get a better grasp of Howard's failings.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1305.pdf


Quote:

AUSTRALIA'S most needless wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, a study has found. The International Monetary Fund study bills itself as the first to examine 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during Mr Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007. The stimulus spending of the Rudd government during the financial crisis does not rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2P0TV0WZ2

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:30pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:26pm: Hawke and Keating left such a robust economy, Howard should have done much better job leaving a bigger war chest. Instead he sold off assets and left a massive infrastructure deficit. robust economy??? in record debt, in deficit, high unemployment and interest rates and crawling out of recession... you have an interesting definition of robust. and 12 years later howard left no debt, no deficit, near record low unemployment and a booming economy and you call it a poor result. you get hard to take seriously with comments like that. You have a very superficial understanding of economics, longy. Perhaps you need to read this to get a better grasp of Howard's failings. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1305.pdf

yes the IMF... that paragon of brilliant advice. Formarely run by a serial rapist this is the same group that didnt see the GFC coming and in this particular work of fiction deems spending as profligate when it can be afforded but responsible when it is debt funded. That particular report has been well mocked and derided.

perhaps my understanding of economics is a little less than some but since economists lead the word to the brink of a depression that sounds like a positive thing to me. Call it simple but a govt that lowers taxes and at the same time eliminates debt and deficit seems a pretty good deal to me. certianly better that one that has record debt, record deficit and nearly bugger-all to show for it.

in my mind and in most, having money in the bank is always better than less than nothing.

Where did Howard's growth come from, Longy? Did he ever pay down debt through cuts to real spending?

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Where did Howard's growth come from, Longy? Did he ever pay down debt through cuts to real spending?

the point is that he paid down debt. If labor had been in power we'd have remained in debt because they dont seem to view debt or surpluses as something to aim for.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Where did Howard's growth come from, Longy? Did he ever pay down debt through cuts to real spending? the point is that he paid down debt. If labor had been in power we'd have remained in debt because they dont seem to view debt or surpluses as something to aim for.

no ... the point is Howard merely sold of the farm to pay for the cattle .... labor has done more to cut spending in the last 2 yrs than the Howard did in 12yrs ... using Howards method, sooner or later you run out of assets ... then what do the libs propose? I know, maybe we don't need a defence force ... a few pensioners and work for the dole candidates sitting along our northern coastline with springfield rifles will suffice.

truth is they've got nothing. cutting services and selling assets doesn't fix anything ... it merely hides the real problem

John Smith wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 7:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 6:55pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Where did Howard's growth come from, Longy? Did he ever pay down debt through cuts to real spending? the point is that he paid down debt. If labor had been in power we'd have remained in debt because they dont seem to view debt or surpluses as something to aim for. no ... the point is Howard merely sold of the farm to pay for the cattle .... labor has done more to cut spending in the last 2 yrs than the Howard did in 12yrs ... using Howards method, sooner or later you run out of assets ... then what do the libs propose? I know, maybe we don't need a defence force ... a few pensioners and work for the dole candidates sitting along our northern coastline with springfield rifles will suffice. truth is they've got nothing. cutting services and selling assets doesn't fix anything ... it merely hides the real problem

that is beyond even your usual level of make-beleive and fantasy. labor has not cut spending at all. in fact every budget has has REAL increases in spending

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:02am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 7:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 6:55pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Where did Howard's growth come from, Longy? Did he ever pay down debt through cuts to real spending? the point is that he paid down debt. If labor had been in power we'd have remained in debt because they dont seem to view debt or surpluses as something to aim for. no ... the point is Howard merely sold of the farm to pay for the cattle .... labor has done more to cut spending in the last 2 yrs than the Howard did in 12yrs ... using Howards method, sooner or later you run out of assets ... then what do the libs propose? I know, maybe we don't need a defence force ... a few pensioners and work for the dole candidates sitting along our northern coastline with springfield rifles will suffice. truth is they've got nothing. cutting services and selling assets doesn't fix anything ... it merely hides the real problem that is beyond even your usual level of make-beleive and fantasy. labor has not cut spending at all. in fact every budget has has REAL increases in spending

idiot

Typical conga line, always want more/ higher taxes, under the illusion the conservative assholes need to "save us".

Proof positive that the Piltdown Man was not a hoax but lives on in the person of Skippy.